[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                          EXAMINING THE BIDEN 
                       ADMINISTRATION'S MISMANAGEMENT
                        OF THE FEDERAL ONSHORE OIL AND
                              GAS PROGRAM

=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                      Tuesday, September 19, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-60

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-497 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------            

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              -----------
                              
                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Tuesday, September 19, 2023......................     1

Statement of Members:

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     1
    Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel I:

    Nedd, Mike, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, 
      Washington, DC.............................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    10
    Panel II:

    Sgamma, Kathleen, President, Western Energy Alliance, Denver, 
      Colorado...................................................    31
        Prepared statement of....................................    32
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    37
    Novotny, Bill, President, Wyoming County Commissioners 
      Association, Buffalo, Wyoming..............................    39
        Prepared statement of....................................    40
    Vasquez, Barbara, Citizen Scientist and Advocate, Western 
      Organization of Resource Councils, Billings, Montana.......    44
        Prepared statement of....................................    46
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    50
    Harcharek, Nagruk, President, Voice of the Arctic Inupiat 
      (VOICE), Anchorage, Alaska.................................    53
        Prepared statement of....................................    55

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber

        Nagruk Harcharek, President, VOICE of the Arctic Inupiat, 
          Statement for the Record...............................    79
        Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, North Slope 
          Borough, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Joint 
          Statement for the Record...............................    80
        Alaska Economic Report, ``Oil work this winter: Will 
          workers be there?'', September 11, 2023................    81
        Associated General Contractors of Alaska, Letter to the 
          Committee dated September 14, 2023.....................    89
        The Alliance Alaska, Letter to the Committee dated 
          September 14, 2023.....................................    90
        Alaska Miners Association, Letter to the Committee dated 
          September 18, 2023.....................................    91
        Resource Development Council, Letter to the Committee 
          dated September 15, 2023...............................    92
        Alaska Chamber, Letter to the Committee dated September 
          15, 2023...............................................    94
        Native Village of Kaktovik, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, 
          and City of Kaktovik, Letter to the Committee dated 
          September 19, 2023.....................................    95
        Multiple Letters received from VOICE of the Arctic 
          Inupiat, regarding no consultation, dated September 29, 
          2023...................................................    97

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Ocasio-Cortez

        Gwich'in Steering Committee Statement on AIDEA Lease 
          Cancellation...........................................     4

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Hageman

        Mark Gordon, Governor of Wyoming, Letter to BLM Director 
          Stone-Manning, dated May 30, 2023......................    24
                                     


 
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S MISMANAGEMENT
                     OF THE FEDERAL ONSHORE OIL AND
                              GAS PROGRAM

                              ----------                              


                      Tuesday, September 19, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in 
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Stauber, Lamborn, Fulcher, Curtis, 
Tiffany, Rosendale, Boebert, Hunt, Westerman; Ocasio-Cortez, 
Huffman, Kamlager-Dove, and Ms. Lee of Nevada.
    Also present: Representatives Hageman; and Porter.

    Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Wyoming, 
Ms. Hageman, and the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Porter, 
be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you all for being here today to discuss 
a very important topic: this Administration's failed energy 
policies. Today, we are specifically focused on the actions, or 
lack thereof, at the Bureau of Land Management, and how those 
actions impact our nation's current and future energy and 
economic security.
    My colleagues have heard me discuss time and again the 
importance of developing the resources our country is blessed 
with under the best environmental and labor standards in the 
world. Unfortunately, this Administration has set an anti-
development, anywhere-but-America agenda that is making us more 
dependent on our adversaries who do not share our concern for 
the environment or workforce.
    Beyond the blatant issues of outsourcing of resource 
development to hostile, polluting, and inhumane nations, these 
actions have severe consequences at home, too. According to the 
latest data from the Energy Information Administration, the 
average price per gallon of gasoline in my home state is $3.95 
a gallon just last week. The average was $1.87 in Minnesota's 
8th Congressional District the week President Biden took 
office. Ladies and gentleman, it is President Biden that did 
this. Nationwide, the number of households receiving government 
help to pay energy costs rose by an estimated 1.3 million last 
winter alone to more than 6 million, the largest year-over-year 
increase since 2009. Last year, nearly 34 percent of American 
households reduced or skipped basic expenses to pay their 
energy bills. The constituents I represent and hard-working 
Americans across this country simply cannot afford to keep 
going down this path.
    The simple truth is we will continue to need conventional 
energy for the foreseeable future. According to the Energy 
Information Administration, global energy consumption is on 
track to grow by nearly 50 percent by 2050, and conventional 
energy sources like petroleum will remain the largest energy 
source over that time. While some of my colleagues want to take 
traditional fuels off the table, I believe we need to be adding 
sources of energy to the mix, including domestic oil and gas 
development: an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and the best 
will rise to the top. If not, we will become more reliant on 
countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia.
    The Bureau of Land Management can play a large role in 
ensuring American energy security now and into the future. 
Unfortunately, under this Administration the BLM has repeatedly 
failed to answer America's call. The BLM has ignored the letter 
of law under the Mineral Leasing Act, which requires quarterly 
lease sales in eligible states and drilling permits, or APDs, 
be processed in 30 days.
    In its first 2 years, this Administration leased fewer 
acres for oil and gas drilling offshore and on Federal land 
than any other administration since World War II. In Fiscal 
Year 2022, the BLM approved an average of 233 drilling permits 
per month. In contrast, the BLM was approving nearly 400 
drilling permits monthly in Fiscal Year 2020 under former 
President Trump.
    Even my Democratic colleagues think this has gone too far. 
In response to the Biden administration's anti-oil-and-gas 
agenda, they added language to the so-called Inflation 
Reduction Act that requires the BLM to hold oil and gas lease 
sales as a prerequisite for approving permits for wind power 
and solar power. Despite this direction from the Democratic 
colleagues in Congress, however, this Administration continues 
their work to circumvent this mandate.
    Further, the BLM has failed to provide this Committee with 
the information to conduct adequate oversight, and has put 
forth numerous regulatory actions to stifle domestic energy 
development on Federal lands. These include but are not limited 
to the so-called Conservation and Landscape Health, this rule 
proposed this past spring, which aims to lock up lands through 
special designations and new conservation leases which were not 
created by Congress; and a new regulation on onshore leasing 
for oil and gas which significantly increases fees for 
operators, likely crushing small businesses, and introduces new 
preference criteria for onshore leasing which could lock up 
thousands more acres of Federal lands for leasing.
    Additionally, the BLM has recently taken site-specific 
actions to block onshore oil and gas development. In early 
August, the BLM issued new environmental documents for two 
resource management plans in Colorado which will lock up 1.6 
million acres to future oil and gas leasing. And 2 weeks ago 
this Administration canceled seven leases in the 1002 area of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, while also locking up 13 
million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
    This Administration took similar action in my district, 
withdrawing over 225,504 acres in my home state of Minnesota, 
putting off limits the biggest copper nickel find in the world. 
Banned mining in northern Minnesota, can you imagine that?
    These actions make clear that it is not a priority of this 
Administration to keep America strong. They only wish to 
appease the radical left at the expense of the rest of America.
    Today, I look forward to a robust discussion on the impacts 
of these actions and how this Administration's policies must 
change to meet the energy needs for our future.
    I now yield to the Ranking Member for her opening 
statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Chair Stauber, and thank you 
to our witness and also our later witnesses for being here 
today.
    This Committee has a profound responsibility to mitigate 
the impacts of the climate crisis. We have the unique privilege 
of being the Committee responsible for overseeing our nation's 
public lands and Federal fossil fuel development.
    As it stands, nearly a quarter of the United States' 
current carbon pollution comes from fossil fuel production on 
Federal lands and waters. The United States is responsible for 
more historic emissions than any other country in the world. We 
have a responsibility to lead in winding down use of fossil 
fuels, and that starts with production on Federal lands. 
Failing to do something about these emissions would be a lost 
opportunity on a timeline that we cannot get back.
    As overwhelming as the climate crisis may feel, we can do 
something about it. In the face of this global existential 
challenge, communities are doing what they must. They are 
organizing. And around the world, mass movements of everyday 
people, frontline activists, organized labor, and others are 
coming together to demand a change. And their message is clear: 
It is time to stop the end of fossil fuels.
    Leaders in some parts of the world are listening. The U.N. 
General Assembly, which is also meeting this week in New York 
City, is focused explicitly on climate change this year. U.N. 
Secretary General Antonio Guterres has called on countries to 
``leave oil, coal, and gas in the ground, where they belong.'' 
Countries like France, Spain, and Belize have all passed laws 
to end fossil fuel extraction, and yet the United States 
continues to approve new leases at record rates.
    Here in this Committee, we are here to discuss that very 
topic: the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Program. The latest 
announcements from the Administration on oil and gas are 
welcome steps in the right direction to help get our carbon 
pollution under control.
    In July, the Bureau of Land Management announced new 
proposed regulations to bring long-overdue reforms to the oil 
and gas program. And earlier this month, the Administration 
announced it would cancel the remaining oil and gas leases in 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and protect 13 million 
acres of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. These 
efforts did not happen overnight.
    For BLM's oil and gas rule, we have people to thank and 
communities across the country that are beginning to organize 
on an everyday, person-to-person level.
    And for the Alaska news, I want to give enormous credit to 
the young organizers who have tirelessly pushed the 
Administration to do more to protect the Arctic. Of course, 
many of us were disappointed to see the Administration approve 
the Willow Project, which will have significant impacts on the 
climate and on essential ecosystems. But it is the organizing 
of everyday people alongside Indigenous Alaskans affected first 
and foremost by development and on the front lines of the 
climate crisis that secured these other victories.
    Organizing amplifies the voices of people. It empowers 
individuals and communities to multiply their influence, to 
speak up, mobilize, and demand accountability from those in 
power.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this 
statement from the Gwich'in Steering Committee in support of 
the cancellation of the leases in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge.
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

   Gwich'in Steering Committee Statement on AIDEA Lease Cancellation

September 6, 2023

https://ourarcticrefuge.org/gwichin-steering-committee-statement-on-
aidea-lease-cancellation/

                                 *****

The Gwich'in Steering Committee welcomes the cancellation of AIDEA's 
leases to develop oil and gas on the coastal plain of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge--land sacred to the Gwich'in and the birthing 
grounds to the Porcupine Caribou Herd.

We are grateful to President Biden and Secretary of the Interior 
Haaland for their decision. Cancellation of these leases is a step to 
rectify attempted violence against our people, the animals and sacred 
land. The leases were economically infeasible, threatened the Porcupine 
Caribou Herd and the Gwich'in way of life, and if developed would have 
added to the already deteriorating climate in the Arctic and the world 
over.

Alaska Natives and concerned groups from all over Alaska were excluded 
from AIDEA's process of making economic and development decisions that 
affect us all. AIDEA now can focus on its mission to diversify Alaska's 
economy through transparent and meaningful public engagement with all 
Alaskans, inclusive of our desire to protect our traditional ways of 
life for future generations.

AIDEA held the last remaining leases in the Arctic Refuge after all 
other bidders walked away from their leases in 2022. We thank the Biden 
administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior for taking this 
step towards protecting the coastal plain and the Porcupine Caribou 
Herd, but we know that our sacred land is only temporarily safe from 
oil and gas development. Our concern now is the SEIS process and the 
mandated second lease sale in 2024.

We will always stand strong in unity, in strength and in prayer to 
protect the Porcupine Caribou Herd, the Arctic Refuge and the Gwich'in 
way of life.

                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. My colleagues across the aisle will have 
a different view of the oil and gas program. They will say that 
we need to drill more and more, and give away more and more of 
our Federal lands to no end to Big Oil to ensure so-called 
energy dominance. But the American people know that security 
will come when we create an equitable, clean energy economy 
that puts families and communities first, and ends our reliance 
on a global extractive industry.
    Of course, we have a long way to go to create a just 
transition away from fossil fuels. But these recent victories 
are a lesson in the power of determined, unwavering advocacy.
    Thank you again to our witnesses, and I yield back.

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. We will now move to 
introduce our only witness in Panel I, and he will have 5 
minutes to make his opening statement.
    Our first witness is Mr. Mike Nedd, who is the Deputy 
Director for the Bureau of Land Management, located here in 
Washington, DC.
    Mr. Nedd, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF MIKE NEDD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND 
                   MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Nedd. Good morning, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Michael 
Nedd, the Bureau of Land Management Deputy Director for 
Operations. I am pleased to be here to provide testimony on the 
Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas program.
    As stewards for more land than any other Federal agency, 
the BLM plays a critical role in managing our nation's natural 
resources on behalf of the American people. The passage of the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provided the BLM 
with our multiple use and sustained yield mandate, under which 
the BLM manages approximately 245 million acres across the 
nation, located primarily in the 12 Western states.
    In addition, the BLM is responsible for managing 700 
million subsurface acreage. BLM-managed public lands provide 
energy for diverse sources that include both renewable and non-
renewable sources. The BLM manages the Federal onshore oil and 
gas program with the goal of safe, balanced, and responsible 
energy development. The BLM currently manages over 34,000 
Federal oil and gas leases, covering 23.7 million acres, nearly 
half of the acreage and producing, with roughly 89,000 wells. 
The other half of 11 million acres are non-producing.
    In Fiscal Year 2022, Federal onshore oil and gas 
development provided over $7.61 billion in revenue. Since 2021, 
the BLM has approved over 9,500 applications for permits to 
drill. The BLM's current oil and gas regulations were last 
updated in 1988, and contain fiscal terms that were set more 
than 70 years ago.
    The Biden-Harris Administration made it a priority to 
reform the Federal onshore oil and gas program to ensure that 
it is operating in the best interest of the American people. 
Following an extensive review, the Department released its 
report on the Federal oil and gas leasing program, identifying 
necessary reforms to the fiscal terms, leasing process, and 
remediation requirements related to the Federal oil and gas 
program. Many of these recommendations responded to issues 
identified by the GAO and the Department's Inspector General.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation 
Reduction Act provided once-in-a-generation investment in 
public land. The bill provided funding to address legacy 
pollution from oil and gas development. On the IRA, Congress 
coupled the development of renewable energy to the leasing of 
oil and gas, and directed several fiscal reforms including 
increased royalty rates for new leases and minimum rental 
rates.
    In July, the BLM announced its proposed onshore oil and gas 
leasing rule to modernize the program, codifying new provisions 
from the IRA and BIL, and to help implement the reform agenda 
laid out in the Department's report on the program updated in 
the proposed rule, including increasing the minimum lease bond 
requirement and focusing agency resources in areas with the 
highest development potential.
    Regarding oil and gas development in Alaska, the Biden-
Harris Administration recently announced steps to protect the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more than 13 million acres 
in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. In the Arctic 
Refuge, Secretary Haaland canceled seven oil and gas leases 
issued by the previous administration. In the NPRA, the BLM is 
proposing a new rule to govern the management of surface 
resources and special areas. The proposed rule would help 
assure maximum protection of significant resource values and 
enhance access to subsistence activities.
    As we transition to a clean economy, the BLM is in a unique 
position to help achieve the Administration's climate and 
economic goals through science-based, balanced management of 
public lands. It is essential that the BLM oil and gas 
management promotes the highest industry and environmental 
standards while securing a fair return for the American 
taxpayer.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today, 
and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Nedd follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Michael D. Nedd, Deputy Director of Operations, 
       Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony 
on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) oil and gas program.
    As the steward for more land than any other Federal agency, the BLM 
plays a critical role in managing our Nation's natural resources, 
including oil and natural gas, on behalf of the American people. In 
fiscal year (FY) 2022, the Federal onshore oil and gas program 
accounted for nearly 14 percent of total U.S. onshore oil production 
and 8.8 percent of total U.S. onshore gas production. However, the 
BLM's current oil and gas regulations, which were last updated in 1988 
and contain fiscal terms that were set more than 70 years ago, have 
failed to provide a fair return to the American people. These outdated 
regulations also do not support a balanced management approach that 
addresses the climate challenges facing our public lands today.
    Additionally, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the 
Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have 
identified significant fiscal and stewardship concerns with the BLM's 
oil and gas leasing program. As a result, the program has been on the 
GAO's high-risk list since 2011.
    The BLM is currently in a unique position to help achieve the 
climate and economic goals outlined by the Biden-Harris Administration 
through science-based, balanced management of public lands and waters. 
We are in a moment where we have an opportunity to rebalance our 
decision making and ensure that we meet the Department's principal 
charge: to manage our lands and resources not merely across fiscal 
years, but across generations. As we transition to a clean energy 
economy, it is essential that the BLM's oil and gas management promotes 
the highest industry, environmental, and public engagement standards, 
including those related to environmental justice and tribal engagement, 
while securing a fair return for the American taxpayer.
    For these reasons, as well as based on direction from Congress--
through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL, Public Law 117-58) and the 
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA, Public Law 117-169)--the BLM has taken 
steps to modernize its oil and gas program through policy and 
regulation updates.
BLM Overview

    Since its inception in 1946, the BLM has served as a steward of our 
public lands and resources. The passage of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) provided the BLM with the multiple use 
and sustained yield mandate that guides all of the BLM's land 
management decisions. Driven by our mission, the BLM sustains the 
health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's public lands for 
multiple uses, such as conventional and renewable energy development; 
livestock grazing; conservation; mining; watershed protection; and 
hunting, fishing, and other forms of recreation. This multiple-use and 
sustained yield mission enables the BLM to contribute tremendously to 
economic growth, job creation, and domestic energy production, while 
generating revenues for Federal and State treasuries and local 
economies, and allowing for a thoughtful and balanced approach to 
management of our public lands.
    Under its multiple use and sustained yield mission, the BLM manages 
approximately 245 million surface acres across the nation, located 
primarily in 12 western states. The BLM is also responsible for 
managing 700 million subsurface acres, many of which are overlain by 
properties managed by other Federal agencies, such as the Department of 
Defense and the U.S. Forest Service. Further, of these 700 million 
subsurface acres, approximately 57 million acres are split estate 
lands, where the surface estate is in private ownership and the BLM 
manages the subsurface minerals.
    BLM-managed public lands provide energy from diverse sources--
including renewable sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal--as 
well as from nonrenewable sources such as coal, oil, and gas. In FY 
2022, the BLM permitted 5,700 megawatts (MW) of new electricity 
generation capacity from wind, solar, and geothermal sources on public 
lands, and the BLM is on track to make decisions on over 22,000 MW this 
fiscal year and next. Energy production from Federal lands in FY 2022 
also included 270 million tons of coal, roughly 431.6 million barrels 
of oil, and 3,388 billion cubic feet of natural gas. Overall, the 
Department estimates that commercial activities on public lands 
generated more than $201 billion in economic output in 2021, supporting 
nearly 720,000 jobs. Public lands are the economic driver for many 
communities across the west and a significant generator of tax revenues 
that support state and local governments.
Onshore Oil & Gas Program

    The BLM manages the Federal onshore oil and gas program with the 
goals of facilitating safe and responsible energy development while 
providing a fair return for the American taxpayer. The BLM's land use 
planning process, implemented through the development of Resource 
Management Plans (RMPs), provides a standardized procedure to allow for 
multiple use of our public lands, while also ensuring that such use 
minimizes environmental impacts and considers the public interest. For 
purposes of oil and gas leasing, lands within a planning area are 
identified as fitting into one of three categories--lands open under 
standard lease terms, lands open with restrictions, and lands closed to 
leasing.
    The BLM currently manages over 34,400 Federal oil and gas leases 
covering 23.7 million acres. Nearly half of the acreage is producing, 
from roughly 89,350 wells, and over 11 million acres, are non-
producing--i.e., leased but the lessees have chosen not to develop 
them.
    Since the start of the Biden-Harris Administration, the BLM has 
approved over 9,500 Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs). As a 
result, there are currently thousands of APDs approved and available to 
drill. In FY 2022, the BLM approved 3,010 of 3,729 APDs received and 
Federal onshore oil and gas development provided over $7.61 billion in 
revenues from the following: $7.1 billion in royalties, $12.8 million 
in bonus bids, and $21.6 million in rentals. Consistent with historical 
trends, the vast majority of revenue is generated from producing 
leases.
Onshore Oil & Gas Leasing Process

    While lands are identified as open or closed to leasing generally 
in RMPs, the oil and gas industry generally nominates lands for leasing 
in the form of expressions of interest (EOIs), a request that certain 
lands be included in a competitive oil and gas lease sale. Upon receipt 
of an EOI, the BLM verifies that the EOI contains the required 
information, including the required non-refundable $5/acre fee 
established by the IRA, reviews the land status to ensure the lands are 
eligible for leasing per the Mineral Leasing Act and the RMP, and 
configures the EOI into appropriate lease parcels. After environmental 
analysis and public input, the BLM then holds competitive lease sales 
on nominated and eligible lands in accordance with applicable laws and 
regulations.
    Oil and gas leasing is available on the vast majority of public 
lands managed by the BLM outside of the National Conservation Lands 
system. Between 2013 and 2022, the BLM offered approximately 40.3 
million acres for lease, but received bids on only approximately 9.5 
million acres, or 23.5 percent. In 2023, the BLM has resumed its 
leasing schedule including holding seven onshore oil and gas lease 
sales in five different administrative state offices. These sales 
offered 283 parcels covering nearly 223,000 acres, and resulted in 194 
parcels covering just over 127,000 acres being sold. In other words, 57 
percent of acres offered have been sold in 2023 as of September 12, 
2023, more than doubling the performance of the BLM's lease sales due 
to offering lands with higher likelihood for successful development. 
The BLM has five additional sales planned in 2023.
Reforming the Federal Onshore Oil & Gas Program

    The Biden-Harris Administration has made it a priority to reform 
the Federal onshore oil and gas program to ensure that it is operating 
in the best interest of the American people. In one of his first 
actions, on January 27, 2021, the President signed Executive Order 
14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, which directed 
the Department of the Interior (Department) to review Federal oil and 
gas permitting and leasing practices.
    To help inform that review, the Department analyzed studies, some 
going back decades, of the Federal oil and gas program's deficiencies, 
including from the GAO and the OIG. Following this extensive review and 
after conducting diverse and robust public engagement, the Department 
released its ``Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program'' 
(Report) identifying necessary reforms to the fiscal terms, leasing 
process, and other requirements related to the Federal oil and gas 
programs.
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law & Inflation Reduction Act

    The BIL and the IRA are once-in-a-generation investments in our 
public lands. The BIL, which was signed into law on November 15, 2021, 
contains several provisions that fund Department initiatives to address 
legacy pollution from oil and gas development that benefit the 
communities we serve directly. This includes establishing funding to 
monitor idle wells and plug, remediate, and reclaim orphaned wells on 
Federal lands. The BLM has used this funding to successfully award 
contracts to plug and remediate associated lands for orphaned wells in 
Utah and California, and the Department continues remediation efforts 
across the country.
    Under the IRA, Congress coupled the development of renewable energy 
to the leasing of oil and gas, requiring oil and gas lease sales to 
occur prior to issuing grants for wind or solar development. In 
addition, the IRA directed several fiscal reforms--many of which are 
consistent with recommendations the Department included in its Report--
including: increasing royalty rates for new oil and gas leases from 
12.5 percent to 16.67 percent; increasing minimum rental rates to $3.00 
per acre for the first 2 years, $5.00 per acre for years 3 to 8, and 
$15 per acre for remaining years; increase minimum lease bids from 
$2.00 per acre to $10.00 per acre; establishing a new fee on EOIs of 
$5.00 per acre; and eliminating non-competitive leasing of Federal 
lands for oil and gas.
Proposed Onshore Oil & Gas Leasing Rule

    Prior to the enactment of the IRA and BIL, the GAO and the OIG 
reviewed and audited the BLM's Federal onshore oil and gas program to 
identify problematic areas in this program and recommended actions to 
address them. As part of the GAO's and OIG's numerous respective 
audits, they highlighted weaknesses in the onshore program's fiscal 
framework and recommended that the BLM take steps to ensure that the 
American public receives a fair return from oil and gas activities on 
public lands.
    In response to the enactment of the IRA, the BLM issued updated 
guidance to its field professionals to enable consistent implementation 
of the IRA's changes to the agency's oil and gas programs and in July 
2023, the BLM published its proposed Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Rule. 
These proposed regulations would modernize the program, provide a 
balanced approach to public lands management, and ensure a fair return 
for American taxpayers. The updates codify the oil and gas management 
provisions in the IRA and BIL, and will help implement the reform 
agenda laid out by the Department's Report on the Federal Oil and Gas 
Leasing Program. The proposed rule would be the BLM's first 
comprehensive update to the Federal onshore oil and gas leasing 
framework since 1988. To date, the BLM has hosted four of five planned 
public meetings, and is currently accepting comments on the proposed 
rule through September 22, 2023.
Fiscal Reforms

    As noted, independent studies have consistently demonstrated that 
the BLM's oil and gas leasing framework fails to provide an adequate 
return to the taxpayer for the use of public lands and resources. The 
proposed rule would update outdated fiscal provisions and align the 
BLM's regulations with the fiscal reforms included in the IRA. 
Additionally, the proposed rule would reduce the nonoperational period 
after which a well is considered idled to 4 years (consistent with the 
BIL); require operators of nonoperational wells to help the BLM reduce 
its inventory of idled wells through improved identification, tracking, 
and proactive management; and revise the onshore program's cost 
recovery mechanisms to ensure that the program's application fees 
reflect actual processing costs.
Bonding

    The GAO has issued several reports recommending the BLM address 
risks from insufficient bonding, including as recently as September 
2019 (GAO-19-615). The GAO found the bonds held by the BLM were 
insufficient to cover the costs of reclaiming orphaned wells, shifting 
reclamation costs onto taxpayers, and that 84 percent of the bonds it 
reviewed were not sufficient to cover reclamation costs. The GAO also 
determined the bond amounts, which were usually set at the regulatory 
minimum, ``[do] not account for variables such as the number of wells 
[the bonds] cover or other characteristics that affect reclamation 
costs, such as well depth.''
    The BLM's current bonding requirements have not been updated since 
the 1950s and 1960s. Current lease bond amounts do not meet the actual 
costs of cleanup in the event an operator goes out of business or 
otherwise fails to complete required plugging and reclamation--costs 
that are then borne by the American taxpayer. The proposed Onshore Oil 
and Gas Rule would increase the minimum lease bond amount from $10,000 
to $150,000; increase the minimum statewide bond amount from $25,000 to 
$500,000; eliminate nationwide and unit operator bonds; and include 
additional protections for surface owners. Phase-in periods would be 
provided for existing operations to come into compliance with new 
bonding requirements.
Responsible Leasing & Development

    Further, the proposed rule would focus agency resources on areas 
with the highest potential for development and with the fewest 
multiple-use conflicts, allowing the BLM to better manage public lands 
for multiple uses and sustained yield. The proposed rule will 
incorporate preference criteria into oil and gas regulations to provide 
clarity and consistency in the BLM's decision-making process for 
leasing; direct leasing and development towards areas with higher oil 
and gas potential; and avoid leasing in areas with sensitive cultural, 
wildlife, and recreation resources.
    The proposed rule also would ensure oil and gas lessees are 
financially and technically capable of responsible development, as 
required by the Mineral Leasing Act, and expressly stated in the BLM's 
oil and gas lease form. This will be realized through incentivizing 
diligent development by responsible and qualified parties; limiting the 
use of lease suspensions and drilling permit extensions; and 
strengthening oversight over lease transfers.
Arctic Oil & Gas Development

    The Biden-Harris Administration recently announced significant 
steps to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Arctic Refuge) 
and more than 13 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve in 
Alaska (NPR-A). In the Arctic Refuge, Secretary Haaland recently 
authorized the cancellation of seven oil and gas leases issued by the 
previous administration in the Coastal Plain. This decision comes after 
President Biden, though Executive Order 13990, directed the Department 
to review oil and gas leasing in the Refuge, ``[i]n light of the 
alleged legal deficiencies underlying the program.'' In response, 
Secretary Haaland, in S.O. 3401, directed a new, comprehensive analysis 
of the potential environmental impacts of the Coastal Plain Leasing 
Program. Since that time, two of the three companies holding leases 
separately requested to relinquish their leases and receive a refund. 
The remaining seven leases held by the remaining lessee covered 365,000 
acres in the Coastal Plain.
    The draft supplemental environmental impact statement released by 
the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contained analysis that 
informed the Department's determination that the 2021 lease sale was 
seriously flawed and based on fundamental legal deficiencies, such as 
insufficient analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, 
including failure to adequately analyze a reasonable range of 
alternatives and properly quantify downstream greenhouse gas emissions; 
and failure to properly interpret the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-
97). Accordingly, Secretary Haaland determined that the leases issued 
by the previous administration in the Arctic Refuge should be canceled.
    To the west of the coastal plain, the BLM is proposing a new rule 
to govern the management of surface resources and Special Areas in the 
NPR-A, consistent with its duties under the Naval Petroleum Reserves 
Production Act of 1976 (NPRPA), FLPMA, and other authorities. Under 
NPRPA, Congress directed the BLM to balance oil and gas development 
with the management and protection of sensitive landscapes--known as 
Special Areas--and surface resources across the reserve. The proposed 
rule would revise the framework for designating and assuring maximum 
protection of Special Areas' significant resource values, as directed 
in the NPRPA, and would protect and enhance access for subsistence 
activities throughout the NPR-A. It would also incorporate aspects of 
the NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan that was approved in April 2022. 
Upon finalization of the proposed rule, the Administration will follow 
this proposed process to inform the creation or expansion of additional 
Special Areas in the NPR-A. The proposed rule would have no effect on 
currently authorized oil and gas operations in the NPR-A. The BLM is 
currently accepting comments on the proposed rule through October 23, 
2023.
Conclusion

    The BLM appreciates the Subcommittee's interest in the Federal 
onshore oil and gas program and looks forward to implementing Congress' 
direction through the BIL and IRA, as well as our proposed regulations, 
which will collectively bring the program up to modern standards. The 
BLM remains committed to ensuring that as we transition to a clean 
energy economy, the oil and gas program serves the best interests of 
the American people by promoting the highest industry, environmental, 
and public engagement standards and securing a fair return for the 
American taxpayer: the owners of our shared public lands and the 
resources they provide.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Mike Nedd, Deputy Director,
                       Bureau of Land Management

Mr. Nedd did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate 
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. This Committee has asked for Expression of Interest 
(EOI) data over the last year, but have gotten nothing back despite a 
number of requests.

    1a) We would again like to request this data. Please send us the 
number of EOIs received by the agency for each month over the past two 
years along with the acreage associated with each EOI.

    Question 2. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act requires a second lease sale 
in ANWR by 2024.

    2a) Will the Department meet that deadline?

    Question 3. The recent BLM onshore oil and gas regulation proposed 
new changes to bonding for oil and gas on federal lands.

    3a) What do you do with bond money when you do find responsible 
party through the record title process?

    3b) How many wells are plugged and abandoned each year without 
requiring a call on a bond?

    3c) Can you explain why the proposed rule didn't offer additional 
surety options?

    Question 4. During the hearing you said in regard to the 
cancellation of the ANWR leases and the BLM's proposed NPR-A rule that 
``ongoing engagement dating back many years and that engagement 
continued through the Secretaries decisions'' and that ``throughout the 
entire process communities were involved.''

    4a) Could you please list the ``engagements'' related to these 
decisions, when they occurred, where they occurred and who attended 
them?

    Question 5. You said that the BLM has canceled leases in cases 
where there was no litigation. Please provide all examples where the 
BLM has canceled leases without litigation over the last 10 years 
including the rationale for cancellation.

    Question 6. The Committee has recently been informed that the 
timeline for approval of communitization agreements (CA's) under the 
Mineral Leasing Act in the BLM Field Offices has significantly 
increased.

    6a) What is this recent slowdown attributed to?

    6b) Are you aware that the office of Natural Resources Revenue 
(ONRR) is requiring 100% allocation payment for producing units that 
don't have an approved CA?

    6c) Is this a new change?

    6d) Do you agree with this change?

