GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

June 21, 2006 

Congressional Requesters: 

Subject: Royalty Revenues: Total Revenues Have Not Increased at the Same Pace 

as Rising Oil and Natural Gas Prices due to Decreasing Production Sold

In fiscal year 2005, federal and Native American lands supplied about 35 percent of 

the oil and 26 percent of the natural gas produced in the United States. Companies 

that lease these lands to produce oil and natural gas pay royalties to the Department 

of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) based on a percentage (the 

royalty rate) of the cash value of the oil and natural gas produced and sold. As an 

alternative to collecting cash royalty payments, MMS has the option to take a 

percentage of the actual oil and natural gas produced (referred to as “taking royalties 

in kind”) and selling it themselves or using it for other purposes, such as filling the 

nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). MMS reported collecting $7.4 billion in 

fiscal year 2001 and $8 billion in fiscal year 2005 in cash royalty payments and in 

revenue from its own royalty-in-kind sales of oil and natural gas. While these total 

royalty revenues increased by about 8 percent from 2001 to 2005, oil and natural gas 

prices rose substantially more—about 90 percent for oil and 30 percent for natural 

gas. Consequently, you asked us why oil and natural gas royalty revenues did not 

increase at the same pace as the increase in oil and natural gas prices. 

In summary, federal and Native American royalty revenues did not increase at the 

same pace as oil and natural gas prices between 2001 and 2005 principally because 

the volumes upon which royalties are based declined substantially during this time. 

In assessing changes in royalty revenues, it is important to understand the three key 

variables of volume, price, and royalty rate that make up total royalty revenues. 

When reporting and paying royalties to MMS, companies must collect and report 

various data, including the volume of oil or natural gas sold, the sales price received 

less allowable deductions—such as transportation—to get the resource to market, 

and the royalty rate to be paid as specified in the oil and natural gas lease. 

Companies can calculate the royalty revenue they owe to the federal government 

using the three key variables illustrated in the following equation: 
Royalty revenue = volume sold x sales price less deductions x royalty rate1

As summarized in table 1 and table 2, the volume of natural gas and oil that was sold 

decreased significantly between 2001 and 2005, largely offsetting the impact of

increased sales prices on total royalty revenues. 

Table 1: Natural Gas Royalty Statistics for Federal and Native American Lands 

Fiscal year Total volume sold

(thousands of 

cubic feet)

Average sales price 

received (per 

thousand cubic feet)a

Average royalty

rate (less 

deductions) 

Total 

royalty 

revenues

2001 6,912,002,366 $5.05 0.145124 $5,062,170,355

2005 5,864,705,117 $6.59 0.137267 $5,304,520,628

Source: MMS. 

a

Average sale price rounded to nearest cent. 

Table 2: Oil Royalty Statistics for Federal and Native American Lands 

Fiscal year Total volume sold 

(barrels)

Average sales price 

received (per barrel)a

Average royalty

rate (less 

deductions) 

Total royalty 

revenues

2001 699,346,399 $25.27 0.134703 $2,380,264,986

2005 434,142,391 $47.96 0.128498 $2,675,676,653

Source: MMS. 

a

Average sales price rounded to nearest cent. 

In conducting our work, it was not possible with the available data to precisely 

determine how much of the change in total royalty revenues was due to a change in 

any one variable, as all three variables were changing over time at varying rates. For 

example, during any given month in which royalties are collected, each of the 

variables may either rise or fall compared to the previous month. For our analysis, 

however, we estimated a variable’s contribution to the total dollar change in royalty 

revenues for oil and natural gas by assuming that the other two variables changed at a 

constant rate. Under this assumption, the total change in that variable from 2001 to 

2005 closely approximated the actual change over the period. We also examined the 

effects of specific factors, such as hurricanes, on total volumes sold and average 

royalty rates. We obtained oil and natural gas data from MMS’s financial system for 

fiscal years 2001 and 2005 to conduct our independent analysis to more fully explain 

the change in both natural gas and oil royalty revenues. We also interviewed MMS 

officials at their Lakewood, Colorado, office to solicit their views on why oil and 

natural gas royalty revenues did not increase at the same rate as prices between 2001 

and 2005. The comparison of royalty revenues between 2001 and 2005 does not 

 1

Companies report to MMS on Form MMS-2014 the volume sold (sales volume), the amount of revenue 

received from this sale (sales value), and the royalty revenue due to MMS (royalty value less 

allowances). The average sales price is calculated by dividing sales value by sales volume. The

average royalty rate net of allowances is calculated by dividing royalty value less allowances by sales 

value. 

