Royalty for Oil and Gas Lost from Onshore Federal and Indian Leases

Three environmental and community organizations (Umpqua Watersheds, Umpqua Natural Leadership Science Hub, and South Umpqua Rural Community Partnership) oppose the proposed rule to reduce royalty obligations for lost oil and gas. They argue the rule violates statutory waste-prevention mandates, undermines fiduciary obligations to tribes, and contradicts GAO findings regarding waste and revenue loss.

Joshua Goldberg opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it eliminates methane emission oversight, reduces royalty revenue for Indian tribes, and removes leak detection requirements. He contends that the changes favor private operators at the expense of public wealth and environmental safety.

The commenter is asking for clarification on whether the proposed rule applies to CO2 or helium wells and specifically seeks guidance on the disposal of methane associated with helium gas streams. They request that these specific scenarios be addressed in the rule or its preamble.

Scott McGee, a private individual from Jackson, WY, opposes the proposal to reduce royalty compliance requirements. He argues that the regulations are necessary to protect public and native lands from the environmental damage caused by the fossil fuel industry.

A student of public health expresses support for the BLM's proposed modifications to royalties on lost oil and natural gas. The commenter argues that the rule correctly recognizes the technical realities of operations and reduces unnecessary administrative burdens and mandates.

The commenter opposes the BLM's proposed modifications to royalty regulations for lost oil and natural gas, arguing that the changes weaken accountability and disincentivize waste minimization. They contend that the proposal allows for the waste of public resources and increases methane emissions by reducing penalties for venting and flaring.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it unfairly transfers public resources to private oil and gas operators while reducing revenue for the U.S. Treasury and Indian tribes. They also contend that the rule will increase methane emissions, degrade local air quality, and lack a sufficient regulatory impact analysis regarding environmental and health costs.

The commenter supports the proposed modifications to reduce regulatory burdens on oil and gas royalties. They argue that the United States needs to maximize domestic energy production to remain globally competitive and utilize untapped resources in Western Colorado.