Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Biden administration raises costs to drill on public lands

News Feed
Friday, April 12, 2024

The Interior Department on Friday finalized a rule making it more expensive for oil and gas producers to drill on federally owned lands.  Several of the provisions in the rule — like raising the rent the government charges to oil companies for using its land and increasing the government’s share of the profits from that oil — were set out in law by the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act.  The Biden administration will additionally make it more expensive for drillers to abandon their oil wells after use instead of cleaning them up. The administration argues that current bonding rates do not do enough to ensure that companies clean up after themselves.  The administration described the changes as the first “comprehensive update” to the rules around drilling on federal lands since 1988.  “These are the most significant reforms to the federal oil and gas leasing program in decades, and they will cut wasteful speculation, increase returns for the public, and protect taxpayers from being saddled with the costs of environmental cleanups,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a written statement.  The rule comes one day after the administration moved to cut costs for producing renewable energy on public land. Specifically, the rule raises the royalty rate – the government’s share of the profits of oil and gas produced on public lands -- from 12.5 percent to 16.67 percent.  It also increases rent rates from $1.50 per acre for each of the first five years of a lease and $2 per acre for the next five to $3 per acre for the first two years and $5 per acre for the next six, going up to $15 per acre thereafter.  Further, the rule increases the minimum amount that companies can bid for to lease lands for drilling to $10 per acre, up from $2 per acre, and adjusts the price for inflation.  The move was celebrated by environmental activists.  “These new regulations are the kind of common-sense reforms the federal oil and gas leasing program has needed for decades. The days of oil and gas companies locking up public lands for decades for pennies on the dollar and leaving polluted lands, water, and air in their wake are over,” Athan Manuel, the Sierra Club’s lands protection program director, said in a written statement.  

The Interior Department on Friday finalized a rule making it more expensive for oil and gas producers to drill on federally owned lands. Several of the provisions in the rule — like raising the rent the government charges to oil companies for using its land and increasing the government’s share of the profits from that...

The Interior Department on Friday finalized a rule making it more expensive for oil and gas producers to drill on federally owned lands. 

Several of the provisions in the rule — like raising the rent the government charges to oil companies for using its land and increasing the government’s share of the profits from that oil — were set out in law by the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act. 

The Biden administration will additionally make it more expensive for drillers to abandon their oil wells after use instead of cleaning them up. The administration argues that current bonding rates do not do enough to ensure that companies clean up after themselves. 

The administration described the changes as the first “comprehensive update” to the rules around drilling on federal lands since 1988. 

“These are the most significant reforms to the federal oil and gas leasing program in decades, and they will cut wasteful speculation, increase returns for the public, and protect taxpayers from being saddled with the costs of environmental cleanups,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a written statement. 

The rule comes one day after the administration moved to cut costs for producing renewable energy on public land.

Specifically, the rule raises the royalty rate – the government’s share of the profits of oil and gas produced on public lands -- from 12.5 percent to 16.67 percent. 

It also increases rent rates from $1.50 per acre for each of the first five years of a lease and $2 per acre for the next five to $3 per acre for the first two years and $5 per acre for the next six, going up to $15 per acre thereafter. 

Further, the rule increases the minimum amount that companies can bid for to lease lands for drilling to $10 per acre, up from $2 per acre, and adjusts the price for inflation. 

The move was celebrated by environmental activists. 

“These new regulations are the kind of common-sense reforms the federal oil and gas leasing program has needed for decades. The days of oil and gas companies locking up public lands for decades for pennies on the dollar and leaving polluted lands, water, and air in their wake are over,” Athan Manuel, the Sierra Club’s lands protection program director, said in a written statement.  

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Pentagon plan pits U.S. Marines against California off-roaders and civilian pilots

A proposal by the U.S. Marines to restrict civilian flight traffic above Johnson Valley OHV Area has drawn outrage from off-roaders and civilian pilots.

