Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Senator and Bureau Official Spar Over New Bonding Rule for Oil, Gas on Federal Lands

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources · June 13, 2024

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a Senate Committee hearing, a senator challenged a bureau rule that raises bonding requirements for oil and gas producers on federal lands, citing bureau data that found 37 abandoned wells; a bureau official defended the change, citing GAO and Inspector General reports about outdated bonding and thousands of idled wells.

At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, a senator pressed a bureau official over a rule issued in April that raises bonding requirements for oil and gas producers operating on federal lands, saying the bureau’s own data show just 37 abandoned wells on lands it manages and asking why bonds would increase "by as much as 25 fold."

The bureau official responded that both the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General have found the agency's bonding rates — "over 60 years old," the official said — are not sufficient. The official told the committee the bureau is tracking thousands of idled wells on public lands and warned that idled wells are the last step before becoming orphaned, saying the GAO found thousands are likely to become orphaned without stronger financial assurances.

The senator rejected that rationale in the exchange that followed, calling the rule "completely arbitrary," "punitive," and saying it appears aimed at driving oil and gas producers off federal land. "I think it's disgraceful," the senator said.

The hearing excerpt provided no formal vote or committee action on the rule. The exchange captures a sharp dispute between oversight concerns about potential orphaned wells and skepticism from legislators about the scale and justification for a substantially higher bonding requirement. The committee record excerpt does not include additional evidence or a numerical breakdown of the bureau’s proposed bond levels beyond the senator’s reference to a "25 fold" increase, nor does it provide a precise count for the bureau’s cited "thousands" of idled wells.