A New Day at IPANM

Anti-Industry Politics

As the voice of Independent producers in New Mexico, IPANM’s mission is protect, defend, and promote the work of our members and all of industry. New Mexico’s future and America’s future needs to be shaped by a policy of energy freedom. This “all of the above” approach is fundamental to ensuring all sources of energy–including fossil fuels–can compete to produce safe, reliant, and affordable energy to better the human condition. However, dangerous forces are pushing against energy freedom. Local, state, and federal governments are under the thumb of disingenuous environmental groups who want to pick-and-choose energy winners, under the guise of climate change. With governments already mobilized to kill the oil and gas industry in favor of unreliable and expensive renewable sources, New Mexico & America stand to lose jobs and domestic security. Furthermore, reducing fossil fuel supplies disproportionately hurts those in poverty (18% of New Mexicans). The “Green New Deal” and other progressive policies must be exposed for what they are: a pathway to self-inflicted, socio-economic suffering. With a weakened domestic energy landscape, Americans will beholden to nefarious foreign governments (such as Russia and China). As already demonstrated, these foreign powers do not have the best interests of the people or the planet at heart.

Click Below To Jump To Another Issue Homepage

Methane

Infrastructure

Hydraulic Fracturing

Produced Water

Cultural Properties

Royalties

Industry Benefits

Setbacks

Administrative Penalties

Injection Wells

Endangered Species

Horizontal Rule

Drilling & Leasing

Spill Rule

Financial Assurance

Seismicity

Endangered Plants

Anti-Industry Politics

Anti-Industry News

New Mexico's "Clear Horizons Act" Would Destroy its Oil Industry and Standard of Living

Epstein (Feb. 6, 2026) - More than any other state, New Mexico depends on its oil industry, now #2 in

OPINION Michael Perry: Let's Talk About The Clear Horizons Act

Las Cruces Sun (Jan. 27, 2026) - New Mexico deserves an honest conversation about the Clear Horizons Act. Not slogans.

The Growing Gap Between Fossil Fuel Use and Finds

OilPrice.com - (Jan. 26, 2026) - Herbert Stein was an American economist who served in both the Nixon and Ford

OPINION: SB18 Clear Horizons May Create a Storm

Sen. Ant Thornton (R) District 19 (Jan. 23, 2026) - Public debates often stall not because people reject evidence, but

Sec. Burgum, Trump Administration Extend Federal Bonding Deadline

IPANM (Dec. 19, 2025) - After the urging of IPANM and many other industry trade groups, the Trump administration has

WEA, NMOGA, & IPANM: Energy Gridlock Risks Health of New Mexicans

WEA, NMOGA, & IPANM in Santa Fe New Mexican (Nov. 21, 2025) - Are we facing an energy emergency? The

New Mexico's Well Problem Is Self-Inflicted

Santa Fe New Mexican (Nov. 2, 2025) - by Rep. Mark Murphy (D-59 Roswell) Opinion Editorial - The state of New

Sharpe: Proposed Bonding Rule Will Cost Jobs and Revenue

By George Sharpe Oct 26, 2025 In 2000, Merrion Oil & Gas acquired 20 low producing wells from ConocoPhillips. Today,

Sen. Larry Scott Opens Public Comments In WELC Hearing

IPANM (October 20, 2025) - IPANM would like to thank Sen. Larry Scott and all of the many state legislators

IPANM: Industry Plugs Its Wells; Enviros Just Want To Kill Independents

Industry Plugs Its Wells; Enviros Simply Want To Kill Off Independent Producers Beginning October 20th, the New Mexico Oil Conservation

« Previous 1 2 3 4 … 15 Next »

Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico

IPANM Administrative Offices
P.O. Box 6101, Roswell, New Mexico, 88202
Bus. - 575-622-2566 | Fax. - 575-622-2566

Search

Website designed by Siarza Social Digital

Natural Gas (NG)

WTI Crude Oil (CL)

Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico

IPANM Administrative Offices
P.O. Box 6101, Roswell, New Mexico, 88202
Phone 575-622-2566

Search

Website designed by Siarza Social Digital

Natural Gas

WTI Crude Oil

Epstein (Feb. 6, 2026) –

More than any other state, New Mexico depends on its oil industry, now #2 in the country, which provides 1/3 of NM’s budget. And the entire US depends on NM for low fuel prices.

Yet NM lawmakers are considering a “net-zero by 2050” mandate that would shut down the industry.

