Observers of the Washington bureaucracy wonder if the Bureau of Land Management actually will cede some of its onshore oil and gas leasing functions to the states.
The Clinton administration proposed devolving BLM's oil and gas inspection and enforcement (I&E) and environmental compliance responsibilities to states and Indian tribes.
A few states are strongly interested because they think they can manage onshore leases more cheaply than BLM, which led to an Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission counterproposal (OGJ, Apr. 1, p. 23).
Talks inching along
Talks between BLM and the states have been inching along, largely because Iogcc wants to discuss the entire BLM regulatory program while the agency wants to discuss I&E functions now and talk about other issues later.
At a recent hearing, Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Resources Committee's energy and minerals subcommittee, urged BLM and Iogcc to redouble their efforts.
Ranking Democrat Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii said, "This is not happening at a pace that is measurable. Does BLM think they can string this out indefinitely?"
Hord Tipton, an assistant BLM director, said the agency wants "to get some agreements, but frankly it's been a very complicated process, and it's been back and forth. If we're going to get anywhere, it has to be one step at a time."
He said, "BLM's priority continues to be to ensure improved program efficiency, cost savings, and simplification of compliance for operators."
Tipton said BLM disagrees with an Iogcc proposal that violations be written against state vs. federal rules, with appeals taken through state judicial bodies: "This would lead to a nationwide program marked by inconsistency, certainly not what is beneficial to producers."
He said Iogcc wants states to assume BLM's management of leases on Indian lands, which current law does not permit and affected tribes oppose.
James Carter, Utah's natural resources department director, said the purposes behind BLM and state production rules are very similar, and if they can agree on a performance standard, they can agree on a broad, common regulatory program. But he said BLM has resisted discussing anything but transfer of I&E functions.
What Congress wants
After the hearing, Calvert and Abercrombie warned BLM in a letter that they expect an agreement on I&E functions by early December, and the deal should not require states to "perform such functions in exactly the same manner as BLM currently does under its existing rules and regulations."
They said by early January state and federal regulators should review the entire BLM oil and gas program. They urged regulators to "step outside the four corners of the program as currently delineated by BLM, go back to the basic objectives of the program, and develop a plan that meets federal law while allowing the states some flexibility in meeting the standards and requirements of those laws."
If the BLM and Iogcc cannot agree, the congressmen pledged that the subcommittee would seek a "legislative solution" in the next Congress.
Copyright 1996 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.
