For example, the conference report on theomnibus energy bill ( H.R. 6 ) and the Senate substitute, S. 2095 hasprovisions that would examine restrictions and impediments to oil and gas development on publiclands, including an evaluation of the current permitting process. Reportedly, reflecting its EnergyTask Force recommendations, the Bush Administration has its own initiative to expedite the oil andgas permitting process on federal lands. As a result, the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. Conversely, development supporterscontend that numerous environmental laws are now in place to regulate oil and gas development onpublic lands. Oil and Gas Leasing on Public Lands

Leasing of onshore federal public lands for oil and gas development is based on multiple-use/sustained yield Resource Management Plans (RMPs) developed by the Bureau of Land Management in the Department of the Interior. Drilling Permits

After a lease has been obtained, either competitively or noncompetitively, an Application fora Permit to Drill (APD) must be approved for each oil and gas well. BLM is required to process the application within the 35-day period. In April 2003, BLM announced new strategies to expedite the APD process. Energy and mineral industry representatives maintain that federal withdrawals inhibitexploration and limit the reserve base even when conditions are favorable for production. (17) Because of increased interest in access to natural gas, theprotection of public lands and Bush Administration policies, the Rocky Mountain region has becomea focal point for U.S. oil and gas policy. Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments (EPCA) study, 2003; (18)
U.S. Natural Gas Markets: Mid-term Prospects for Natural Gas Supply, 2001, by the EIA. As mentioned earlier, the numbers in the EPCA study are based on a much more selectivearea of the Rockies that included the five major geologic basins, and thus the numbers were smaller.However, as shown in Table 1, the relative rate with no access was similar to the other reports(11.6%), the amount of restricted gas was less (26%), and the amount of natural gas under standardlease terms was slightly higher (62.4%). On private lands, monitoring wells are not required (57) . The outlook is mixed for increased oil and natural gas production from leases on U.S. publiclands or areas where the United States holds mineral rights. While domestic natural gas productionand natural gas imports are expected to rise, it is unclear how much of the domestic supply will comefrom public lands that are currently restricted or off-limits. Environmental groups and some surfaceowners are concerned that drilling and production would damage sensitive lands, wildlife habitat andsurface water and groundwater quality and quantity. Under FLPMA, withdrawals can be madeby the executive branch or the Congress.
The U.S. Congress and the Administration are involved in a major policy debate over oil andgas development from federal lands and from federal mineral estate underlying certain privatelyowned lands. Within the framework of U.S. public lands policy, restrictions and withdrawals haveaffected the amount of land that can be developed. The Energy Policy and Conservation ActAmendments of 2000 (EPCA) mandated a study which was released in January 2003 to assess theoil and gas resource potential underlying restricted federal lands. It concluded that although theamount of land prospected for natural gas that was completely "off-limits" for development was35.6%, other restrictions and lease stipulations are in place. The conference report to the EnergyPolicy Act of 2003 ( H.R. 6 ) as well as the scaled-back Senate version of the bill( S. 2095 ) contains provisions that would address restrictions and impediments to oil andgas development on public lands. The Bush Administration has its own initiatives to expedite thepermitting process -- considered by some to be a major impediment -- on federal lands.
As part of the oil and gas leasing system, lessees must file an application for a permit to drill(APD) for each well. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is required to process the APD in 30days but delays may occur, extending the average approval time to over 120 days. Some approvalshave taken over three years. A new process to expedite the APDs has been established at the BLMthat includes, among other features, the processing and conducting of environmental analyses onmultiple permit applications with similar characteristics.
Energy and mineral industry representatives maintain that federal withdrawals and/orrestrictions inhibit mineral exploration and limit the reserve base even when conditions are favorablefor development. They further contend that sufficient environmental standards are in place to protectpublic lands. Critics who oppose opening up more federal lands or the mineral estate under privatelands argue that the general environmental requirements are not adequate and that some forms ofdevelopment threaten water quality and quantity; therefore, certain restrictions and withdrawals areappropriate.
Concern exists regarding natural gas supply and declining production rates. As a result, thereis increased interest in potential gas supplies in the Rocky Mountain region. Several resourceestimates suggest significant amounts of natural gas on public and private lands in the region, andRocky Mountain natural gas may become much more important to the overall supply picture.
Elsewhere, the outlook is mixed for increased oil and natural gas production on U.S. publiclands. While domestic natural gas production and natural gas imports are expected to rise, it isunclear whether much of the domestic supply will come from public lands that are currentlyrestricted or off-limits. This report will not be updated.