The “Clear Horizons Act” would demolish New Mexico’s oil industry

The “Clear Horizons Act” requires New Mexico to dramatically reduce its GHG emissions: to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, 75% below 2005 levels by 2040, and “net zero” by 20501.

If this is passed it will require large parts of the New Mexico oil industry to shut down.
NM has already cut GHG emissions by >21% from 2005 levels2—at significant cost.

E.g., NM recently shut down a 847 MW coal plant that supplied 12-15% of NM electricity3. Now prices are expected to rise because the utility is trying to replace it with wind/solar + expensive storage4.
“Clear Horizons” would require NM oil operators to eliminate emissions from their production via electrification. This accomplishes virtually nothing emissions-wise since most of oil’s emissions are from burning it.

But it has the enormous cost of shutting down oil production.
Electrifying NM oil production would involve a >3X increase in the region’s electricity demand5 and require far more fossil fuel electricity.

This is totally unrealistic given that NM has mandated “net zero” electricity and made it very hard to build and connect new power plants.
Myth: NM oil operators can meet “Clear Horizons” emissions standards by capturing their CO2.

Truth: No they can’t, because carbon capture is extremely expensive as well as scarce.6
Myth: NM oil operators can meet “Clear Horizons” emissions standards by purchasing GHG offsets.

Truth: No they can’t, because these GHG offsets are required to be from NM sources7, and there aren’t enough to go around near-term.
Why should we care if the New Mexico industry can’t comply with the “Clear Horizons Act” and has to shut down production?

Because this harms not only the entire state of New Mexico but also the entire US through its outsized effect on US oil production.

Sabotaging NM oil is destructive for US oil production

At 15% of US production, New Mexico is the #2 oil producing state behind Texas—but its production is growing far more quickly than Texas’s.

New Mexico’s oil production rose by 119% from 2019 to 2024, while Texas’s rose by only 11%.8

New Mexico’s “Clear Horizons Act” Would Destroy its Oil Industry and Standard of Living

Incredibly, New Mexico now produces more oil than Mexico and over 2X more oil than Venezuela. If New Mexico were a country, it would be the 11th biggest global oil producer.9
New Mexico has driven much of the US oil production growth in recent years. Two counties in NM accounted for 52% of the increase in US oil production between 2020 and 2024.10
American oil is an enormously important industry that keeps us secure and keeps gasoline prices low. And the New Mexico oil industry is a critical part of it.

The “Clear Horizons Act’s” attack on NM oil is an attack on American energy dominance and American energy security.

Sabotaging NM oil is destructive for the state of New Mexico

While the sabotage of New Mexico oil by the “Clear Horizons Act” harms all of America, it is particularly destructive for the state of New Mexico, whose economy and therefore whose people would be in infinitely worse shape without its prolific oil industry.
Oil and gas tax revenue pays for >1/3 of New Mexico’s budget11. This means many NM government services—such as education, childcare, health services, roads, etc—are heavily dependent on oil and gas.
New Mexico’s oil and gas jobs are highly productive as well as high-paying. NM oil and gas extraction jobs pay >2x the average NM wage, and oilfield services jobs pay ~1.5x the average NM wage.12
In addition to sabotaging the NM oil industry the “Clear Horizons Act” threatens any large project that uses a significant amount of fossil fuels or requires a significant amount of reliable, fossil fuel electricity. E.g., data centers.
Consider Project Jupiter, the new data center campus in Doña Ana County that is set to bring 100s of billions in investment and 1000s of high-paying jobs to NM13.

There’s little chance this project would survive under “Clear Horizons” given its need for reliable natural gas power

Consider New Era’s new huge 7GW data center project in Lea County, New Mexico. This project will be effectively banned under the “Clear Horizons Act,” given that it will require at least 2GW of reliable natural gas power to operate.14
By requiring costly emissions reductions across the NM economy, the “Clear Horizons Act” is guaranteed to raise the cost of living in NM.

The people of New Mexico (which has a median household income of $64,140, the fourth lowest in the country) cannot afford that.15
Myth: The “Clear Horizons Act” makes New Mexicans more resilient to climate danger.

Truth: New Mexico cannot affect climate conditions no matter how much it reduces its GHG emissions. “Clear Horizons” only makes New Mexicans poorer and therefore less resilient to climate danger.
Myth: New Mexico’s recent “climate” policies have shown that NM can “achieve economic growth and reduce pollution at the same time.”

Truth: NM’s economic growth has been in spite of not because of these policies, which ban some economic activity and make the rest more expensive!

