In an Aug. 18 story, the Journal reported, “BLM field manager...explained that the act of leasing does not authorize any development or use of the surface of lease lands, without further application by the operator and approval by the BLM. ’There are several steps in the process,’ she said. ‘A successful bidder of a lease must submit an application for a permit to drill, then it goes through more environmental reviews and a public process again.’”
What is very misleading is the statement that “the act of leasing does not authorize any development.” The issuance of a federal oil and gas lease gives the lessee the legal right to develop as much of the surface of that lease as they reasonably need to produce the lease. From a practical standpoint the permit to drill only spells out where that development will take place. While the BLM may move proposed well locations around (within limits), the agency loses discretion to bar oil and gas development on the surface of those lands once the lease is issued. The only exception is in very rare cases when a lease is offered/issued with a total “no surface occupancy” stipulation. Lacking this exceptional stipulation, a federal oil and gas lease does give the lessee the legal right to develop the surface of that lease. The environmental reviews that occur after a lease is issued are necessarily limited in scope, as BLM must authorize the development. Intentional or not, the story downplays the importance of the leasing step of the oil and gas development process, which is demonstrably the most critical.
Following the link provided in the Journal story, I was taken to a BLM website stating that comments must be received by June 10, 2015 for a proposal to lease, rather than the Sept. 11 deadline mentioned in the article. On the whole, the explanation of the process and discrepancies regarding the deadline for comments are confusing.
Robert Ball
Cortez
