“No harm, no foul” doesn’t exist in oil and gas leasing

Across the West, huge swaths of public lands are open to oil and gas leasing in “resource management plans” (RMPs) prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This leads to rampant speculation in public lands that are supposed to be managed for the benefit of all Americans, not just the oil and gas executives.

While the industry claims that undrilled leases have no negative impacts on other uses of the public lands, a new analysis finds that wilderness-quality lands are nearly 3 TIMES less likely to be managed to protect those characteristics if they are overlapped by oil and gas leases—even if those leases are purely speculative and are not being drilled—demonstrating an immediate need to overhaul the BLM's industry-friendly oil and gas leasing system.

View the case studies in the navigation bar to see why this matters to specific places around the West.

It is clear that rampant oil and gas leasing of our public lands has a negative impact on wildlife, wild lands, and recreation opportunities, even when leases are not developed. In the case of idle leases, taxpayers receive almost zero benefit while other important values of leased lands are less likely to be protected and proactively managed to enhance their use by wildlife, recreationalists, or other users.

There are a number of ways in which the oil and gas leasing system could be improved to prevent these problems. Firstly, the default presumption that all lands should be left open to leasing should be eliminated. Public lands shouldn't automatically be available for leasing without equal consideration for other potentially higher values, such as lands with wilderness characteristics.

Additionally, the BLM shouldn’t let existing leases influence management decisions. The presence of leases in an area shouldn’t be a reason not to protect lands with wilderness characteristics, as leaseholders still have the ability to develop valid existing rights regardless of subsequent management decisions such as LWC protection. The BLM should issue policy guidance directing field managers to not consider undeveloped leases when making long-term resource management decisions.  

Lastly, the BLM should defer leasing in lands with wilderness characteristics that do not have management decisions in place so that the agency has ample decision space to protectively manage these valuable areas for their conservation and recreation resources. The BLM should not extend leases in lands with wilderness characteristics but instead return leased lands to multiple use management at the end of the lease terms.

In its recently released report, DOI noted that, “when land is under contract for potential oil and gas activity, the shared public lands cannot be managed for other purposes.” The Interior Department therefore can and should implement the aforementioned changes through its ongoing effort to reform the federal oil and gas program. Doing so would help eliminate speculative leasing and would be a significant step towards ensuring the BLM’s mission of sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.