LUCERNE VALLEY, Calif. — The U.S. Marine Corps tried once to occupy this remote stretch of California desert beloved by off-roaders — but officials managed eventually to broker a deal that allowed both leathernecks and dirt riders to share the same rocky canyons and wrinkled mountains of Johnson Valley.Now, more than a decade later, the Marines are back — and this time, they want the skies.The Pentagon has proposed restricting civilian air traffic above much of the Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Area to expand and support training exercises. But those who frequent the area just west of the Twentynine Palms Marine base say the proposal would severely limit recreational access and reduce safety.They say the airspace restrictions could prevent rescue helicopters from evacuating injured motorists, and threaten the famed King of the Hammers off-road race that’s held there each year.And perhaps most crucially, they fear the proposal — which must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration — is just the first step toward the Marines ending public access to an area that was set aside by Congress for public use.“It feels like it’s literally just another way for them to take the land, but from above,” said Shannon Welch, vice president of the off-road group Blue Ribbon Coalition.The proposal has also drawn criticism from aviation officials, who say the restrictions could affect the operations of small local airports and add time and cost to commercial flights.The military says such fears are overblown.Recently, base officials said that the proposal would restrict the airspace for only up to 60 days per year. Project documents say the Marines are hoping the FAA will consider adding more days after the first year, but the base officials told The Times they would not seek additional days of activation over the portion of Johnson Valley that’s shared with the public. They are also working on mitigation measures that would enable them to share the skies even when the restrictions are active, they said.“There is no intention to restrict public access to Johnson Valley,” said Cindy Smith, land management specialist with the base’s government and external affairs. King of the Hammers founder Dave Cole walks along sand dunes in the Johnson Valley OHV Area where the military wants to impose restrictions on civilian aircraft. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) Johnson Valley devotee Dave Cole lives on 15 acres that back up onto the OHV area. From his front door, he can hop in a side-by-side and traverse miles of rolling sand dunes and rugged boulder piles. The vastness reminds him of the ocean, where constantly shifting tides mean that no two trips yield the same experience. And in the world of motorized recreation, the 96,000-acre riding area simply has no peer.“Going off-roading and those kinds of things, that’s surfing for me, and this is like Oahu. It’s beachfront,” Cole said.One recent afternoon, he stood on a ridge above a sprawling dry lakebed. There, in a few months, a temporary city called Hammertown would arise from the sun-baked sand. Some 80,000 people were expected to watch rock-crawling competitions and races, camp out and hear vendors pitch the latest in automotive technology. The King of the Hammers off-road vehicle competition is held each year in February. (Dennis Utt) Cole co-founded King of the Hammers in 2007 — in part to fend off a westward expansion by the Marine Corps. He thought an off-roading competition would draw attention to the Bureau of Land Management-maintained area and demonstrate the importance of keeping it open to the public.The two-week festival has since grown into one of the largest events on public land outside of Burning Man and a report commissioned by San Bernardino County estimated the race’s economic impact to be $34 million in 2023.As for the Marines’ expansion ambitions, they were addressed by a compromise in the 2014 defense bill. The legislation set aside about 43,000 acres of Johnson Valley for recreational use, 79,000 acres for the Marines and 53,000 to be shared. The Marines are permitted to close that shared-use area for two 30-day periods each year.The proposed airspace restrictions would stretch above much of the recreational area, including the entire shared-use area.King of the Hammers relies on helicopters and drones to respond to emergencies and to livestream the event worldwide. Welch, of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, described a potential loss of air support as “catastrophic.” King of the Hammers is an off-road race that combines desert racing and rock crawling. This race is held in February on Means Dry Lake at Johnson Valley. (Dennis Utt) Cole isn’t as worried about King of the Hammers. He believes a compromise to accommodate the event is possible and even likely. He’s more concerned that the proposal may mark the start of a broader takeover of the same area the Marines sought to annex years ago. “It’s a different bite; same apple,” he said.Military airspace restrictions above other public lands often result in ground closures with little notice, Welch said. Such areas include BLM-managed lands in the vicinity of the White Sands Missile Range in southern New Mexico, as well as the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona, she said.“These two areas are cautionary tales for what happens when the military gains control of the skies — even if the land underneath remains technically public,” she wrote in an email.Marine Corps officials said they are committed to honoring the shared-use agreement, but that they need additional restricted airspace for training involving both piloted aircraft and drones.Col. Benjamin Adams, assistant chief of staff for the base’s training directorate, pointed to a directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that every squad must be armed with small drones by the end of fiscal year 2026. The Twentynine Palms base, with its 1,200 square miles of rugged training area, is one of the only places the Marines can perform large-scale combined-arms exercises, Adams said.