Page 2 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
include natural gas or oil production that is subject to royalty relief. Legislation and 

regulations exempt some production from certain leases in the Gulf of Mexico from 

royalties, and therefore these production volumes do not appear in the royalty 

revenue statistics. 2 Although the volumes subject to royalty relief were small, they 

are expected to grow in the future. We have ongoing work and plan a future report 

on royalty-relief policies and MMS efforts to estimate the impact of royalty relief on 

future royalty revenues. We coordinated and worked with the Department of the 

Interior’s Office of Inspector General on this review. A detailed description of our 

methodology appears in enclosure I. We conducted our review from February 

through April 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Falling Natural Gas Production Volumes Have Largely Offset Rising Natural 

Gas Prices 

As summarized in table 1, decreases in the volume of natural gas produced and sold 

between 2001 and 2005 have largely offset the impact of increased sales prices on 

total royalty revenues. Natural gas production volumes from federal and Native 

American lands decreased because of natural declines in older wells. In addition, 

hurricanes in 2005 contributed to a decline in natural gas production volumes by 

forcing companies to temporarily suspend natural gas production from wells in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Finally, the volume of gas upon which royalties are based in a given 

year is decreased by the amount of gas that is exempt from paying royalties under 

federal royalty-relief provisions. Natural gas volumes subject to royalty relief did 

grow between 2001 and 2005. In 2001, MMS reported about 5 billion cubic feet of 

natural gas were exempt from royalties under royalty-relief provisions. In 2005, MMS 

reported that these volumes increased to over 246 billion cubic feet of natural gas, 

with a total estimated royalty value of about $226 million. Volumes of natural gas 

subject to royalty relief are expected to grow in the future. We have ongoing work to 

examine royalty-relief policies and efforts to estimate the impact of royalty relief on 

future royalty revenues. 

In addition to reduced production volumes, the average royalty rates on natural gas 

production from federal and Native American lands decreased from 2001 to 2005, 

contributing to the drop in royalty revenues. Royalty rates can vary depending on 

where the natural gas is produced. In general, average royalty rates for natural gas 

have decreased as production has declined in areas with higher royalty rates (such as 

shallow waters in the Gulf of Mexico where the royalty rate is 16.67 percent) and 

increased in areas with lower royalty rates (such as deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico 

where the royalty rate is 12.5 percent). Because the comparison of royalty revenues 

between years does not include production that is subject to royalty relief, the 

average royalty rate is not affected by production that is subject to royalty relief. 

From fiscal years 2001 to 2005, total natural gas royalty revenues from federal and 

Native American lands increased by about $242 million (see table 1). We estimate 

that the rise in natural gas prices between 2001 and 2005 would have increased 

 2

Certain leases issued in 1998 and 1999 did not contain price thresholds, resulting in additional royaltyfree volumes which do not appear in the royalty revenue statistics. 

Page 3 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
royalty revenues by $1,392 million. Natural gas prices have risen since 2001 because 

demand for natural gas has expanded faster than supply. The domestic gas industry 

has been producing at near capacity, and the nation’s ability to increase imports has 

reached its limits. Tight supplies have also made the market susceptible to extreme 

price spikes when either demand or supply changes unexpectedly, such as when 

hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast in late 2005. However, we estimate that a decline in the 

total natural gas volume sold resulted in a decrease of about $860 million in potential 

royalty revenues. In addition, a decline in the average royalty rate decreased 

potential royalty revenues by an additional $292 million. The relationship between 

the changes in natural gas royalty revenues due to an increase in the price of natural 

gas, decrease in volumes sold, and decrease in average royalty rate is illustrated in 

figure 1. 

Figure 1: Estimated Effects of Volume, Price, and Royalty Rate on Federal 

and Native American Natural Gas Royalty Revenues, Fiscal Years 2001 to 

2005 

Note: Changes attributed to individual variables account for 99 percent instead of 100 percent of the 

actual change in total royalty revenues due to limitations in the methodology. See enclosure I for more

details.

A significant portion of the $860 million decrease in potential royalty revenues 

associated with declining sales volumes appears to be the result of a decrease in 

natural gas production caused by the normal depletion of natural gas wells in shallow 

waters (i.e., waters less than 400 meters deep) of the Gulf of Mexico. MMS’s Gulf of 

Mexico Offshore Region reported a precipitous decline in natural gas production in 

shallow waters of the Gulf starting in 1997. This decline continued from 2001 to 2005. 