    Question 7. We have heard on numerous accounts of a growing 
Application for Permit to Drill (APD) backlog in the Carlsbad, NM Field 
Office. No doubt this office is receiving a large number of APD 
requests, but what is the BLM doing to get this office more help to 
address this backlog?

    Question 8. The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska is 22.8 
million acres. The BLM has said that the proposed new rule will have an 
economic impact of less than $100 million and is therefore ``not 
significant''. For reference and comparison, the Willow project in 
Alaska will generate $17 billion in public royalties and taxes, at 
current prices, from a federal unit that is merely 130,000 acres: In 
other words, less than one percent of the NPR-A will meet the $100 
million ``significance'' level 170 times over. Yet BLM's position is 
that none of the other 99 percent of land in the NPR-A is economically 
significant.

    8a) What analysis was done to conclude this rulemaking will not 
reach the level of significant economic impact?

    8b) Is this analysis available so the public has transparent access 
to review it?

    Question 9. Does the Department plan to go through the NEPA process 
for the proposed NPR-A rule?

    Question 10. Regarding the timing of the release of this proposed 
rule, was any consideration given to the fact that the comment period 
overlaps with the fall whaling season for North Slope communities?

    Question 11. Are you aware that the NPR-A already requires over 250 
mitigation measures, making it the gold standard for environmentally 
and socially responsible resource development? These measures are 
thoroughly described in the NPR-A's Integrated Activity Plan, which was 
approved by this administration only last year, in 2022. The IAP was 
charged with providing ``maximum protection'' to Special Areas, as 
required by the management plans for those areas. Did the 2022 IAP 
Record of Decision fail to meet this requirement? Why does the 
administration believe there is a need, only one year later, to deviate 
from the management plan they just approved and add more restrictions 
on development?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. Multiple studies, including the United States 
Geological Survey's 2018 report ``Lands Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 
Sequestration in the United States: Estimates for 2005-2014'' and 
Ratledge et al.'s 2022 ``Emissions from fossil fuels produced on US 
federal lands and waters present opportunities for climate mitigation'' 
in Climatic Change, have found that fossil fuel extraction on public 
lands and waters account for approximately one-quarter of U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions. What proportion of U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions come from oil and gas produced on ELM-managed land?

    Question 2. The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) 2019 
report, ``Bureau of Land Management Should Address Risks from 
Insufficient Bonds to Reclaim Wells,'' identified 2,294 idled wells 
that had not produced in over ten years and had not been reclaimed and 
were therefore at higher risk of becoming orphaned. At the time of the 
report, an idled well was defined as a well that has been 
nonoperational for at least seven years. This suggests the wells 
identified by GAO had been idled without being reclaimed for at least 
three years, raising concerns about compliance with the statutory 
requirement for timely reclamation. What is the process BLM undertakes 
to identify idled wells and enforce reclamation requirements, and how 
long does it typically take between identifying an idled well and 
complete reclamation of said well?

    Question 3. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act lowered the 
time a well can be considered temporarily abandoned before being 
designated as idle from seven years to four years if the operator 
cannot reasonably demonstrate that the well will have future beneficial 
use. Under this new definition, how many idled wells are on ELM-managed 
lands?

    Question 4. How will the updated bonding requirements under the 
proposed rule speed up the reclamation of idled wells?

    Question 5. How does BLM monitor shut-in and idled wells to ensure 
they do not fall into disrepair and create environmental, safety, and 
public health hazards?

    Question 6. At the hearing, a witness claimed that bonding 
increases could lead to more orphaned wells by driving smaller 
operators out of business. Does BLM anticipate the updated bonding 
requirements will increase or decrease the number of orphaned wells on 
federal land?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much for your testimony. We are 
now going to recognize Members for 5 minutes of questions, and 
I will begin by recognizing myself.
    Deputy Director Nedd, was there any engagement with the 
leadership of the Alaska North Slope communities, the native 
corporations, or tribal leadership, the individuals who live in 
the region, before making a decision to revoke ANWR leases or 
lock up 13 million acres in the NPRA?
    Mr. Nedd. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there 
has been ongoing engagement dating back many years, and that 
engagement continued through the Secretary's decision.
    Mr. Stauber. I beg to differ. I don't believe all people 
were consulted. In fact, many of them found out through a 
newspaper, when it affected their livelihood, their economy, 
and their way of life. Mr. Nedd, I respectfully disagree with 
your answer.
    The White House's National Strategy for the Arctic Region 
says under Pillar 3, ``We will also work with allies and 
partners to expand high standard investment and sustainable 
development across the Arctic region.'' Do you believe, Mr. 
Nedd, this Administration's recent decisions are in line with 
that strategy?
    Mr. Nedd. Congressman, what I can say is that the 
Administration is carefully looking at careful balance of how 
to develop in the Arctic National Refuge. And after looking at 
the previous issue and the legal deficiencies in that analysis, 
we decided to do a supplemental.
    I believe, again, the intent is to supplement----
    Mr. Stauber. You said legal. Is it customary for the BLM to 
remove leases without litigation?
    Mr. Nedd. There have been cases where leases have been 
removed. I don't know when you say ``customary,'' what you 
mean, Congressman, but leases have been removed without 
litigation.
    Mr. Stauber. And where were they?
    Mr. Nedd. I can get back with specifics, but I know in the 
Lower 48. So, over my years of being a part of this, that has 
happened.
    Mr. Stauber. Is it customary in the BLM to remove leases 
without somebody putting forth a litigation? I think it is not, 
right? Would you agree that it is not?
    Mr. Nedd. Again, over my 18 years in this program, leases 
have been removed where there was no litigation.
    Mr. Stauber. Is it your personal opinion that the Bureau of 
Land Management agency officials did shoddy work in preparing 
the EIS for the ANWR leases?
    Mr. Nedd. I am sorry, Congressman, can you repeat the 
question?
    Mr. Stauber. Is it your personal opinion that the Bureau of 
Land Management agency officials did shoddy work in preparing 
the EIS for the ANWR leases?
    I am trying to get why you canceled them.
    Mr. Nedd. I can say again there were legal, fundamental 
issues with preparing the analysis. So, the agency has taken a 
second look at that.
    Mr. Stauber. I want to make sure I understood you. You are 
saying that the agency itself, the BLM who did the EIS, didn't 
do the proper work so you, this Administration, revoked the 
leases. Is that what you just said?
    Mr. Nedd. What I am saying, Congressman, is after a 
thorough review, the conclusion was there were legal, 
fundamental issues that required the agency to do additional 
analysis.
    Mr. Stauber. Did you work with the tribal communities?
    Mr. Nedd. It is my understanding, again, that throughout 
the entire process communities were involved. As I sit here 
today, Congressman, I cannot give you the names of everyone.
    Mr. Stauber. Sure. No, I understand that, Mr. Nedd. But I 
will tell you, in the last 2 weeks since this disastrous 
decision, we have had people in our offices, our Native 
community in Alaska. They are not happy. I don't believe that 
you consulted with them, because they told me you didn't.
    When a community finds out through a newspaper that their 
livelihood was taken away, I don't think that is the 
appropriate way to do consultation in a press release letting 
them know.
    I would just say, Mr. Nedd, I do appreciate you and all 
that you have done at the BLM, and I appreciate your testimony 
today, coming here and taking these questions. You are a 
professional.
    And I will now turn it over to the Ranking Member for 
questions.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairman.
    Mr. Nedd, as you know, President Biden has set a goal to 
reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 50 percent, and achieve 
zero carbon electric power in our system by 2035. As the 
manager of 1 in 10 acres of land in the United States, the 
Bureau of Land Management has and will continue to have a 
significant role to play in reaching these goals.
    Oil and gas production right now is at an all-time high 
under the Biden administration, even higher than the Trump 
administration. And I was wondering if you could tell us more 
about what BLM is doing to ramp down emissions from public 
lands.
    Mr. Nedd. Thank you, Congresswoman. We continue to take a 
very thorough look and analysis for emissions. We are not only 
doing it by project, but we are looking at the cumulative 
impact.
    We are also looking at what is going on in downstream, so 
every project is going through a very thorough analysis. In 
2021, the Department undertook an assessment based on previous-
issued leases, and is now applying some of that assessment as 
we move forward.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I want to ask about some of the 
downstream effects of developing something like the Willow 
Project, which many Americans were disappointed to see moving 
forward, given the overwhelming grassroots opposition and 
devastating climate impacts that Willow entails.
    Considering President Biden's climate goals, how is BLM 
planning to factor in downstream emissions of potential 
development into decision-making, specifically for its upcoming 
2024 and 2023 lease sales and long-term planning?
    How is this different from how BLM has historically 
factored in downstream emissions?
    Mr. Nedd. Yes, clearly there have been a number of court 
cases that have helped to shape our thinking. So, again, 
looking very thoroughly on a project-by-project basis, ensuring 
we understand the impact, and then carefully working to put 
measures in place to minimize those impacts.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And when would the oil and gas leases 
have come on-line in the Arctic Refuge, had the Biden 
administration not recently canceled them?
    Mr. Nedd. I am sorry, Congresswoman, what was the question?
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Oh, the oil and gas leases in the Arctic 
Refuge that the Biden administration just recently canceled, if 
the Biden administration had not canceled them, when would they 
have otherwise come on-line?
    Mr. Nedd. Oh, Congresswoman, they would have taken many, 
many years. The Arctic is a very complex place to develop, and 
it would have taken many, many years.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes, and I think it is an important 
point to raise because we have heard arguments from folks on 
the other side of the aisle and in the oil and gas industry 
that the Biden-Harris Administration's decisions in the Arctic 
Refuge and the Western Arctic will increase prices at the pump 
for many Americans. But just as you said, these leases wouldn't 
have even come on-line for many, many years from now, correct?
    Mr. Nedd. That is correct.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And even if all goes according to 
company plan and those companies are interested in even 
developing in the area, which was questionable already in the 
Arctic Refuge, it would take a better part of a decade to 
produce oil and gas on approved projects in the North Slope.
    And according to project documents, the Willow Oil Project 
in the Western Arctic, which has already been approved, will 
not produce payable quantities of oil for at least another 6 
years.
    Moreover, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Study for 
the Arctic Refuge Oil Leasing Program indicates that the 
earliest that the oil production could come on-line is 2032, 
and that is largely due to the remoteness of the coastal plain 
and the associated lack of prior exploration and 
infrastructure.
    So, Mr. Nedd, what then would you tell some of my 
colleagues here and their industry allies who say that the 
Administration's recent decisions are somehow going to affect 
gas prices now?
    Mr. Nedd. I would say gas prices are primarily affected by 
industry and a number of factors. Those factors depend, again, 
on where energy will be developed, when it will come on-line. 
Those factors are beyond the Bureau of Land Management's 
control.
    And by the way, the Federal lands produce a small amount, 
14 percent in oil and about 8 percent in gas, that contributes 
to the nation's energy need.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And what do you make of this argument 
that we can simply drill our way to lower gas prices, that we 
can just drill, and drill, and extract, and extract on Federal 
and public lands, and somehow that is going to lower our fossil 
fuel prices?
    Mr. Nedd. The Administration has been clear that, as we 
transition to a clean energy economy, we have to look at 
multiple resources, both renewable and non-renewable. And we 
cannot continue to depend on one source of energy. So, I think 
the Administration has been clear about looking for those 
options, or multiple sources.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. All right, thank you very much.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    I think my friend and colleague from New York just made a 
perfect argument for permitting reform.
    Mr. Curtis from Utah, you are up for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Deputy Director Nedd, great to have you here. Whenever I 
meet somebody in DC with BLM, I like to call out my local BLM 
folks and let you know how good they are, how in tune they are 
with the local needs. My district is unique. In the rural part 
of my district, which is the vast majority of my district, 90 
percent of all land is federally owned. BLM is about half of 
that. So, you can imagine it is a significant impact in my 
district.
    I would like to just noodle a little bit on your comment 
that at BLM you are trying to, so you can help me say exactly 
how they said this, you are trying to reduce emissions, and you 
are trying to make decisions that reduce emissions. Did I catch 
that correctly?
    Mr. Nedd. Yes, I think that is fair.
    Mr. Curtis. I am curious how you decide that, who decides 
that, and what is the criteria for whether or not a use of your 
land reduces emissions?
    Mr. Nedd. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I think 
it is a combination of factors.
    Normally, when we are leading up to a lease, we are looking 
at the impact, again, the cumulative impact. We are trying to 
put processes or terms in place to help manage that. Once we 
have issued a lease, it is the operator who helps with that by 
beginning with a waste minimization plan as they begin to 
develop.
    Mr. Curtis. OK. For instance, if it is a wind project that 
you are looking at, you mentioned downstream. How far upstream 
do you go into the creation of carbon for those windmills? Is 
that part of the consideration?
    Mr. Nedd. With a wind project it is part of the 
consideration. In terms of the specific, it would depend on the 
project. It depends where it is at and what is developed and 
undeveloped. Yes.
    Mr. Curtis. Let's turn to fossil fuels for a minute. I 
often hear something that I don't think is scientifically 
correct, and that is that fossil fuels cause climate change. My 
understanding of the science is that emissions cause climate 
change, and not fossil fuels. Is that something you can wrap 
your arms around?
    Mr. Nedd. Congressman, what I will say is there are many 
factors that are impacting climate change. I am not a 
scientist, I am no expert in it. So, I will leave it to the 
scientists to determine that.
    Mr. Curtis. That sounds like a pretty good political 
answer.
    Let me just set forward that I think this overall branding 
of fossil fuels doesn't follow the science. The science is that 
it is the emissions. As you know, fossil fuels, depending on 
the type and how they are used, have varying amounts of 
emissions from them. I have personally seen a natural gas plant 
with zero emissions. It is a closed loop.
    So, I am curious, as you evaluate fossil fuels, how are you 
determining the emissions based upon the fossil fuels' impact 
on climate change?
    Mr. Nedd. Congressman, the good thing is there is a lot of 
data available on usage and on the impacts. So, our analysts, 
they are looking at that information to determine the size of 
the projects and how it will impact----
    Mr. Curtis. OK, but how do they take into consideration, 
for instance, let's go to natural gas, if that natural gas is 
being used to replace Russian natural gas. We are producing it 
40 percent cleaner, so there would be a dramatic reduction of 
greenhouse gas emissions with the use of that natural gas. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Nedd. Let me say----
    Mr. Curtis. Well, let me not ask you, because I know you 
are going to give me the political answer. But is that factor 
taken into consideration, that you could actually reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions with that natural gas?
    Let me start out by stating that the United States has 
reduced more greenhouse gas emissions than many of our 
greenhouse-reducing countries combined by the use of natural 
gas. So, are we taking that into consideration when you are 
making these decisions?
    Mr. Nedd. Yes, Congressman, what I will say, we take a 
range of factors into consideration. And this specific you are 
giving me, I am not familiar with it. I haven't done one like 
that, so I cannot speak to that directly. But we do take many 
factors into consideration.
    Mr. Curtis. I hope that that is part of it, because I think 
if we are going to have a thoughtful conversation about 
reducing emissions, we need to look at worldwide emissions, and 
the fact that fossil fuels have actually been used, I know, 
shocker, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world.
    I am out of time, but I would love to have this further 
discussion with you to make sure we are making good decisions. 
I agree that we want to be clean, and we want to reduce 
emissions, but I think sometimes we let our biases get in the 
way of how to best do that.
    Thank you, Chairman. I yield my time.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Next up, Representative 
Lee from Nevada for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Chair Stauber and Ranking Member, for 
having this hearing. I want to thank Mr. Nedd for being here.
    And I want to acknowledge and meet my Republican friends 
halfway in emphasizing that I fully agree that our Federal 
Onshore Oil and Gas Program has been mismanaged. But I also 
want to correct the record. It has been mismanaged for decades, 
and this Administration is, in reality, taking steps that are 
long overdue in fixing this historic mismanagement with the 
proposed BLM oil and gas rule.
    In December 2019, the GAO, at Congress' request, began 
conducting a performance audit of the Federal Onshore Oil and 
Gas Program over the course of the last decade, and they 
released their findings in November 2021. I would like to ask 
any of my Republican colleagues, do you know which state was 
home to more land nominated for oil and gas leasing than any 
other?
    I will answer it for you. My home state of Nevada, by a 
very, very long shot. From 2009 through 2019, more than two-
thirds of the total acreage nominated for onshore oil and gas 
leasing was in my state, home to about 61 million of the 
roughly 87 million acres nominated nationwide. And adding 
insult to injury, only 3.5 million acres, or about 5 percent, 
were ever leased. The bulk of this land instead is left to 
languish unprotected for conservation or unimproved for clean 
energy or outdoor recreation.
    But wait, there is more. Complimenting GAO's investigation 
on this front, the Taxpayers for Common Sense recently did 
their own deep dive into the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas 
Program. And once again, I would like to ask would anyone know 
or be able to guess what percentage of oil and gas leases 
issued in Nevada since the 1950s have ever actually produced 
oil or gas.
    Again, I will help you with that answer. It is 0.3 percent 
since 1953, or 72 out of 22,141 leases issued in the last 70 
years. Not 3 percent, not 30 percent; 0.3 percent producing 
leases. These findings make it painfully clear that Nevadans 
are not getting anywhere close to a good return on investment 
with this program as it exists, nor are the American taxpayers 
who have lost $34 million from outdated and below-market 
leasing terms in Nevada just in the last decade alone.
    Many of my Republican colleagues on this Committee self-
identify as Theodore Roosevelt conservationists. That 
organization, the organization that today bears his name, the 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, has come out 
strongly in favor of BLM's proposed oil and gas rule, 
explaining that the proposal will steer oil and gas development 
toward lands with existing infrastructure or high production 
potential, ensuring taxpayers receive a fair share of return on 
that development while reducing conflict between energy 
development and our sporting traditions.
    My bill, the End Speculative Oil and Gas Leasing Act, would 
go even further and give this energy and taxpayer-friendly 
approach the force of law.
    Deputy Director Nedd, three very quick questions. How many 
bids did BLM receive for your most recent oil and gas lease 
sale in Nevada this July?
    Mr. Nedd. Congresswoman, it is my understanding zero.
    Ms. Lee. Correct. Did this lease sale nonetheless require 
your already-overburdened and understaffed agency to devote 
taxpayer resources and staff time to prepare for it?
    Mr. Nedd. Yes, it did.
    Ms. Lee. And I am going to close with a question I have, 
unfortunately, had to ask more than once this Congress: Is it 
fair to say that America's taxpayers and public lands both 
stand to benefit from BLM rulemaking and bipartisan policy-
making that shifts focus away from speculative and unproductive 
leasing in places like my home state of Nevada and toward non-
sensitive places with a high likelihood of actually finding and 
harnessing significant energy resources?
    Mr. Nedd. That is the intent of the rule, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
the Full Committee Chair, Mr. Westerman.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber. Thank you for 
holding this hearing.
    Mr. Nedd, good morning. Good to see you.
    And I didn't know there was so much oil and gas exploration 
in Nevada. I do know there is a lot of mineral exploration, and 
it is hard to get a permit to do mining there, as well. And 
Nevada is obviously blessed with a lot of mineral resources 
that would be critical to developing any kind of green 
infrastructure, unless we wanted to continue sending money to 
communist China, who is commanding the production of minerals 
and elements around the world.
    But I have more of a procedural question, Mr. Nedd. Do you 
plan to follow the changes made to NEPA in the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act?
    Mr. Nedd. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Westerman. So, what is the Bureau doing to ensure that 
EISs are approved in 2 years and EAs are approved in 1 year?
    Mr. Nedd. As we prepare those documents, we certainly 
intend to follow the law, and looking to see how we can add 
adequate resources and take the appropriate steps.
    Mr. Westerman. Do you have a timeline? Do you have EAs and 
EISs that are over the 2-year mark that you are working to get 
them approved immediately?
    Mr. Nedd. Congressman, I don't have a list with me here. 
But again, looking at those EISs and those EAs----
    Mr. Westerman. Could you just give me a couple of examples? 
Maybe not a list, but tell me a couple of examples of 
languishing permits that you are working on to make sure they 
are approved as soon as possible.
    Mr. Nedd. Well, again, there are a number of them in the 
hopper right now.
    Mr. Westerman. Can you list one of them?
    Mr. Nedd. We have the Rock Spring EIS that has been going 
on way before this legislation was passed. It is out in draft, 
and we are working to move that as expeditiously as we can.
    Mr. Westerman. I was in New York City yesterday dealing 
with the Park Service, and they want to build a migrant camp on 
national park land. And they basically said they are waiving 
NEPA, don't need NEPA to build the migrant center. So, it is 
amazing to me how, when there is one objective, NEPA is really 
important; when there is another objective, it is really not 
that big of an issue.
    But 2 weeks ago, the Department revoked seven leases in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which will push back the 
production in ANWR. So, I guess you are speaking on behalf of 
the Administration. Would you rather us develop oil and gas in 
ANWR, or overseas in countries like Saudi Arabia or Russia, or 
just not develop it at all?
    Mr. Nedd. I believe the Administration position is to 
transition to a clean energy economy and look at both renewable 
and non-renewable sources.
    Mr. Westerman. Can you tell me how much the consumption of 
oil, and gas, and coal has decreased globally under this 
Administration?
    Mr. Nedd. I cannot speak to the global number, Congressman, 
and we will be glad to get back with you.
    Mr. Westerman. Can you tell me how much U.S. coal, oil, and 
gas has decreased under this Administration?
    Mr. Nedd. Well, I don't know if it is, when we said 
decreased, what I will say is it is less than 2 percent. I 
think, when we look at some of the numbers, we are producing 
about 8.8 percent of gas from the Federal land, and about 14 
percent in oil. And I don't have those numbers in my head from 
previous years.
    Mr. Westerman. One number that I saw just recently was that 
globally there was a new record set for the consumption of 
coal: 10.4 terawatt hours of electricity were produced from 
coal, globally.
    So, the point I am making is, as much as this 
Administration pushes back, as much as the agencies push back 
and fail to help U.S. producers produce the energy here, it is 
doing absolutely nothing to slow down production and 
consumption around the world. It is just shifting it to areas 
that do it less safe, less clean, and with not near as much 
oversight and regulation as we have here in the United States.
    The BLM's recent onshore oil and gas proposed rule would 
significantly change bonding for oil and gas on Federal lands. 
However, according to your own statistics, there are only 37 
orphaned wells on BLM lands, and the BLM has only called in 
bonds on 40 wells over the last decade. The data seems to show 
that BLM is doing a good job preventing orphaned wells 
currently. So, why is the Department proposing such a radical 
change that will be devastating for small businesses?
    Mr. Nedd. Congressman, what I can say is, the GAO has done 
a number of reports that clearly show that the BLM's bonding, 
or the nation's bonding program, was a risk to the American 
taxpayer. And they strongly suggested that we look at how to up 
those bonds so that when we do have an orphan well, the 
taxpayer does not get left holding the bag.
    So, we are looking at those bonds that have not been 
adjusted for years and adjusted for inflation. We are proposing 
in the rule, and this is just a proposed rule right now, to 
raise those bonds so the American taxpayer doesn't have to pay 
for those.
    Mr. Westerman. Do you think 37 orphaned wells across the 
BLM is a dramatic number?
    Mr. Nedd. Again, 37 orphan wells that have thousands of 
idle wells, and the BLM has been working proactively to ensure 
that idle wells don't become orphan wells, but when they do, 
ensuring there are bonds so the American taxpayer doesn't have 
to pay that bill.
    Mr. Westerman. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will now recognize 
Representative Tiffany from the great state of Wisconsin.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Representative of Nevada, I think, brings up a really 
good example in regards to leases. They should be spread out 
through more of the country. You shouldn't bear all of the 
burden. I think there are more of the Western states where we 
have the dominance of the Federal land that we should be 
leasing there also. I think you bring up a really good point, 
and I hope that happens with the Bureau of Land Management.
    Representative Curtis asked about emissions. Are emissions 
driving climate change?
    Mr. Nedd. Congressman, I will say emissions are helping to 
impact. As I sit here today, I cannot speak to what is driving 
it.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, you said that you are not a scientist, 
and you don't know. But that is what the Administration is 
doing, is they are using this rationale of climate change, or 
the green fantasy, to try to drive their policy decisions. Do 
you agree that emissions from climate change are what is 
actually causing the climate to change?
    Mr. Nedd. What I agree with is that emissions are having a 
significant impact on the climate change. And with the factors 
that goes along, it is a big impact.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, if we are reducing the amount of emissions 
compared to other countries, shouldn't we be producing these 
energy products right in our country?
    Mr. Nedd. I think what I will speak for here is trying to 
transition to that clean energy economy, and ensuring we look 
at both renewable and non-renewable, and using our public lands 
to help that.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are you prepared to lead the charge in issuing 
more mining permits to be able to produce the gold, silver, and 
all the other minerals that are needed for what they call the 
``clean energy economy,'' which is based on wind and solar? Are 
you prepared to issue a lot more mining permits on Federal 
lands?
    Mr. Nedd. I believe we are prepared to issue permits that 
are on the lands that is appropriate for that development, 
recognizing, again, the multiple use of the land and the 
impacts from the various resources, or the impacts of the 
various resources.
    Mr. Tiffany. The key term there, Mr. Chairman, was 
``appropriate.'' If you remember, we had the former head of the 
U.S. Forest Service here a number of months ago, and we asked 
in regards to a mine in northern Minnesota, ``OK, where is an 
appropriate place to mine in America?''
    ``Well, not where water is.''
    ``Well, OK. How about Resolution out in Arizona? Not much 
water out in Arizona.''
    ``Well, I don't know if that is a good place, either.''
    Whatever place that is suggested, there is always a 
problem, and you can't build a mine there. That is where the 
term ``appropriate'' comes, like we just heard from this 
gentleman.
    You said, in regards to withdrawing the land up in Alaska, 
you said that the people up there that have a subsistence 
living, that they would be affected. I think most of the 
American people, including those in northern Alaska, seek more 
than subsistence.
    If the tribal members in northern Alaska would say to you 
that you did not consult them, if we hear testimony to that 
effect, would you reconsider that decision of the withdrawal in 
Alaska if consultation did not happen as they expected?
    Mr. Nedd. What I will say, the Secretary made a decision to 
cancel those leases, and her decision is part of looking at a 
supplemental to that analysis to determine how to move forward.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, you accept that the Bureau of Land 
Management, the U.S. Government, did not consult properly with 
these tribal people.
    Mr. Nedd. What I accept is, and it is my understanding, 
that consultation took place. And it is my understanding that, 
again, after the Secretary looked at the factors of the legal 
deficiency, she made a decision.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is there a definition of fair return?
    Mr. Nedd. I am quite sure there is.
    Mr. Tiffany. Could you provide that definition of fair 
return that the Bureau of Land Management uses?
    Mr. Nedd. We will get that to you, Congressman, thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, what we have been hearing consistently, 
all the costs, but they never mention the benefits of producing 
gas and oil to the American people that have been enormous over 
the last 150 to 200 years. But now we have $4 a gallon gasoline 
once again, where I live in northern Wisconsin. We haven't had 
it for a couple of years. Once again, we have that. The 
American people have a record amount of credit card debt. And 
we are talking about only reducing production by 14 percent, 
which will drive those costs even higher.
    These are misguided actions, Mr. Chairman, by this 
Administration, and it is time to change course. And it is 
evident that this Administration is not going to do it. The 
American people have a big decision before them in 2024.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. And to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the consultation appeared to be with the native 
community that supported this Administration's philosophy of 
anti-development.
    And the next gentleman will be Representative Lamborn for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for having this 
hearing. Thank you to the witness for being here.
    As a Coloradan, I am really concerned about something that 
has just happened with BLM. Last month, BLM issued two 
supplemental environmental impact statements for two resource 
management plans that would withdraw 1.6 million acres of 
Federal land in Colorado from energy production.
    The protection of the sage grouse is the supposed rationale 
behind this drastic action, but this species has experienced a 
24 percent increase in the Colorado population since 2019, just 
in the last 4 years.
    And with other species, listen to this, Colorado's elk herd 
is the largest in the nation, has increased from 40,000 in the 
early 1900s to 300,000 today. Mule deer have increased by 
40,000 since just 2018, 5 years ago. And our population of 
antelope has gone from 5,000 in the 1940s to 85,000 today.
    And I bring up these different species in addition to the 
sage grouse, because all of this has been done with oil and gas 
production nearby. There is no dichotomy. You can have both.
    Colorado is the fourth-largest producer of oil in the 
country, and yet still finds a way to responsibly ensure a 
robust and healthy ecosystem. So, Mr. Nedd, why does the BLM 
feel it is appropriate to hurt Americans and my own state of 
Colorado with this withdrawal, when we are seeing positive 
benefits in wildlife in every sector?
    Mr. Nedd. Yes, Congressman, I don't believe the Bureau of 
Land Management intent is to hurt members or hurt the 
community. The intent is to look at the resources and find a 
way, as we transition to the clean energy economy, to develop 
these resources.
    So, looking at the Colorado plan is to update the analysis 
and ensure that we are thoughtful in where and how we develop.
    Mr. Lamborn. I understand that this Administration has an 
anti-fossil fuel agenda, but this decision seems to me to be 
based on an excuse. The rationale is sage grouse are being 
hurt, and we have to protect the sage grouse, and that is just 
a fig leaf. That is just a poor excuse to make this action 
because the population has been going up for sage grouse. And 
these other species are thriving, as well.
    So, looking back to 2015, Mr. Nedd, what changes have taken 
place when the original resources management plans were 
initiated, compared to today?
    Other than that we have a new White House with a new agenda 
against fossil fuels, what has changed on the ground?
    Mr. Nedd. Clearly, it is my understanding that we have been 
able to collect data from many sources that shows the analysis 
that was done then is not as current as it can be to address 
the impacts today. And those impacts, I cannot speak 
specifically to what is going on in that district office, but I 
am quite sure our State Director there or field would be able 
to provide some more specifics.
    Mr. Lamborn. With oil and gas production there is a 
significant amount of money that goes into local communities. 
Besides the immediate jobs and salaries, there are oil and gas 
royalties that fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, local 
education programs, roads, and much more.
    So, what analysis did BLM do not on the species that 
supposedly is going to be negatively impacted, which I think is 
just an excuse and is not valid, but what analysis was done on 
the effect on communities of people? Because the people are 
going to have revenue shortfalls that will hurt the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, and jobs, and other things like that.
    What analysis was done on how the people will be affected?
    Mr. Nedd. As land use plans, or EISs, any analysis, we take 
into account the full impact. And I cannot speak specifically 
to those two plans, what the analysis was, but I am quite sure 
it was part of the analysis, and we will be glad to provide 
additional information.
    And again, those plans are out as draft, so we are taking 
comments and getting an input.
    Mr. Lamborn. Well, could you please supply that to the 
Committee? I would make that request because I see a negative 
here with a dubious positive over here, and it just seems like 
there is an agenda that is driving this that is not being 
admitted to, that is not being honestly admitted to.
    Mr. Nedd, you say in your testimony that the BLM plans to 
``avoid leasing in areas with sensitive cultural, wildlife, and 
recreation resources.'' This is so open-ended, you could drive 
any agenda through it. Does this mean that you will not be 
leasing in areas that have the presence of any endangered 
species, even if that species happens to be doing better than 
it was earlier, like the sage grouse?
    Mr. Nedd. Yes. We have a requirement by law to put certain 
terms and conditions in place for endangered species. So, what 
the agency is looking at with a swath of land or a parcel, is 
how best to develop, looking for the areas that most likely can 
be developed, lower conflict, and ensuring, again, that we are 
protecting what the law tells us to. And under the Endangered 
Species Act, we have that requirement.
    Mr. Lamborn. Well, how does that differ from what was the 
status quo ante? In other words, before the Biden 
administration came into office, this wasn't the issue that it 
is now. What has changed, and what will change with this 
language that you are saying, ``avoiding leasing in areas with 
sensitive cultural, wildlife, and recreation resources,'' which 
probably any place in the country would have all or some of 
those resources. What is BLM going to do differently now?
    Mr. Nedd. I think the Bureau, as it learns, as it gathers 
data, which in 2015 to now it gathers more data, it is looking 
to see what is the impact.
    And clearly, Congressman, from where you sit, you have 
articulated how the species are doing much better. We are 
hoping, and through our analysis, we will look to see what are 
those impacts, and then put conditions in place to ensure we 
are following, again, if it is an endangered species, the 
Endangered Species Act, and protecting those species.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK. Well, thank you for your answers. I am 
still not satisfied with what the BLM is doing. I would love to 
see them reverse this 1.6 million-acre withdrawal of Federal 
land in Colorado from energy production, and that should be 
what actually takes place. Thank you for being here.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. We will now recognize 
Representative Hageman from Wyoming, who was waived on to the 
Committee.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Deputy Director Nedd, we have heard on a number of 
occasions that the BLM is not issuing applications for permits 
to drill for leases that are involved in litigation brought on 
by special interest groups. This neglect issue, APDs, is 
happening even though the courts have not issued injunctions 
ordering the BLM to stop issuing the APDs. In other words, the 
BLM is breaking the law.
    Deputy Director, in May of this year, the governor of the 
state of Wyoming sent a letter to Tracy Stone-Manning, the 
Director of Bureau of Land Management, addressing this specific 
issue.
    And I request unanimous consent to submit the Governor's 
letter for the record.
    Mr. Stauber. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                   OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF WYOMING

                           Cheyenne, Wyoming

                                                   May 30, 2023    

Tracy Stone-Manning, Director
Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20006

    Director Stone-Manning:

    As we briefly discussed during my visit on February 8th, it appears 
that in Wyoming, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has completely 
halted approvals of oil and gas drilling permits and routine 
authorizations on any acreage involved in environmental lawsuits, even 
if not judicially ordered to do so. This unnecessary self-imposed 
moratorium is extremely concerning, highly unusual and has negative 
cumulative impacts for State revenue and for the economic health of the 
state.
    Specifically, this relates to a number of cases brought by non-
governmental organizations against the BLM. For example, the BLM 
entered into stipulated settlement agreements to perform additional 
environmental analysis for leasing decisions challenged in WildEarth 
Guardians v. Jewell (16-cv-1724-RC (D.D.C.)), WildEarth Guardians v. 
Bernhardt (20-cv-56-RC (D.D.C.)), and WildEarth Guardians v. Haaland 
(21-cv-175-RC (D.D.C.)). But those settlement agreements anticipated 
that the BLM would approve drilling permits during the pendency of its 
remedial environmental reviews. That has not occurred. BLM has also not 
issued any approvals associated with challenged leases in Western 
Watersheds Project v. Zinke (18-cv-187-REB (D. Idaho)), Montana 
Wildlife Federation v. Zinke (18-cv-69-BMM (D. Mont.)), despite the 
fact that those respective courts have not yet reached the merits in 
the advanced stages of those cases. Collectively, these lawsuits 
challenge nineteen lease sales in Wyoming held between 2015 and 2020, 
with some lease sales subject to multiple suits. Of the 19 challenged 
sales, only seven are subject to a court order preventing the BLM from 
approving development.
    This leaves twelve remaining sales of which the BLM is not subject 
to any injunction, court ordered cancellation, or suspension from 
approving drilling permits. However, the BLM is effectively self-
enjoining itself from approving development on any of the remaining 
leases. Wyoming is left with 2,150,844 acres of oil and gas leases 
being completely blocked from development without any legal reasoning 
or official justification provided.
    To add to the overall concern, to date the State BLM has not issued 
any of the leases purchased in the 2020 4th quarter sale. Such a delay 
is certainly unprecedented and unwarranted. This sale involved 165,753 
acres with a total bonus bid of $6,709,811 resulting in $3.28M to 
Wyoming. Certainly, a notable sale. However, even though these leases 
are not under litigation, the leases have not been issued. I understand 
that the BLM has said that they have received protests that are similar 
to protests received in the litigated sales. Even so, the general 
practice has been to issue leases and subsequent APDs and sundries, 
until a court directs otherwise. These are leases that are currently 
able to be developed, but due to BLM inaction, are not.
    I cannot overstate how important this matter is to our state, 
industries, economy, and communities. I request that the BLM resume its 
statutory obligations and take action on the wrongfully stalled lease 
sale acreage in Wyoming. Attempting to avoid any unknown potential 
court action by refusing to act is not a solution. The oil and gas 
industry, along with the State, is left in the dark by the BLM's lack 
of communication. If this is an internal policy, I ask that it be made 
known to the public. The BLM must be willing to defend its policies and 
decisions before the people it serves.
    A timely response to my concerns would be greatly appreciated. 
Please contact Nolan Rap in my office if you have any questions.