“This is the golden jewel of the Marine Corps,” he said. “The training we complete here cannot be conducted anywhere else in the Marine Corps, period.”The Marines published a description of the airspace proposal in 2019, but multiple recreation advocates and local officials said they didn’t hear about it until the Marines released a draft environmental assessment last month.San Bernardino County Supervisor Dawn Rowe questions whether federal officials have a full understanding of how the restrictions would affect local residents. At least 36 medical helicopters responded to the Johnson Valley area last year, according to statistics provided to Rowe by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District.“Nobody really looks up to say, ‘what are we sacrificing on the other end of it?’ Is it public safety? Access to public lands and recreation? Private property rights of inholders?” she said. “That falls to us on the outside who want to coexist with the Marines, who we respect, but also want to preserve the areas we have known and enjoyed for years.”Both the Yucca Valley Airport District and the San Bernardino County Airport Commission have voted to submit letters opposing the proposal. Both the Yucca Valley Airport District and the San Bernardino County Airport Commission have voted to submit letters opposing the Marine air restriction proposal. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) An increase in military flights through the Yucca Valley Airport’s traffic pattern would raise public safety and noise concerns, wrote board director Tim Lewis. He noted the military already has 31 special use airspaces within a 100 nautical-mile range of the Twentynine Palms base, with restrictions running almost continually from Barstow to Prescott, Ariz.The addition of even more restrictions is likely to impact commercial air travel, potentially reducing the number of flights through a heavily-used corridor, he wrote. And it would restrict the use of multiple small airports, including the Yucca Valley Airport, Twentynine Palms Airport, Big Bear City Airport, Needles Airport, Barstow-Daggett Airport and Apple Valley Airport, he wrote.“I think ultimately the Marines will find that the public opposition they’ve encountered will require them to make some compromises,” said Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), who is also a pilot.When it comes to Big Bear, the proposed restrictions overlap with a line of approach for pilots using instrument flight rules, said Obernolte, who previously served on the Big Bear City Airport board. If the proposal is approved, those pilots would not be able to land at the airport under current procedures, he said.Obernolte is seeking to have a provision added to this year’s defense bill that would condition any expansion on the Marines complying with a previous law that requires them to work with the FAA to better alert pilots to the status of restricted airspace. “This is a real sore issue,” pilot Jim Bagley said recently as he flew a small airplane through skies the U.S. Marine Corps is seeking to restrict. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times) “This is a real sore issue,” said Jim Bagley from the cockpit of his 1955 Cessna 172 as it roared through the airspace that would be subject to restriction. Thousands of feet below, a smattering of old homesteads spread out like playing cards on a poker table.The former three-time mayor of Twentynine Palms, Bagley is now a recreational pilot and flight instructor who sits on the county Airport Commission. For him, backcountry flying is just another mode of sightseeing, like hiking through Yosemite or boating beneath Niagara Falls.Open areas like Johnson Valley — where you can race your side-by-side as fast as you want or land an ultralight on a dry lake bed — are unique American experiences that are growing rarer, he said.Yet even Bagley, a close watcher of the project who had given the draft environmental assessment a careful read, did not initially realize some of the restrictions would be limited to 60 days. That is explained in an appendix more than halfway through the 394-page document. The rest repeatedly frames the proposal as the establishment of permanent restricted areas. Smith said that notice of the project was published in local newspapers and sent to various stakeholders. Public feedback will be incorporated in both the final environmental assessment and a letter of procedure specifying how the proposal will be carried out, she said. The Marines are already working with the FAA on that letter, which will enable the public to use the airspace above the shared-use area for low-level flights, including rescue helicopters, even when the restrictions are active, provided the ground is open, she said. The letter will also accommodate all aircraft approaching Big Bear, said Andy Chatelin, director of the base’s range management and development division. Chatelin pointed out that the proposal has already gone through an FAA aeronautical study and safety risk management panel to determine its impacts on the National Airspace System. A final decision is expected in the fall of 2026, he said.Had the Marine Corps held public meetings on the proposal and publicized the 60-day cap, some of the backlash against it could likely have been avoided, Bagley said. He has no issue with the military using portions of the airspace for training when they need it, he said.“What I object to is taking away public access to the public lands — and those public lands include the airspace above them.”