MMS reported that natural gas production from shallow waters dropped from about 

4.2 trillion cubic feet in 2001 to about 2.4 trillion cubic feet in 2005, while production 

Page 4 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
from deep waters (i.e., waters over 400 meters deep) remained relatively stable.3

 

However, since companies are reporting the discovery of oil and natural gas fields in 

increasingly deeper water, MMS anticipates that production from deep water will 

increase in the future.

While older natural gas wells onshore also experienced declining production, these 

declines were overshadowed by an increase in natural gas production from new 

onshore wells. Onshore total natural gas volumes sold actually increased by about 17 

percent from 2001 to 2005, according to MMS statistics. Had this onshore increase 

not occurred, the $860 million decrease in potential royalty revenues associated with 

declining sales volumes would have been greater. We have previously reported the 

increase in oil and natural gas activities on federal onshore lands managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management.4

 Permits issued to drill wells on these lands more than 

tripled from fiscal years 1999 to 2004, with much of the increase occurring in the 

Rocky Mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. 

Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico also contributed to the decline in natural gas sales 

volume from 2001 to 2005 by forcing companies to temporarily suspend production. 

MMS reported that, during August and September 2005, total cumulative shut-in 

natural gas production was 196,481 million cubic feet, or about 5 percent of the 

annual natural gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. We estimate that this 

production could have resulted in royalty revenues of about $208 million, although it 

is unclear what portion of this production was subject to royalties. 

In addition to the declining natural gas sales volumes, a declining average royalty rate 

also reduced total royalty revenues. From 2001 to 2005, the average royalty rate 

dropped from about 14.5 percent to about 13.7 percent, resulting in a decrease of 

about $292 million in potential royalty revenues. This decrease appears to have 

resulted largely from the decline in natural gas production in shallow waters of the 

Gulf of Mexico. Shallow water leases have royalty rates of 16.67 percent, while 

deeper water leases carry royalty rates of 12.5 percent. The increase in onshore 

production, where leases also carry a 12.5 percent royalty rate, has also contributed 

to the decline in the average royalty rate. 

Declining Oil Sales Have Largely Offset Rising Oil Prices 

As summarized in table 2, decreases in the volumes of oil produced and sold between 

2001 and 2005 have largely offset the impact of increased sales prices on total royalty 

revenues. The oil volumes sold from federal and Native American lands declined 

principally because MMS took substantial volumes in kind and used these volumes to 

fill the SPR, instead of receiving cash royalty payments or selling the oil and 

 3

Not all volumes produced are subject to royalties. The Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty 

Relief Act of 1995 exempts certain volumes from royalties. Hence, total volumes sold reported in 

tables 1 and 2 reflect volumes on which royalties wee paid, and as a result are less than total volumes 

actually produced for a given year. 

4

GAO, Oil and Gas Development: Increased Permitting Activity Has Lessened BLM’s Ability to Meet

Its Environmental Protection Responsibilities, GAO-05-418 (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2005). 

Page 5 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
collecting revenue from royalty-in-kind sales. As with natural gas, hurricanes in 2005 

also contributed to a decline in oil 

production volumes by forcing companies to temporarily suspend production from 

wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Also, the volume of oil upon which royalties are based in 

a given year is decreased by the amount of oil that is exempt from paying royalties 

under federal royalty-relief provisions. Although the comparison of royalty revenues 

between 2001 and 2005 does not include oil production that is subject to royalty 

relief, the volumes subject to royalty relief did grow between 2001 and 2005. In 2001, 

MMS reported about 2.6 million barrels of oil were exempt from royalties under 

royalty-relief provisions. In 2005, MMS reported that these volumes increased to 

about 29 million barrels of oil, with a total estimated royalty value of about $175 

million. The oil volumes subject to royalty relief are expected to grow further, and 

we have work currently under way to examine royalty-relief policies and estimates of 

the impact on future royalty revenues. In addition to the declining oil sales volumes, 

a declining average royalty rate for oil also contributed to reduced total royalty 

revenues. 

From fiscal years 2001 to 2005, total oil royalty revenues from federal and Native 

American lands increased by about $295 million (see table 2). We estimate that the 

rise in crude oil prices between 2001 and 2005 increased potential royalty revenues by 

$1,693 million. Crude oil prices rose during this period primarily because the growth 

in world oil demand has not been accompanied by a similar growth in crude oil 

supplies. Demand has increased, particularly in the United States, China, and India, 

while production has been voluntarily restricted by members of the Organization of 

Petroleum Exporting Countries or otherwise disrupted by events in Nigeria, Iraq, and 

Venezuela. In addition, hurricanes in the Gulf Coast in late 2005 disrupted the flow of 

oil into the United States and damaged oil facilities, leading to increased prices at that 

time. However, a decline in the total oil volume sold during this same period resulted 

in a decrease of about $1,278 million in potential royalty revenues. In addition, a drop 

in the average royalty rate caused another $129 million decrease in potential royalty 

revenues. The relationship between the changes in oil royalty revenues due to an 

increase in the price of crude oil, decrease in volumes sold, and decrease in average 

royalty rate is illustrated in figure 2. 

