Oil and Gas Leasing

Bobby Riggs opposes the proposed modifications to oil and gas royalty regulations, arguing that they prioritize the oil and gas industry over other land uses, reduce bonding amounts for taxpayers, and strip local land managers of their discretion regarding wildlife conflicts.

The commenter opposes the proposed modifications to oil and gas royalty regulations, arguing that the action prioritizes the narrow economic interests of the powerful few over the public good and the protection of public lands. They express concern that the administrative processes intended to hear all voices are being bypassed to favor short-term objectives.

The commenter, identifying as a teacher and lover of public parks, opposes the proposed modifications to oil and gas leasing regulations. They argue that the changes favor corporate interests over public land preservation, increase environmental risks, and lack sufficient public oversight.

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.

A Colorado citizen opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it prioritizes the interests of extractive industries over the public good and the preservation of public land values. The commenter claims the rule is shortsighted and would negatively impact the state's economy and quality of life.

The commenter, identifying as a Montana taxpayer, opposes the proposed rule changes because they believe lower royalty requirements and bonds will leave taxpayers responsible for cleanup costs. They also argue that the public input period is too short and that the rule unfairly favors the oil and gas lobby.