The New Mexican government needs to unleash New Mexican oil, starting by rejecting the “Clear Horizons Act”

NM oil is already being sabotaged by some of the strictest anti-oil policies in the country—e.g., requiring operators to capture much of their methane emissions, requiring “net-zero” electricity by 2045.

But the “Clear Horizons Act” would be the most destructive policy to date.
New Mexico should recognize that oil is essential to New Mexico’s prosperity, and unleash it by repealing the existing anti-oil policies (e.g., “Methane Waste Rule,” “Energy Transition Act”).

But first New Mexico must reject the “Clear Horizons Act.”
Citizens and lawmakers of New Mexico, please don’t sabotage your energy future—or we will all pay the price.

Tell New Mexico Senators and Representatives to unleash New Mexican oil, starting by voting NO on the “Clear Horizons Act.”

The Clear Horizons Act is designed to fundamentally reshape New Mexico’s economy by targeting and dismantling traditional energy production, particularly oil and gas, through aggressive emissions mandates, expanded regulatory authority, and long term restrictions intended to force a rapid transition away from fossil fuels. Its stated goal is emissions reduction. Its real world impact, however, is far broader and far more damaging.

This legislation centralizes power, expands bureaucracy, and places New Mexico’s rural economies, state trust lands, and public school funding at serious risk. It is important to be clear about what this bill is attempting to do.

The Clear Horizons Act seeks to impose statewide emissions caps across multiple sectors, expand regulatory authority over energy production, transportation, and industry, accelerate the phase down of oil and gas development regardless of economic or revenue impacts, and shift New Mexico toward a compliance driven climate model borrowed from states with vastly different economies and land ownership structures.

What it does not do is provide a realistic plan to replace the revenue that currently funds public schools, universities, and essential services across New Mexico.

The numbers tell the story, and they cannot be ignored. In the most recent fiscal year, oil and gas generated approximately $2.6 billion for the State of New Mexico through royalties, severance taxes, production taxes, and lease payments. That revenue supports public education, health care, infrastructure, and state and local government services statewide. On state trust land alone, oil and gas production pays 20 to 25% in royalties, directly benefiting schools and other trust beneficiaries.

By contrast, clean energy projects generated roughly $8 million in state revenue during the same period. While wind and solar projects bring investment and construction jobs, their ongoing contribution to state revenue is comparatively minimal. Most clean energy projects on state trust land pay just 3 to 6% in royalties.

That is not a matter of opinion. It is a difference of $2.6 billion versus $8 million. Equally important is what happens after the energy is produced. Oil and gas operators are required to contribute to a reclamation fund and post bonds to ensure sites are properly cleaned up when production ends. That reclamation fund is not a tax on the people of New Mexico. It is paid for entirely by the oil and gas industry itself through fees assessed on production. When wells reach the end of their life, those funds exist to protect landowners, taxpayers, and the state trust from cleanup costs.

Clean energy does not operate under the same standard. There is no equivalent statewide reclamation fund for wind turbines or large scale solar facilities. There is no guaranteed funding mechanism to restore land when projects reach the end of their lifespan or when companies sell assets, dissolve, or walk away.

So the question New Mexicans deserve answered is straightforward. Who pays when wind turbines rust, solar arrays are abandoned, or a clean energy company goes belly up? If the answer is the taxpayer or the trust, then New Mexico has failed in its responsibility as a steward of public land.

I oppose the Clear Horizons Act because it punishes an industry that pays its fair share and funds the state, while giving a pass to alternatives that do not. It treats oil and gas, an industry that brings in $2.6 billion, pays higher royalties, and funds reclamation, as something to be dismantled, while replacing it with revenue streams totaling $8 million and carrying unresolved long term liabilities.

That is not environmental leadership. It is selective accountability. New Mexico is a rural, land based state. We manage millions of acres of working lands held in trust for specific beneficiaries. Any climate policy that weakens the revenue streams funding education, land stewardship, and rural communities without a proven replacement is fundamentally flawed.

I am not opposed to renewable energy. I am opposed to unequal rules, unequal responsibility, and unrealistic math.

If clean energy is going to be part of New Mexico’s future, then it must pay royalty rates comparable to other energy producers, contribute to a dedicated reclamation fund paid by the industry rather than taxpayers, and be held to the same long term accountability standards as oil and gas. Anything less is not a transition. It is a gamble with New Mexico’s land, schools, and future.

Clear horizons require clear thinking. This bill falls short on both.

By Michael Perry is a candidate for NM Commissioner of Public Lands.