            Sincerely,

                                               Mark Gordon,
                                                           Governor

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Hageman. According to the first paragraph of this 
letter, the Governor stated, ``As we briefly discussed during 
my visit on February 8, it appears that in Wyoming the BLM has 
completely halted approvals of oil and gas drilling permits and 
routine authorizations on any acreage involved in environmental 
lawsuits, even if not judicially ordered to do so. This 
unnecessary, self-imposed moratorium is extremely concerning, 
highly unusual, and has negative cumulative impacts for state 
revenue and for the economic health of this state and, I would 
add, for this country.''
    Now, it seems to me that this policy that the BLM has 
adopted would incentivize every environmental group out there 
to file a lawsuit challenging every single oil and gas permit 
approval, regardless of merit, to hold up the project 
indefinitely. Why in the world would the BLM want to 
incentivize even more frivolous lawsuits against energy 
development in this country?
    Mr. Nedd. Congresswoman, I don't believe our actions are to 
incentivize anyone to file a lawsuit. However----
    Ms. Hageman. But the fact is your actions do. So, what I 
want to know is why is it BLM policy to incentivize additional 
frivolous lawsuits against energy development in the United 
States?
    Mr. Nedd. Again, that is not our policy, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. So, Deputy Director Nedd, would you commit 
to following the law by doing your job and issuing APDs for 
leases involved in litigation?
    Mr. Nedd. I will commit to following the law by issuing 
APDs.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you very much. Are you aware that the 
average barrel of non-U.S.-produced oil is produced in a 
country that scores significantly lower than the United States, 
based on an environmental performance index by Yale 
University's Institute of Energy Research? Were you aware of 
that?
    Mr. Nedd. I am not aware of that Yale study, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Does it surprise you?
    Mr. Nedd. I am not aware of this study, so I cannot comment 
on it.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Why would this Administration insist on 
exporting our economy and our jobs to other nations to do 
something that we can do better?
    Mr. Nedd. Again, the Administration approach is how to 
transition to a clean energy economy.
    Ms. Hageman. I would like you to answer my question. Why 
are you exporting our economy and our jobs to countries to do 
things that we can do better?
    Mr. Nedd. Congresswoman, you asked a question. I was 
attempting to give you an answer. Again----
    Ms. Hageman. I don't think you are answering my question. 
You are talking about transition. You are not addressing the 
question of why would we export jobs to other countries to do 
things that we can do better.
    Mr. Nedd. Again, as we transition to a new energy economy, 
we are looking how to develop the resources, both renewable and 
non-renewable, Congresswoman. I am not aware of exporting jobs.
    Ms. Hageman. Unreliable, I think, is a better word to use.
    You recently issued the Rock Springs RMP, and this, I 
think, is an example of things to come. And every state that 
has Federal lands within its borders, specifically BLM lands, 
should recognize what now the intent of the BLM is. This Rock 
Springs RMP will exclude, prohibit, and bar all access, 
management, and use of vast swaths, vast swaths of Federal land 
throughout the United States. You exclude not only oil and gas 
development, but livestock grazing and recreation.
    And is it your intent to prohibit American citizens from 
accessing their lands?
    Mr. Nedd. Congresswoman, our intent is to use the land in a 
way that allows all Americans, both present and future 
generations, to enjoy and benefit from it.
    Ms. Hageman. Why is it that every policy this 
Administration pursues is intended to create energy poverty?
    Mr. Nedd. I just can't agree with that premise, so I cannot 
answer to that.
    Ms. Hageman. How well do third-world countries do in terms 
of protecting the environment?
    Mr. Nedd. Congresswoman, I am not familiar with all----
    Ms. Hageman. Well, let's use the Congo as an example. Do 
those mining activities in the Congo comport with our mining 
laws, NEPA, ESA, and that sort of thing?
    Mr. Nedd. I am not familiar with the Congo's laws and 
rules.
    Ms. Hageman. You are not familiar with the fact that the 
vast majority of our cobalt comes from countries such as the 
Congo? You are not aware of that?
    Mr. Nedd. Congresswoman, you asked me if I am aware of the 
law violating it, and I am not familiar with the law.
    Ms. Hageman. Do you have any idea of whether Congo complies 
with child labor laws?
    Mr. Nedd. Again, you are asking me a question----
    Ms. Hageman. Do you know whether the Congo complies with 
child labor laws? The answer is yes or no.
    Mr. Nedd. I have not studied the Congo, so I cannot give 
you an answer.
    Ms. Hageman. Have you seen the videos of the little 
children out mining in the Congo to mine for cobalt so that we 
can have what you refer to as renewables?
    Mr. Nedd. I don't know what video you are speaking about, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. You haven't seen the videos.
    Mr. Nedd. I don't know what video you are speaking about, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Do you think it is appropriate to buy 
cobalt from countries that use child labor to produce it?
    Mr. Nedd. Again, I can speak for what the Bureau of Land 
Management----
    Ms. Hageman. I want to know. I want to know the position. 
This is the question: Do you believe it is appropriate for us 
to buy cobalt from countries that use child labor to produce 
it? It is a yes-or-no answer.
    Mr. Nedd. It is not a yes or no for me, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. It is a yes-or-no answer.
    Mr. Nedd. It is not a yes or no for me, Congresswoman. I am 
an official of the Bureau of Land Management, and I can speak 
to the Bureau of Land Management. I am not an expert on Congo, 
nor am I an expert on child labor or labor laws.
    Ms. Hageman. Is it the BLM's policy to buy cobalt from 
countries that use child labor to produce it?
    Mr. Nedd. The BLM does not procure cobalt.
    Ms. Hageman. But the companies that you are advocating for 
do.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. We will now recognize 
Representative Huffman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a bit of 
an ideological journey when we talk about oil and gas and 
mineral extraction here in this Committee.
    So, let me just offer you, Mr. Nedd, do you need any more 
time to clarify anything in response to the pretty aggressive 
questioning you were just subjected to?
    Mr. Nedd. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. As an official of 
the Bureau of Land Management, my job is to ensure that we 
follow the rules, to follow the law, to be safe, to be legal, 
to be ethical. And I am in no way, the Bureau of Land 
Management has policies about buying material from anyone that 
violates child labor law.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. I want to ask you about the Arctic 
Refuge. And, of course, to me, it was very good news last week 
when the Biden administration announced it would cancel the 
seven remaining leases in the Refuge's coastal plain. I want to 
commend you for that. The Trump administration was trying to 
jam that through on a deeply flawed environmental review 
process. And now we have a chance to be more thoughtful and to 
comply with the law as we move forward.
    This prospect of drilling in the coastal plain of the 
Arctic Refuge is not very attractive to most folks in the oil 
and gas industry, wouldn't you agree?
    Mr. Nedd. It is complex. It is complex, and it is harder 
than the Lower 48.
    Mr. Huffman. I am referring to the fact that Chevron and 
Hilcorp paid millions of dollars to get out of leases on the 
corporation lands within the coastal plain. Two lessees 
voluntarily relinquished their leases. It shows that even Big 
Oil knows that it is not very profitable to drill there. 
Wouldn't you agree?
    Mr. Nedd. I said I realize it is very complex and it is 
challenging.
    Mr. Huffman. OK. We can certainly agree it is complex and 
challenging, but it is also not very profitable for Big Oil.
    Can you speak to some of the complications, barriers, and 
risks to drilling in the Refuge?
    Mr. Nedd. Again, the Arctic Refuge, given the sensitivity 
of the land, it is really building roads when the ice in the 
period where you can travel over there, it is moving massive 
equipment in that cannot be in the Lower 48. And then it is an 
area that is used for subsistence support for the communities, 
so again, protecting those areas, protecting and ensuring that 
resources are not damaged in a way that is non-recoverable.
    Mr. Huffman. And when the Trump administration did have a 
lease sale, there wasn't much interest in this. Would you 
agree?
    I mean, there were just a few bidders. Most of the leases 
went to a state of Alaska-owned corporation that I would say 
has questionable capacity to even move forward on developing 
those leases.
    Mr. Nedd. Yes, I cannot speak to the questionable capacity, 
but I can speak to, yes, it was three, and an entity on behalf 
of Alaska acquired seven of the leases.
    Mr. Huffman. We have a lot of deadbeat leases out there on 
BLM lands, right?
    Mr. Nedd. We do.
    Mr. Huffman. Is it normal to grant a lease to a bidder that 
would seem to lack capacity to even develop that lease? It 
would seem to be a speculative venture maybe to just tie up 
land to benefit some future developer. Is it normal for BLM to 
just rubber-stamp leases under those circumstances?
    Mr. Nedd. We work to issue leases to people who are 
financially and technically capable of developing it. So, both 
financially and technically.
    Mr. Huffman. That should be a factor in determining whether 
someone gets the lease is what I am hearing you say. Correct?
    Mr. Nedd. That is the standard we use.
    Mr. Huffman. Can you tell me a little more about the NPRA 
announcement last week, and some of the specifics about how the 
proposed rule and the NPRA will better protect these important 
special areas that are uniquely vulnerable to climate change, 
and uniquely important for biodiversity and other values?
    Mr. Nedd. Yes. When Congress enacted a petroleum reserve, 
they defined, I think it was, four or five areas that were 
special areas, areas that are used for subsistence primarily, 
or to protect waters or other resources. This rule will help 
put a framework in place to make certain that, as we look at 
those areas, we can take the necessary steps to protect it.
    Currently, without those rules, it is vulnerable. So, the 
intent is to put some rules in place to make certain we follow 
not only the intent of Congress, but to manage those special 
areas in a way that benefits the generations.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank you, Mr. Nedd, and yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Huffman. I do want to clarify 
something.
    Mr. Nedd, my good friend, Mr. Huffman, asked or mentioned 
rubber stamping. In your 18 years at the BLM, have you ever 
``rubber stamped'' any leases?
    Mr. Nedd. We have not. Not in my knowledge.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Nedd. I have no direct knowledge of rubber stamping.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Hunt, you are up for 5 minutes. Thank you for coming.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being 
here, sir. Thank you for your prior service, as well. I really 
appreciate it. Thank you for your time here.
    Oil and gas energy, BLM is kind of a big deal to me. I am 
from Houston, Texas, known as the energy capital of the world. 
The entire energy corridor is in my district. That makes me the 
energy Congressman of the entire world. So, this is why this is 
something that, for me, is very, very important that we get 
right, that we have timely leases, that we have these companies 
that can predict their future, that they can continue to build 
and grow, provide energy not just for us, not just for the 
United States, but also for our allies.
    With that being said, I have two questions for you. On 
November 30, 2022, the Bureau of Land Management proposed an 
updated venting and flaring rule. Are you familiar with that, 
sir?
    Mr. Nedd. I am.
    Mr. Hunt. OK. What is the purpose of establishing this 
greenhouse emission reporting framework for BLM in venting and 
flaring?
    And my question for you is, shouldn't any action for the 
BLM be harmonized with the EPA that already had an existing 
rule?
    Mr. Nedd. We did coordinate and had discussion with the 
EPA. But the rule is really to minimize the waste of resources. 
So, the rule, again, is put in place to ensure as a developer 
develops lands, they are looking to have a minimization plan, 
and they are taking action to mitigate the impacts on the 
environment and the resources.
    Mr. Hunt. I understand that. But I think a lot of companies 
that are in my district that do operate on Federal lands, their 
concern is that what you just described is actually not what is 
happening in real life on the ground.
    What is happening on the ground is this: they have to 
adhere to two completely separate standards. Are you familiar 
with these companies having to adhere to two separate 
standards?
    Mr. Nedd. I know we have worked to coordinate with the EPA 
to ensure that we are not in conflict, and it is my 
understanding we are not. The rule we are putting in place is 
for the resources that Congress told us to manage.
    Mr. Hunt. So, you believe that right now the rules that you 
have set are in conjunction with the EPA entirely, meaning that 
you think that there is actually only one standard, even though 
there are two separate entities that are dictating rules.
    Mr. Nedd. I believe our rule is not in conflict with what 
the EPA is doing, and I believe our rule will allow, again, the 
BLM, as it permits resources, for those to be managed to 
mitigate those impacts from greenhouse gases or others.
    Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir. So, moving forward, just something to 
look at, please, if there is a way that these companies can 
look at just one rule, and I hear what you are saying, I 
understand what you are trying to do. But if there is a way, 
and I am a military guy, so I get this, but if there is a way 
where these companies could say, hey, the EPA has the exact 
same rules, would BLM, and not necessarily even being 
harmonized with, just a simple rule or a simple standard when 
it comes to these greenhouse gases and emissions, I think that 
would be greatly appreciated.
    My next question is, are you familiar with communitization 
agreements?
    Mr. Nedd. What? I am sorry.
    Mr. Hunt. Communitization agreements.
    Mr. Nedd. I am.
    Mr. Hunt. You are? Could you briefly describe what these 
agreements do, and the timeline that you would like to see 
these agreements move through this process?
    Mr. Nedd. Well, first I should say each agreement has its 
own complexity.
    Mr. Hunt. OK.
    Mr. Nedd. So, the timeline would be as expeditiously as we 
can.
    But when you have multiple owners where resources may 
intermingle, we then will get a communitization agreement to be 
formed. And the intent is so the parties can agree on how best 
to develop that without conflict with each other.
    And again, each one stands on its own because the 
complexity could be from simple complexity to major complexity.
    Mr. Hunt. OK, I understand that. I think there has been a 
lot of bureaucracy that we have seen implemented, and I think a 
lot of these companies literally just want to know what the 
standards are going to be moving forward for the future.
    Some of these agreements, in my understanding, there is a 
company that has reported that some of these agreements took 
720 days. Based on your answer, that is probably a very complex 
agreement that took longer than what anybody could have ever 
anticipated. However, I do think that 720 days is still a bit 
egregious.
    Streamline, streamlined standards, expectation management, 
and keeping that for the next 5 to 10 years is, I think, what a 
lot of companies want to see. We could have extremely, 
extraordinarily stringent regulations. In fact, our country has 
the most strict and the most stringent regulations in the 
entire world. I deployed to Saudi Arabia. I have been to Iraq. 
I understand this. It doesn't matter. As long as we have a 
standard that is going to be the same standard moving forward 
so that these companies can predict their workload, and leases, 
and agreements, what needs to be done, is all we are asking.
    Thank you so much for your time.
    I yield back the rest of my time, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    And Mr. Nedd, that is all for Panel I. At the Chair's 
prerogative, we are going to take a 3-minute recess to allow 
the second panel to be seated, and we will get back in action 
in 3 minutes.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Stauber. The Energy and Minerals Subcommittee Committee 
will come out of recess.
    We will now move into our second panel of witnesses to 
provide testimony. I will introduce our second panel.
    Ms. Kathleen Sgamma is the President of the Western Energy 
Alliance based out of Denver, Colorado.
    Ms. Sgamma, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN SGAMMA, PRESIDENT, WESTERN ENERGY 
                   ALLIANCE, DENVER, COLORADO

    Ms. Sgamma. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 
testify today.
    I just want to start off by correcting something that the 
Ranking Member said in her opening statement. She claimed that 
oil and gas production on Federal lands is responsible for 
about a quarter million of greenhouse gas emissions. That is a 
complete falsehood. That is based on a misreading of a USGS 
study of greenhouse gas emissions. And if you actually look at 
the numbers, production on Federal lands and waters accounts 
for 0.6 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, not nearly a 
quarter. So, even the Interior Department stopped using that 
number after I simply pointed out the numbers from the USGS 
report.
    Anyway, I am struck by the Administration moving forward 
with this whole-of-government approach against the oil and 
natural gas industry. The regulation coming at our industry is 
astounding, just one of those rules we are really going to 
focus on today. And it is not just on my industry, but the 
financial industry, as well, meant to defund the oil and gas 
industry, and it is done in the name of climate change, 
attempting to stop the energy sources of oil, gas, and coal 
that provide 80 percent of Americans' energy.
    And to what end? We have an Administration doing that in 
the name of climate change, but then running to Saudi Arabia 
and, before the invasion, to Russia, asking for them to 
increase their production. And it was pointed out earlier how 
our intensity level is so much lower in the United States than 
in these other countries.
    So, once again, we are in a cycle of high gasoline prices, 
and yet the President continues to announce a plan to curtail 
yet more American production. And, of course, when we have less 
American production, we have higher prices and we have to 
import more, the most recent being, of course, the cancellation 
of leases in Alaska.
    The President has let OPEC set energy prices instead of 
what my industry did just a few short years ago when we made 
OPEC irrelevant by taking up any slack in U.S. demand, or 
global demand, not just U.S. demand. We could be producing 
between 2 and 3 million more barrels a day, but for this whole-
of-government approach to stopping American oil and gas.
    And there are those who say that we must make these 
sacrifices in the name of climate change. Yet, John Kerry, the 
climate czar, has himself said we could stop all U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions and it would make no difference on 
global climate change. So, to what end are we pursuing these 
policies that require us to go beg Saudi Arabia for more 
production?
    And we also know the ill effects of all these policies. In 
my written testimony, I have a laundry list of, and all 
referenced, of ill effects in California and Germany from 
misguided, so-called green energy policies. So, I refer you to 
those.
    I really urge the Administration not to curtail U.S. oil 
and gas production, but instead work with us. Not only is it 
distasteful to run to Saudi Arabia, who doesn't have our best 
interests at heart, but you can't transform the energy sector 
without working with the energy sector itself. We are part of 
the solution, and we can help as we are reducing our greenhouse 
gas emissions intensity, as we are looking at alternatives.
    But in the meantime, I urge Congress and this Committee to 
really delve into this whole-of-government approach and start 
to demand information from the Administration. I think there is 
a lot of collusion with environmental groups in writing these 
policies, and I think some of that needs to be aired publicly.
    When it comes to the BLM leasing rule, we know that BLM is 
focusing on increasing bonding limits twentyfold, twentyfold. 
It would upend the bonding market. And to what end?
    There are 37 orphan wells on BLM lands, down from 296 in 
2019. So, BLM, using the authority it already has to go after 
bad actors and to adjust bonding amounts as necessary, has 
reduced orphan wells to basically a non-problem. So, those last 
few remaining orphan wells, the industry provides $55 for every 
dollar BLM spends on the oil and gas program. We are providing 
plenty of funds for that, and most of those orphan wells BLM is 
pursuing responsible companies for those because the chain of 
custody on a well extends beyond the original driller of that 
well.
    My time has expired. I appreciate your attention.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sgamma follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Kathleen Sgamma, President,
                        Western Energy Alliance
    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Committee 
Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. The 
Administration is moving forward with a whole-of-government approach to 
stopping American oil and natural gas. The level of regulation coming 
at my industry is astounding, with practically every single agency, not 
just oil and natural gas regulators, getting into the action in the 
name of climate change. Financial regulators, transportation, labor, 
every agency is attempting to prevent American production of the oil, 
natural gas, and coal that provides 80% of the energy to power our 
economy and enable the healthy, safe, and environmentally protective 
modern lifestyle that Americans enjoy.
    And to what end? We have an administration that has consistently 
begged Saudi Arabia and before the invasion, Russia, to increase their 
oil production to relieve high prices. We are once again in a cycle of 
higher gasoline prices, yet the president continues to announce plans 
to curtail yet more American oil production, the most recent being the 
cancelation of leases in Alaska and the locking away of 13 million 
acres in the Alaskan Petroleum Reserve even though Congress mandated 
leasing as recently as 2017. The president has let OPEC raise energy 
prices by blocking my industry from doing what we did just a few short 
years ago in making OPEC irrelevant. We could be producing between two 
and three million more barrels of oil per day if the president wasn't 
blocking us at every step, more than enough to cover the production 
declines of OPEC and Russia and keep prices low for consumers the world 
over.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Cost of Biden's War on Oil and Gas: Nearly $100 Billion a 
Year in Lost Output, Committee to Unleash Prosperity, October 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are those who say that we must make these sacrifices in the 
name of climate change. People must not be allowed to drive when they 
want, eat what they want, use air conditioning, or heat their homes. 
But as John Kerry has said several times, we could take all American 
greenhouse gas emissions to zero and it would make no difference.\2\ If 
you run each of the policies of scarcity, energy inflation, and control 
through the models the government relies on, you get negligible 
impact.\3\ The only way to justify any of these policies is by using a 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases that inflates the benefits on paper, 
but not in reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``John Kerry Says U.S., China Could Go to Zero Emissions and 
Still Not Solve Climate Crisis,'' NewsWeek, April 21, 2021.
    \3\ The Unsustainable Costs of President Biden's Climate Agenda, 
Kevin D. Dayaratna, The Heritage Foundation, June 16, 2022. ``Even 
assuming that the Earth's temperatures are highly sensitive to GHG 
emissions, eliminating all U.S. emissions would mitigate global 
temperatures by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We have an administration pursuing these policies even though it is 
well known what the ill-effects are when energy becomes scarce, 
unreliable, and unaffordable. We have seen energy prices skyrocket in 
California as manufacturing has fled the state.\4\ We know Germany is 
much further down the ``energy transition'' path and how that it has 
left that country with the second highest electricity prices in Europe, 
yet also the most vulnerable to Russia.\5\ We know intermittent wind 
and solar energy cannot do it all, that battery backup is cost 
prohibitive and practically nonexistent, and that our grid is becoming 
more susceptible to brown-outs and blackouts.\6\ We know that 
California mandated electric vehicles (EV) by 2035 and then the next 
week asked people not to charge them during the day.\7\ We know that 
Europe has had to back off its EV mandate because it is unrealistic and 
unwise.\8\ We know that people died in Texas during a winter incident 
when the instability of a grid overbuilt on intermittent renewables was 
exposed. Yet this administration is blindly following the same path at 
the federal level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Why Company Headquarters Are Leaving California in 
Unprecedented Numbers, Joseph Vranich and lee E. Ohanian, Hoover 
Institution, September 14, 2022.
    \5\ Germany's Energiewende: A Disaster in the Making, Fritz 
Vahrenholt, 2017.
    \6\ 2023 ERO Reliability Risk Priorities Report, North American 
Electric Reliability Corp., August 17, 2023; ``FERC commissioners tell 
senators of major grid reliability challenges, with some blaming 
markets,'' Utility Dive, May 5, 2023.
    \7\ ``California is the first state to make electric cars 
mandatory. Now it's telling owners not to charge them,'' Fortune, 
September 1, 2022.
    \8\ ``Germany rejects EU plan for ban on new fossil-fuel cars from 
2035,'' Reuters, June 21, 2023; ``EU was set to ban internal combustion 
engine cars. Then Germany suddenly changed its mind,'' CNN, March 27, 
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I urge the administration to come to the American oil and natural 
gas industry to solve high energy prices rather than running to Saudi 
Arabia. It is not wise to shut out the industry that provides 70% of 
American energy not just because it is distasteful to turn to countries 
that don't have our best interests at heart, but because you cannot 
transform the energy sector politically without partnering with the 
energy sector itself. Many oil and natural gas companies have spent 
collectively billions on alternative energy research.\9\ Natural gas is 
a major reason the United States has reduced more greenhouse gas 
emissions than any other country, through fuel switching in the 
electricity sector.\10\ We have reduced more carbon dioxide from power 
generation than wind and solar energy combined. Natural gas is 
necessary to back up intermittent renewable energy when the wind 
doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Government policies, as Europe 
is discovering, don't make real energy appear, no matter how many 
billions of dollars are thrown at it. We're all in this together, and I 
urge the administration to work with us, not regulate us out of 
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ ``How the six major oil companies have invested in renewable 
energy projects,'' James Murray, NS Energy, January 2020; ``One of the 
World's Largest Oil Companies is Spending $1 Billion a Year on Green 
Energy Research'' Brad Jones, Futurism, November 3, 2017.
    \10\ Global CO2 Emissions in 2019, International Energy Agency, 
February 2020; U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2021, U.S. 
Energy Information Administration, Figure 7, December 14, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the meantime, I urge Congress to expose this ill-advised whole-
of-government approach. When looking at the magnitude of the regulatory 
changes coming at not just my industry but the financial, 
transportation, and consumer sectors, it is truly mind-blowing. A 
federal government not known for its crack efficiency has suddenly been 
able to pull every single regulatory lever to truly change our economy 
and society. How is that possible? We still don't have large segments 
of the bureaucracy back in the office yet they are able to exert such 
all-encompassing control on practically everything Americans do? I ask 
this Committee and others to demand information from the agencies to 
uncover the sources of these policies. There is likely collusion with 
many environmental groups, foundations, and other climate activists 
that are providing the background for these policies and even writing 
whole sections of regulations. For example, the Rocky Mountain 
Institute (RMI), an advocacy group disguised as an energy analysis 
organization, put out shoddy research on the harm from gas stoves, and 
then the Department of Energy followed that up with conservation 
standards designed to ban them.\11\ That was no coincidence. There are 
likely many examples under the jurisdiction of this Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ ``Natural Gas Report Raising Emissions Concerns Comes Months 
After Strategy Meeting With State Officials'', Western Wire, May 18, 
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I appreciate that this Committee is conducting oversight of the 
policies the Administration is taking to kill the federal onshore oil 
and natural gas program. I urge you to submit formal requests for 
information on the coordination between the Department of the Interior, 
including its various offices and bureaus, and environmental and 
activist groups. I believe those requests would uncover a trove of 
information of inappropriate collusion outside the public eye and 
outside formal Administrative Procedure Act processes. The information 
would be very helpful as states and groups like Western Energy Alliance 
seek to overturn many of these regulations in court, a Herculean task 
given the sheer volume of them.

    I would like to highlight just some of the policies that are meant 
to halt leasing and development on federal lands. The increased costs 
these policies represent ensure that the Biden Administration's energy 
inflation will outlast it far into the future.

     The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) leasing rule would 
            increase costs on American by $1.8 billion by going even 
            farther than the costs passed in the Inflation Reduction 
            Act (IRA). New requirements that increase bonding amounts 
            twenty-fold will upend the bond market, particularly for 
            small producers that simply do not have access to the 
            surety market at the same value as do larger companies. 
            Small companies would be forced to put down the cash rather 
            than putting it into new development or actual well 
            reclamation. The Interior Department recently admitted to 
            Congress that there are only 37 orphan wells on federal 
            lands and there have been only 40 calls on bonds over the 
            last decade.\12\ That's .04% of the 89,350 wells on federal 
            lands and four bond calls a year.\13\ The data show the 
            bonding provisions are an arbitrary and capricious solution 
            to a problem that doesn't exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ ``Deputy Secretary Tommy Beaudreau's responses to Questions 
for the Record, Letter to Senator Joe Manchin dated June 22, 2023.
    \13\ BLM Fiscal Year 2022 Oil & Gas Statistics, Table 9, Producible 
Well Bores.

     The Interior Secretary ordered a withdrawal of over 
            336,000 acres from oil and natural gas leasing around the 
            Chaco Culture National Historical Park. In withdrawing the 
            lands from development against the wishes of the Navajo 
            Nation, the action prevents Navajo mineral owners from 
            developing their oil and natural gas resources and 
            realizing $194 million in royalty income over 20 years.\14\ 
            The department is also moving forward with a withdrawal of 
            225,000 acres in the Thompson Divide area of Colorado, an 
            area with a history of oil and natural gas co-existing with 
            land protection back to the 1940s.\15\ Both withdrawals 
            will stop development in the very promising Mancos Shale 
            formation. At least in this regard, the Interior Secretary 
            is equal opportunity, as she closed 225,500 acres in the 
            Superior National Forest of Minnesota to mining for the 
            critical minerals needed for renewable energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Western Energy Alliance comments on the Chaco Area Withdrawal 
Environmental Assessment, December 9, 2022.
    \15\ Western Energy Alliance comments on the Proposed Withdrawal, 
Thompson Divide Area, January 16, 2023.