Thirsty future: Australia’s green hydrogen targets could require vastly more water than the government hopes

To make green hydrogen, take water and split it into hydrogen and oxygen. It sounds simple – but the government’s water-use figures may be a drastic underestimate.

totajla/ShutterstockGreen hydrogen is touted by some as the future – a way for Australia to slowly replace its reliance on fossil fuel exports. The energy-dense gas has the potential to reduce emissions in sectors challenging to decarbonise, such as steelmaking and fertiliser manufacturing. The Albanese government wants it to be a massive new export industry and has laid out a pathway through its National Hydrogen Strategy. Unfortunately, there’s a real gap between rhetoric and reality. Despite ambitious plans, no green hydrogen project has yet succeeded in Australia. The technology’s most prominent local backer, billionaire miner Twiggy Forrest, has dialled down his ambition. Globally, just 7% of announced green hydrogen projects are up and running. Economic viability is one problem. But there’s a much larger issue flying under the radar: water. Hitting the 2050 target of 15 million to 30 million tonnes of hydrogen a year would use 7–15% of the amount Australia’s households, farms, mines and black coal power plants use annually. That’s simply not sustainable. Splitting water Green hydrogen uses renewable energy to power electrolyser machines, which split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. On the surface, this is an appealing use of clean energy, especially during solar peak periods. But what the government hasn’t properly accounted for is the water cost for green hydrogen. The strategy states water use is likely to be “considerable but not prohibitive”. This is questionable. For every kilogram of hydrogen produced through electrolysis, nine litres of water are directly consumed. That’s not all. The water needed to make hydrogen has to be extremely pure. Salt water has to be desalinated, and even fresh water needs purification. Equipment also needs cooling, which consumes even more water. All these processes incur substantial indirect water losses, such as the water used for industrial processes and cooling. The volumes used are highly uncertain. They can be up to 20 times greater than the direct water use. A key input value for the government’s hydrogen strategy modelling is taken from a 2015 report by the Argonne National Energy Laboratory in the United States, which assumes each kilogram of green hydrogen produced requires just over 30 litres of water. The Australian hydrogen strategy suggests 30 litres per kilogram of hydrogen would cover “all system losses including purification processes and cooling water required”. But it’s not clear if this figure covers other uses of water in making hydrogen, such as water treatment. Green hydrogen could help industrial sectors transition from fossil fuels. The problem is the water use. Audio und werbung/Shutterstock How much water would this use? According to the government’s modelling, making 15 million tonnes would require 740 billion litres of water. That would be about 7% of the 10,450 billion litres used by all of Australia’s households, farms, mines and black coal power plants. The government’s National Hydrogen Strategy shows the water use by major industries. Their total water use is 10,450 gigalitres annually. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water That’s substantial. One and a half Sydney Harbours worth, every year. But it might be a major underestimate. After all, estimates on indirect water use differ widely. The government’s figures are at the very bottom of the range. For instance, the latest research gives water consumption figures of about 66 litres per kilogram – more than twice as large. Other sources give values between 90 and 300 litres per kilogram of hydrogen – three to ten times higher. Uncertainty in modelling is normal. But the wide research suggesting much higher water use should give rise to real concern. If we take a middle-of-the-range figure of 95 litres per kilogram, this would mean that making 15 million tonnes of green hydrogen would use up 22% of the 10,450 billion litres used by households, farms, mines and black coal power plants annually by 2050. If hydrogen was even thirstier at 310 litres per kilogram, that would translate to 72% of that figure. These estimates are enormous. Even under the most optimistic scenario, the draw on Australia’s scarce freshwater resources would simply be too much. Where would this water come from? Farmers? Groundwater? Environmental flows from rivers? As the Queensland Farmers Federation pointed out in its response to the hydrogen strategy, the figures on water use “beg the question if they are in fact sustainable”. The Water Services Association of Australia has called for much greater attention to the water demands of green hydrogen, which it says are “often seriously underestimated”. What about saltwater? Australia has no shortage of oceans. The problem here becomes energy and wastewater. Desalination is still very energy intensive. Converting saltwater to fresh also produces large volumes of super-salty brine, which must then be managed as waste. Which way forward? Does this mean green hydrogen is a non-starter? Not necessarily. Improved electrolyser technology might offer ways to slash water use, while circular economy approaches such as resource recovery from brine could also reduce losses. But these concerns about water must be front and centre in future discussions about the shape and size of the industry in Australia. Madoc Sheehan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Only three people prosecuted for covering up illegal sewage spills

Employees of water firms who obstruct investigations into spills could face jail, as new rules come into force on FridayWater company bosses have entirely escaped punishment for covering up illegal sewage spills, government figures show, as ministers prepare to bring in a new law threatening them with up to two years in prison for doing so.Only three people have ever been prosecuted for obstructing the Environment Agency in its investigations into sewage spills, officials said, with none of them receiving even a fine. Continue reading...