OPINION: Let’s Talk About The Clear Horizons Act

This content is for members only.

Please login here! If you have any questions about your membership, please email megan@ipanm.org.

This content is for members only.

Please login here! If you have any questions about your membership, please email megan@ipanm.org.

IPANM (Dec. 19, 2025) – After the urging of IPANM and many other industry trade groups, the Trump administration has issued a final rule extending new federal oil & gas bonding increases for an additional year. The move fulfills a promise personally made by acting-BLM secretary Bill Groffy to IPANM Executive Director Jim Winchester earlier this month following IPANM’s plea for quick action to reverse the Biden-era Bonding Rule that went into effect in 2024.

“IPANM members face an unfair and disproportionate impact from bonding increases, and we appreciate that President Trump, Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and acting-BLM Secretary Bill Groffy recognized this,” said Jim Winchester, IPANM Executive Director. “As this is step one in fixing this specific rule, we look forward to future action from the BLM to permanently rescind the flawed Biden-era Bonding Rule.”

The extension also formally negates this notice that hundreds of New Mexico-based operators received earlier this fall that indicated payment of a new $500,000 blanket bond was due by June 22, 2026. At the time, IPANM advised members to NOT submit the new bond increase due to future action from the Trump administration.

As cited by IPANM partner trades the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA) and the National Stripper Well Association (NSWA), had the new bonding increases moved forward:

Nearly 21,000 small oil and gas operators nationwide would face a twenty-fold increase in bonding requirements.
Thousands of small producers could be forced to shut down, resulting in the loss of many thousands of jobs.
Rural communities would experience reduced tax revenues and strain on essential public services.
The U.S. could lose up to:
- 164,000 barrels of oil per day
- 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day
- 172,000 stripper oil and gas wells

Premature well closures could increase public financial exposure if wells are abandoned due to operator insolvency.

IPANM also is involved with a lawsuit filed by a group of industry trades against the provisions of the Biden-era Bonding Rule. That lawsuit is on hold as the Trump administration moves forward to formally rescind the existing rule. The Trump BLM has indicated that the formal rescinding of the Biden-era Bonding Rule will occur in 2026.

IPANM also remains heavily engaged post-hearing rulemaking regarding a new proposed New Mexico Oil Conservation Division bonding rule covering wells, and a new proposed New Mexico State Land Office bonding increase per lease. Those proposals threaten to disproportionately increase bonding levels on New Mexico state lands

WEA, NMOGA, & IPANM in Santa Fe New Mexican (Nov. 21, 2025) – Are we facing an energy emergency? The answer may depend on your income, health risks, or even your age.

Think about family or neighbors who rely on medical equipment that must be plugged in — ventilators, dialysis machines and CPAP devices. The people who depend on them are at serious risk when the power goes out.

The threat is so real that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services tracks Medicare patients who rely on home medical devices. Nearly 50,000 people in New Mexico — 10% of Medicare recipients — are vulnerable during electric blackouts. That’s the third highest rate in the nation.

Unfortunately, outages are common — caused by bad weather, aging infrastructure, or other strains on the electrical grid. They can happen throughout the day or night and sometimes last for extended periods.

Last April, residents in Northern New Mexico went two days without power. Utilities try to alert communities, but vulnerable people often don’t get the message in time. For them, the energy emergency is not theoretical — it’s personal.

So how did we get here, and what’s the fix?

A major barrier is the difficulty of getting permits approved for projects that would strengthen the grid that supplies power to our communities and neighborhoods. Layers of government and years of environmental review slow the process. Even after that, lawsuits filed by activist groups create more delays.

According to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, only one in five transmission projects planned between 2000 and 2017 were operational by the end of 2022. Stanford University reports that nearly one in three major energy and infrastructure projects face litigation before construction even begins.

It took 17 years to build the SunZia transmission line across New Mexico, now delivering renewable wind power to customers in Arizona and California. The delays were caused by long environmental reviews and lawsuits.

The problem isn’t limited to electricity. The oil and natural gas industry faces similar roadblocks. Nationally, natural gas is used to generate 43% of electricity, 29% in New Mexico, and is currently the most reliable, affordable energy source fueling the grid. Yet, government red tape and legal delays get in the way of contributing more to meet our growing energy demands.

In 2022, a lawsuit challenged drilling permits in New Mexico and Wyoming, claiming potential harm to wildlife as far away as Hawaii and the Arctic. After three years, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., finally dismissed the case last summer. These kinds of delays show why reform is necessary and how they create real-life hardships for New Mexicans.

