Don't Drill Here

President Donald Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have made clear their intent to prioritize energy production on America’s public lands. In their recent  executive  and  secretarial  orders, they direct Interior department staff to identify and eliminate perceived "burdens" on oil and gas development. But history shows allowing the oil industry unfettered access to drill on national public lands creates unnecessary conflict with rural communities and puts valuable lands at risk for no reason. There’s a better way to drill on public lands, and it starts with acknowledging that not all public lands are appropriate for energy development.

This report explores specific cases in which oil and gas companies have tried to lease public lands on the doorsteps of national parks and other culturally- and ecologically-sensitive areas. Luckily, communities and their elected officials have spoken up in opposition to these proposals, driving the Bureau of Land Management, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, to say “no” to drilling on some of the nation’s most precious public lands. Unfortunately, public lands opponents in Congress are trying to take that power away.  A recent proposal from Montana Senator Steve Daines  would require that hundreds of millions of acres of public land be offered for lease multiple times per year, no matter how inappropriate or unpopular the areas are for oil and gas development. This bill, coupled with directions from the White House to prioritize drilling on public lands, could effectively silence the voices of stakeholders, including local officials, hunters and anglers, and business owners, and put some of our most sensitive and important public lands at risk.

According to the BLM, the oil industry already has the majority of the nation’s  most valuable lands for oil and gas development  under lease, and companies were sitting on over  10.7 million acres  of leased but unused public lands at the end of September 2023 (the most recent data available).

Most public lands that aren’t already leased remain available for lease under their respective resource management plans—some of which are more than 30 years old. Any member of the oil and gas industry can submit an  expression of interest  nominating any parcel of public land for inclusion in an upcoming oil and gas lease sale. Historically, nominating a parcel has not guaranteed it will be offered at auction, as nominated parcels first need to be reviewed by the BLM for legal availability and environmental concerns prior to being offered in a lease sale. Once the BLM has reviewed all nominated parcels, it publishes a list of lands it is proposing to offer in an upcoming auction, or lease sale. This is the first point in the process at which the BLM can use its discretion to determine which public lands are ultimately offered for lease. The BLM can also defer, or remove, parcels from the auction after this list is published, including in response to public input.

Between 2014 and 2023, the oil and gas industry nominated nearly  88 million acres of federal public lands  for oil and gas leasing. Over that same timeframe, the BLM offered just short of  35 million acres  for lease at competitive auctions, or lease sales. The BLM’s authority to decide which public lands are ultimately included in these lease sales, particularly in response to public outcry, has been critical to ensuring that public lands are managed responsibly and that lands with high recreational and ecological value are not offered for drilling.

In 2024, the Biden administration—seeking to avoid the type of conflicts highlighted in this report—put a new rule in place that directs the BLM to consider certain factors when choosing which lands to lease. The  Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Rule , which has already been targeted for reversal by  one of Burgum’s first secretarial orders , requires all public land nominated for leasing be screened through a set of  five common-sense criteria , which include the potential to develop oil and gas; the presence of wildlife habitat, recreation, and cultural resources; and proximity to existing development. Under the BLM’s existing authority, lands that are deemed unfit for drilling due to these criteria are preemptively pulled from the lease sale. Application and use of the criteria has led to more responsible leasing and less conflict with communities.

This is why recent attempts in Congress to do away with the BLM’s authority to determine which lands to make available for lease are so concerning. Last year, House Republicans included a provision  in their 2025 appropriations bill  that would have mandated the BLM offer all lands nominated by industry, regardless of environmental conflicts, for lease. Senator Daines’  “Supporting Made in America Energy Act”  goes even further, as it would force the BLM to offer for lease all lands that are eligible for leasing under their respective resource management plans in mandated quarterly lease sales, possibly eliminating the environmental review process entirely.

With the Onshore Oil and Gas Rule on the chopping block, along with the BLM’s authority to decide whether or not to include nominated public lands in lease sales, it’s important to remember what’s at stake. The examples below show the types of conflicts that can occur when the oil and gas industry is given free rein over public lands.

National parks are the crown jewels of our country, and the West is home to many spectacular parks that contain dramatic beauty, rugged mountains, sparkling lakes, abundant wildlife, and endless recreation opportunities. These parks are visited by people from all over the world every year and contribute  billions of dollars  to the economy. The success of the national park tourism industry has enabled many of the parks’ gateway communities to develop  thriving outdoor recreation economies  that rely on the parks, as well as the lands around them.

These iconic landscapes are very clearly too valuable to mar with drilling, and yet that has not stopped the oil and gas industry from trying to lease public lands right on the doorsteps of national parks, including these examples in North Dakota, Montana, and Utah.

Public lands are a cornerstone of the Western way of life. They drive the  $639.5 billion  recreation economy, support local communities, sustain healthy wildlife populations, hold the cultural history of hundreds of Tribes, and provide for endless hunting and fishing opportunities. Public lands are the lifeblood of many western states, and yet, for years oil and gas companies have tried to secure the right to drill right in cherished places where communities recreate, find sustenance, and make a living.

Water in the West is an exceedingly precious resource. In some areas, a large majority of the local population depends on a single aquifer for clean drinking water and irrigation. Oil and gas companies use an  average of 15 million gallons of water  to frack a single well. Despite how significantly drilling can impact water resources by contaminating groundwater and depleting local water supplies, the oil and gas industry has looked to lease public lands in places where development would threaten entire communities’ access to water.

Unfortunately, the oil and gas industry’s targets have not been limited to public lands overlapping important wildlife habitat, recreation hotspots, and iconic landscapes. Over the years, sacred and sensitive places have also been put at risk of desecration due to these companies’ indiscriminate nomination of inappropriate lands for lease.

The examples in this report represent just a few of the innumerable conflicts that have arisen throughout history due to the prioritization of drilling over all other uses of public lands, and highlight how public participation by stakeholders and elected officials has helped protect some of our most precious public lands. Reducing conflicts through the responsible management of public lands, while still allowing oil and gas companies the chance to drill in appropriate areas, should be the goal of the Bureau of Land Management—not enriching oil and gas CEOs at the expense of rural communities and national parks. Reversing the BLM’s Oil and Gas Rule while simultaneously taking away the agency’s ability to say ‘no’ to leasing precious lands like the ones highlighted in this report is a recipe for disaster. Public lands are supposed to benefit all Americans. The Trump administration and its allies in Congress will be met with swift condemnation if they forget that.