Page 6 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
Figure 2: Estimated Effects of Volume, Price, and Royalty Rate on Federal 

and Native American Oil Royalty Revenues, Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005 

Note: Changes attributed to individual variables account for 97 percent instead of 100 percent of the 

actual change in total royalty revenues due to limitations in the methodology. See enclosure I for more

details. 

Most of the $1,278 million decrease in potential royalty revenues associated with 

declining sales volumes appears to be the result of transfers of royalty oil to the SPR. 

The Congress created the SPR to provide emergency oil in the event of a disruption in 

petroleum supplies. Managed by the Department of Energy (DOE), the SPR is a 

series of underground salt caverns along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico that can 

store up to 700 million barrels of oil. MMS assists DOE in transferring oil into the 

SPR. Under royalty in kind, instead of receiving cash royalty payments, MMS takes 

the federal government’s royalty share in oil. MMS can then sell the oil and collect 

revenue from the royalty-in-kind sales or use it for other purposes. In fact, MMS was 

directed to transfer the oil to the SPR. Since the oil was transferred and not sold, no 

cash royalty revenues were collected from a sale. MMS began assisting DOE with the 

transfer of royalty oil to the SPR in April 2002, after having stopped filling the SPR in 

December 2000. In 2005, MMS reported that it had assisted in transferring about 213 

million barrels of oil to the SPR. This amount represents about 80 percent of the 

decrease in total oil volume sold from 2001 to 2005. 

Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico also contributed to the decline in oil sales volumes 

from 2001 to 2005 by forcing companies to shut-in wells. MMS reported that during 

August and September 2005, total cumulative shut-in oil production was 40,828,134 

barrels, or about 15 percent of the decline in total oil volumes sold from 2001 to 2005. 

We estimate that this shut-in production could have produced royalty revenues of at 

Page 7 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
least $270 million, although it is unclear what portion of this production was royaltybearing and at what price the oil would have been sold. In addition, oil volumes sold 

from onshore federal and Native American lands decreased by 8 million barrels, or 

about 3 percent of the decrease in total oil volumes sold from 2001 to 2005. 

In addition to the declining oil sales volumes, a declining average royalty rate also 

helped offset the increase in total royalty revenues due to increasing crude oil prices. 

From 2001 to 2005, the average royalty rate dropped from about 13.5 percent to about 

12.8 percent, resulting in a decrease of about $129 million in potential oil royalty 

revenues. As with natural gas, this decrease appears to have resulted from an 

increase in the proportion of oil produced from deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico, 

where royalty rates are lower. 

Agency Comments 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior for review and 

comment. The Minerals Management Service provided written comments, which are 

presented in enclosure II. MMS agreed with our observations and emphasized our 

conclusion that federal oil and gas royalty collections from 2001 through 2005 have 

not kept pace with rising oil and natural gas prices because of a decrease in the 

volumes of oil and natural gas sold during this period. MMS also provided comments 

to improve the report’s technical accuracy, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

- - - - - 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report, 

we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time 

we will send copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees, the 

Secretary of the Interior, the Director of MMS, the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget, and other interested parties. We will also make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge 

on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 8 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-3841 or wellsj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff 

who made major contributions to this letter include Ron Belak, Glenn C. Fischer, 

Mark Gaffigan, and Frank Rusco.

Jim Wells 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Enclosures 

Page 9 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
List of Addressees 

The Honorable Jeff Bingaman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Norm Coleman 

Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Maria Cantwell 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

United States Senate 

The Honorable Mark Dayton 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tim Johnson 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John F. Kerry 

United States Senate 

Page 10 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Robert Menendez 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Barack Obama 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Jack Reed 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ken Salazar 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ron Wyden 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Darrel E. Issa 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy and Resources 

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney 

House of Representatives 

Page 11 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
Enclosure I 

Scope and Methodology 

To determine why oil and natural gas royalty revenues have not kept pace with rising 

oil and natural gas prices from fiscal years 2001 to 2005, we first interviewed Minerals 

Management Service (MMS) officials in Lakewood, Colorado. MMS presented their 

briefing entitled “Management of the Nation’s Natural Gas Royalty Revenues: The 

Department of the Interior’s Response to the NY Times, February 2006.” MMS 

issued this document in response to an article published in The New York Times on 

January 23, 2006, that questioned why natural gas royalty revenues in 2005 did not 

increase at the same rate as prices increased. We reviewed extensive documentation 

supporting the information in MMS’s presentation and agreed with the reasons MMS 

cited as to why natural gas royalty revenues have not kept pace with rising natural 

gas prices. We also generally agreed with MMS’s portrayal of the impact these 

reasons had on royalty revenues. We also discussed with MMS officials the reasons 

that oil revenues had not kept pace with rising prices from 2001 to 2005. 