     BLM proposes to close 1.566 million acres to oil and 
            natural gas leasing in the Grand Junction and Colorado 
            River Valley field offices in the highly productive 
            Piceance Basin on Colorado's West Slope. The Energy 
            Information Administration (EIA) considers the Piceance 
            Basin to have five of the top 50 natural gas fields in the 
            United States in proven reserves.\16\ The update to the 
            Resource Management Plan and supplemental Environmental 
            Impact Statement \17\ is also designed to cut off new 
            development in the Mancos Shale formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Top 100 U.S. Oil and Gas Fields, EIA, March 2015.
    \17\ Draft RMP and Supplemental EIS, Colorado River Valley Field 
Office and Grand Junction Field Office, August 2023.

     The Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ) proposed 
            revision to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
            guidelines would require federal agencies to require the 
            evaluation of renewable energy projects when a fossil fuel 
            project is proposed.\18\ The intent is to speed up 
            approvals for renewable energy projects while slowing down 
            approvals for fossil fuel projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ NEPA Implementing Regulations Revisions Phase 2, CEQ, July 31, 
2023.

     The BLM conservation and landscape health rule stretches 
            Congress' original intent of the Federal Land Policy and 
            Management Act (FLPMA) away from managing public lands for 
            ``multiple use and sustained yield'' of resources to 
            preservation only. FLPMA specifically defines ``principal 
            or major uses'' as limited to mineral exploration and 
            production, livestock grazing, rights-of-way, fish and 
            wildlife development, recreation, and timber. Of course 
            FLPMA calls for the protection of the environment, water, 
            and cultural resources, but does not list conservation as a 
            use. FLPMA mandates public lands are to ``be managed in a 
            manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic 
            sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber''. BLM's rule 
            would violate the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate 
            by closing or restricting unnecessarily large amounts of 
            land to productive uses, making it more difficult to 
            develop in energy-rich basins across the West.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Testimony of Kathleen Sgamma before the House Committee on 
Natural Resources, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3397, June 15, 2023.

     The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposes three 
            new ESA rules regarding interagency cooperation, listings, 
            and critical habitat designation. Taken together, the Biden 
            Administration is seeking to erode the standards with the 
            goal of listing species that do not credibly meet the ESA's 
            definition of threatened or endangered species and 
            designate critical habitat on a massive scale, including 
            areas that are unoccupied. The result is reduced areas open 
            to development, increased costs, unwarranted or unjustified 
            permit requirements, delays, and a multitude of operational 
            constraints that significantly impact the ability to 
            responsibly develop energy resources.
``Diligent'' Development

    I would like to focus in particular on the BLM leasing rule. The 
proposed rule is based on the Administration's continued narrative that 
operators are not diligently developing their valid existing leases. It 
would impose penalties for not developing within the first five years 
of the primary term of the lease, restricting availability of lease 
extensions and suspensions for any reason, and restricting extensions 
for applications for permit to drill (APD), regardless of the fact that 
BLM is often the source of the delays. In good Kafkaesque form, BLM is 
largely discouraging companies from wanting to develop federal oil and 
natural gas through this rule and others, further piling on the 
impediments to leasing and development to ensure they don't. These 
include changes in bonding requirements, increased fees and royalty 
rates, shorter permit validity times, a new nomination fee, higher 
bonus bids, higher royalty rates, and increased rental rates 
collectively raise operational costs on federal lands, deterring 
participation, especially by new small businesses.
    We have to assume it is irony that BLM discusses ``incentiviz[ing] 
diligent development of leased resources . . . .'' \20\ after extensive 
language in the proposed rule aimed at discouraging companies from 
wanting to obtain federal leases in the first place. Instead of 
encouraging development by providing incentives to develop such as 
fast-tracking approvals or otherwise being proactive in assisting 
companies in the regulatory review process, BLM proposes to further 
punish operators for holding federal leases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ 88 Fed. Reg. 47566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the end of FY 2022, there were 34,409 leases in effect, 23,631 
producing, and only 10,778 nonproducing leases, which is a 69% 
utilization rate.\21\ Sixty-nine percent of leases are in production, 
despite the fact that the Alliance is in court defending over 5,900 
leases from litigation by environmental groups. Most of these leases 
cannot be developed on until the litigation is cleared up. Factoring in 
that litigation means that only 28,509 of those 34,409 acres are 
available for development, which indicates a practical utilization rate 
of 83%, a very high rate since other leases may be tied up in the NEPA 
process, awaiting permit approvals or adjacent leases, and otherwise 
working their way through the federal approval process. Rather than a 
two-faced rule that claims to ``incentivize'' diligent development 
while tying up companies in more red tape and cost, BLM could simply 
complete the corrective NEPA analysis as required by the D.C. District 
Court. Yet BLM is dragging its feet on simply completing that 
straightforward NEPA analysis and letting our members develop on the 
leases they have in hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ BLM Fiscal Year 2022 Oil & Gas Statistics, Table 1, Number of 
Leases; Table 6, Producing Leases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, BLM has a number of Expressions of Interest (EOI) 
from industry that are not being processed but which are adjacent to 
leased lands. Oftentimes companies need to acquire adjacent leases in 
order to efficiently develop existing leases, especially when drilling 
horizontal wells with one- to three-mile laterals. They nominate lands 
that may be part of a larger patchwork of federal, state and fee leases 
in order to form a full development unit that best accesses the 
resources while minimizing surface disturbance. BLM's delay in 
processing many of these EOIs stalls a company's ability to put these 
lease positions together. Moving forward with regular leasing would 
increase the utilization rate further.
Bonding

    The bonding provisions in the proposed rule would in particular 
price small companies out of the process. The proposed rule suffers 
from the flawed assumption that bonds are the only source of funding 
available to plug and abandon wells and reclaim well sites. In fact, 
companies are under obligation for the full cost of properly plugging 
wells and are not released from liability until BLM has determined they 
have properly done so. Companies assume the obligation when they 
acquire another company's assets and successor companies also assume 
the obligation. Struggling companies are often acquired, so at-risk 
wells, as identified in the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
reports, do not necessarily become orphaned wells.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ ``Oil and Gas: Bureau of Land Management Should Address Risk 
from Insufficient Bonds to Reclaim Wells,'' GAO, September 2019; ``Oil 
and Gas: Bureau of Land Management Needs to Improve Its Data and 
Oversight of Its Potential Liabilities,'' GAO, May 2018.

    Bankruptcies almost always result in continuous liability for the 
assets, whether through restructuring or sale of the assets. In 
addition, when companies acquire new federal leases that have existing 
orphan wells on them, oftentimes the acquiring companies plug and 
reclaim orphan wells before moving forward with new wells. When a 
company sells or transfers its federal assets, it maintains its 
liability to plug and abandon any well, and reclaim any well site, that 
it operated or benefited from during the term of its lease should a 
future company default.\23\ Thus, there is very low risk of a well on 
federal lands becoming orphaned. BLM rarely needs to access a bond in 
order to plug a well, and in fact has done so at the rate of about four 
per year. A good question to ask BLM is how many wells are plugged and 
abandoned each year without requiring a call on a bond.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3106.7-2.

    If bond levels are raised too high, as they are in the proposed 
rule, it ties up significant amounts of capital in an unproductive 
capacity, adding another cost that, in combination with all the other 
costs of operating on federal lands and in the proposed rule, leads to 
less production. The rule would raise costs unnecessarily for the vast 
majority of companies who are responsible and fulfill their reclamation 
obligations. The real issue is of course, fly-by-night operators, but 
the issues are being or have been addressed by BLM with existing 
policies that give it the flexibility to set higher bond amounts for 
at-risk companies, more stringent interim and final reclamation 
requirements, additional bonding reviews, and other measures to limit 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the risk to the taxpayer.

    In fact BLM should be applauded for--using the power it already has 
over the last two years of the Trump Administration and into the Biden 
Administration--reducing the number of orphaned wells from the 296 
wells identified in the 2019 GOA down to 37 today. That is a success 
story that shows that the new bonding provisions are unnecessary, yet 
the political leadership at BLM blindly continues to ignore that 
success. Throughout the proposed rule, BLM focuses extensively on 
addressing an orphan well problem not supported by evidence. BLM 
leadership must recognize its own facts: orphan wells are not the 
crisis it implies and addressing orphan wells on federal lands is not 
the taxpayer emergency BLM leads the public to believe in the proposed 
rule.\24\ BLM's approach is disingenuous and misleading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ See Preamble, 1. Reducing Taxpayer Exposure to Reclamation-
Related Liabilities, 88 Fed. Reg. 47565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 2019 report, GAO estimated that annually BLM spends about 
$267,600 in total on reclamation. That amount is just 0.003% of the 
$8.6 billion in revenue the industry returned to the government in 2022 
from the onshore program. That reclamation total is likely much smaller 
now given how few orphan wells there are on federal lands. It certainly 
doesn't provide justification for a rule that will price small business 
out of the bond market altogether.
    Thank you Chairman Stauber, for your oversight of these issues. I 
look forward to questions.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Kathleen Sgamma, President, 
                        Western Energy Alliance
             Questions Submitted by Representative Huffman
    Question 1. Multiple studies, including the United States 
Geological Survey's 2018 report ``Federal Lands Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions and Sequestration in the United States: Estimates for 2005-
2014'' and Ratledge et al.'s 2022 ``Emissions from fossil fuels 
produced on US federal lands and waters present opportunities for 
climate mitigation'' in Climatic Change, have found that fossil fuel 
extraction on public lands and waters account for approximately one-
quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. What proportion of U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions come from oil and gas produced on BLM-managed 
land?

    Answer. Thank you for the question, which follows from my response 
to incorrect information in the opening statement of Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, who said, ``As it stands, nearly a quarter of the United 
States' current carbon pollution comes from fossil fuel production on 
federal lands and waters.''

    This misleading talking point about greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 
on federal lands and waters gets tossed around carelessly. A few points 
to set the stage: ``Carbon pollution'' is a political term that has 
little meaning, so I will use GHG emissions throughout. The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which inventories and reports on 
GHG emissions, does so using carbon dioxide equivalents 
(CO2e). EPA converts various GHGs, such as methane, into 
CO2e to take into account their higher intensity compared to 
CO2.

    I do not fault the Ranking Member directly for the misinformation, 
as she got that talking point from the environmental lobby, which does 
not let accuracy get in the way of a good narrative. Likewise, the 
question from Rep. Huffman misquotes the 2018 U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS) study it supposedly references, but even more explicitly by 
saying ``fossil fuel extraction.'' In fact, fossil fuel extraction on 
federal lands and waters accounts for about .7% of U.S. GHGs. The 
percentage of GHGs from oil and natural gas extraction, the subject of 
the hearing, is actually 0.56%. All of my numbers come from the USGS 
study, the definitive source of GHG information on federal lands and 
waters.\1\ My calculations are done using the data in Table 1 of the 
USGS report and presented in a table below. Percentages are calculated 
as simple ratios compared to total U.S. GHG emissions as reported by 
EPA in its annual inventory.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Federal Lands Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sequestration in the 
United States: Estimates for 2005-2014, USGS, 2018.
    \2\ Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2014, EPA, April 15, 2016. This is the same version of EPA's annual 
inventory that USGS used in its report.

    The source of confusion on the ``nearly a quarter'' talking point 
is a misunderstanding of the USGS report. USGS very explicitly measured 
emissions not just from extraction and production processes of fossil 
fuels from federal lands, but the end-use emissions by the consumer. 
The Ranking Member specifically said ``the production of fossil 
fuels'', not the production and end-use, and Rep. Huffman's question 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
incorrectly claims the ``extraction'' process specifically.

    In some ways, the talking point that about a quarter of U.S. GHGs 
come from the production and end-use consumption of fossil fuels from 
federal lands and waters would be rather unremarkable. Since about 22% 
of U.S. oil production comes from federal lands and waters, it makes 
sense it would account for about the same amount of GHGs.\3\ However, 
even there, the intensity is less, as USGS finds that only about 19% of 
U.S. GHGs come from the production and end-use of federal fossil fuels. 
Again, when looking at just oil and natural gas, total GHGs from the 
production and end-use is just 7%. So we get ``nearly'' a quarter of 
U.S. oil and natural gas production from federal lands but they only 
account for only 7% of total U.S. GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ The Consequences of a Leasing and Development Ban on Federal 
Lands and Waters, Prepared by OnLocation, Inc. for the American 
Petroleum Institute, September 2020. Federal oil and natural gas 
production constitute 22% and 12% of U.S. total production, 
respectively.

    Another source of confusion may be the statement in the first 
paragraph of the USGS report: ``Emissions from fossil fuels produced on 
Federal lands represent, on average, 23.7 percent of national emissions 
for CO2, 7.3 percent for CH4, and 1.5 percent for N2O over the 10 years 
included in this estimate.'' (p. 1) Note that a careful reading of the 
sentence is that it relates to the emissions from fossil fuels, not 
just the production process, and it is clear from earlier in that same 
paragraph that, ``. . . USGS has produced estimates of the greenhouse 
gas emissions resulting from the extraction and end-use combustion of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fossil fuels produced on Federal lands in the United States.''

    An even more careful reading of that sentence shows that it is only 
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels that are ``nearly a 
quarter'' of the U.S. total, not all GHGs. When considering the three 
main GHGs--CO2, methane and N2O--that are the 
subject of the report and which make up over 97% of U.S. GHGs, in 
actuality the production processes and consumption of federal fossil 
fuels actually represent just over 19%. Nineteen percent is not 
``nearly a quarter'' of U.S. GHG emissions.

    Likewise, a less-than-thorough reading of Ratledge et al. could be 
used to perpetuate the careless ``nearly a quarter'' talking point. It 
is clear in Ratledge that, like USGS, the report is dealing with ``the 
extraction, transportation and combustion'' of fossil fuels. Ratledge 
et al. fills in the data from 2014, the year measured in the USGS 
report, through 2019. The study appears to be in line with the USGS 
report. Rutledge et al. does not include the raw data tables as did 
USGS, so it is not possible to recreate the math, but the graphs appear 
to be in line with the USGS report. I would be happy to address any 
other of the ``[m]ultiple studies'' mentioned in the question, should 
they be specified. I am not aware of others.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                                                

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. We will now recognize Mr. 
Novotny for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF BILL NOVOTNY, PRESIDENT, WYOMING COUNTY 
          COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION, BUFFALO, WYOMING

    Mr. Novotny. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Cortez. Thank you for holding a hearing to discuss emerging 
management issues impacting oil and gas programs.
    My name is Bill Novotny. I represent the fourth generation 
of my family to call Wyoming home. I currently serve as 
President of the Wyoming County Commissioners Association and 
am Chairman of my local Board of County Commissioners. I also 
serve on the Board of Directors of the National Associations of 
Counties. At home, I am the owner of a public affairs firm 
where I represent one of Wyoming's major travel and tourism 
industries, which is a major component of our economy. My 
family also raises sheep and cattle, and we have been involved 
in the timber and oil and gas industry.
    I am here today on behalf of the Wyoming County 
Commissioners Association.
    In 1884, 6 years before Wyoming became a state, the first 
oil well was drilled in modern-day Fremont County. One hundred 
and twenty-five years later, oil and natural gas continue to be 
vital industries for Wyoming, providing essential revenue for 
counties and state government, providing citizens with well-
paying jobs, and delivering to our nation affordable and 
reliable energy.
    Taxes derived from oil and gas developed in Wyoming 
constitute a significant portion of state and county revenue 
used to pay for public education and essential services 
including roads, fire protection, courthouses, libraries, 
landfills, hospitals, law enforcement, airports, recreation, 
and senior citizen services.
    Property taxes on oil and gas account for over 40 percent 
of the total property taxes levied in Wyoming and over 55 
percent of property taxes levied in my Johnson County. In 2020, 
the property taxes collected by counties exceeded $600 million. 
Severance taxes collected by the state in 2020 topped $275 
million. When adding in Federal leases, revenues, Federal and 
state royalties, sales and use taxes, and conservation taxes, 
this industry contributed $1.23 billion in taxes to state and 
local governments.
    The industry also supports between 35,000 and 58,000 jobs, 
and provides up to $5.6 billion in wages in 2021 figures. For 
every direct job, the industry generates an additional 1.9 
indirect jobs in services, whether it is wholesale, 
construction, transportation, and manufacturing. This equates 
to the oil and gas industry supporting between 12 and 19 
percent of my state's total workforce.
    Wyoming is the 10th largest state, covering approximately 
97,000 square miles, or 62.6 million acres. And the BLM manages 
approximately 18 million surface acres and an additional 41 
million acres of minerals in the state. Such substantial 
Federal lands and mineral management creates a hodgepodge of 
interwoven fabric with state and private lands and minerals 
across Wyoming.
    This interwoven ownership pattern of federally managed 
minerals with state and private minerals means that oil and gas 
has to be co-produced. Wyoming's oil and gas production from 
federally managed lands accounts for between 72 and 74 percent 
of my state's entire mineral production. The Department of the 
Interior natural resource revenue data reports that Wyoming's 
Federal lands supported $1.65 billion in revenue for the year 
of 2022, and the DOI dispensed $785 million to the state of 
Wyoming, primarily revenue from oil and gas production.
    It is important to understand that changes in Federal 
management do not solely impact Federal-managed lands and 
minerals. Nearly all development in Wyoming, including on 
private and state lands, is impacted by the Administration's 
management decisions. Attempting to thread the needle around 
federally managed lands to avoid a Federal nexus is imprudent, 
impractical, and quite frankly, impossible.
    While the stated objective of oil and gas onshore 
operations is to promote the orderly and efficient exploration 
and development and production of oil and gas, the Biden 
administration's approach to bonding, leasing, and permit 
issuance is neither orderly or efficient.
    Speaking specifically to bonding, the BLM manages 
approximately 94,000 Federal wells, including 27,383 in 
Wyoming. Each year, between 15 and 24 wells are reclaimed by 
the BLM, accounting for 0.00159 to 0.000255 percent of all 
wells managed by the BLM. Yet, their annual liability for 
reclamation is $2.7 million. Over the past 2 years, the BLM 
averaged gross revenue from oil and gas production was over 
$8.6 billion, making the $2.7 million spent on reclamation a 
liability of less than half of 1 percent. That is a rounding 
error, not a cause to upend the bonding structure for the 
entire industry.
    Nevertheless, to remedy its $2.7 million liability, the BLM 
has proposed to substantially increase Federal bonding for all 
operators in its fluid mineral lease and leasing process rule, 
inaccurately assuming every Wyoming operator can qualify for a 
low-cost surety. The BLM alleges the increased cost to industry 
would only be between $4.7 and $9.1 million. This is simply 
inaccurate.
    The BLM currently holds $85 million in bonding. At current 
bonding levels, 84 percent of operators in Wyoming are able to 
utilize surety bonds, while the remaining 16 percent of 
operators having to post dollar for dollar coverage. This 
equates to $71 million covered by sureties at a cost of $3.5, 
or $2.499 million in annual interest payments, while the 
remaining $13.6 million is paid dollar for dollar.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Novotny, can you wrap it up?
    Mr. Novotny. Yes, sir. I do apologize.
    I will remain for questions, and you have my full statement 
for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Novotny follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Novotny, III, Commissioner,
                        Johnson County, Wyoming
       on behalf of the Wyoming County Commissioners Association

    Chairman Stauber and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, thank you for 
holding a hearing to discuss emerging management issues impacting the 
onshore oil and gas program.
    My name is William J. Novotny, III, I represent the fourth 
generation of my family to call Wyoming home. I currently serve as the 
Chairman of the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners and the 
Wyoming County Commissioners Association President. I also serve on the 
Board of Directors for the National Association of Counties. I am the 
owner of a public affairs firm where I represent a major sector of 
Wyoming's travel and tourism economy. My family also raises cattle and 
sheep. I am here today on behalf of the Wyoming County Commissioners 
Association.
    In 1884, six years before Wyoming became a state, the first oil 
well was drilled in modern day Fremont County. The Great Seal of the 
State of Wyoming, adopted in 1893, includes ``oil'' as one of the four 
industries on the scrolls wrapping around the pillars symbolizing our 
economy. Over a hundred years later, oil and natural gas continue to be 
vital industries for Wyoming supplying valuable revenues for county and 
state government, providing citizens well-paying jobs, and delivering 
to our nation affordable reliable energy.
    Taxes derived from oil and gas development in Wyoming constitutes a 
significant portion of state and county revenue used to pay for public 
education and essential services, including roads, fire protection, 
emergency medical services, courthouses, libraries, landfills, 
hospitals, law enforcement, airports, recreation, and senior citizen 
centers.
    Oil and gas companies operating in Wyoming are assessed property 
taxes by counties and severance taxes by the state. Although they are 
called ``taxes'' both are more akin to a royalty because production is 
taxed regardless of whether an operator makes a profit. Property or Ad 
Valorem taxes vary by county and range from 6-7.3% calculated by the 
gross revenue of the previous year's production and the value of 
tangible equipment and improvements. Severance taxes are calculated at 
6% of gross revenue in the same manner as royalty taxes (gross revenue 
minus transportation and gas processing cost). Federal Royalties are 
also deducted from the gross revenue for the purpose of calculating 
severance taxes.
    Property taxes on oil and gas account for over 40% of the total 
property taxes levied in Wyoming, and over 55% of property taxes levied 
in Johnson County. In 2020, the property taxes collected by counties 
exceeded $600 million. Severance taxes collected by the state in 2022 
topped $275 million. However, when adding in federal lease revenues, 
federal and state royalties, sale and use taxes, and conservation 
taxes, the industry contributed $1.23 billion in taxes to state and 
local governments.
    The oil and gas industry also supports a significant amount of 
direct and indirect employment across the state. Based on a studies 
prepared by the BLM and PricewaterhouseCoopers, Wyoming's oil and 
natural gas industry supports 35,000-58,000 jobs and provided up to 
$5.6 billion in wages in 2021. For every direct natural gas and oil job 
the industry generates 1.9 additional jobs in services, wholesale, 
construction, transportation and manufacturing. According to the US 
Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Wyoming Department of Workforce 
Services, the Wyoming labor force numbers around 300,000 people. 
Therefore, by the numbers, the oil and gas industry in Wyoming supports 
around 12-19% of the states total workforce.
    Wyoming is the 10th largest state by land mass, covering 
approximately 97,814 square miles or 62.6 million acres. The Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 18 million surface acres 
and an additional 41 million mineral acres across the state or, stated 
another way, approximately 2/3rds of Wyoming's subsurface. Such 
substantial federal land and mineral management creates a hodgepodge 
patchwork of mineral ownership with state, private, and federal lands 
and minerals across the state.
    This interwoven ownership pattern of federally managed minerals 
with state and private minerals means that oil and gas has to be 
coproduced. While environmentally and economically prudent, Wyoming's 
two-mile horizontal development often generates a federal nexus. 
Consequently, most of Wyoming's oil and gas production includes 
federally managed minerals. Wyoming's oil and gas production is from 
federally managed land accounts for between 72-74% of the entire 
state's production.
    The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Natural Resources Revenue 
Data reports that Wyoming federal lands produced $1,656,396,384.55 in 
revenue for the year 2022. DOI dispersed $785 million to the State of 
Wyoming, primarily revenue from oil and gas production. While 2022 saw 
an increase in proceeds from previous years, the increase is associated 
with higher oil and gas prices, not necessarily with greater 
production. In fact, Wyoming's gas production fell from over 1.3 TCF in 
2019 to just over 1 TCF in 2022. Over that same time, oil saw a slight 
increase of 1 million bbls.
    Proposed changes in the federal onshore oil and gas program stand 
to erode county revenues, eliminate good paying jobs, and will impair 
all oil and gas development in Wyoming. While these changes won't 
always occur overnight, federal mismanagement will cause a substantial 
impact to Wyoming's economy.
    It is important to understand that changes in federal regulations 
do not solely impact federal managed lands and minerals. Nearly all 
development in Wyoming, including on private and state land, is 
impacted by the administration's management decisions. Attempting to 
thread the needle around federally managed lands to avoid a federal 
nexus is imprudent, impractical, and virtually impossible. Even if a 
wellbore doesn't penetrate federal minerals, gathering lines, 
pipelines, transmission lines, and roads to get product to the market 
inevitably run into federal management at some juncture. The federal 
onshore oil and gas program directly impacts the ability for the oil 
and gas industry on private and state lands to exist in Wyoming. 
Private and state minerals are held hostage when they are in a drilling 
and spacing unit with federal minerals.
    The stated objective of oil and gas onshore operations regulations 
43 CFR 3160.4 is to ``promote the orderly and efficient exploration, 
development, and production of oil and gas.'' The administration's 
approach to bonding, leasing, and permit issuance is neither orderly or 
efficient.
Bonding

    The BLM manages approximately 94,000 federal wells including 27,383 
in Wyoming. Operators are required to plug and reclaim federal wells. 
If an oil and gas company goes bankrupt and is unable to pay for the 
reclamation of its wells, the BLM conducts a record title search for 
past owners to assess liability. In the rare scenario where the BLM is 
unable to find others to assess liability, the cost of reclamation 
falls to the operator posted bond and the agency. Each year around 15-
24 wells are reclaimed by the BLM amounting to .000159 to .000255 
percent of the wells they manage. The BLM estimates its annual 
liability for reclamation to be between $1.4-3.8 million or an average 
of $2.7 million. Compared to the BLM's gross revenues from oil and gas 
production revenue which averaged $8.6 billion over the last two years, 
the $2.7 million spent on reclamation constitutes a liability of 
.02-.05%.
    To remedy its $2.7 million liability, the BLM recently proposed its 
Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process Rule (Proposed Rule). The 
Proposed Rule would substantially increase bonding amounts for 
federally regulated wells across the country.
    While the BLM's estimation of its risk is heightened above any 
realistic scenario, it also significantly downplays the cost to 
industry and fails to encapsulate the impact of increased bonding. In 
the Proposed Rule, the BLM assumes a scenario that all its 94,000 
federal wells in operation will need to be reclaimed by the BLM at the 
exact same time. It provides no basis for its assumption that 94,000 
wells will need to be reclaimed at once, and it is certainly not based 
in its experience of reclaiming less than two dozen wells annually.
    On the other hand, the BLM alleged the cost to industry would only 
be $4.7-9.1 million. Without justification, the BLM assumed that every 
company that operates federal wells would have access to a low-cost 
surety bond. While some larger companies will likely have access to the 
surety market, smaller operators often do not have the collateral 
necessary to obtain large surety bonds which will require more 
expensive forms of bonding.
    The BLM in Wyoming currently holds $85 million in bonding. At 
current bonding levels, 84 percent of operators in Wyoming are able to 
utilize surety bonds, with the remaining 16% of operators having to 
post dollar-for-dollar coverage. This equates to $71,400,000 covered by 
sureties at a cost of $2,499,000 in annual interest payments and the 
remaining $13,600,000 paying dollar-for-dollar. Assuming the percentage 
of operators able to retain sureties is able to remain the same with 
the increased bonding requirements, the Petroleum Association of 
Wyoming calculates that the cost of bonding under the Proposed Rule 
would jump to $57 million in annual interest payments for sureties and 
another $311,070,880 for those operators posting dollar-for-dollar 
bonding.
    To help illustrate the impact, it is important to know that 85 
percent of Wyoming operators in the oil and gas industry are considered 
small businesses, as defined by the Small Business Administration. One-
third of the companies in Wyoming produce less than two percent of 
statewide production. These companies, although currently profitable, 
will be unlikely to absorb such an astronomical increase in bonding. 
The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has conservatively 
estimated that over 100 companies operating in Wyoming will have 
required minimum bond amounts that exceed their annual gross revenue.
    Ultimately, the most likely outcome of such a substantial bonding 
burden is that smaller operators with lesser producing wells will be 
forced to shut-in their wells prematurely. Prematurely shutting in 
wells shudders businesses, leaves valuable oil and gas in the ground, 
and stops tax generation and job creation. For larger companies, the 
cost of doing business in Wyoming will have increased making future 
investments in the state less likely.
Leasing

    Leasing is a major component of any oil and gas operation. 
Unfortunately, since the first days of President Biden's 
administration, the BLM has engaged in unlawful pauses of new leasing 
and has otherwise failed to uphold the requirements of the Mineral 
Leasing Act. The BLM lease sales that have occurred have seen 
substantial acreage ``deferred'' at the whim of the agency. After 
paying to nominate acreage, companies have been left without 
information on how to remove deferred acreage out of administrative 
purgatory. To put a number on the problem, deferred leasing reduced the 
otherwise available lands for leasing in Wyoming by 61%.
    Curtailment and deferment of leasing poses short- and long-term 
consequences for Wyoming. Immediately, the state is stripped of its 
portion of bonus revenues from lease sales. In the longer term, 
operators are unable to plan the necessary orderly development of 
lands. The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has seen 
numerous applications where operators have requested to modify drilling 
and spacing units to try and avoid certain federal acreage or have 
shortened laterals to not penetrate federal minerals. While these 
modifications may be necessary for development, the Wyoming Oil and Gas 
Conservation Commission must weigh whether it creates waste or will 
harm correlative rights.
    Proponents of leasing moratoriums erroneously claim that the 
industry has enough land to drill on. However, this argument ignores 
several fundamental considerations for development. Before operators 
start a drilling operation they must secure a continuous land position 
from which to operate. This includes leasing private, state, and 
federal mineral rights. Operators cannot penetrate and produce federal 
minerals if those minerals have not been leased. Even if an operator 
owns 90% of the rights of development inside a drilling and spacing 
unit, if the BLM has not leased the remaining 10%, that operator cannot 
develop. Operators need a productive enough area to justify the costs 
of pipelines for gas takeaway. Wyoming's strict rules on flaring, often 
require operators to codevelop the infrastructure for gas takeaway 
prior to drilling. Particularly in areas further away from pipeline 
corridors, these operators will need that many more planned wells to 
share the upfront costs of this new infrastructure. Finally, operators 
need operational flexibility, which can often be accomplished with a 
larger leasehold. Operators drilling wells must contend with 
environmental stipulations and weather, often causing the need to pivot 
development plans. Recently, however, operators have also been stymied 
by the BLM's failure to issue permits on leases they have already 
purchased.
    It is important to know that forcing oil and gas production off 
federal leases does not stop the global demand for hydrocarbons. Based 
on the Environmental Performance Index produced by Yale University, the 
Institute for Energy Research reported that the average barrel of non-
U.S. produced oil is produced in a country with an environmental score 
that 23.6% lower than that of the U.S.
Permit Approval

    Everyone is already aware of the expense and slow timeframe for 
federal permit approvals. However, a comparison to another regulatory 
agency may help put the problem into perspective. The Wyoming Oil and 
Gas Conservation Commission has regulatory oversight of all wells 
drilled in the state, including federal. Consequently, operators are 
required to submit drilling permits to the BLM and to the state. A BLM 
permits take hundreds of days to approve and cost operators $11,805, 
compared to a state permit that can be completed within a week and cost 
operators $500.
    However, expensive permits with long delays is still superior to 
what is currently happening in Wyoming on litigated leases. Over the 
past few years, environmental groups have concentrated dozens of 
lawsuits attacking lease sales. In Wyoming, these lawsuits challenge 19 
lease sales held between 2015 and 2020 covering millions of acres of 
mineral estate and impacting numerous oil and gas companies that 
operate across the state.
    Seven of the lawsuits have a court order preventing the BLM from 
approving development on acreage within the challenged sales. The 
remaining twelve lawsuits do not have court orders preventing 
development. Nevertheless, the administration has chosen to halt the 
approval of permits and routine authorizations on any litigated 
acreage. Even where there are preexisting drilled and currently 
producing wells from the same lease, the BLM has stopped issuing 
permits or approvals. In other words, the BLM has simply stopped doing 
its job on over 2-million acres without reason, policy, or judicial 
mandate. Efforts of Wyoming Governor, Mark Gordon, requesting Director 
Stone-Manning lift the self-imposed stay have fallen on deaf ears.
    Although revenue from a single well may not have much of an impact 
on the federal budget of over $6 trillion. In my state and my county, 
even just one additional well drilled per year is substantial. The 
average oil well produces 111,000 bbls of oil in its first year. 
Multiplied by a price of $70/bbl for oil, the total taxable value is 
approximately $7.1 million. Counties receiving 6% from property taxes 
will receive over $400,000 in tax revenue in one year from just a 
single well.
    Mr. Chairman, stopping oil and gas production on public lands in 
this country does not reduce the global demand of hydrocarbon energy, 
and oil and gas will be produced somewhere else. Wyoming does it right, 
and our history with the industry goes back further than statehood. The 
positive impact on our economy, jobs, and local government from oil and 
gas development cannot be understated, but appears to be completely 
misunderstood by this administration whose job is to promote it.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Novotny. That is right. We have your statement. Thank 
you very much.
    I will now introduce our next witness, Dr. Barbara Vasquez, 
who is a citizen scientist and advocate from the Western 
Organization of Resource Councils based in Billings, Montana.
    Dr. Vasquez, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF DR. BARBARA VASQUEZ, CITIZEN SCIENTIST AND 
ADVOCATE, WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS, BILLINGS, 
                            MONTANA

