Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12734
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter opposes the proposed rule changes, arguing that reducing bonding amounts creates a taxpayer subsidy for private operators and that shortening the public review period undermines transparency. They request that the BLM withdraw the changes and maintain higher financial assurance requirements and a 90-day review window.
Re: Bureau of Land Management Proposed Rule – Docket ID: BLM-2025-0037 / RIN: 1004-AF05
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed rule changes regarding oil and gas leasing on public lands.
Specifically, I object to the following provisions:
Inadequate Financial Assurance: Slashing required bonding amounts from $125,000 to $10,000 per site is fiscally irresponsible. Given that actual well plugging and site remediation costs average approximately $90,000 per site, a $10,000 bond fails to cover basic cleanup liability. This reduction creates an unwarranted taxpayer subsidy for private operators and guarantees that local communities and taxpayers will absorb the financial burden of abandoned wells.
Restriction of Public Oversight: Shortening the public review period for proposed land sales and leases from 90 days down to 10 days severely undermines civic transparency. Ten days is insufficient for technical evaluation or meaningful public participation regarding shared natural resources.
Proposed Alternative:
BLM should withdraw these proposed changes. The agency must maintain or increase financial assurance requirements to match real-world, lifetime remediation costs and retain the full 90-day public review window to preserve public accountability.
Thank you for considering these comments.