WASHINGTON, July 5, 2023 — The American Petroleum Institute (API) joined with the American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC), Montana Petroleum Association (MPA), New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA) and Utah Petroleum Association (UPA) urging the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reconsider its proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. In comments submitted to BLM, the associations highlighted the U.S. oil and natural gas industry’s longstanding commitment to environmental stewardship but raised concerns with the proposed rule’s potential harm to American energy security.
“The U.S. is a global leader in both emissions reductions and energy production,” said Holly Hopkins, API Vice President of Upstream Policy. “Oil and natural gas exploration and development on federal lands and waters provide enormous benefits to our nation and its citizens—for our economy, our environment, and our national security. Because of the vital importance of energy production on public lands, overreaching land management regulations such as this place our domestic energy supply at risk.”
In the comments, the associations identified several legal, policy and scientific flaws of the proposed rule and argued that the proposal, if implemented as written, could restrict all forms of energy development on federal lands, including renewable energy projects.
In addition to the comments submitted by the associations, Energy Citizens across the country have submitted more than 3,500 comments urging BLM to support energy security and rescind the proposed rule.
“Our nation and the world will continue to need reliable, affordable energy for public health and economic growth, energy that will serve as the foundation for broader opportunities for decades to come,” Hopkins concluded. “Reduced production on public lands only harms local communities who depend upon the jobs and revenues generated by lawful energy development and could result in greater dependence on foreign energy sources, leading to higher emissions domestically and internationally—precisely the opposite of the Administration’s overriding policy objectives.”