Water company bosses have entirely escaped punishment for covering up illegal sewage spills, government figures show, as ministers prepare to bring in a new law threatening them with up to two years in prison for doing so.Only three people have ever been prosecuted for obstructing the Environment Agency in its investigations into sewage spills, officials said, with none of them receiving even a fine.Officials said the data shows why the water regulator has found it so difficult to stop illegal spills, which happen when companies dump raw sewage during dry weather. The Environment Agency has identified hundreds of such cases since 2020.Steve Reed, the environment secretary, said: “Bosses must face consequences if they commit crimes – there must be accountability. From today, there will be no more hiding places.“Water companies must now focus on cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.”Water companies dumped a record amount of sewage into rivers and coastal waters last year, mostly because wet weather threatened to wash sewage back into people’s homes.Data released last month by the Environment Agency revealed companies had discharged untreated effluent for nearly 4m hours during 2024, a slight increase on the previous year.But companies have also illegally dumped sewage during dry weather. Data released to the Telegraph last year under freedom of information rules shows regulators had identified 465 illegal sewage spills since 2020, with a further 154 under investigation as potentially illegal spills.Britain’s polluted waterways became a major issue at last year’s election, with Labour promising to end what it called the “Tory sewage scandal”.Government sources say one reason illegal spills have been allowed to continue is that regulators have faced obstruction when investigating them.In 2019, three employees at Southern Water were convicted of hampering the Environment Agency when it was trying to collect data as part of an investigation into raw sewage spilled into rivers and on beaches in south-east England.The maximum punishment available in that case was a fine, but none of the individuals were fined. Several of the employees said at the time they were told by the company solicitor not to give data to the regulator.Two years later, Southern was given a £90m fine after pleading guilty to thousands of illegal discharges of sewage over a five-year period.New rules coming into force on Friday will give legal agencies the power to bring prosecutions in the crown court against employees for obstructing regulatory investigations, with a maximum sanction of imprisonment.Directors and executives can be prosecuted if they have consented to or connived with that obstruction, or allowed it to happen through neglect.The rules were included in the Water (Special Measures) Act, which came into law in February. The act also gives the regulator new powers to ban bonuses if environmental standards are not met and requires companies to install real-time monitors at every emergency sewage outlet.Philip Duffy, the chief executive of the Environment Agency, said: “The act was a crucial step in making sure water companies take full responsibility for their impact on the environment.“The tougher powers we have gained through this legislation will allow us, as the regulator, to close the justice gap, deliver swifter enforcement action and ultimately deter illegal activity.“Alongside this, we’re modernising and expanding our approach to water company inspections – and it’s working. More people, powers, better data and inspections are yielding vital evidence so that we can reduce sewage pollution, hold water companies to account and protect the environment.”

Indians Battle Respiratory Issues, Skin Rashes in World's Most Polluted Town

By Tora AgarwalaBYRNIHAT, India (Reuters) - Two-year-old Sumaiya Ansari, a resident of India's Byrnihat town which is ranked the world's most...

BYRNIHAT, India (Reuters) - Two-year-old Sumaiya Ansari, a resident of India's Byrnihat town which is ranked the world's most polluted metropolitan area by Swiss Group IQAir, was battling breathing problems for several days before she was hospitalised in March and given oxygen support.She is among many residents of the industrial town on the border of the northeastern Assam and Meghalaya states - otherwise known for their lush, natural beauty - inflicted by illnesses that doctors say are likely linked to high exposure to pollution.Byrnihat's annual average PM2.5 concentration in 2024 was 128.2 micrograms per cubic meter, according to IQAir, over 25 times the level recommended by the WHO.PM2.5 refers to particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter that can be carried into the lungs, causing deadly diseases and cardiac problems."It was very scary, she was breathing like a fish," said Abdul Halim, Ansari's father, who brought her home from hospital after two days.According to government data, the number of respiratory infection cases in the region rose to 3,681 in 2024 from 2,082 in 2022."Ninety percent of the patients we see daily come either with a cough or other respiratory issues," said Dr. J Marak of Byrnihat Primary Healthcare Centre. Residents say the toxic air also causes skin rashes and eye irritation, damages crops, and restricts routine tasks like drying laundry outdoors."Everything is covered with dust or soot," said farmer Dildar Hussain.Critics say Byrnihat's situation reflects a broader trend of pollution plaguing not just India's cities, including the capital Delhi, but also its smaller towns as breakneck industrialisation erodes environmental safeguards.Unlike other parts of the country that face pollution every winter, however, Byrnihat's air quality remains poor through the year, government data indicates.Home to about 80 industries - many of them highly polluting - experts say the problem is exacerbated in the town by other factors like emissions from heavy vehicles, and its "bowl-shaped topography"."Sandwiched between the hilly terrain of Meghalaya and the plains of Assam, there is no room for pollutants to disperse," said Arup Kumar Misra, chairman of Assam's pollution control board.The town's location has also made a solution tougher, with the states shifting blame to each other, said a Meghalaya government official who did not want to be named.Since the release of IQAir's report in March, however, Assam and Meghalaya have agreed to form a joint committee and work together to combat Byrnihat's pollution.(Reporting by Tora Agarwala; Writing by Sakshi Dayal; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.