    Dr. Vasquez. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and I appreciate 
the invitation from you and Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez for 
this opportunity to testify.
    After earning a Ph.D. in biochemistry, I pursued two 
distinct careers: biomedical research with the NIH, followed by 
various positions with increasing responsibility in the 
semiconductor industry, working in four different countries.
    I retired with a goal of working to help conserve and 
protect healthy communities, watersheds, and wildlife in the 
West. And I chose Jackson County, Colorado, my forever home, a 
rural county covering 1,600 square miles. And I live 2 miles 
from the border of the beautiful state of Wyoming, 65 percent 
of which is public, and with fewer than one person per square 
mile. The county is bounded by a ring of mountains and 
wilderness areas, and forms the headwaters of the North Platte.
    Most of the floor of the basin is priority habitat for 
greater sage grouse. I served 7 years on the BLM's Northwest 
Colorado Resource Advisory Council, where I had a ringside seat 
in how BLM manages our public lands.
    I have worked as a volunteer citizen scientist on oil and 
gas issues since 2006, work that has expanded in the past 7 
years, and my work with the Western Organization of Resource 
Councils and the Colorado affiliate, Western Colorado Alliance, 
and it is that work that brings me before you today. WORC is a 
regional network of grassroots community organizations in seven 
Western states based in Billings, Montana. Like many of WORC's 
members and many Westerners, I live near oil and gas operations 
and directly experience their impacts.
    Drawing from the title of this hearing, the primary element 
of mismanagement of the oil and gas program by the BLM, in my 
opinion, has been the decades of delay in updating the 
financial elements of the program.
    One long overdue change mentioned by the previous speakers 
is the reclamation bonds operators are required to post. The 
Mineral Leasing Act requires the Secretary to establish 
adequate bonds that ensure the complete and timely reclamation 
of lease tracks and the restoration of any lands and surface 
waters adversely affected by lease operations.
    Reclamation is a universally accepted requirement, and the 
bonds are a well established way of ensuring that reclamation 
occurs, a basic cost of doing business. Yet, the BLM has not 
increased minimum bond amounts for 60 years, lagging decades 
behind many states. Although BLM has the authority to increase 
bonds over the minimum amounts set in the rules, they seldom do 
so.
    The GAO showed in 2019, 82 percent of the bonds are set at 
minimum amounts. And as a result, over 99 percent of Federal 
wells carry bonds that are insufficient to cover the full cost 
of reclamation. That means that oil and gas operators are often 
financially incentivized to skip out of their responsibilities 
at the end of the economically useful life of wells, pushing 
the cost to taxpayers. Unfortunately, we have seen this play 
out in Colorado recently.
    And BLM's track record of ensuring timely reclamation is 
abysmal. Federal wells often remain idle for years or decades 
before they are declared orphaned, and then plugged and 
reclaimed. The GAO has identified 5,100 wells that have been 
idle for 7 or more years, including over 2,300 that have been 
idle for more than 25 years. At the recent rate of plugging and 
reclamation on 15 to 24 wells per year, it would take 
approximately 250 years to clear the inventory, which continues 
to grow as we wait. This number, of course, does not account 
for the wells that are plugged by the operator.
    As long as idle and orphaned wells remain unplugged, they 
will potentially leak methane and volatile organic chemicals 
into the air, and hydrocarbons into oil and water. These 
potential leaks threaten the health and safety of local 
residents and wildlife, and contribute to climate change. It is 
critical that BLM get this growing idle and orphaned well 
crisis under control now, particularly in the face of increased 
costs to reclaim the deeper modern wells.
    Last week, the IEA projected fossil fuel production to peak 
much earlier than forecast, no later than 2030, due to the 
accelerating transition to renewables. As the demand declines 
for fossil fuels not just here in this country but globally, 
oil and gas companies will experience declining revenues, 
increasing the risk of a tsunami of abandoned wells unless 
adequate bonds are in place.
    And in Jackson County, we live on both sides of this 
crisis, with a legacy field of shallow, old oil wells to the 
northeast and newer deep shale oil wells to the southwest. 
These new wells present much greater liabilities for the cost 
of plugging and abandonment.
    I thank you for your time and interest.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Vasquez follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Barbara Vasquez
    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify.
    My name is Barbara Vasquez. After earning a Ph.D. in biochemistry, 
I pursued two distinct careers, biomedical research at the National 
Institutes of Health for 7 years followed by a longer tenure in the 
semiconductor industry. Working in research and development led to 
senior management positions in that industry in 4 different countries 
over a 23 year career. As I approached retirement, I looked for a new 
home with more 4-footed than two-footed residents and discovered 
Jackson County, Colorado.
    Jackson County is a rural county in north central Colorado covering 
approximately 1600 square miles with 65% public lands. With less than 
1 person per square mile, we beat the threshold for a `frontier' county 
6-fold. The central part of the basin is a sagebrush sea at 8000 feet 
with the USFWS Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge in the center. The 
basin is ringed by mountains which include several wilderness areas and 
is immediately adjacent to Rocky Mountain National Park. These 
mountains form the headwaters of the North Platte River and create the 
boundaries of our county, also known as ``North Park''.
    The incredible landscapes, the diverse plant and animal life and 
large swaths of public lands in both the basin and surrounding 
mountains are what drew me to make this my new and final home. Viewing 
wildlife every time I drive or recreate in North Park brings me amazing 
joy! I frequently see raptors like bald and golden eagles, many species 
of hawks and the occasional osprey as well as many members of our large 
and diverse populations of wildlife including bear, moose, deer, 
pronghorn and elk. These as well as the keystone species in the 
sagebrush sea, the Greater Sage Grouse, are common visitors to my 
property. Recently, a growing pack of endangered wolves established 
themselves in the area. The opportunities to hike, backpack, snowshoe 
and cross-country ski on public lands up and down this basin and in the 
mountains surrounding it are treasured experiences. The economic base 
includes high mountain hay and cattle ranching, outdoor recreation 
(hiking, hunting, fishing, birding, etc) and increasingly, oil and gas 
development.
    When I retired in 2005, I had the goal of retiring TO work for 
which I have a passion, helping to ensure clean air, clean water and 
contiguous healthy wildlife habitat, rather than FROM my two 
professional careers. I have lived that intention without compensation 
for the past 17 years. As examples, I have served as the environmental 
representative to the North Platte Basin Roundtable since 2006 and 
served on the Bureau of Land Management's Resource Advisory Council for 
Northwest Colorado from 2011-2017. I am currently serving as Vice Chair 
of the new Greater Rocky Mountain Advisory Committee for the US Forest 
Service which covers all the forests in Colorado and Wyoming. I was 
recently appointed to the Colorado Water Conservation Board which, 
among other water issues, is dealing with the long-standing drought in 
the state and the Colorado River Crisis.
    I have worked as a citizen scientist on oil and gas issues since 
2006 and in the past 7 years that work has been amplified through my 
participation in Western Colorado Alliance's (WCA) oil and gas campaign 
team and my role as Chair of the oil/gas campaign team for Western 
Organization of Resource Council (WORC). It is that work that brings me 
before you today.
    WORC is a regional network of nine grassroots community 
organizations with 19,935 members and 39 local chapters and affiliates 
in seven states, including Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, 
Oregon, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Many of our members live on lands 
overlying and neighboring federal, state, tribal, and privately owned 
oil and gas deposits, and experience numerous impacts due to oil and 
gas production. WORC and its member groups have a long-standing 
interest in federal oil and gas policy, and for over 35 years have 
actively engaged in advocacy in this area.
    Oil and gas companies have profited from public minerals for more 
than a century, often leaving leaking wells and infrastructure behind 
and shifting the costs of cleanup to taxpayers. Many of us live on or 
near these littered landscapes and leaking wells which can emit 
methane, a gas with a global warming impact over 80 times greater than 
CO2. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued draft 
rules to modernize their Onshore Oil and Gas Program. Drawing on the 
title of this hearing (Examining the Biden Administration's 
Mismanagement of the Federal On-Shore Oil and Gas Program), the primary 
element of mismanagement by the BLM in my opinion has been the decades 
of delay in updating the financial elements of the on-shore oil/gas 
program. One long overdue change is an increase in the reclamation 
bonding levels required from operators to ensure complete and timely 
reclamation of leases, as required by the Mineral Leasing Act. 
Increased bonding levels for operators, to ensure that sufficient funds 
will be available to clean up at the end of their well's useful life, 
is just a basic cost of doing business and an issue of taxpayer 
fairness.
    Look at it like this. If you were a landlord, would you rent a 
house or an apartment without a cleaning and damage deposit? Would you 
charge the same amount today that you charged in 1960? I don't think 
so. This deposit ensures that you, the landlord, have funds to clean up 
any mess the tenant leaves behind when they move out. If it's left in 
good condition, you don't need to use that deposit. It's just that 
simple.
    Oil and gas development of federal minerals in North Park started 
in the late 1920s in what is known as the McCallum field situated on 
BLM surface and minerals in the northeast quadrant of the county. This 
legacy field is home to a high density of shallow, vertical `stripper 
wells' with aging infrastructure. Most of the wells are no longer in 
operation. The remaining 60 or so operating wells are currently owned 
by a single company, KP Kaufmann (KPK). Their business model involves 
buying fields of low producing wells, with only a small percentage of 
the wells in the field producing enough oil to eke out a profit. In 
Colorado, a ``stripper well'' is one that produces less than 5 barrels 
of oil (BOE) per day. In the McCallum field, many of these remaining 
wells produce less than 2 BOE per day. It is unlikely that these 
``zombie wells'' generate sufficient revenue to cover routine costs for 
safety and maintenance, let alone the costs of plugging the well and 
reclaiming the site.
    To add to this picture, KPK is a troubled operator here in 
Colorado. They also own many low producing wells in the Front Range 
near Denver. They have been operating for more than a year under a 
compliance plan with oversight by Colorado Energy and Carbon Management 
Commission--ECMC (formerly Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 
Commission--COGCC) because of their persistent and egregious failures 
to abide by Colorado's oil and gas rules and regulations. In January, 
the ECMC voted to suspend KPK's operations in the state until they 
completed cleanup of multiple spills and paid fines that had been 
assessed. KPK then sued the ECMC, preventing the Commission from 
exercising their legislatively mandated regulatory authority until the 
court case is resolved. This means KPK is continuing business as usual 
on both federal and private minerals with flagrant disregard for the 
rules meant to protect people and the environment from contamination 
from oil/gas operations. The lack of a sufficient federal bond means 
that if this marginal company fails or just walks away, wells likely 
won't be reclaimed for years while BLM attempts to get any prior 
lessees to pay for reclamation costs. Failing that, taxpayers may be 
unfairly charged to pay for this fundamental cost of KPK's business. In 
the meantime, the wells will continue to pose risks to air and water 
quality as well as the health and safety of local residents.
    Thankfully, BLM's proposed Onshore Oil & Gas Leasing Rule, released 
in July of this year, is a common sense and long overdue set of updates 
that will help ensure that all operators provide a sufficient backstop 
to ensure funds are available for complete and timely reclamation. This 
puts the costs of cleanup where they belong, not on taxpayers and 
communities. According to GAO's analysis, at least 99.5% of all federal 
wells carry bonds that are insufficient to cover the cost of plugging 
the wells and reclaiming the land. Inflation has gone up over 900% 
since the BLM's bonding minimums were put into place over 60 years ago. 
Under current rules, the minimum reclamation bond amounts are just 
$10,000 for all wells on a single lease, $25,000 for all wells in one 
state, or $150,000 to cover all wells nationwide. Grossly insufficient 
bonds have meant that cleanup is delayed indefinitely when operators 
leave wells inactive. Note I didn't say ``orphaned'' wells. That 
special category is reserved for wells for which BLM cannot find a 
financially responsible party, a search through chains of custody that 
can take years. Unplugged inactive wells can leak methane and volatile 
organic chemicals into the air, endangering public health and the 
environment and accelerating climate change. Throughout the United 
States, there are almost 4 million unplugged wells.
    BLM's own research found that insufficient bonds are costing 
taxpayers up to $4 million dollars per year to clean up orphaned wells, 
spending that should be a routine cost of doing business for oil and 
gas companies who are profiting from this nonrenewable public resource. 
The updated rule increases the minimum lease bond amount to $150,000 
and the minimum statewide bond to $500,000 while eliminating nationwide 
and unit bonds. BLM's research also found that the impacts on smaller 
operators will not be significant. The annual costs of the additional 
surety bonds will cost small operators about 1% of the bond value, 
which is a tiny amount when considering the long-term benefits of 
protecting communities, taxpayers and the environment. The bottom line 
is that this rule is not meant to put oil and gas operators out of 
business, it is meant to create a predictable regulatory system that 
can help ensure the industry is economically viable as long as there is 
demand, providing benefits for taxpayers, operators, and the federal 
government.
    A second oil play has been under development in North Park since 
2006 that is quite different from the McCallum field. The wells in that 
older legacy field are shallow vertical wells with a single, small 
pumpjack and very low volume production. In contrast, the new shale oil 
wells are deep (>1 mile), horizontally drilled (up to 3 miles) and 
hydraulically fractured (fracked). The landscape has been transformed 
by large multi-well pads that cover multiple acres, towering pumpjacks, 
flare chimneys and enormous tank farms on both private and public 
minerals in this field in the southwest quadrant of our county. The 
wells produce not only large volumes of oil but also large quantities 
of co-produced methane gas and produced water.
    Taking the variability of oil and gas wells across the state into 
account, the ECMC recently finalized new financial assurance (FA) rules 
for Colorado which have been widely touted as ``best-in-the-nation''. 
However, the praise isn't supported by the implementation, in spite of 
the good intentions of the Commission. The rules are extraordinarily 
complicated with six different tiered bonding cost levels based on the 
operator's average production per well. The highest producing operators 
qualify for low-cost blanket bonds based on the assumption that they 
are less likely to leave wells unplugged when production ends. The 
lowest average production operators have to post ``single well 
financial assurance'' which sounds great because it is supposed to 
represent the full cost of plugging and reclaiming each well. 
Unfortunately, the rules allow the operators to opt for using estimated 
``demonstrated costs'', a ``choose your own adventure'' option. This 
has led to an avalanche of proposals by low-producing operators 
claiming they can both plug and reclaim a well for as low as $8,000. 
Yet the State estimates that the cost per well is $110,000-$140,000. 
(The total is the combination of average plugging costs estimated at 
$10,000-$40,000 per well, dependent on depth, and average reclamation 
costs estimated at $100,000 per pad.) The reviews by staff and 
commission of each of these ``demonstrated cost'' proposals have 
already taken six months and is expected to continue into 2024. The 
Commission has already approved plans for several very low-producing 
operators with bonding levels to plug and reclaim wells set as low as 
$11,000/well, less than 10% of the cost estimated by the State. This 
will inevitably lead to thousands of more abandoned and orphaned wells 
in Colorado, leaving taxpayers to pay for the plugging and reclamation 
of those sites. We hope the BLM will do better in its final rule and 
provide a financial assurance structure that is simple, effective, easy 
to administer with bonding levels that are sufficiently protective.
    Split-estate landowners, those private landowners whose property is 
situated above public minerals, frequently see their lands destroyed by 
oil and gas development. They are often impacted by operators that 
simply walk away from their responsibility for plugging and reclamation 
because current bonding levels make it a financially advantageous 
decision. Many of our members who live on split-estate land are 
ranchers or farmers, and in general, people who rely on the land around 
them to preserve their livelihood. We are pleased to note BLM's 
inclusion of Surface Owner Protection Bonds, which provide a separate 
bond for damages to private surface above federal minerals. It is a nod 
to these landowners who deserve compensation for the impacts that occur 
to their agricultural operations and land and water resources. However, 
we urge the BLM to increase the minimum surface bonds to $10,000 since 
$1,000 doesn't begin to cover the damage that can be done to private 
lands during oil and gas development.
    It's important that the BLM lead the way in establishing robust 
bonding requirements that cover the cost of plugging wells and 
reclaiming sites (well pads and roads). BLM should also use this 
opportunity to work with Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to update their 
bonding program which cross-references BLM's minimum bond amounts. 
Using BLM's proposed rulemaking as a framework for BIA will ensure that 
tribal minerals are managed equitably and that Indigenous communities 
are also protected by bonds sufficient to ensure that reclamation is 
complete and timely. This will give industry certainty about the cost 
of doing business across the country, and protect the taxpayers from 
the terrible costs to clean up messes left behind (a long-standing 
subsidy to the industry).
    And if sufficiently robust, these BLM bonding rules will de-risk 
the future liabilities to taxpayers. Last week, the International 
Energy Agency (IEA) projected peak fossil fuel production will occur 
much sooner than previously predicted, no later than 2030, due to the 
accelerating transition to renewables for power generation and 
transportation to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As demand 
declines, oil/gas companies will experience declining revenues, 
increasing the risk of a tsunami of abandoned wells with the cleanup 
costs shifted onto taxpayers unless adequate bonds are in place. If 
states follow the lead of the BLM, they will also de-risk these future 
liabilities for wells on private and state mineral.
    Another very positive development from BLM is their release of a 
draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for two 
resource management plans in Colorado. This SEIS is designed to guide 
the management of over 3.5 million acres of public lands and minerals 
covering much of the West Slope in Colorado, home to Western Colorado 
Alliance's members. The draft SEIS gives us growing confidence that BLM 
will engage in a more balanced approach to managing the federal mineral 
estate and the overlying surface, strengthening protections for the 
environment and wildlife habitat. This would not only help protect the 
biodiversity, treasured landscapes and heritage sites in the region but 
would ensure that communities will benefit from cleaner air, water, and 
soil.
    It is crucial that our public lands and minerals are leased in a 
well-considered manner, which is why BLM's proposed Conservation and 
Land Health rule is so crucial. Our public lands and minerals are 
exactly that--public. And the public depends on the BLM to make 
balanced decisions based on their multiple use mandate with the 
interests of many future generations at top of mind. The BLM's 
Conservation and Land Health rule puts conservation on equal footing 
with extractive uses, promotes restoration, provides for responsible 
development, and conserves intact healthy landscapes. Management 
decisions by the BLM for our public lands should not be influenced by 
potential revenue and that is exactly what BLM's public lands rule 
seeks to operationalize.
    In the shale oil field in North Park, almost one hundred percent of 
the co-produced gas has been flared since the first well was drilled. 
Flaring does not completely combust the co-produced gas, with variable 
percentages of the methane, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and 
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that escape combustion being emitted 
into the atmosphere. We know air pollutants like these are associated 
with risks to public health, and we know these emissions can contribute 
to regional pollution and climate change. And no royalty is currently 
paid on the flared or vented gas. The ECMC finalized rules in late 2020 
that forbade routine venting and flaring, commencing on Jan. 15, 2022. 
But the shutdown has not been complete, with loopholes in the rules 
allowing for venting and flaring.
    There is no question that the short-term focus for mitigation of 
human caused climate change must be on dramatic reduction in methane 
emissions. Methane has over 80 times the global warming potential of 
CO2 over 20 years. The BLM's Methane Waste Prevention Rule 
is expected to be finalized soon. In the best case, this framework can 
provide a model for states to also generate revenue from all the gas 
that is produced and minimize the waste of this resource. However, I 
urge BLM and this Committee to consider the extreme harms that are 
caused by routine venting and flaring and to see how they can 
incorporate the elimination of this practice into their rules to 
protect communities and environments like mine from further damage.
    Climate change is personal for me, as I imagine it is for many of 
you. It is driving long term drought and aridification across the West 
and spawning wildfires of increasing size and ferocity. In 2020 we 
experienced record breaking wildfires in Colorado including the 
Troublesome, a wind-driven fire that tore across private and public 
lands, eventually penetrating the western side of Rocky Mountain 
National Park and the southern boundary of North Park. Two other large 
wind-driven fires burned at the same time, the Cameron Peak fire on the 
southeast edge of North Park and the Mullen fire that raced south out 
of Wyoming down the North Platte River corridor at 7 miles an hour, 
forcing me out of my home with little notice. This was the second time 
I was forcibly evacuated, the first in 2016 when the Beaver Creek fire 
came within 100 yards of my house. But I consider myself lucky . . . 
the house still stands thanks to the amazing wildland firefighters. As 
you know, these types of events are occurring with increasing frequency 
across the West and the globe, including Canada, across northern Russia 
and Arctic tundra and the tropics. In addition to being traumatic in 
and of themselves, the increasing size and frequency of wildfire is a 
health concern for all who are exposed to the smoke. But these impacts 
of climate change aren't limited to fires. ``Global weirding'' of our 
climate is felt everywhere and none of us are immune.
    Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today and to share 
my story.

Resources
https://www.taxpayer.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/TCS_Losing-on-
Leasing-II_ Final.pdf

https://accountable.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/20230628-Research-
BLM-Leasing-Programming-Benefiting-Big-Oil-Royalty-Cheats.pdf

https://coloradosun.com/2023/08/24/blm-oil-and-gas-public-land-
protection-plan/?mc_ cid=ee03c6d3c5&mc_eid=15280ffece

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/12/demand-for-oil-gas-coal-will-peak-by-
2030-says-iea-
chief.html#::text=ThesurgeinadoptionofpeakofoilBirolsaid.

https://carbontracker.org/reports/billion-dollar-orphans/

https://www.regulations.gov/document/BLM-2023-0005-0003

https://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/plugging-gaps-how-usgs-
working-fill-data-gaps-orphaned-oil-and-gas-wells#data

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Barbara Vasquez, Western 
                   Organization of Resource Councils

          Questions Submitted by Representative Lee of Nevada
    Question 1. How do unused oil and gas leases on public lands 
influence the management of those lands for other uses--e.g., clean-
energy deployment, recreation, or wildlife?

    Answer. Over the last five years, 2,965 APDs were approved, 
however, only 1,753 wells were actually drilled.\1\ This shows that oil 
and gas companies are sitting on their leases, often for speculative 
purposes, rather than releasing them for other uses that are in the 
public interest. Thousands of leases are active and yet development has 
yet to start, tying up public resources for private gain and denying 
taxpayers and the federal government the royalties generated from oil 
and gas production. If unused oil and gas leases were retired, the land 
could then be managed for other purposes such as recreation, wildlife 
habitat and connectivity, or clean energy projects, helping to fulfill 
BLM's multiple use mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Chart compiled from ``Oil and Gas Statistics,'' Bureau of Land 
Management, US Department of the Interior, https://www.blm.gov/
programs-energy-and-minerals-oil-and-gas-oil-and-gas-statistics

    Oil and gas leases have a term of ten years and if not developed, 
the lease is supposed to be returned to the BLM for potential future 
lease sale, or made available for other uses. However, lease terms can 
easily be extended, sometimes for decades, even if there is no 
production on that parcel by suspending the lease.\2\ In addition, if 
leases are combined into a unit, all the leases can be held `in 
production' with development only on one or a limited number of the 
lease parcels in the unit. With this structure, a given lease may be 
held `in production' and locked up for decades, preventing the BLM from 
managing these acreages for other uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-411

    A recent study found that wilderness-quality lands are three times 
less likely to be managed to protect those characteristics if they 
overlap with oil and gas leases, even if those leases are purely 
speculative.\3\ This shows a direct correlation between oil and gas 
leasing and negative impacts on BLM's active management of not only the 
lands under lease but adjacent lands, even when leases are not 
developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/
baa3a7b6346047d3a1d46ef9ea1ca4fd

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. How will the updated bonding requirements under the 
proposed rule speed up the reclamation of idled wells?

    Answer. The history of oil and gas development is played out time 
and time again across the country--when prices are high, drilling 
increases, and when prices are low, wells are left idle and abandoned 
or sold so current operators can offload liabilities. Those assets are 
usually sold to a buyer who is less financially viable than the seller. 
The Government Accountability Office has identified 5,100 wells that 
have been idle for seven or more years, including 2,313 wells which 
have been idle for more than 25 years.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-11-292

    The updated bonding requirements proposed by BLM will ensure that, 
moving forward, operators have financial incentives to clean up and 
reclaim the land that they disturbed through the drilling, completion 
and production processes. A security deposit on an apartment causes a 
tenant to treat the space they inhabit with respect and consult their 
wallet before they leave a mess behind. The same concept can be applied 
to the updated bonding requirements for the operators. Operators will 
be providing the financial assurance to guarantee that the funds needed 
to pay for clean-up will be available at the end of the useful life of 
the well even before drilling commences. In this way, if they do end up 
walking away from their responsibilities, the money is present and 
accounted for. With the funds from the bonds available, BLM field 
offices, state agencies, and communities will not need to search for 
the operator or track down prior lessees or operators and force them to 
take action, but will instead be able to begin the process of plugging 
the wells and reclaiming the land in a timely and efficient manner 
without relying on taxpayer dollars to cover the costs. That speed of 
execution is critical to minimize the impacts of unplugged inactive 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wells.

    Another important element of the proposed rules is the requirement 
for operators of existing wells to bring their bonds into compliance. 
Operators will be required to meet or exceed the new minimum bond 
amount within one year of the effective date of the final rule, or 
within two years for statewide bonds. Nationwide bonds will be 
eliminated and must be converted to statewide bonds within three years. 
Within three years all existing operators should be compliant with the 
new bonding requirements.

    A key change that will speed up the reclamation process is a 
provision included in the Inflation Reduction Act and later included in 
BLM's oil and gas rule, which reduces the duration of inactive status 
from seven years to four years before a well can be designated as idle. 
This will shorten the current process for reclaiming inactive wells by 
three years. The updates to the idle well review process will also 
ensure that these wells are closed in an efficient manner. Dormant 
wells are not only a waste to taxpayers, they are also dangerous to our 
public lands and the health of local communities. The increased bond 
requirements paired with dedicated oversight will finally provide the 
BLM the tools to bring the orphaned and idle well crisis under control. 
While four years is better than seven, even a four-year inactive period 
means wells remain unplugged and surface un-reclaimed for far too long, 
exposing the land, water, wildlife, and communities to greater risk. We 
look forward to a future reduction in this threshold.

    Colorado had approximately 7,400 wells on federal minerals as of 
2020 according to the BLM. Colorado has experienced operators declaring 
bankruptcy without resulting in a purchase of the assets by another 
company, as Ms. Sgamma claimed to be the usual outcome during her 
testimony. Some operators have a business model based on abandonment by 
bankruptcy.

    Below are two examples of this business model where the wells and 
infrastructure were ultimately left for taxpayers to cover the costs of 
plugging and reclamation. Petroshare Corporation went bankrupt in the 
fall of 2019 with 89 wells on federal minerals. Although the owners of 
the loans took possession of some of the assets, 53 of the 89 wells 
were abandoned. FRAM Americas, a Norwegian company operating in western 
Colorado, declared bankruptcy and abandoned 108 wells on federal 
minerals.

        Fram claimed it had no money to plug the wells and Fram's 
        bankruptcy attorney Kenneth Buechler explained the company's 
        position. ``I assume that the government authorities will plug 
        the wells since the companies are no longer in business,'' 
        Buechler said.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.desmog.com/2020/10/15/bankruptcies-oil-gas-multi-
billion-cleanup-bill-public/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 2. What are the impacts of idled wells on federal land?

    Answer. The true extent of the idled and orphaned oil well crisis 
is unknown. Thousands of orphaned wells cannot be located by regulators 
because they predate modern record-keeping, and BLM's recordkeeping 
system for modern wells has been repeatedly criticized by GAO and 
others for incomplete records and lack of public access and 
transparency. However, we do know that idle wells are not just an eye-
sore--they directly disturb the land, water and communities that 
surround them. Surface disturbances associated with idle wells destroy 
and fragment wildlife habitat, and contamination threatens wildlife and 
livestock. The disturbances include not only the well pads themselves, 
which are often poisoned with herbicide to prevent plant growth, but 
all the roads developed to access the sites. In addition, in Greater 
Sage Grouse habitat, the power lines and tanks provide perching 
opportunities for raptors and corvids which prey on the birds. For that 
reason, Greater Sage Grouse will avoid using the habitat surrounding 
such vertical structures.