Because summary royalty data published on MMS’s Web site do not solely represent 

transactions that occurred during the reported fiscal year, but include transactions 

from previous years as well, we obtained oil and natural gas data from MMS’s 

financial system for fiscal years 2001 and 2005.5

 We obtained data that were posted to 

the appropriate fiscal year, including the sum of sales values, sum of sales volumes, 

and sum of royalty values less allowances for each payor aggregated by product type 

(oil or natural gas) for transactions that consisted largely of cash royalty payments, 

royalty in kind, compensatory royalties, transportation allowances, natural gas 

processing allowances, and profitable profit-sharing arrangements. We tested these 

aggregate data for reasonableness because we were aware of possible data errors. 

We corrected a 1.19 trillion cubic-foot error in the volume of natural gas sold during 

fiscal year 2001. However, we did not test or validate the estimated 6 million 

transactions of which the 2001 and 2005 data are comprised. We have tested 

individual oil and natural gas transactions from MMS’s financial database in the past 

and have found that, when transactions were aggregated to lesser levels, between 1.9 

and 6.0 percent of the data was erroneous or missing.6

 We found that about 8.5 

percent of the aggregated data for 2001 and 2005 that we analyzed for this report is 

anomalous. Anomalous data include data that are outside of a reasonable range for 

royalty rates, outside of a reasonable range for expected prices, contain negative or 

missing values for sales volumes or royalties when cash royalties are due, and consist 

of a positive value when allowances are reported. We then estimated the financial 

impact that these anomalous data had on royalties reported and sales volumes 

reported. Because only a small number of these anomalies exceeded 0.01 percent of 

the total annual royalty revenues or volumes sold, our analysis suggests that these 

anomalous data did not significantly impact royalty statistics reported in table 1 and 

 5

Transactions from previous fiscal years are called adjustments, and they are a standard industry

practice caused by, among other things, rebalancing of volumes sold and corrections to unit

allocations. Fiscal years 2001 and 2005 contain adjustments only for their respective years that are 

current as of January 6, 2006, and exclude reported sales of nitrogen. 

6

GAO, Mineral Revenues: Cost and Revenue Information Needed to Compare Different Approaches 

for Collecting Federal Oil and Gas Royalties, GAO-04-448 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 2004), app. I. 

Page 12 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
table 2. We concluded that these data are sufficiently reliable for the broad nature of 

our analysis. 

We decided to pursue an approach that was different from MMS’s approach in 

quantifying the individual impact of changes in prices, volumes, and royalty rates on 

total royalty revenues and to assess why total royalty revenues had not kept pace 

with rising prices. MMS estimated the impact of these variables by determining what 

royalties would have been if individual variables had not declined or if specific 

events, like hurricanes, had not occurred. While mathematically sound, this 

methodology has some limitations—for instance, it does not consider that all the 

variables are changing over time. In addition, the sum of estimated individual 

changes using this methodology significantly exceeds the actual change in total 

royalty revenues, and this could be misinterpreted. In contrast, we estimated the 

effects of each individual variable on total royalty revenues by multiplying the change 

in that variable from 2001 to 2005 by the average values of the other variables during 

that period. This methodology assumes that all the variables were changing at a 

constant rate from 2001 to 2005. We examined the raw data and found that this 

assumption was generally reasonable for natural gas volumes sold, average natural 

gas prices, and net natural gas royalty rates, except for the average natural gas price 

in fiscal year 2002. It also appears to be reasonable for net oil royalty rates and 

average oil prices, except for fiscal year 2002. The one main exception is that the 

drop in oil volumes sold was not changing at a constant rate—oil volumes sold 

dropped substantially between 2002 and 2003 when the federal government started to 

transfer significant quantities of oil to the SPR. Under our methodology, nonetheless, 

the sum of the estimated individual impacts on total royalty revenues was close to the 

actual total change in royalty revenues. 

Page 13 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
Enclosure II 

Comments from the Department of the Interior 

(360676)

Page 14 GAO-06-786R Royalty Revenues
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.