Mineral Spacing Act would shift some drilling oversight to states; critics warn of lost protections

The subcommittee examined HR 1555, commonly described as the Mineral Spacing Act, which would eliminate the Bureau of Land Management’s requirement to issue a federal application for permit to drill (APD) in some split‑estate cases where federal ownership of subsurface minerals is under 50 percent and the surface is non‑federal.

Mitchell Everett of the BLM said the department supports HR 1555 because it would ‘‘reduce costly regulation, strengthen oil and gas development, and provide permit flexibility,’’ and that BLM would retain responsibilities such as measurements, inspections and royalty collection in affected cases. Industry witnesses echoed support, arguing state permitting regimes are robust and the federal role currently duplicates state processes.

Barbara Vasquez of the Western Organization of Resource Councils countered that federal APD reviews provide the primary site‑specific NEPA, Endangered Species Act and historic‑preservation (NHPA) analyses that protect private surface owners and local resources. “This legislation circumvents critical site‑specific analyses,” Vasquez said, adding that split‑estate surface owners may lose meaningful protections if federal APD review is removed.

Members raised questions about how many acres would be affected (witnesses cited approximately 4,000,000 acres) and whether unitization or other administrative steps could be used to avoid federal review in practice. The hearing produced no final committee action and members asked for further materials to be entered in the record.