    Unplugged wells can release methane, a potent greenhouse gas. 
Unplugged wells often leak pollutants that impact water and air 
quality, posing risks to public health and safety. According to the 
EPA, each year unplugged wells in the United States emit as much 
greenhouse gases as 2.1 million passenger cars--an estimated 7 MMT of 
carbon dioxide and 281 kg of methane in 2018.\6\ A more recent study 
pinned the emissions from unplugged wells in the U.S. at 20% higher and 
estimated that abandoned oil and gas wells are responsible for up to 
10% of the total methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.\7\ 
Research also shows that methane emissions from abandoned wells persist 
over many years and likely decades. Unplugged gas wells and certain gas 
wells that must be vented after they are plugged appear to be high 
emitters.\8\ Studies in California \9\ and Pennsylvania \10\ reached 
the same conclusion: that abandoned wells continue to leak methane and 
cause environmental and public health damage. Another study found that 
of the 121 unplugged idle wells analyzed, 64% were emitting 
contaminants into the air. Researchers have found that average plugging 
costs are justified by the avoided social cost of methane emissions, 
and that reducing methane emissions from abandoned wells is a cost-
effective strategy for addressing climate change.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ EPA, Inventory of US GHG Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2018
    \7\ Environmental Science & Technology, Correction to Methane 
Emissions from Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells in Canada and the United 
States
    \8\ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Identification 
and characterization of high methane-emitting abandoned oil and gas 
wells
    \9\ Environmental Science & Technology, Methane Emissions from 
Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells in California. Abandoned wells are defined 
as plugged, unplugged and idle wells
    \10\ National Energy Technology Laboratory, Methane Emissions from 
Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells: A Case Study in Oil Creek State Park, 
Pennsylvania.
    \11\ Energy Policy, Reducing methane emissions from abandoned oil 
and gas wells: Strategies and costs

    General safety is a serious concern when it comes to idle and 
orphaned wells. These wells have not been plugged properly yet, which 
means that they cryptically emit methane and other organic pollutants 
into the air. There have been many cases of explosions and other 
community disasters caused by idle and orphaned wells. A Wyoming school 
shut down for more than a year after students and teachers complained 
of headaches for weeks. Air quality tests revealed high levels of 
benzene and carbon dioxide, most likely caused by the nearby abandoned 
oil well.\12\ Another example comes from Firestone, Colorado, where a 
home exploded adjacent to an oil and gas field when the petroleum 
corporation restarted a well that had been dormant for a year, a 
damaged flowline filled the basement with gas and ignited it into a 
fireball.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/open-spaces/2016-11-07/
what-happened-in-midwest-the _mysterious-gas-leak-that-shuttered-a-
school
    \13\ https://www.cpr.org/2019/10/29/ntsb-firestone-house-explosion-
report/

    There has been much less research on the impacts of idle wells on 
water sources. However, they are known to increase the risk of nearby 
groundwater contamination and consequently impact the communities and 
ecosystems within the surrounding area. A recent study done on orphaned 
wells found that more than 4.6 million people in the United States live 
within 1 kilometer of an orphaned well; however, only 8% of the 81,857 
documented orphaned wells analyzed have groundwater quality data within 
a 1 kilometer radius, and most of that available data (70%) was 
gathered before 2000.\14\ BLM must conduct a significant amount of 
research to determine the true impacts that idle and orphaned wells 
have on groundwater quality, but we know the impacts aren't minor. WORC 
has members who have seen their cattle die due to water contamination 
from nearby fossil fuel development and communities that have needed to 
outsource water delivery due to groundwater contamination. Idle wells 
may look harmless, but they are a danger to our federal lands, thriving 
ecosystems, and local communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdae7

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you for your testimony.
    I will now introduce Mr. Nagruk Harcharek, who is the 
President for the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, based in 
Anchorage, Alaska.
    Mr. Harcharek, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF NAGRUK HARCHAREK, PRESIDENT, VOICE OF THE ARCTIC 
               INUPIAT (VOICE), ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

    Mr. Harcharek. Good morning. Chairman Westerman, Chairman 
Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the 
Committee, thank you for having me here today.
    Recent decisions made by the Administration have serious 
consequences for the future of the North Slope Inupiat. We are 
the only Indigenous group that has continually inhabited the 
land where the Federal Government carved out the National 
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge.
    My name is Nagruk Harcharek, and I am honored to serve my 
people as the President of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, 
known as VOICE. VOICE is a non-profit dedicated to preserving 
and advancing North Slope Inupiat cultural and economic self-
determination. Our 24-member board includes the leadership of 
local governments, federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native 
corporations, and tribal non-profits from across the North 
Slope.
    Since Alaska became part of the United States in 1867, the 
North Slope Inupiat have continually been an afterthought for 
the Federal Government. For thousands of years, we have been 
the stewards of the Arctic lands, waters, and the animals. We 
are integral to the Arctic ecosystem, as ubiquitous as the 
caribou, polar bears, birds, berries, and fish. Yet, when 
Washington takes action in the Arctic, our people are an 
afterthought.
    During the aboriginal land claims fight that resulted in 
enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, 
or ANCSA, our people were the only Alaska Native group to 
oppose the law. Prior to the passage of ANCSA, over 75 percent 
of the land in our region was taken off the table without fair 
compensation: 44 million acres of the over 55 million our 
people originally claimed during the land claims fight, 
including 23 million acres for NPRA, 9 million acres for ANWR, 
and 12 million acres conveyed to the state of Alaska after 
statehood.
    Prior to ANCSA in 1966, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall 
imposed a land freeze. No further land conveyances could take 
place until Congress addressed aboriginal land claims. The 
discovery of commercial quantities of oil in 1968 in our region 
led to ANCSA's enactment in 3 short years. Take a moment to 
think about what drove that rapid passage of ANCSA.
    Fifty-two years after ANCSA, the Federal Government 
continues to make decisions about our ancestral homelands, now 
in the name of environmental justice, with little to no regard 
for the voices of our people, and there is no justice in that 
approach. The recent proposal by the Administration to take 
nearly 13 million acres within NPRA and adjacent waters into 
special protected status and the foreclosure of leases within 
the 1002 area of the coastal plain of ANWR was done without 
consulting our people. NPRA and the 1002 area of ANWR were set 
aside by the Federal Government specifically for their 
potential to secure the energy future of the United States and 
the economic self-determination of the North Slope Inupiat.
    The North Slope, an area roughly the size of Minnesota, 
provides for our people, our communities, our culture, and our 
economy. Our leaders form the North Slope borough, akin to a 
county or large municipal government, to ensure our people and 
communities would rightly benefit from the development that 
takes place on our ancestral homelands. The borough, as a home 
rule government, has, among other things, zoning, permitting, 
and taxation authorities, which allows it to levy taxes on 
infrastructure. That tax base provides employment opportunities 
and services like modern water and sewer system, waste 
collection, search and rescue, wildlife research, planning and 
community development, education, road construction, and 
maintenance in all eight communities on the North Slope.
    Of the eight communities, four lie within NPRA and one, 
Kaktovik, is the only community located within the 1002 area of 
ANWR. Responsible resource development, with the inclusion and 
engagement of our communities, has taken place for over 50 
years. It is a positive model of cultural, economic, and 
ecological interdependence.
    Responsible resource development and the economic 
foundation it provides has enhanced our culture in many ways. A 
healthy jobs base provides us the economic means to afford 
modern technology, making our hunting activities safer and more 
efficient. Funding supports our schools and curriculum, which 
is rooted in our Inupiat culture. And we provide these services 
to our people and communities with little or no help from the 
state or Federal Government.
    Who will provide these essential services if we have no 
economy? We are a strong people. We have lived and survived in 
the world's harshest environment for millennia. We refuse to 
fall victim to policies made thousands of miles away, and will 
always fight for our self-determination. But it does not have 
to be a fight. We believe that strength comes from unity and 
cooperation, and we understand the importance of that value 
locally, regionally, and nationally. This is why the VOICE was 
created.

    I invite you to develop a stronger partnership between the 
North Slope and Washington, DC. Together, we can right historic 
wrongs, create responsible resource development projects in our 
region, and fully realize Inupiat self-determination. This can 
only happen with consistent and respectful policy making 
responsive to the needs and rights of Indigenous communities. 
That must start with meeting us where we are. I invite you to 
visit our communities and engage with our people.

    Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to 
answering any questions you might have.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Harcharek follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Nagruk Harcharek, President,
                      Voice of the Arctic Inupiat

    Good morning, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and 
members of the Committee. Quyanaqpak, or ``thank you'' in Inupiaq, for 
having me here today to discuss land rights and usage in our region, 
critical to the Indigenous communities my organization represents. I am 
Nagruk Harcharek, President of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, or just 
VOICE.
    VOICE is a nonprofit organization established in 2015 by the 
region's collective elected Inupiat leadership to speak with a unified 
voice on issues impacting the North Slope Inupiat, our communities, our 
economy, and our culture. Our 24 members include the leadership of 
local governments, Alaska Native Corporations, tribes, and tribal non-
profits across the North Slope of Alaska. Notably, our membership 
includes the North Slope Borough, the regional government for an area 
as large as the State of Minnesota, which has taxing authority over the 
development of land on the North Slope and is the largest employer in 
our region. We also represent Ilisagvik College--the only tribal 
college in Alaska and the only institute of higher education in our 
region--and the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, the North 
Slope's federally recognized regional tribe.
    The discussion about building more consistent, predictable policy, 
communication, and collaboration between Alaska Native communities and 
Washington, D.C. is as pressing and challenging now as it was over 50 
years ago, when the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or ANCSA, was 
signed into law, and which directly shaped the rights we have to our 
land and the usage of that land today. Much like ANCSA, the policies 
set in these rooms and in this city have a direct impact on the 
viability of our people and our communities--and we are asking for a 
consistent seat at the table to ensure our voices are heard.
Alaska Native Communities and the United States: A One-Sided Start to 
        the Relationship

    The Inupiat have lived on Alaska's North Slope, one of America's 
harshest and most remote environments, since time immemorial. Our 
connection to our homelands is strong and straightforward: we care for 
these lands and rely on them to sustain our communities and our 
culture--from the financial resources that support our lives to the 
subsistence food we put on our tables.
    Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the North Slope's 
relationship with Washington, which began in 1867 following the Alaska 
Purchase. For just $7.2 million--about $151 million adjusted to 2022, 
or roughly the cost of two F-35 Lighting II fighter jets--the United 
States acquired an area of land more than twice the size of Texas that 
would eventually become the State of Alaska. Absent from the 
negotiation table from the start, however, were the Alaska Native 
people who stewarded the lands in question and the notion that they 
deserved any benefit from the transaction.
    This disregard was a harbinger of things to come. In the decades 
following the sale, Washington continued to deny our people an equal 
voice when developing policies affecting our homelands.
    Over the past 100 years, large tracts of land that hold significant 
cultural value for the North Slope Inupiat and are still used today by 
our communities to live and practice our subsistence traditions, have 
been carved out of Alaska at Washington's behest. In 1923, President 
Warren G. Harding created the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4, now 
known as the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). Later, in 
the 1960s, Washington, spurred on by a public campaign led by outsiders 
including the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society, worked to set 
aside 8.9 million acres to create the Arctic National Wildlife Range, 
and was the basis for what is now the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
    Again, absent from the discussion about these lands were its 
original inhabitants and stewards: the North Slope Inupiat. Our people 
were afforded less consideration than the land itself and were 
virtually erased in the rush to regulate what outsiders and 
policymakers viewed as ``the last great wilderness.'' Yet their 
colonial perspective of Alaska as an untouched, unpopulated wilderness 
could not have been further from the truth. In their efforts to protect 
the land, they forgot about the region's most important resource, its 
people--the North Slope Inupiat.
Alaska Statehood: Unfulfilled Promises to Alaska Native Communities

    A sea change occurred in 1959 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower 
signed the Alaska Statehood Act into law and Alaska became the 49th 
state admitted to the union. Finally, Alaska residents would have an 
opportunity to shape their shared destiny via representation in 
Congress.
    But the promise of representation did not materialize for the 
Alaska Native peoples. Instead, the Act authorized the State to 
appropriate over 100 million acres of land from the ``vacant, 
unappropriated, unreserved'' areas of Alaska, many of which were 
vibrant hunting and fishing grounds already used and occupied by Alaska 
Native people who had lived on those lands for thousands of years.
    In fact, our newly minted ``representatives'' acted as anything but 
and instead supported projects on the appropriated lands that would 
have significantly disrupted Alaska Native communities. This included 
projects such as Project Chariot, which would have detonated five 
thermonuclear devices to create an artificial harbor near the Inupiaq 
village of Point Hope.
    Thanks to determined, organized opposition by a diverse coalition 
of Alaska Native communities, projects like this did not come to 
fruition.
    In 1965, the Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA) was formed to 
advocate for an aboriginal land claims settlement on behalf of the 
North Slope Inupiat. Its leaders understood that the Russian Empire did 
not have the legal right to sell Alaska in 1867. It is also understood 
that between 1867 and 1959, the United States government failed to 
resolve Alaska Native aboriginal land rights, and that the formation of 
the new state only complicated the issue.
    In January 1966, on behalf of the North Slope Inupiat, ANSA filed a 
land claims lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Interior for nearly 55 
million acres of land on the North Slope. This action prompted other 
regions across the state to form their own regional Alaska Native 
associations to file claims to their ancestral homelands as well. 
Collectively, the regional Alaska Native associations lobbied the 
Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Stewart Udall, to impose a 
land freeze until aboriginal land claims were resolved.
    The following year, we secured an important victory when Secretary 
Udall imposed a land freeze to prevent state or private entities from 
securing title to any lands claimed by Alaska Native communities until 
Congress addressed the issue. The freeze was catalyzed by a request 
from the recently established Alaska Federation of Natives and was a 
symbol of the growing political influence of the Alaska Native people. 
Other Alaska Native groups quickly followed suit and, by May 1967, 39 
claims covering about 380 million acres--an area larger than the land 
area of Alaska itself--had been filed.
    The timing of these claims and Secretary Udall's land freeze was 
auspicious. In 1968, the following year, one of North America's largest 
deposits of commercial quantities of oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay 
on the North Slope, our homelands. This discovery dramatically elevated 
the importance of Alaska Native land claims resolution, as did the suit 
filed by five Alaska Native villages to prevent construction of a 
cross-state pipeline on claimed lands to transport oil and gas from 
Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. Until the issue of Alaska Native land claims was 
resolved, these resources could not be accessed, and the infrastructure 
required to bring them to market could not be built.
    The State, oil companies, and Alaska Native communities and 
organizations increased their pressure on Congress for a land claims 
settlement to resolve the situation. It is important to note that the 
discovery of oil on the North Slope and the potential windfall it could 
yield to oil companies and the State--not justice for Alaska Native 
communities--is what drove settlement discussions forward in 
Washington.
ANCSA: An Imperfect Solution and the ``New Harpoon''

    Several solutions emerged over the course of negotiations. The 
Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA), which was formed under the 
leadership of Charles ``Etok'' Edwardsen, Jr. to advocate on behalf of 
North Slope Inupiat land claims, proposed that a final land claims 
settlement be based on the amount of land lost by each group, rather 
than regional population. After all, the North Slope represented only 
5% of the Alaska Native population but claimed 16% of Alaska's total 
land area. And the recent discovery at Prudhoe Bay underscored the 
immense value of our land claims.
    Many proposed bills to settle land claims did not reflect this 
perspective, and the bill that was signed into law--ANCSA, in 1971--
partially observed ASNA's proposal. Signed by President Richard Nixon, 
the act created 12 Alaska land-based regional corporations, which would 
act as private, for-profit businesses with Alaska Native people as 
their sole shareholders. In essence, corporations whose profits would 
solely benefit their Indigenous shareholders. It also awarded Alaska 
Native communities 44 million acres of their homelands and nearly $1 
billion in compensation for lost land claims.
    As far as the Inupiat were concerned, this was only a partial 
settlement. The law recognized only 11% of our total claims--notably, 
the North Slope Inupiat were required to relinquish their rights to 
approximately 50 million acres of land out of the total 55 million 
acres that comprise our region--and the compensation for all of the 
land lost by Indigenous people in Alaska was only slightly more than 
the $900 million yielded by auctioning two parcels of Alaska Native 
land to oil companies. Both parcels were located on our ancestral 
homelands on the North Slope. As Charles ``Etok'' Edwardsen Jr. stated 
in an essay summarizing the law, ``we were simply robbed by the 
settlement.''
    Despite our grievances, we realized that ANCSA provided us with a 
new tool: the Alaska Native Corporations. To use Etok's words again, we 
set about the urgent business of wielding this ``new harpoon'' to bring 
prosperity to Alaska Native communities on the North Slope, much as our 
ancestors had done at sea and on land before us.
    To help govern and administer the nearly 95,000 square miles of 
land in our region, the North Slope Borough was established in 1972 
after yet another fight with the State of Alaska and the oil and gas 
industry. The Borough exercised powers of zoning and taxation and was 
the first time that the Inupiat exercised their self-determination 
through municipal government. It was, and remains, proof that we had 
succeeded in returning self-rule to our land. Our region, as stated 
previously, is roughly the size of the State of Minnesota and not 
connected through a permanent road system between our communities or to 
the rest of Alaska.
    Despite the formation of the Borough, our claims to its surrounding 
lands, and our Alaska Native Corporations' right to develop our lands 
to provide economic benefit to the shareholders, as enshrined by ANCSA, 
the Naval Petroleum Reserve was transferred from the Navy to the Bureau 
of Land Management and renamed as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 
(NPR-A) through the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act in 1976. 
The Act defined how the NPR-A would be managed, including the 
establishment of five Special Areas within the NPR-A, and gave little 
thought to those who have called it home for thousands of years.
    In fact, half of the North Slope Borough's communities are located 
within NPR-A, including Nuiqsut near the Colville River Delta, Atqasuk, 
Utqiagvik, and Wainwright. Two other communities, Point Lay and 
Anaktuvak Pass, use the NPR-A for subsistence purposes. Four separate 
village corporations--Atqasuk Corporation, Olgoonik Corporation, 
Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, and Kuukpik Corporation--collectively 
own over 400,000 acres of land in NPR-A. And a 1977 study identified 
119 traditional Inupiat land use sites in the area.
    However, despite our governmental authority, exemplified by the 
North Slope Borough and the federally recognized tribe of the Inupiat 
Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS), as well as our historic claims to 
the land, Washington chose again not to consult the Inupiat about the 
impact of its decisions or create the possibility of co-management of 
these lands.
    Just east of NPR-A, more inconsiderate and callous actions expanded 
ANWR. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) was 
signed into law by President Carter in 1980. The law more than doubled 
the size of the Range and renamed it as the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. It also included a provision, Section 1002, setting aside 1.5 
million acres of the Coastal Plain to be assessed for its development 
potential. After years of careful study, in 1987 the Department of the 
Interior recommended that this Section 1002 area be opened to 
responsible development projects. The Alaska Native village of 
Kaktovik, which has ``public interest'' in the lands in ANWR and 
multiple entities as members of VOICE, is the sole community located in 
Section 1002 area of ANWR and the only community located in all of the 
over 19 million acres of ANWR.
    Once again, Alaska Native interest was discounted in Washington's 
calculus. Without consulting Alaska Native communities about the impact 
of their decision, the federal government under the waning days of 
President Jimmy Carter cleaved large tracts of land away from Alaskans 
until Congress could determine their future.
The Current Situation: An Inconsistent Policy Approach to Alaska Native 
        Lands

    This brings us to today and the administration's recent 
announcement about ANWR and NPR-A, both of which are critical to 
America's onshore energy production efforts and the economic self-
determination of the people of the North Slope.
    As my organization and our constituents noted immediately following 
the decision, the Biden administration developed the new policies on 
ANWR and NPR-A without first consulting with Alaska Native communities 
about their impact on our lives and communities. They did so despite 
publishing many memos and strategies outlining a purported desire to 
include Indigenous communities, like the Inupiat, in their decision-
making processes. In fact, the recently published White House National 
Strategy for the Arctic states ``the United States is committed to 
regular, meaningful and robust consultation, coordination, and, as 
appropriate, co-management with Alaska Native Tribes, communities, 
corporations, and other organizations--both to ensure Alaska Native 
communities are partners in decisions affecting them and also because 
we recognize that Alaska Native experience and knowledge is essential 
to the success of this strategy. We will support an equitable 
partnership, including by integrating co-production of knowledge and 
Indigenous Knowledge into federal processes and by supporting Tribal 
self-determination and opportunity.''
    Yet these new mandates directly contradict this statement and many 
other claims made by this administration about incorporating Alaska 
Native perspectives into its policymaking process and will undoubtedly 
have a profound, negative effect on our self-determination as well as 
America's future energy production efforts.
    The administration's latest decisions are viewed by North Slope 
Alaska Native communities no differently than ANCSA or ANILCA. But, 
upon closer inspection, there is a subtle, but important, difference 
between the two. Whereas ANCSA essentially stripped away our lands in 
the name of profit, the administration's latest NPR-A and ANWR 
regulations, similar to ANILCA, are foreclosing on our communities' 
future economic opportunities in the name of climate change and 
environmental justice.
    When most of our lands were taken from us, starting in 1923 with 
the creation of the now NPR-A, there was at least minimal opportunity 
for compensation and economic gain by the North Slope Inupiat, like the 
creation of the North Slope Borough. Now, the opportunity to grow our 
economy and build a stronger, more prosperous Inupiaq culture has been 
seized from us.
    There is a sordid throughline threading these decisions: Washington 
has and continues to trammel on our right to self-determination and 
economic prosperity. This flies in the face of environmental justice. 
As expressed by a communique following the 2023 Arctic Peoples' 
Conference, ``Climate change cannot be an excuse to infringe on our 
distinct rights as Indigenous Peoples.''
    To be clear, due to our very complicated history that I have 
endeavored to describe, the position that we find ourselves in today is 
because of the federal government and Congress. Now, after decades of 
being denied a seat at the table, we deserve a more active role in 
shaping the future of our homelands and people.
    In fact, Joseph Upicksoun, one of ASNA's first presidents, in 1971 
noted in an address to the AFN that ``the United States wants to 
provide for its own security against foreign enemies out of our land'' 
by pursuing energy projects on the North Slope. Now, when we are in a 
position to cooperate and equitably benefit from this production 
occurring on our homelands, we are being denied the opportunity by 
Washington.
    At present, the North Slope Borough, which was established to 
ensure our people would benefit from development projects in the 
region, receives more than 95% of its total revenue from infrastructure 
taxation authority on development. This revenue is used to support 
valuable community infrastructure projects that improve our quality of 
life in one of America's most challenging and unforgiving environments.
    These include schools, community and recreational centers, housing, 
water and sanitation, police and fire departments, search and rescue, 
and special equipment to bury our deceased during the winter months. 
It's important to highlight that Kaktovik, which is located in ANWR and 
will be deeply impacted by the administration's recent announcement, 
desperately needs a new school after theirs burned down several years 
ago. Wainwright, which is located within the NPR-A, uses tax revenues 
and funding from the NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grant Program to support 
its youth program, which provides recreational and cultural activities 
critical to keeping local youth on the right path. Going forward, 
Wainwright hopes these funds will also support a new building to 
replace their aging city hall and other community infrastructure 
projects.
    Tax revenues derived from resource development projects also 
support vital administrative bodies like the North Slope Borough 
Department of Wildlife Management, which plays a leading role in 
studying and managing our region's wildlife resources, including the 
caribou and bowhead whales that our communities rely on. It's safe to 
say that without these responsibly developed projects, we would not be 
able to conduct our world-class research on population strength and 
movements or afford the staff to preserve these resources for future 
generations. Our police and search and rescue and emergency services--
which operate across a land area larger than the United Kingdom--are 
also supported by these important tax revenue streams.
    Taxes levied by the North Slope Borough on resource development 
projects are furthermore used to develop and maintain basic amenities 
like roads and modern water and sewer systems that are ubiquitous to 
the lower 48 but have only recently arrived on the North Slope within 
the last 40 or so years. That revenue also provides critical access to 
jobs: the Borough is the largest employer on the North Slope.
    In fact, we can quantify the powerful impact of these projects by 
observing the increase of life expectancy on the North Slope. In 1969, 
before our people had any land rights and no economic prospects as a 
result, life expectancy was just 34 years. By 1980, our average life 
expectancy was 65, roughly equivalent with Libya and lower than North 
Korea. Today, our people can expect to live to an average of 77 years. 
This increase, the most dramatic in the United States, can be directly 
connected to the proliferation of a basic economy, modern 
infrastructure, and services supported by resource development 
projects.
    The VOICE Board of Directors, comprised of mostly locally and 
regionally elected leaders, recognizes the benefits these projects 
offer our communities and have passed resolutions supporting 
responsible, community-led development, when appropriate, of ANWR and 
the NPR-A. Since ANILCA, which was crafted and passed without our 
input, the North Slope Inupiat have been fighting for the right to 
develop ANWR.
    We believe that responsible resource development projects in both 
the NPR-A and ANWR are vital to our collective future. They are even 
more so for communities located within the NPR-A which, again, 
represent half of the North Slope's communities, and Kaktovik, the only 
community located within ANWR. In numerous letters to the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) and members of this committee, we have made clear 
the economic benefits of development in these regions, including the 
1002 Area, to these communities and our firm belief that resource 
development projects and conservation efforts are not divergent 
priorities. They can--and must--co-exist on the North Slope. To do 
otherwise would be to strangle our communities from the long-term 
economic and food security they rightfully deserve.
    These letters also highlighted Washington's hypocrisy when it comes 
to conservation. It is unfair to seize our lands and ask Alaska Native 
communities to carry this burden while other states develop their lands 
freely with an easy conscience. It is equally outrageous to suggest 
that eco-tourism stand as a replacement for resource development 
projects in our region.
    For a brief time, it seemed that Washington had heard our voice. 
The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act gave us hope of realizing our goals by 
directing the BLM to conduct two lease sales in the 1002 Area of ANWR. 
The first of which was held in January 2021. The second lease sale is 
required by law to happen by the end of 2024.
    We also felt heard when BLM released an NPR-A Integrated Activity 
Plan (IAP) in June 2020 that considered the interests of our 
communities, including future community infrastructure needs.
    Most recently, the recent re-approval of the Willow Project also 
suggested that our relationship with Washington was growing stronger. 
Our Board issued multiple resolutions in strong support of the project, 
and we are pleased that Willow, which was first approved in 2020, is 
proceeding in a manner that respects our communities' economic and 
environmental needs. Though it is important to note that outside 
environmental groups with little to no connection to our lands are now 
seeking to overturn our will through frivolous, time-consuming court 
cases.
    Since coming into office, the Biden administration has since done 
much to undo this progress, beginning with its mandate to suspend 
operations and production on the awarded leases in ANWR. And two weeks 
ago, the administration chose to foreclose on current and future 
opportunities in ANWR with its new regulations.
    It's important to contextualize the total area impacted by the 
Biden administration's decision. The 1002 area in ANWR is 1.5 million 
acres, only 7% of the Reserve's more than 19 million acres of land, and 
only a small fraction of the 1002 area's non-wilderness land has been 
reserved for development, specifically 2,000 acres. Despite this small 
size, the Biden administration elected to seal off this area in its 
blatant attempt to appease so-called climate activists who are all too 
eager to disregard our desire for self-determination in our ancestral 
homelands and long-term economic security for our people.
    This decision, coupled with further ``protections'' for NPR-A, will 
undoubtedly shrink the economic opportunities available to the North 
Slope. It virtually guarantees to set us back on our journey toward 
self-determination by requiring further reliance on the federal and 
state government to provide for the basic needs of the people on the 
North Slope. In the early 1960s, Howard Rock, a champion for our people 
and founder of the Tundra Times, stated: ``We are battling greed that 
is relentlessly closing in on us.'' That statement was true back then, 
and with the latest Biden administration announcements, remains true 
today. We battled greed in the name of profits during the days of 
ANCSA, and now we are battling greed in the name of climate change and 
environmental justice.
The Way Forward: Consistent Engagement, Mutual Respect, and Self-
        Determination