Here’s the good news: Congress has a chance to address these problems through permitting reform.

Lawmakers from both parties are working to streamline permitting for energy projects and place reasonable limits on litigation.

In the U.S. House, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the SPEED Act (Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development), which updates the National Environmental Policy Act to help agencies to complete reviews more efficiently.

Another bipartisan group, the Problem Solvers Caucus, released a policy framework to support electricity and pipeline projects, with legislation expected soon.

In the Senate, discussions are underway to build on bipartisan proposals introduced last session.

New Mexico’s leaders can play an important role in the process. Sen. Martin Heinrich, the senior Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, will help shape any permitting reform bill. Members of New Mexico’s House delegation will also sit on committees central to this effort.

In this era of political division, bipartisan support is necessary for our country and state to continue to move forward. For thousands of New Mexicans vulnerable to energy emergencies, it’s a step toward greater security and peace of mind.

Melissa Simpson is president of Western Energy Alliance. Missi Currier is president and CEO of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association. Jim Winchester is executive director of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico.

Santa Fe New Mexican (Nov. 2, 2025) – by Rep. Mark Murphy (D-59 Roswell)

Opinion Editorial – The state of New Mexico is sitting on tens of millions of dollars meant to clean up orphaned oil and gas wells. Instead of using those funds to fix the problem, state regulators are pointing fingers at the very industry already doing nearly all the work — and paying the bill.

Here’s the reality: When an oil or gas well reaches the end of its life, it’s the producer’s responsibility to plug it and restore the surrounding land. In New Mexico, companies do exactly that for roughly 99% of all wells. Only a small fraction becs ome “orphaned” — and that’s where the state steps in, using money from the Conservation Tax.

A portion of that tax goes into the Oil and Gas Reclamation Fund, created specifically to plug and reclaim orphaned wells. The Oil Conservation Division is responsible for using those funds efficiently and getting the work done. But that’s not happening.

As of November 2024, the Reclamation Fund had swelled to over $66 million from the Conservation Tax and federal grants. That’s more than enough to address the state’s small backlog of orphaned wells. Yet instead of using the money, OCD has allowed it to sit idle — trapped in red tape and mismanagement.

Procurement rules have limited the number of companies that can bid on reclamation projects, leaving only a few to handle the work. Other qualified contractors have been shut out for years. The result? Hundreds of orphaned wells sit untouched while the fund meant to fix the problem gathers dust.

Now, OCD wants to “solve” this self-inflicted problem by raising financial assurance requirements — the bond companies must post to guarantee they can plug their wells. Every producer already maintains financial assurance and pays the Conservation Tax. Increasing those requirements would hit small producers the hardest, making it harder — and in some cases impossible — for them to stay in business. And when small producers go out of business, what happens? More orphaned wells.

We’ve seen this before. In Colorado, when regulators hiked bonding requirements, more than 2,000 wells were added to the abandoned well list because small companies couldn’t afford the new rules. The result was less production, lost state revenue and more cleanup costs for taxpayers. That’s exactly the wrong direction for New Mexico.

During the past two legislative sessions, lawmakers had a chance to fix this. House Bill 403 — a commonsense, pro-environment measure — would have redirected a larger share of the Conservation Tax to the Reclamation Fund, ensuring the industry’s own tax dollars were fully dedicated to the cleanup work they were meant for. Yet the Legislature rejected it — twice.

Make no mistake. This isn’t a funding problem. The oil and gas industry is already footing the bill through the Conservation Tax and is successfully plugging nearly every well in the state. The problem is the state refuses to use the money it already has.

Instead of piling more financial burdens on small producers, New Mexico’s regulators should do what they’ve been funded to do — clean up the few remaining wells and stop pretending the industry isn’t doing its part.

When government hoards money instead of solving problems, everyone loses. Especially the small producers who keep New Mexico’s economy — and its energy future — alive.

Rep. Mark Murphy, a Republican, represents District 59. He is an oil and gas producer from Roswell.

By George Sharpe
Oct 26, 2025

In 2000, Merrion Oil & Gas acquired 20 low producing wells from ConocoPhillips. Today, those wells have generated 25 years of jobs, royalties and tax revenue. However, under a new bonding rule being considered in the state, those wells would have been plugged and lost forever.