    We support responsible energy development projects on the North 
Slope because, to paraphrase the current Secretary of Interior, ``we 
know our lands better than anyone.'' And we understand that responsible 
resource development with the inclusion and engagement of our 
communities has taken place for over 50 years. It exemplifies a 
positive model of cultural, economic, and ecological interdependence.
    Over the past few months, we have heard much discussion of what we 
cannot do in our homelands with little attention given to economic 
alternatives to support our economy in the long term. Past investments 
in our region have already yielded a brighter future for the Inupiat. 
It is important that we continue this upward trajectory, and we hope 
that Washington joins us at the table to discuss a viable economic path 
forward for North Slope communities that includes on shore oil and gas 
leasing.
    This shared effort will require a strong partnership characterized 
by consistent, predictable, and reliable communication and 
collaboration between Alaska Native leaders and Washington. We believed 
the foundation for this relationship was in place when we recently 
welcomed EPA Administrator Michael Regan to the North Slope for 
fruitful discussions that resulted in $2.5 million in grant funding to 
restore federally contaminated lands conveyed to Alaska Native 
Corporations via ANCSA. Yet, the following week, we were blindsided by 
the White House's ANWR and NPR-A announcements, suggesting that this 
partnership is very much a work in progress.
    This approach is no way to operate, especially with communities as 
remote and distinct as ours. Despite these inconsistencies, the North 
Slope Inupiat are eager to engage with Congress and the federal 
government.
    We believe that strength comes from unity and cooperation, and we 
understand the importance of that value locally, regionally, and 
nationally. That is why VOICE was created: to unify and strengthen the 
North Slope. As partners, we can right the historic wrongs imposed on 
our communities, create responsible resource development projects in 
our region to secure America's energy future, and fully realize Inupiat 
self-determination and prosperity. But this can only happen with 
policymaking sensitive to the needs and rights of Indigenous 
communities, consistent and meaningful engagement, and mutual respect.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today. 
Quyanaqpak.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much for your testimony, and 
all the witnesses for your expert testimony. It is greatly 
appreciated.
    We are now going to recognize Members for 5 minutes of 
questions. And again, I recognize myself first for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Harcharek, as I raised with Deputy Director Nedd in my 
line of questioning with him, the White House National Strategy 
for the Arctic Region released last year says, under Pillar 3, 
``We will also work with allies and partners to expand high 
standard investment and sustainable development across the 
Arctic region.'' Do you believe the Administration's recent 
announcements will lead to high standard investment and 
sustainable development across the region?
    Mr. Harcharek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the 
recent announcements clearly in my written testimony and what I 
just said, limit our ability to responsibly develop our 
resources, especially on the North Slope, where these two 
policies targeted.
    Mr. Stauber. And that will limit the building of roads and 
bridges, health care centers, law enforcement, and schools. 
Would that be correct?
    Mr. Harcharek. That is accurate. It limits our ability and 
shrinks our economic potential, so to speak.
    And it also, in addition to all of the services that it 
provides with ANWR specifically in the village of Kaktovik, it 
limits access to other things like broadband. Recently they 
were trying to get broadband Internet. They required a tower 
that was in the 1002 area. That proposal was denied. They can't 
even take ATVs or 4-wheelers within the Refuge to subsist, so 
it is extremely limiting access in many ways.
    Mr. Stauber. And under principle No. 1 of the strategy, it 
states the Administration will ``consult, coordinate, and co-
manage with the Alaska Native tribes and communities.'' Do you 
believe the Administration properly coordinated with tribal 
communities before making these disastrous policy decisions?
    Mr. Harcharek. In this case, it is clear to me, with the 
members that make up the VOICE, some of them being cooperating 
agencies, they have not consulted with the people on the North 
Slope.
    Mr. Stauber. And you were present in the room when I 
specifically asked the Deputy Director, and the Deputy Director 
said he believed in his mind they did. You are refuting that 
statement, is that correct?
    Mr. Harcharek. That is correct.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. As the Chair, I am going to give you and 
the VOICE an opportunity to submit a letter to that fact, and I 
will accept it without objection, the fact that they did not 
consult before the disastrous decision, if that is what you 
want, and I will accept that.
    I am really disappointed to hear that, but, unfortunately, 
not surprised. This Administration did not seek the input of my 
constituents in northeastern Minnesota, as well, when they 
withdrew 225,504 acres from critical mineral development in the 
Superior National Forest earlier this year.
    And as the Committee heard testimony on a few weeks ago, 
the Administration did not consult with the Navajo Nation 
before instituting a 10-mile-wide buffer zone around Chaco 
Canyon, blocking oil and gas development, a decision those 
communities also did not support.
    Ms. Sgamma, in your opinion, is the BLM in compliance with 
the leasing requirements in the Inflation Reduction Act?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, in some respects they are because 
Congress raised royalty rates and various other fees. BLM has 
gone beyond that, and did what Congress did not want to do in 
IRA by increasing bonding amounts twentyfold.
    We look at some of those bonding amounts, and if you take 
the rule at face value, a statewide bond would only apply to 
seven wells. So, we have a small member company that reported 
that their 3,500 wells would cost them $250 million.
    Mr. Stauber. So, they are not following the Inflation 
Reduction Act.
    Ms. Sgamma. That is right, and they are adding additional 
fees, as well.
    Mr. Stauber. So, they are not following the Inflation 
Reduction Act as intended. And since they are not, should the 
Bureau of Land Management be able to issue rights-of-way for 
renewable energy projects?
    Ms. Sgamma. I think that is kind of a little bit of a 
separate issue in that they are clearly not moving forward with 
enough leased acreage to support doing much when it comes to 
wind and solar permits. So, if they really want to pursue an 
all-of-the-above strategy, they should get on with some leasing 
of oil and gas.
    Mr. Stauber. In the earlier testimony, my good friend and 
colleague from Nevada referenced some lease sales. Would you 
say the total lease sales were about 181 acres in the state of 
Nevada?
    Ms. Sgamma. I don't know off the top of my head. I know 
that the latest sale had zero bids on it.
    We have had a hard time cracking the code in Nevada. There 
have been many companies that have tried it over the years. I 
would like to address her point because it is completely wrong 
that once you lease or nominate lands, they don't hold up the 
lands at all. It is not as if those lands are not available for 
recreation or whatever, other multiple uses. That is a fallacy 
that you hear from the environmental lobby that she just 
repeated, which is factually inaccurate.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    Mr. Novotny, this Administration has held three onshore 
lease sales in your great state of Wyoming, and each one, the 
acreage actually offered in the sale had decreased radically 
from what was initially proposed. Can you explain what impacts 
these lackluster sales will have on Wyoming communities?
    And before you answer that, I love your background as a 
part of the County Commission. I was, too. Please answer the 
question.
    Mr. Novotny. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, county 
commissioners are where the rubber meets the road. We are 
charged with providing the most essential services, whether it 
is the community hospital that we have that writes off millions 
of dollars in uncompensated care or underpayment from Medicare 
and Medicaid. They make up that difference in the severance tax 
and the ad valorem tax that they receive. If I am unable to 
meet my county budget requirements, I cannot provide essential 
services like fire, EMS, and others.
    We have a solid working relationship with the other 
counties across the state. But the bottom line is if we do not 
have the ability to raise revenue and create good and lasting 
jobs in our community, the West is going to just wither away.
    We have to have reasonable and responsible development, and 
we do it right in Wyoming, and we have been doing it right 
since before statehood. And that revenue then is multiplied in 
my community so that we can send kids to school, have 
incredible opportunities like Wyoming's Hathaway Scholarship, 
where every kid in the state of Wyoming is going to qualify for 
some level of higher education at the University of Wyoming or 
one of our community colleges.
    Mr. Stauber. We talk about the Great American Outdoors Act, 
which a vast majority is paid for by oil and gas royalties.
    Mr. Harcharek, I commit to you that as long as I am 
privileged to be Chair of this Committee, that your community 
will be represented. It pains me to hear you say that this 
Administration never consulted with your eight communities on 
the North Slope over this disastrous decision. I want to commit 
to you and your people that we will build a relationship so you 
can be an economic driver in Alaska. Yes, you are a ways away 
from Washington, DC, but I want you to know that that 
commitment comes as long as I am privileged to serve as Chair 
of this Committee.
    Mr. Harcharek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Stauber. We are going to now recognize Mr. Rosendale 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I am going 
to dive right into some questions, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing. I appreciate the lack of attendance from 
our friends on the other side of the aisle. Apparently, they 
are not too concerned about developing critical minerals and 
domestic energy, as witnessed by the lack of their attendance.
    Ms. Sgamma, it is always great to see you in here. Again, 
in your opinion, why is the Administration relying on countries 
that produce dirtier natural gas and oil with less strict 
environmental standards for these critical resources, rather 
than relying on the bounty of natural gas and oil that we have 
right here in our own country?
    Ms. Sgamma. Please don't ask me to try to explain that.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Sgamma. No, I mean, I don't know. We do it cleaner 
here, and we should be creating the jobs here instead of 
sending them overseas.
    Mr. Rosendale. I appreciate that, and we all probably would 
agree with that idea.
    You mentioned in your testimony that you would like us to 
submit formal requests relating to the coordination between the 
Department of the Interior and environmental and activist 
groups. Do you have any personal experiences that have led you 
to believe that outside activist groups are inappropriately 
influencing the Department of the Interior?
    Ms. Sgamma. I wish I had time to file all those FOIA 
requests because the Administration doesn't honor them. You 
have to sue to get any information. So, I just don't have the 
resources to sue on every single FOIA request that would come 
up.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, you have made FOIA requests, you are 
trying to get the information so that you can see this 
communication is taking place. And they have been unanswered. 
You are saying that the organization has actually filed 
lawsuits so that you can get that information?
    Ms. Sgamma. We have in the past. We have not during this 
Administration. We kind of gave up on that strategy just 
because it is so costly.
    Protect the Public's Trust has done a pretty good job on 
filing FOIA lawsuits, and they got information on the collusion 
between the Interior Department and activist groups surrounding 
the Chaco Canyon withdrawal. So, I think that was a successful 
effort that I am aware of.
    Mr. Rosendale. I appreciate that. The Protect the Public's 
Trust, I think that is also the same group that filed the 
information request that we have been trying to get in regards 
to Secretary Haaland's daughter and her lobbying activities 
with Interior and other Members and her actual participation in 
some protests which turned violent that I understand.
    Ms. Sgamma. That is right. They have done a good job 
digging up some information.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. As your testimony suggests, the bonding 
provisions in a recently proposed rule by BLM would price small 
companies out of the bonding process. And you said, based on 
that, you had a firm that, on the six or seven wells in the 
area, if you average that across the state, they would end up 
having to post, like, $250 million.
    Since Biden has taken office, do you believe that the 
actions have disproportionately harmed small businesses, rather 
than the multinational oil and gas corporations?
    And what other types of rules have they put in place to 
basically choke out these smaller firms?
    Ms. Sgamma. The backbone of the oil and gas industry is the 
small company. The majors can certainly absorb most of these 
costs, although even they can't absorb all these costs all the 
time.
    But, yes, when you increase royalty rates and increase fees 
and increase bonding amounts, it is the small company that 
bears the brunt.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, not only the increase of fees and 
imposing these regulations, but what we are also hearing about, 
and I have heard from some of my independent drillers in 
Yellowstone County there in Montana, is the inability for them 
to access capital. Are you hearing the same kinds of things 
down in Colorado where, because of these ESG standards that the 
Federal Government has imposed, and unfortunately, many 
financial institutions have embraced the environmental social 
governance standards, has choked out the ability for these 
independents, in your experience to have access to capital to 
perform their work, as well?
    Ms. Sgamma. Absolutely. They have increased the cost of 
capital, and we have several member companies that have 
reported to me that they can't get a loan, or they can't raise 
capital.
    Mr. Rosendale. Very good. I am going to get one more 
question in, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Novotny, we heard you talking about the bonding and the 
reclamation efforts and things like that. What is the use and 
condition of some of these reclaimed lands?
    I am sure you have traveled out to them, I am sure you have 
seen them. What is the use and the condition of those reclaimed 
lands after that work is done?
    Mr. Novotny. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Rosendale, it is 
incredible.
    You look at the Powder River Basin, where the coal is 
mined. The land is in better pristine environmental condition 
than prior to, and they are required to do the environmental 
monitoring before and after. So, they have the scientific data 
to prove it.
    Where oil and gas production is occurring, sage grouse use 
it as leks. Deer, antelope, elk migrate through these areas. It 
is pristine. We care about the environment. It is a major 
component of our travel and tourism economy. So, we are not 
going to upset our three-legged stool by cutting off one of 
those legs.
    Mr. Rosendale. Very good. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentlelady from California, Representative Kamlager-Dove, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all 
for being here today. I have a couple of questions. I would 
like to start with Dr. Vasquez.
    I understand that, as a scientist and an advocate, you have 
been sounding the alarm about the harm caused by orphaned oil 
and gas wells for years. You sound like many of my constituents 
in Culver City and in the Baldwin Hills area. Given your 
expertise, I would like to set the record straight on some of 
the misleading claims made today about bonding and the 
abandoned and orphan well crisis.
    Ms. Sgamma claimed that the Department of the Interior said 
there were only 37 orphaned wells on Federal lands, and 
therefore there really is no problem. I think this is an 
extreme cherry picking of the data, and covers up the way the 
oil and gas industry routinely leaves wells unplugged and 
polluting for years by hiding behind the definition of orphan.
    So, Dr. Vasquez, can you explain what it takes for a well 
to be officially declared orphaned on Federal lands?
    Dr. Vasquez. It is a complex process, and I appreciate the 
question.
    First of all, previously it took 7 years before the BLM 
would declare a well that was not producing as idle. Now, by 
legislation, it takes 4 years. That is an improvement, but that 
is still a long time for a well to be out of production and not 
plugged and reclaimed.
    Following that, in order to be declared orphan, the BLM 
pursues a chain of custody and ownership of leases to try to 
find a financially responsible party. Sometimes they are 
successful, and that party plugs the well and reclaims. 
Sometimes they are not.
    And in the absence of a sufficient bond, there is an 
incentive to walk away from wells, rather than to exercise 
their responsibility to plug and reclaim the well.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that. And does the number 
of officially orphaned wells accurately reflect how many non-
producing oil and gas wells are currently sitting unplugged and 
potentially polluting on public lands?
    Dr. Vasquez. It does not. And actually, the GAO study 
indicated that there were 5,100 orphaned wells. And recent 
testimony by Nada Culver of the BLM indicated in 2021 that 
there were 2,100. So, the number appears to be in great 
contention, and that is probably because of problems with 
recordkeeping and the use of different terms to indicate wells 
that are not producing.
    So, each of these wells, once they are out of production, 
offers the opportunity to leak methane and volatile organic 
chemicals into the atmosphere, risking public health, wildlife 
health, and climate change impacts.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that. You once again sound 
like so many of my constituents at the town halls that I host.
    I have the largest urban oil field in my district that is 
in the United States. We have had dozens and dozens of hearings 
and town halls. And I am listening to grandparents talk about 
putting metal stents in their 7-year-old grandchildren's bodies 
because of the after-effects of living close to oil fields 
where toxins are being emitted all the time, and folks are 
shirking their responsibility and evading the costs that it 
takes to do this kind of work and keeping people safe.
    So, my next question for you is, how will BLM's proposed 
rule, including the updating bonding requirements, help stop 
these wells from polluting?
    Dr. Vasquez. The only way we can stop these wells from 
polluting is getting them plugged and reclaimed rapidly, and 
that is not happening. The imposition of a higher bond level, 
which is not as high as they are looking at in Colorado for 
Federal wells, will certainly incentivize the operators to take 
care of that responsibility quickly.
    It doesn't make sense to hold a well in operation when it 
is not economically viable, and yet we see a lot of these wells 
just sitting idle without being reclaimed.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. And tell us again why you think that is 
happening.
    Dr. Vasquez. The reason it is happening, in my opinion, is 
because the financial incentive to do the work required is not 
there, that companies can just walk away and abandon wells 
without doing the plugging and remediation.
    If they have a bond, then both the state and the Federal 
Governments for the wells involved have an opportunity to 
gather those funds and use them for plugging and reclamation.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you so much for that.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Before we go to Representative Tiffany from Wisconsin, Ms. 
Sgamma, I believe it is important when we bring witnesses in, 
when Dr. Vasquez was answering the question on orphan wells I 
saw you shake your head. Do you want to respond to the number 
of orphaned wells?
    Ms. Sgamma. Sure. The GAO report from 2019 identified 296 
orphan wells on BLM lands. That is a fact.
    An idle well does not mean an orphaned well. There are 
various reasons that companies idle wells for a time. That 
could include that they want to go back into that wellbore in 
the future and hit another formation, for example. So, rather 
than develop a whole new well, you can use that existing well 
bore, go deeper, and hit another rock formation, such as some 
of these shales that have been extremely productive. So, an 
idle well is not an orphan well.
    The GAO also identified that probably many of the idle 
wells that had been idled for quite some time were a matter of 
poor recordkeeping by BLM, and that many of those were probably 
plugged and abandoned properly. So, that is another issue.
    And I would just point out that the chain of custody on 
wells is not a negative. It is very positive. So, if one 
company goes bankrupt, BLM then goes to other companies that 
previously had that well. Even if they sold those assets, they 
will go back to that original company that developed the well. 
So, they have a whole bunch of different responsible partners 
in that original well, or chains of custody along that well so 
that very few wells actually become orphaned because you go and 
you grab another company, and they are responsible.
    And the reason that BLM just reported only 37 orphan wells, 
and again, that is a fact, that was a report back from the 
Assistant Secretary in response to questions from the record, 
that there are only 37 wells down from 296. And that is because 
companies have been reclaiming those wells. Most of those wells 
were not reclaimed by BLM, but by companies at company expense.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair is now going to 
recognize Representative Tiffany from Wisconsin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Harcharek, I am sorry I wasn't here for your testimony. 
Is it accurate that the tribes you represent were not consulted 
with the Arctic withdrawal that just happened?
    Mr. Harcharek. That is accurate, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. You were not consulted.
    Mr. Harcharek. The cooperating agencies that are members of 
the organization that I represent were not consulted, no.
    Mr. Tiffany. What do you think should be done about that?
    Mr. Harcharek. I wish that the Administration would follow 
some of their strategies and memos outlining the willingness 
and the want to consult with Indigenous communities, and the 
willingness and the want to stand them up economically through 
whatever lens they want to look at. I would hope that they 
would continue to move forward and put action to those words.
    Mr. Tiffany. In other words, they should follow the law.
    What benefits have Alaskans gotten from oil in Alaska since 
it was founded? It started producing back in the 1960s or 
1970s.
    Mr. Harcharek. Thank you for the question. Huge benefits, 
at least for the North Slope.
    Ninety-five percent of the revenue that is generated with 
the North Slope borough is funded through the taxation of oil 
and gas infrastructure. And those dollars are reinvested into 
the eight communities that we have to provide modern services 
today: water and sewer, road development, schools, 
infrastructure, and education. They fund the North Slope 
Borough Department of Education. They fund Ilisagvik College.
    Anything that is taken for granted, so to speak, for the 
most part, any more down here in the Lower 48, that is fully 
funded through the development of oil and gas, and taxing that 
infrastructure on the North Slope. So, massive amounts of 
benefit that we have seen over the years from the 1970s, 
including life expectancy increases of 13 years since 1980 to 
2014.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thirteen years since 1980. That is a big 
benefit, isn't it?
    Mr. Harcharek. Huge benefit.
    Mr. Tiffany. It was said by the BLM person that was here, 
he said something about we wanted to make sure that those that 
live in subsistence cultures, that they are able to continue. 
Do the people you represent want more than subsistence?
    Mr. Harcharek. I didn't hear the last part of that 
question, sorry.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do the people that you represent want more 
than a subsistence living?
    Mr. Harcharek. In this day and age, with the economy that 
we have come to appreciate since oil and gas development on 
North Slope, we need more than just a subsistence lifestyle.
    The jobs that are provided through these resource 
development projects enhance the way that we subsist anymore. 
So, we need that, and they co-exist, and you can't separate 
them anymore.
    Mr. Tiffany. You know, Mr. Chairman, it is really 
disappointing to see an Administration that says to people that 
one of our first goals is to make sure that people can have a 
subsistence living. You just heard right here that they would 
like a better life. And I think living 13 years longer would 
qualify as having a better life. Think about the incredible 
benefit to people as a result of oil. You get to live 13 years 
longer. You maybe get to see your grandchildren. Amazing.
    Ms. Sgamma, perhaps you answered this in the follow-up with 
Mr. Stauber, but in regards to cherry-picking data, do you have 
anything else you want to add to that?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, we often hear that industry is leaving 
this huge cost to the taxpayer, and that is not true. We 
returned $55 for every single dollar the BLM spends 
administering the oil and gas program.
    Mr. Tiffany. Could I do a real quick follow-up here? So, we 
hear all this about Big Oil, Big Oil, big problem. As a result 
of this stuff, are we going to have more smaller producers, 
those mom-and-pop operations that sometimes pop up in the oil 
patch? Are we going to have more of them as a result of these 
rules and regulations?
    Ms. Sgamma. Not when you increase all these costs on the 
small producer. It will be left to the big guys.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it is only the big guys that can survive, 
is that correct?
    Ms. Sgamma. That is right.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
    Ms. Vasquez, is climate change causing increased wildfires?
    Dr. Vasquez. The scientists who study our atmosphere 
suggest that greenhouse gas emissions are driving up the 
temperature of the planet. We see in the western part of this 
country a long-term drought and aridification that supports 
forest fires.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you ever read any of the scientists, which 
there are over 1,000 of them now, what you would call climate 
scientists, who have said that this is not man caused? Do you 
ever read any of them?
    Dr. Vasquez. I have, but I am not an atmospheric scientist. 
I want to qualify my answer.
    Mr. Tiffany. What is global weirding? I saw that in your 
testimony. What is global weirding?
    Dr. Vasquez. The problem with climate change is it doesn't 
cause warming everywhere. It causes changes in our weather and 
our climate in various ways across the globe. And you see that 
in the news every day with heavy rains, huge storms, as well as 
forest fires, even in the tundra and in the boreal forest.
    There is no question in the mind of scientists who study 
the atmosphere, and I am not one of them, that greenhouse gas 
emissions are driving the climate to warm globally.
    Mr. Tiffany. If you have over 1,000 scientists that are 
saying they disagree with you--you said there is no question 
this is happening, it sounds like there is a question amongst 
eminent scientists.
    Dr. Vasquez. The majority of scientists who study our 
climate believe that global warming is and climate change are 
caused by human activity.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are you familiar with Copernicus, the man who 
said that the world is round?
    Dr. Vasquez. Thank you, sir. I am.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you know that he was excommunicated from 
the Catholic Church because it was heresy for someone to say 
that, and he was in a distinct minority at that point? In fact, 
one of the very few people on Earth that said the Earth was 
round. Just think, if we followed consensus, if Europeans 
followed consensus at that time.
    Dr. Vasquez. Yes. We have a mix of science and religion 
here that I am not qualified to comment on.
    Mr. Tiffany. You have been very generous.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentlewoman from California, Representative Porter.
    And we were happy to waive you on, Representative.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you. In 2022, the Federal Government, 
finally, after 100 years of having the rate unchanged, made oil 
companies pay a fair and appropriate market rate----
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Ms. Porter. My microphone is off. I will start again, and I 
would like my time back.
    In 2022, the Federal Government, finally, after 100 years 
of having the rate unchanged, made oil companies pay a fair and 
appropriate market rate for onshore drilling.
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Ms. Porter. I am just going to shout, sir.
    We did this by passing a provision in the Inflation 
Reduction Act that would increase onshore royalty rates to 
16\2/3\ percent.
    Ms. Sgamma, you represent the oil and gas industry, and you 
suggested in your testimony that this change, along with 
others, this changing onshore royalty rate will seriously harm 
the oil industry. How so?
    Ms. Sgamma. I have no problem with what Congress actually 
passed. Congress passed increased royalty rates and increased 
fees. So, BLM has to put in place a rule that honors that. It 
is obviously law.
    What BLM has done has gone beyond what Congress passed in 
raising bonding amounts twentyfold and adding additional fees 
that Congress did not pass, and in increasing cost of living 
adjustments, which Congress did not pass.
    Ms. Porter. Ms. Sgamma, do you support the adjustment to 
16\2/3\ percent? Or you don't contest----
    Ms. Sgamma. Of course not. It is law.
    Ms. Porter. OK. And I really appreciate that, because, of 
course, many oil producing states, including places like Texas, 
charge 20 to 25 percent to drill on their state lands. So, 
Congress is still shorting Federal taxpayers and giving oil a 
very reasonable rate at 16\2/3\ percent. I know there are 
differences between state and Federal lands, but I am glad to 
hear you say that you think it was appropriate to update the 
royalty rate.
    I want to turn to bonding. You talk in your testimony about 
bankruptcy, and you say that the sales in bankruptcy almost 
always result in continuous liability for the assets. Why?
    Ms. Sgamma. That is the system. We don't want a system 
where----
    Ms. Porter. That is actually not bankruptcy law. Bankruptcy 
law allows assets to be sold free and clear, and for the 
company to discharge the liability.
    Ms. Sgamma. Right, another company picks it up, yes.
    Ms. Porter. When a new company buys it, they don't pick up 
the liability.
    Ms. Sgamma. Yes, they do. Yes, they absolutely do. That is 
part of the package. When you purchase new assets, you purchase 
all the liability with it.
    Ms. Porter. That is actually literally not how bankruptcy 
works.
    Ms. Sgamma. That is literally how the oil and gas industry 
works. Those assets are still in a chain of custody. So, they 
are purchased or, if not, the BLM goes after the prior company.
    Ms. Porter. OK. So, if BLM goes after the prior company, 
just say that the prior company then goes bankrupt, and they 
have to go back to the chain, how does BLM recover and get the 
prior company, which went through bankruptcy and discharged 
their liability on that, to pay?
    Ms. Sgamma. Again, when companies go bankrupt, usually what 
happens is their assets are purchased by another company. So, 
the chain of custody continues.
    Ms. Porter. But I am asking about when that next company 
goes bankrupt.
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, I mean, then it is a hypothetical on a 
hypothetical because there are 37 orphan wells on Federal 
lands. So, the chain of custody is working in most cases. Of 
the 89,000 producible wells in the BLM system, 0.03 percent are 
orphaned wells.
    Ms. Porter. Earlier you said 297. Are those the idle wells 
that you were referring to?
    Ms. Sgamma. In 2019, GAO had a report, and they identified 
296 orphan wells on BLM lands.
    Ms. Porter. What changed to go from 296 to 37?
    Ms. Sgamma. Yes, it is a good story, right?
    The Assistant Secretary just reported back to Congress that 
there are only 37 orphan wells on BLM lands. So, over that 
time, since 2019, BLM has been proactive, they should be 
applauded for reducing the number of orphan wells. But most of 
those wells are plugged and abandoned and reclaimed by other 
companies.
    We have a lot of members that, when they go in and they 
want to produce on new leases, they will clean up the orphan 
wells that are in that area, even if there is----
    Ms. Porter. I'm not sure why BLM allowed there to be 300, 
297, or whatever.
    Ms. Sgamma. It is still a very small amount.
    Ms. Porter. They reduced this number, I appreciate----
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, it is actually the Trump and the Biden 
administrations that have reduced that number. I think it is a 
very small amount of orphan wells when you consider the 96,000 
wells at the time that that number was identified by GAO.
    Ms. Porter. [Inaudible.]
    Ms. Sgamma. There are some bad actors, and there are ways 
to deal with bad actors. BLM has the flexibility now to 
increase bonding amounts for those companies that have shown 
that they are not as responsible. So, BLM already has that 
flexibility, and has gone after other companies in the chain of 
custody, so they have decreased the number of wells that are 
orphaned. It is a good story.
    Ms. Porter. Then why do you oppose BLM continuing this work 
on bonding?
    Ms. Sgamma. Because the numbers show that it is an 
arbitrary and capricious rule to increase costs so much when 
the problem is such a relatively small problem.
    Ms. Porter. What is the right number?
    Ms. Sgamma. The right bonding number? I think the system 
works today. The system works today. That is why there are only 
37 orphan wells on Federal lands.
    Ms. Porter. You say in your testimony, and I appreciated 
this, that a good question to ask BLM is how many wells are 
plugged and abandoned each year without requiring a call on a 
bond. Do you know how many do require a call on a bond?
    Ms. Sgamma. Yes. Over the last 10 years, four every year 
require a call on bond. Again, it is a very small number, and 
it shows that the system in place is working.
    Ms. Porter. Was the bond adequate to fully cover the cost 
of clean-up in those four situations?
    Ms. Sgamma. I don't know the particulars on those four. The 
only number we have is what Tommy Beaudreau reported back to 
Congress. So, I don't have any more information than that 
number.
    Ms. Porter. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Sgamma, real quick, before we go to Representative 
Boebert, what is the time frame to get a state permit in Texas 
versus a Federal permit?
    Ms. Sgamma. Probably a matter of days or weeks versus 6 or 
10 or 20 months.
    Mr. Stauber. OK. So, a state permit in Texas, just a couple 
of days. A Federal permit, many months.
    Ms. Sgamma. Months, right. And that is why the states can 
command a higher royalty rate, because they don't extract so 
much money in the regulatory process.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. We are now going to 
recognize Representative Boebert from Colorado for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Sgamma, would you agree that efficiently approving 
applications for permits to drill is one way to increase energy 
production on Federal lands and help drive down the 
skyrocketing inflation that we are seeing, and the gas prices?
    Ms. Sgamma. Absolutely. Certainty, and leasing, and 
permitting, it makes a more efficient system so that we can 
respond to prices faster.
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes. Unfortunately, the Biden administration 
has fallen behind on the permitting timelines that had been 
established previously in the Trump administration. In June 
2019, drilling permit review times averaged 94 days, and by the 
end of Fiscal Year 2021, the drilling permit reviews averaged 
182 days. In Fiscal Year 2022, the BLM had approved an average 
of 233 drilling permits per month. And in contrast, the 
Department of the Interior was approving nearly 400 drilling 
permits monthly in Fiscal Year 2020 under President Trump.
    So, Ms. Sgamma, you discussed the increased bureaucracy 
around lease suspensions and permit extensions. What can we do 
in Congress to ensure that the agencies spend their time 
reducing the current APD backlog, something that you and I have 
discussed in the past?
    Ms. Sgamma. There have been so many good legislative ideas, 
such as in H.R. 1, that would improve the process. I don't know 
that the House can really force the Senate to take that up. So, 
I think you all have done your job in putting forward really 
good ideas for moving forward.
    Mrs. Boebert. Certainly laying out the groundwork for 
future Congresses to work together.
    But would extending the APD term to 4 years instead of 2 
years, as done rather than just justifying quarterly 
extensions, be part of that solution?
    Ms. Sgamma. Absolutely. We are making that comment in our 
comments on the leasing rule, that BLM should just have a 4-
year permit term. It keeps them from having to go back and 
revisit the permits every 2 years. Just one 4-year permit term. 
It stopped this cycle of continuing to justify an extension.
    The reality is we need many permits in hand before we can 
start, because you don't have any certainty on how long it is 
going to take BLM to get your permit done. So, you can't have 
your rig come out and you don't have enough permits to keep 
that rig busy, because we are super efficient in drilling now.
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes. My American Energy Act, which you and I 
have discussed, which passed the House earlier this year under 
H.R. 1, that would do exactly what we are talking about here. 
It would require courts to remand lease sales and these 
environmental impact statements to agencies to remedy, when 
necessary, rather than just allowing judges with political 
agendas to simply vacate these leases. And, certainly, 
extending the term from 2 years to 4 years.
    So, Ms. Sgamma, last month BLM issued a supplemental 
environmental impact statement to its draft Resource Management 
Plans of the Colorado River Valley Field Office and the Grand 
Junction Field office in Colorado. This proposed land grab 
could lock up 1.6 million acres to future oil and gas leasing. 
This is something that we are continuously fighting in the 
western slope of Colorado.
    Can you elaborate on the jobs that will be lost in western 
Colorado, the negative impacts to hardworking Coloradans, and 
the loss of education funding and so much more that will result 
in this?
    Ms. Sgamma. Unfortunately, we have just begun to look at 
that RMP because there is just so much regulation coming at us 
right now. So, I don't have an economic analysis on what that 
will do.
    I think BLM's estimate of only 600 wells that will be 
prevented over 20 years is woefully inadequate. I think the 
intention is to stop the development of very promising Mancos 
shale in the Piceance Basin there in western Colorado, and I 
think that is very problematic.
    What I think is especially problematic is they are closing 
nearly 1.6 million acres under the guise of closing areas that 
have no known, low potential, or medium potential for oil and 
gas. The problem with that is 15 years ago the Bakken was 
considered medium potential. Twenty years ago, the Permian 
Basin in New Mexico was considered basically low potential. 
Now, those are two of the most prolific basins in the world. 
So, by cutting off the Mancos shale to any new exploration, 
what was low, that could become high potential. We would never 
know.
    Mrs. Boebert. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one final question?
    Mr. Stauber. Yes, you may.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We all saw Joe Biden beg Saudi Arabia to increase their oil 
production to relieve high gas prices. And then, of course, he 
depleted our Strategic Petroleum Reserves to drive down those 
prices in the name of a mid-term election.
    What threat does begging terrorists for oil, rather than 
producing it right here in America pose to our U.S. national 
security?
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, the good news is if we actually developed 
our oil here in the United States, we make OPEC irrelevant. We 
could be producing 2 to 3 million more barrels of oil a day. 
OPEC would then be irrelevant, and global oil prices would be 
lower, and consumers would be paying less at the pump.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Ms. Sgamma, and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for giving me that extra time.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Fulcher for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the panel, 
thank you for your comments. And please understand that dueling 
committees, that is why some of us come and go. We got your 
written testimony, and we thank you for that.
    A question for Ms. Sgamma, and this has to do with royalty 
rates. But while the Federal royalty rate has gone up, it is 
also the case that the environmental assessment has more robust 
emission impact analysis than in other prior leases. Should we 
expect that we are going to get much out of all this?
    Ms. Sgamma. What do you mean?
    Mr. Fulcher. On the royalty increase versus the overall 
more robust emission impact.
    Ms. Sgamma. Well, I mean, definitely royalties will be 
higher, based on the new royalty rate.
    I am not sure I am understanding your tying it to 
emissions.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK, this might be my microphone, Mr. Chairman.
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. Fulcher. Sorry about the technical difficulty. 
Hopefully, this will be a little bit better.
    Statement and then a question, Ms. Sgamma. If you can speak 
to this, FERC has been extremely slow in approving new gas and 
oil pipelines. For example, a GTN Xpress out of Canada that 
goes through Idaho and into Oregon and Washington is still 
under delay. All they want to do is increase the capacity to 
compress LNG to run more through an existing pipe.
    FERC commissioners are clashing with each other over new 
mandates on social impacts in states from greenhouse gases and 
other emissions. This is causing delays on even things like 
upgrading the compression software for LNG going through an 
existing pipeline.
    This upgrade got a clean bill of health in its 
environmental review. Half the LNG would go to my state of 
Idaho. I am hearing a lot of talk from these agencies, but not 
a lot of production.
    What is the best way to get action on this?
    Ms. Sgamma. I think if the Administration approved 
pipelines and gas gathering lines and the like, we would be 
able to produce more natural gas. And natural gas has been the 
No. 1 reason the United States has reduced more greenhouse gas 
emissions than any other country, is by increased use of 
natural gas and electricity generation. So, natural gas offers 
that climate change benefit.
    We have done more than wind and solar combined, as far as 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector. 
So, I think sometimes when FERC is slow to approve things, it 
is worse for the environment.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chairman, just for the record, we are doing some 
homework on this, and I just want to point out and enter into 
the record that our exports of crude in this country in the 
last 2 years are down 57.6 percent, if I understand that 
correctly, on average about 4.9 million barrels per day down, 
just within that 2-year window.
    So, I think that underscores the importance of natural gas. 
I think that underscores the importance of some of these 
approvals.
    And with that, and overcoming the technical difficulties, I 
will yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Representative Hageman, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each of 
the witnesses for participating today.
    President Biden and Democrats in Congress continue to push 
the false narrative that there are leases available out there 
that oil and gas companies are just choosing not to use. 
President Biden said that there were 9,000 unused permits 
available that could be accessed at any time. This false number 
was abused by the Democrats until they realized they couldn't 
defend it anymore, and they began to use the 6,000 number.
    When Director Stone-Manning from BLM was here a few months 
ago, she kept referring to a statistic of some 6,000 or so 
unused oil and gas leases, suggesting the BLM and Department of 
the Interior had done their part, and that it was up to these 
companies to do theirs by using these old leases without 
issuing any new ones.
    Commissioner Novotny, can you dispel this myth for us? 
Explain where the idea came from, and why it is so important 
that we are able to continue to lease.
    Mr. Novotny. Mr. Chairman, Representative Hageman, I really 
appreciate this question.
    As this Administration has rallied about this ever-changing 
number, the honest fact is it is just not 9,000. The facts are 
that in Wyoming many of these approved permits are unable to be 
developed because they are on leases that are being litigated 
by environmental groups. We are talking about millions of acres 
of litigated leases.
    In other cases, operators may only have one approved 
permit, but would like to pad drill, and that is several more 
wells at a time. And pad drilling specifically means drilling 
more than one well off of that footprint. And instead of 
spending millions of dollars to move a drilling rig, you can 
save costs and produce a greater area. It is just good business 
practice.
    Not being able to pad drill can severely harm the economies 
of a drilling program, which brings up a larger point. The 
number of approved Federal permits at any given time is only a 
small portion of the bigger development picture. Companies have 
to balance what they believe is the productivity of the quality 
of the rock with those commodity prices. Because, let's face 
it, oil and gas, these are commodities.
    They are sending out what we call authorities for 
expenditure to find those investors, to determine how much of 
that $10 million that it could be needed to pay up front to 
produce that, and they are securing surface wells, surface use 
agreements, access agreements for those pads and those 
locations, and securing rights-of-way for transmission lines, 
pipelines, and others.
    They are negotiating gas agreements and multi-million-
dollar contracts with rig operators. They are determining 
whether the summer drilling program will be a single well, or 
50, or 500. They are juggling wildlife stipulations, especially 
as you and I know in the state of Wyoming with sage grouse, 
plus seasons and weather. They are juggling thousands of 
factors determining when and where they are going to drill.
    According to the BLM, in April there were 6,443 approved 
and 4,851 pending. In April, there were 1,972 approved permits 
and 496 pending permits in Wyoming. And today, we only have 20 
active drilling rigs.
    Ms. Hageman. I appreciate those statistics and that 
information.
    You also have highlighted just how significant a single 
well is on your county, citing up to $400,000 in tax revenue in 
a single year. This tells us either that the Biden 
administration is unaware of how significant oil and gas is to 
our state, or they simply don't care.
    In your opinion, why does this Administration insist on 
exporting our economy and our jobs to other nations that do 
something that we can do better?
    Mr. Novotny. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I have no 
explanation for the decision of this Administration to be so 
anti-oil and gas. These are good-paying jobs in the trade 
industry, jobs that my grandfather was able to enjoy and send 
his kids, the first in his family, to go to college. These are 
wonderful jobs that produce the revenue and the resources that 
fund our American economy.
    Ms. Hageman. And I appreciate that, as well.
    Deputy Director Nedd deflected from answering my questions 
regarding how this Administration's policies have created 
serious energy poverty, and the fact that their favored, 
unreliable energy resources rely on child labor in places like 
the Congo by claiming that he didn't know what I was talking 
about, or hadn't researched it, or hadn't looked into it.
    Don't you agree that the BLM, in pursuing these radical 
policies, should make even a rudimentary effort to get an 
understanding of the consequences of their decisions?
    Mr. Novotny. Mr. Chairman, Representative Hageman, 
absolutely.
    My constituents are facing a 30 percent rate increase on 
their energy production when we are retiring perfectly good 
coal and gas-fired power plants within the state of Wyoming and 
across this country. As we wait for that NextGen nuclear 
facility to be built near Kemmerer, Wyoming, we are stifling 
our economy, we are taxing our folks directly and indirectly 
through inflation and regulation, out of house and home and 
their ability to sustain themselves.
    Oil and gas leads the way, and we can do it domestically, 
appropriately, that protects the environment, protects 
wildlife, and ensures for future generations that we are a 
successful nation.
    Ms. Hageman. It seems like that this Administration has a 
different agenda in mind.
    Thank you, Mr. Novotny.
    Thank you to all of our witnesses, and I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    To the witnesses, once in a while the Chairperson will ask 
for a second round of questioning, and I am going to take the 
prerogative to give everyone an opportunity for another round. 
I have some more questions, just a few, actually, from my 
perspective, that I would like to move forward, so I will 
recognize myself for this next round.
    Ms. Sgamma, Dr. Vasquez says in her testimony that the BLM 
has failed to manage their onshore oil and gas program by 
failing to increase the bonding levels. But as you note in your 
testimony, there are currently only 37 orphan wells on Federal 
lands. Doesn't that number actually prove that bonding rates 
for production on Federal lands is actually adequate?
    Ms. Sgamma. I agree. I think the system is working. 
Industry has made a concerted effort to help get those numbers 
down. We are the ones who are reclaiming most of those wells, 
even if we are not the responsible company. As I mentioned, 
companies come in, they want to develop in a new area, and they 
do plug and abandon those existing wells.
    Mr. Stauber. So, by increasing bonding and greatly 
increasing other fees unnecessarily through their recent 
regulation, is the BLM running the risk of creating more orphan 
wells by putting small operators out of business?
    Ms. Sgamma. I think so. I think that if these rules go 
through as written, they will put more wells at risk of being 
orphaned.
    The idea of a surety market bonding is not to lock up all 
the capital in a bond. Because if you do, then you don't have 
those resources available to actually do the plugging and 
abandoning work and the reclamation work.
    Mr. Stauber. So, one could argue that this new regulation 
is environmentally and financially irresponsible.
    Ms. Sgamma. I would say so. And it is arbitrary and 
capricious, looking at the numbers.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Novotny, Ms. Vasquez says in her testimony 
that the new leasing regulations will not impact smaller 
operators. Do you agree with that perspective?
    Mr. Novotny. Mr. Chairman, under a definition by the Small 
Business Administration, 111 companies that produce oil and gas 
in Wyoming are small businesses. This change in bonding is 
going to increase from $2.5 million to $57 million in annual 
interest payments. That is not sustainable for a business 
practice. It is going to kill jobs in my community, communities 
across Wyoming. It is going to disrupt those traditional 
revenue streams that we rely on, and it is also going to harm 
our nation's energy security.
    And Mr. Chair, if I can just have a little prerogative, I 
would like to address the Rock Springs RMP that was originally 
mentioned by the BLM. It took 12 years for that document to be 
released. There are four different counties with four different 
sets of commissioners. That is three terms of their livelihood 
if you were there from the beginning to the end.
    We take our cooperating agency status under NEPA very, very 
seriously. We work hard with our Federal partners. But when our 
Federal partners will not work fairly and follow the laws, 
follow NEPA and practices, it impacts our jobs, our recreation, 
and every component of our state's economy.
    Mr. Stauber. We want them to follow the facts, the science, 
and the truth, not political science.
    And I will share with you that the disgust that our friends 
in Alaska have experienced these last couple of weeks, and 
actually, for the last 2\1/2\ years, because this 
Administration, I believe it is 55-plus projects now they have 
shut down in the great state of Alaska, and it has devastated 
many parts of that state and the economy.
    They have done it in Minnesota with banning mining in 
northeastern Minnesota. For those of you who don't know, 
northeastern Minnesota mines the taconite that makes over 80 
percent of this nation's steel, and the biggest copper nickel 
mine in the world, and this Administration took off 225,000 
acres when we need those minerals for our everyday lives and to 
move forward.
    Since Representative Fulcher is still here, I will give you 
the opportunity for a second set of questions for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Chairman, I think that is it for me. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
    So, to the witnesses, thank you for your expert testimony, 
and we greatly appreciate the information that you shared with 
us.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the and 
this AdministrationCommittee must submit questions to the 
Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, September 22. The hearing 
record will be held open for 10 business days for these 
responses.
    And I will be submitting for the record some submissions 
from many groups that are concerned with what happened with the 
regulations from the BLM.

    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Stauber

                        Statement for the Record
                            Nagruk Harcharek
                               President
                  Voice of Arctic Inupiat (``VOICE'')
                      ***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
                           September 6, 2023

    A statement from Nagruk Harcharek, President of the Voice of Arctic 
Inupiat (``VOICE''). VOICE is a nonprofit organization established in 
2015 by the region's collective elected Inupiat leadership to speak 
with a unified voice on issues impacting the North Slope Inupiat, their 
communities, their economy, and their culture. Its members include 
local governments, Alaska Native Corporations, federally recognized 
tribes, and tribal non-profits across the North Slope of Alaska. In 
2017, VOICE's board passed a resolution in support of opening of the 
1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas 
exploration and development.

        ``Today's announcement by the Biden administration to rescind 
        leases in the ANWR and further `protect' 13 million acres of 
        our ancestral homelands flies in the face of our region's 
        wishes and self-determination. As stated by the 2023 Arctic 
        Peoples Conference, `Climate change cannot be an excuse to 
        infringe on our distinct rights as Indigenous Peoples.' Today's 
        decision again shows that the administration prioritizes their 
        agenda over the will of local Indigenous communities.

        ``To be clear, this decision was mandated by an administration 
        that has repeatedly pledged to listen and work with Indigenous 
        communities. President Biden himself stated in the Memorandum 
        on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation 
        Relationships, `We best serve Native American people when 
        tribal governments are empowered to lead their communities, and 
        when federal officials speak with and listen to tribal leaders 
        in formulating federal policy.' Today's decision contradicts 
        this Memorandum and advances policies against the wishes of 
        North Slope communities and their elected Indigenous leaders.

        ``For years, our board--which represents elected village and 
        regional leadership across the North Slope--has been steadfast 
        in their support of locally-driven decision-making for our 
        homelands, which just so happen to be located in ANWR and NPR-
        A. As expressed through a resolution passed by our Board of 
        Directors in 2017, we will continue to support the opening of 
        the 1002 Area of ANWR to exploration and development projects.

        ``The Indigenous people of this region, along with its elected 
        leaders, have been steadfast with our positions on issues 
        affecting our homelands. Yet, from administration to 
        administration, working with the federal government has proven 
        to be a rollercoaster ride, with inconsistent, unpredictable, 
        and insufficient policymaking and consultation.

        ``No one knows the North Slope better than its original 
        stewards and their descendants. We urge the Biden 
        administration to center our Indigenous voices, as well as our 
        self-determination, in future decision-making affecting our 
        region.''

                                 ______
                                 
                     Joint Statement for the Record
             Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS),
                          North Slope Borough,
                                  and
                Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC)
                      ***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***
                           September 6, 2023

    A joint statement from the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope 
(ICAS), North Slope Borough, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 
(ASRC) on the Biden administration's cancellation of oil and gas leases 
on the North Slope.

    ``The elected regional Inupiaq leadership of the North Slope 
disagree with the Biden administration's decision today to restrict 
Indigenous access to 13 million acres within the NPR-A and cancel oil 
and gas lease sales in our region. This decision puts the economic 
future of the North Slope Inupiat in jeopardy and undermines Alaska 
Native peoples' right to self-determination. These decisions, largely 
driven by those who have no connection to our land or cultural 
heritage, further undermine the rights of Indigenous people across the 
nation.

    ``Despite our attempts at open lines of communication with the 
administration, local leaders learned of this decision through press 
reports. To date, the Bureau of Land Management failed to consult with 
North Slope communities or the respective local cooperating agencies on 
these decisions--ignoring and silencing Indigenous voices.

    ``The cancellation will undoubtedly cause irreparable harm to our 
communities and the 11,000 residents of the North Slope who rely on 
these lands to sustain their way of life. Ripple effects from this 
decision include decreased connectivity between communities through 
less seasonal road and trail access for our people, more difficult 
construction of critical infrastructure--including rebuilding schools, 
and a lower likelihood of more permanent and redundant 
telecommunications and broadband infrastructure--all in the wake of an 
ongoing local telecommunications emergency.

    ``In the days and weeks ahead, we will be working alongside 
Alaska's bipartisan congressional delegation and the Governor's office, 
all stalwart supporters of our people and our region. And we will 
continue our attempts to be heard by the decision makers in this 
administration.''

                                 ______
                                 
                                 [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
                                 

                ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS of ALASKA

                           Anchorage, Alaska

                                             September 14, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Proposed NPR-A and ANWR Lease Cancellations

    Dear Chair Westerman:

    On behalf of the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Alaska, I 
write to express our appreciation for the upcoming hearing scheduled on 
September 19th with the House Committee on Natural Resources. This 
hearing is of utmost importance to us as it pertains to the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the National Petroleum Reserve-
Alaska (NPRA), areas that have a significant impact on our industry and 
the state of Alaska as a whole.
    AGC of Alaska is the construction industry's largest professional 
trade association, representing over 620 Alaskan contractors, specialty 
contractors, suppliers, manufacturers, and businesses in Alaska. AGC 
members abide by the best practices in the industry and take pride in 
their work to support vital infrastructure and connect Alaska. At AGC, 
we don't represent any specific resource industry. We instead advocate 
for a healthy economy, responsible environmental/developmental 
partnerships, and proper, legal, and well-established permitting and 
review process.
    The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the National 
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) are invaluable assets to Alaska and the 
United States as a whole. These regions are not only rich in natural 
beauty but also harbor vast energy resources that play a vital role in 
powering our nation. The responsible development of these resources is 
essential for our energy security, economic prosperity, and job 
creation.
    With that said, we are deeply concerned by recent actions taken by 
the Department of the Interior that disregard federal law and 
regulations. The recent decision to unilaterally throw out oil and gas 
leases in a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 
sets a dangerous precedent by undoing legally obtained leases, and 
sending a clear message that investment in the United States can be 
undermined at any moment.
    Alaska's construction industry is dedicated to sustainable growth 
and responsible development. We recognize the need to harness our 
state's abundant natural resources to drive economic prosperity, while 
also acknowledging the importance of preserving our pristine 
environment for future generations. We trust that our Congressional 
Delegation, in collaboration with the House Committee on Natural 
Resources, will engage in a comprehensive and thoughtful discussion to 
explore solutions that consider both industry interests and 
environmental stewardship.
    We appreciate the House Committee on Natural Resources for 
providing this opportunity for stakeholders like us to have our voices 
heard and to ensure that any decisions regarding ANWR and NPRA are made 
responsibly and in accordance with the law.

            Sincerely,

                                              Alicia Amberg

                                 ______
                                 

                              THE ALLIANCE

                           Anchorage, Alaska

                                             September 14, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Representative Westerman and Members of the House Natural Resources 
Committee:

    Please accept the following comments from the Alaska Support 
Industry Alliance (the Alliance) on behalf of their 500 member 
companies who work in Alaska and employ 35,000 Alaskans.
    The Alliance is a 44-year-old trade association representing the 
companies that provide support to oil, gas, and mining operations in 
the state of Alaska.
    It is impossible for them to live, work and play in Alaska if they 
cannot work due to the continued attack on oil and gas.

    The recent actions taken by the Biden Administration regarding 
leases in ANWR and the NPRA, another battle in the administrations war 
on oil and gas, will hurt Alaskans and Americans.

     Oil prices are holding around $90 a barrel and gasoline 
            prices are nearing $4 a gallon in the lower 48 and are near 
            $5 a gallon in Alaska due to President Biden's anti-oil and 
            gas policies.

     It is estimated that the United States has NOT produced 
            between 1.2 million and 3.5 million more barrels of oil of 
            since Biden came into office because he reversed the 
            previous administration's pro-oil and gas drilling 
            policies. Saudis and the Russians.

     Biden and the Democrats in Congress have done everything 
            they can to hurt the productivity of the U.S. oil and gas 
            industry. Biden has signed close to 60 executive orders 
            just targeting Alaska, with the most recent being the 
            revoking of leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
            and proposing to place more prime oil and gas lands off-
            limits for drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-
            Alaska.

     The value of the oil production lost due to this war on 
            American energy and the reduced drilling ranges from $104 
            billion to $396 billion--so far.

     We concur with a recent statement from IER that ``Biden is 
            re-engineering the entire energy system in the United 
            States under color of climate, and though the results are 
            barely in, it is failing on many fronts. American 
            consumers, their national security and quality of life may 
            very well be the victims of his relentless attacks on 
            affordable and reliable American energy.''

    Please do whatever you can to stop these actions.

              Thank you for your consideration.

                                             Rebecca Logan,
                                                            CEO    

                                 ______
                                 

                    ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION (AMA)

                           Anchorage, Alaska

                                             September 18, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Representative Westerman and Members of the House Natural 
Resources Committee:

    The Alaska Miners Association (AMA) writes regarding the recent 
actions taken by the Biden administration regarding leases ion the 
Coastal Plain in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the 
National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A), another battle in the 
administration's war on extractive industries critical to Alaskans and 
Americans.
    AMA is a professional membership trade organization established in 
1939 to represent the mining industry in Alaska. We are composed of 
more than 1,400 members that come from eight statewide branches: 
Anchorage, Denali, Fairbanks, Haines, Juneau, Kenai, Ketchikan/Prince 
of Wales, and Nome. Our members include individual prospectors, 
geologists, engineers, suction dredge miners, small family mines, 
junior mining companies, and major mining companies, Alaska Native 
Corporations, and the contracting sector that supports Alaska's mining 
industry.
    While AMA represents members of Alaska's mining industry, we know 
full well the value of a robust oil and gas industry and the benefits 
it provides to our nation. For many years, AMA has been on record 
supporting development of the ``1002'' area of the ANWR Coastal Plain, 
as it is considered to be one of the highest potential conventional oil 
and gas discoveries in our nation.
    Exploration in ANWR was authorized in law and the Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) process was followed diligently by our 
regulatory agencies in 2019. The Final EIS was found to be consistent 
with the environment, conservation of habitat and protection of 
subsistence and wildlife resources. In 2021, the Bureau of Land 
Management moved to develop a supplemental EIS, signaling a shift in 
the regulatory management and defying the law in which activity in ANWR 
was authorized. Nevertheless, we commented on the DEIS to remark on of 
a wide range of alternatives that contained mitigation measures and 
practices to minimize disturbance, resulting in limitations to a less 
than 2,000 acre production and support facility.
    Unfortunately, earlier this month the Biden Administration moved to 
unilaterally throw out the leases in ANWR. As we said in multi industry 
statement, this action sets a dangerous precedent by undoing legally 
obtained leases, and sends a clear message that investment in the 
United States can be undermined at any moment. Such extreme actions 
will have many businesses and industries asking, ``who's next?'' And 
unfortunately, with multiple lease cancellations, land withdrawals, 
remands of final records of decisions, and other reversals of 
agreements, the mining industry finds itself saying ``we've been 
there.''
    The Biden administration's decisions against extractive industries 
strike at the heart of the business community's worst fears. When 
legally obtained contracts are abruptly terminated for political 
reasons such as the case of ANWR, it destroys the fundamental 
principles of fairness and predictability essential for a functioning, 
not to mention healthy and growing, economy.
    Regaining energy and mineral independence for the United States 
remains an ambitious yet achievable goal, but moves like this make it 
next to impossible. By locking away vast resources within our own 
borders, we unnecessarily handicap our nation's ability to meet its 
needs while simultaneously slowing an already drowsy national economy. 
The decisions kill investment in Alaska and the rest of the country. It 
is possible to pursue economic growth, energy and mineral independence, 
and environmental stewardship in a manner that benefits Alaskans and 
the entire nation.
    Thank you for holding the ``Examining the Biden Administration's 
Mismanagement of the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Program'' hearing 
before your committee, and we appreciate your efforts in ensuring a 
fair, predictable regulatory climate to strengthen our nation AND the 
environment, at the same time.

            Sincerely,

                                         Deantha Skibinski,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                      RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

                           Anchorage, Alaska

                                             September 15, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Proposed NPR-A and ANWR Lease Cancellations

    Dear Chair Westerman:

    On behalf of the Resource Development Council for Alaska (RDC), 
please accept this letter for the record for the upcoming hearing on 
September 19, 2023: ``Examining the Biden Administration's 
Mismanagement of the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Program.'' For the 
following reasons, RDC supports taking every step necessary to reverse 
the recent actions by the Biden Administration proposing to cancel all 
remaining leases in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge (ANWR) and limiting future lease sales for oil and gas 
development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) under 
the misleadingly named proposed rule for the ``Management and 
Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska'' (hereafter the 
proposed rule). See, 88 Fed. Reg. 62025
    As an initial matter, let me introduce you to the RDC. The RDC is 
an Alaskan statewide business association comprised of individuals and 
companies from Alaska's fishing, tourism, forestry, mining, and oil and 
gas industries. RDC's membership proudly includes all 12 Alaska Native 
regional corporations formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
Act of 1971 (ANCSA), local governments and communities, organized and 
non-organized labor, industry support firms, nonprofit organizations, 
and much, much more. Since 1975, RDC's mission has been to grow Alaska 
through the responsible development of our natural resources. Our 
purpose in driving this mission is to encourage a strong, diversified 
private sector in Alaska and expand the state's economic base. With 
more than 700 members, our members support nearly every job in every 
sector of our state economy.
    RDC strongly condemns the Administration's recent announcement from 
the Department of Interior to cancel current and future oil and gas 
leases in the ANWR. This ill-advised and, in our opinion, illegal 
decision not only undermines Alaska's economic prospects but guarantees 
even more energy production will move overseas. The Biden 
Administration claims to be committed to a clean energy future, yet 
they have taken the inexplicable step of locking up one of the safest, 
most environmentally careful locations in the world for responsible 
development. Alaska is proud of the environmental, safety, and labor 
record for its oil and gas industry on Alaska's North Slope (ANS). For 
decades, development of this resource has been balanced with Indigenous 
and subsistence lifestyles. Many communities, including Indigenous 
Alaska Native and tribal villages, located within ANS support oil and 
gas development. The discovery of oil on ANS has been transformational 
to the quality of life in this region as a source of revenue generation 
for those living in some of the harshest living environments in the 
world. By shutting the door on this opportunity, the Administration is 
doing a disservice not only to the environment but also the American 
people, including Alaskans and Alaska Native peoples and their 
communities.
    These actions are the latest in a string of broken promises to 
Alaska. Sadly, it is a trend that Alaskans have come to expect from the 
federal government. Time and again, we have been assured that our 
voices and concerns will be heard, and our right to economic self-
determination protected. However, this Administration continues to lock 
up our lands and stifle our potential for growth and prosperity while 
simultaneously increasing the U.S.'s reliance on foreign oil during a 
time of painfully high energy costs.
    This move also sends a chilling message to potential investors and 
industry stakeholders. It creates an atmosphere of chaos, where laws 
and decisions made today may be arbitrarily thrown out tomorrow 
depending on who wins elections. This uncertainty discourages 
investment in Alaska's energy sector and results in an investment 
climate where capital is sidelined. Such continual upheaval jeopardizes 
jobs and economic growth and hinders the United States' path to energy 
security.
    Ironically, as the Administration locks up domestic energy 
resources, it forces even greater reliance on energy imports from 
countries that lack our robust environmental standards and actively 
oppose U.S. interests. This is a dangerous and counterproductive move 
that not only jeopardizes our national security but also undermines the 
Administration's professed commitment to addressing climate change on a 
global scale. Just a few weeks ago, China and Russia sent warships to 
cruise off the coast of Alaska. Now is not the time to further weaken 
our ability to produce domestic energy, which allows the U.S. to better 
defend itself.
    Furthermore, these actions go against federal law. In 1923, 
Congress specifically set aside and designated the NPR-A, an area 
larger than the state of Maine, to ensure American energy independence. 
The 23 million acre reserve was specifically set aside nearly a century 
ago for its petroleum value. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the 
reserve could hold as much as 9 billion barrels of oil. Given the vast 
resources estimated to be in the NPR-A, future production from Willow 
and other fields in the NPR-A could reverse recent declines in 
throughput in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), maintaining its 
viability for decades to come. The proposed rule seeks to prevent use 
of the NPR-A for the exact purpose for which Congress established it. 
Similarly, the Administration's efforts to cancel leases in the 1002 
Area are also in contravention of Congress's clear directive passed 
under Title II of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (PL 115-97).
    RDC believes it is possible to meet the nation's energy needs, 
protect the environment, and foster economic growth in Alaska, all 
while reducing energy reliance from countries that do not share our 
values or interests. We believe this because our record proves it to be 
true. Thank you for your oversight of the Biden Administration's recent 
actions which threaten Alaska's economy and undermine efforts to ensure 
our energy independence and national security.

            Resourcefully,

                                            Leila Kimbrell,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                             ALASKA CHAMBER

                           Anchorage, Alaska

                                             September 15, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chair Westerman:

    The Alaska business community is deeply disturbed by the recent 
decision of the Department of Interior to unilaterally throw out oil 
and gas leases in a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge (ANWR). This action sets a dangerous precedent by undoing 
legally obtained leases, and sending a clear message that investment in 
the United States can be undermined at any moment. Such extreme actions 
will have many businesses and industries asking, ``who's next?''
    The Alaska Chamber was founded in 1953, and our mission is to 
advocate for a healthy business environment in Alaska. The Chamber has 
more than 700 members and represents businesses of all sizes and 
industries from across the state.
    The Alaska Chamber's top federal priority for years has been to 
support oil and gas exploration and development in Alaska's federal 
areas and to encourage and support responsible development of these 
valuable resources. Our reason for prioritizing this issue is simple: 
developing the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 
and continued access in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPRA) 
would provide incredible opportunity for all Alaskans, especially 
economic opportunities.
    The Biden administration's decision strikes at the heart of the 
business community's worst fears. When legally obtained contracts are 
abruptly terminated, for political reasons, it destroys the fundamental 
principles of fairness and predictability essential for a functioning, 
not to mention healthy and growing, economy.
    Regaining energy independence for the United States remains an 
ambitious yet achievable goal but moves like this make it next to 
impossible. Cancelling oil and gas leases in ANWR erases our progress 
toward energy security and self-reliance. By locking away vast energy 
resources within our own borders, we unnecessarily handicap our 
nation's ability to meet its energy needs while simultaneously slowing 
an already drowsy national economy. This decision also kills investment 
in Alaska. When rules are subject to political pandering before a major 
election, uncertainty reins. Stable and predictable regulatory 
environments are mandatory to attract the investment needed to develop 
our natural resources and drive economic growth. This is true whether 
one sells oil, microchips, or solar panels; the federal government must 
set policy that follows the law. To do otherwise creates a ``wild 
west'' environment where rules shift depending on who is elected to 
office. Actions like this are reminiscent of third-world dictatorships 
and should frighten every American.
    ANWR has incredible potential for oil and gas, more than 10 billion 
barrels by some government estimates. For reference, The Trans Alaska 
Pipeline has moved just more than 18 billion barrels of oil since start 
up more than 45 years ago, so the resource potential in ANWR is truly 
incredible. A project the size and scope of ANWR would create thousands 
of high-paying jobs for Alaskans. In addition, with the Point Thomson 
development fully operational just to the west of ANWR, the 1002 area 
is closer than ever to existing infrastructure and could feed into TAPS 
with a much smaller footprint than in years past.
    It is possible to pursue economic growth, energy independence, and 
environmental stewardship in a manner that benefits Alaskans and the 
entire nation. We have done it in Alaska for more than forty years.
    The Chamber urges the administration to recognize the importance of 
stability and consistency in business relationships, the critical role 
of domestic energy production in achieving energy independence, and the 
significance of fostering a business-friendly environment in Alaska and 
the U.S.
    Thank you for considering the Alaska Chamber's comments on this 
very important issue.

            Sincerely,

                                              Kati Capozzi,
                                                  President and CEO
                                 ______
                                 
                                             September 19, 2023    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chair Westerman:

    We, the Native Village of Kaktovik, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, 
and the City of Kaktovik, are writing to you under a single letter to 
represent our community of Kaktovik, Alaska and to show a united front 
on issues related to the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge (``ANWR''). We are outraged by Secretary Haaland's 
(``Secretary'') unilateral decision to cancel the leases that were held 
by the Alaska Industrial Development Export Authority (AIDEA) without 
governmental consultation with the Native Village of Kaktovik (``NVK'') 
our federally recognized tribe. Our community is the only Alaska Native 
Village inside the boundaries of ANWR and the Coastal Plain represents 
our well-documented and undisputed homelands. How can the Secretary of 
Interior make a decision that has such an economic impact on our 
community of Kaktovik without any formal Tribal Consultation through 
our sovereign relationship with the federal government?
    This is not the first time, nor do we expect it to be the last 
time, that this Secretary refuses to acknowledge us. When Secretary 
Haaland was Representative Haaland she told our leaders in 2019 in a 
hearing before this committee on H.R. 1146 ``Arctic Cultural and 
Coastal Plain Protection Act'' that our testimony against this Act was 
not credible. As, Inupiaq, we have a long memory, and even though this 
wasn't that long ago her work in this Administration has not been one 
of Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships with Tribes, certainly 
not with ALL tribes, our experiences are that if you are on the other 
side of her position, which we have been by supporting oil and gas 
within the Coastal Plain, then you are ignored--which the recent 
decision clearly demonstrates. This is also clearly demonstrated in the 
newly released Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (``CP SEIS'').
    We are also disturbed that Deputy Secretary Beaudreau, in his 
September 18, 2023, interview with the Anchorage Daily News seems to 
represent that he knows ANWR and the Coastal Plain better that we do, 
yet to our knowledge he has never visited our village, or he would 
understand the hardships we have trying to develop a local sustainable 
economy while locked inside an national refuge. This again speaks to 
the tone-deaf nature of this Department of Interior (``DOI'') to all 
tribal governments. The Kaktovikmiut were forced, against our will, 
into a refuge under the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act (``ANILCA''). Yet ANILCA was to provide us with means 
for economic development that we are still fighting for over 40 years 
later. One of those opportunities was under Sections 1002 and 1003. 
These two sections have remained our hope for the last 40 years, to 
have an opportunity to build our economy through oil and gas--we were 
very active in 2018 in fighting for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for the 
very shortly written section called Section 20001. Unlike many inside 
the current DOI we think the language in this section is very clear. 
Unlike Mr. Beaudreau we do not think the original language in the 2020 
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Final Environmental Leasing 
Program (``FEIS'') has ``serious legal deficiencies''. It appears to 
our three entities that the DOI is using this argument as a facade to 
eliminate the very act of Congress that Secretary Haaland voted 
against. NVK stands behind the findings and decision of the FEIS and 
have been burdened unnecessarily by having to go through this process 
again when its clear that our voices are being muted and ignored--
because we are inconvenient voice standing up for ourselves.
    Believe it or not we are the only community that is directly 
affected by this decision. The argument for leasing is frequently tied 
to the Porcupine Caribou Herd (``PCH'') calving areas--we are also 
dependent on the PCH and do not want to have a negative impact on them. 
That's why we agreed with the last Administration to drop most that the 
area that PCH may use at some point in the future. We say `may' because 
the PCH do not calve in the same area's year-to-year, and in fact have 
been calving outside the 1002 Area, to the east along the border with 
Canada. We know this as the local Indigenous people, and the biologists 
also know this.
    We will say that this area is sacred to us as a people, it's the 
land that our forefathers have walked for thousands of years, it's the 
land that our children are born on, it's the land that, we the Inupiat 
are buried on. When is this debate going to be about us, as the 
Indigenous people of this area? The 1971 Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act (``ANSCA'') promised us economic freedoms as a people, 
the 1980 ANILCA promised us economic opportunities and here we are 
still living with the broken promises because the various 
Administrations that oversee these Acts have not implemented them in a 
many that was intended by Congress.
    Thank you for your time on our behalf. We hope we are being heard 
because otherwise we are being erased from our own homelands and the 
landscape that we have inhabited as Inupiat for thousands of years.

            Sincerely,

        Edward Rexford, Sr            Charles Lampe
        President                     President
        Native Village of Kaktovik    Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation

        Annie Tikluk
        Mayor
        City of Kaktovik

                                 ______
                                 

                      VOICE OF THE ARCTIC INUPIAT

                                             September 29, 2023    

Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chair Stauber:

    I write to you today to follow up on our discussions last week and 
respond to your request to hear directly from the communities impacted 
by the administration's recent decision to restrict 13 million acres of 
the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) and rescind seven oil 
and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
    Attached please find letters from Inupiaq tribal leadership in 
communities in the affected areas, which outline the administration's 
lack of consultation and misrepresentation of how the NPR-A and ANWR 
announcements would affect the fabric of our North Slope communities.
    As you know, half of the North Slope Borough's communities are 
located within the NPR-A, and they are the only communities located 
within NPR-A. Two others, Point Lay and Anaktuvuk Pass, use the NPR-A 
for subsistence purposes. Six of our eight communities, spread over an 
area the size of your state of Minnesota, are directly impacted by the 
unilateral decision within NPR-A. And the Inupiaq village of Kaktovik 
is the sole community located within ANWR and the 1002 Area. Yet 
officials in Washington neither respected these villages' connection to 
the land nor consulted with their residents.
    This is not an isolated incident, and our relationship with 
Washington has been lopsided, at best. Worse yet, the administration 
seems disinterested in correcting its approach to communicating and 
consulting with our people, as illustrated by the U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management's and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to hastily 
convene a ``public meeting'' this week in the midst of our critical 
fall subsistence activities. This is no way to treat Alaska Native 
communities.
    We were grateful for your invitation to testify before the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and to brief additional 
U.S. Representatives about Washington's historically inconsistent 
policy approach to our people. You will also recall from my testimony 
and the briefing that the North Slope Borough's tax structure benefits 
all eight communities, therefore the restrictions with NPR-A and 
cancelation of leases within ANWR both indirectly and directly affect 
all eight of our communities. This opportunity is why my organization 
was created: To speak with a unified voice on issues impacting the 
North Slope Inupiat, our communities, our economy, and our culture.
    Quyanaqpak for listening to our collective voice on this issue and 
for your words championing our people: ``As long as I am privileged to 
be chair of this committee your community will be represented.'' We 
look forward to engaging you and your subcommittee again in the near 
future.

            Sincerely,

                                          Nagruk Harcharek,
                                                          President

                                 *****

                              ATTACHMENTS

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	

                                 [all]