New Mexico is considering implementing a new rule dramatically increasing the bonding requirements for oil and gas wells. In particular, marginal wells will each require a separate $150,000 bond. Further, if more than 15% of a company’s well-count is considered marginal, then 100% of the wells operated by that company will require individual $150,000 bonds. Finally, the rule will make it all but impossible for a larger company to sell lower-producing wells to small, independent operators, who can squeeze many years of additional profits from those wells.

This rule is unnecessary and will cost the state in jobs, royalties and taxes. Most operators are reputable, plugging their uneconomic wells on an ongoing basis. Existing rules already address the bad actors who let their wells languish. If Merrion Oil & Gas had to comply with this proposed rule, then virtually all of our wells would require the $150,000 bonding at an annual cost of $15,000 per well. However, because many of our wells may not make more than $15,000 per year in profit, they would be uneconomic and would need to be plugged immediately. Even though those wells don’t make much profit, they still support a lot of jobs, from pumpers to compression companies to water haulers and on and on. Further, they still pay royalties and production taxes that will now go away.

With the rule, there will be no more sales of wells from majors to small independents, similar to Merrion’s purchase of those wells from Conoco so many years ago. Conoco would just have had to plug the wells out. But because Merrion can operate at a lower cost point than Conoco, those wells have produced for over twenty five years, supported many, many jobs and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties and taxes to local landowners and the state. And unless we are forced to plug them now, they will continue to do so for another twenty years.

The biggest issue with the rule is that when you force small operators who are barely getting by to post $150,000 bonds for all of their wells, many won’t be able to afford an immediate cash outlay of that magnitude, leaving them no choice but to walk away and leave their wells to the state to deal with. They certainly won’t be able to sell the wells to someone else. So rather than protecting the state from the potential cost of orphaned wells, this new rule is going to immediately dump hundreds if not thousands of orphaned wells in the state’s lap to plug.

In closing, the proposed rule is unnecessary, will cost the state millions in lost royalties and taxes, will result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs and will backfire by significantly, increasing the number of orphaned wells for which the state is responsible. But the nongovernmental operators pushing the rule aren’t really concerned about protecting the state’s interest. Their real objective is to continue to make it harder to produce oil and gas in the state of New Mexico. The new rule will certainly accomplish that. Opponents of this misguided approach have until Nov. 7 to speak out.

Born and raised in Farmington, George Sharpe is the investment manager for Merrion Oil & Gas. He coordinates several education initiatives in the local school district and is an advocate for all types of energy.

IPANM (October 20, 2025) – IPANM would like to thank Sen. Larry Scott and all of the many state legislators who have submitted oral and written comments AGAINST the WELC Rulemaking for new Financial Assurance Bonding Levels and new OCD Authority to reject private well acquisitions. The following is Sen. Scott’s public comment in front of the New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission.

Public Comments of State Senator Larry Scott
4:11 P.M. MT
WELC Rulemaking Public Comments Session 1
October 20, 2025

State Senator Larry Scott: Thank you, Madam Examiner, for the opportunity to speak. I am State Senator Larry Scott from District 42. [Name spelling:]L-A-R-R-Y-S-C-O-T-T.

Hearing Officer: Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth?

State Senator Larry Scott: Yes, Ma’am. I have some fairly significant personal experience with this subject matter. I spent the better part of 40 years as one of the very smallest independent oil and gas producers almost exclusively in southeast New Mexico, in Lee and Eddy counties.

At one point, our little company was managing, I think, close to 60 wells, counting producers and injectors. And I can assure you that all of these calculations that I’m listening to do not take into account having to a set-aside, if you will, $150,000 per marginal well, as effectively unproductive capital. That process would have driven me to bankruptcy in fairly short order.

Now, in full disclosure, I’m no longer an operator. I still maintain interest as a non-owner in a number of properties, but all of my obligations to the state of New Mexico have been fulfilled and plugging obligations and those bonds have been released.

I have serious concerns. I’ve been in the legislature long enough to have participated in the legislation that increased in blanket bonding requirements from $50,000 to 5x of that at $250,000 [in 2018].

I’m not aware that that’s had any significant impact, either plus or minus, on the obligations of the state or any plus or minus impact on small operators in the state.

Now, let’s talk about the reclamation fund. Our oil and gas producers over the years have paid millions of dollars into that reclamation fund that have been misappropriated for use, in many cases, swept when New Mexico was short of funds and not utilized for the intended purpose of overcoming the very few operators that have failed to fulfill their plug-in abandonment operations.

I think the increase in bonding requirements that was affected in 2018 was affected after robust debate and votes by both the House and the Senate. This proposal needs to be vetted through that process rather than as an administrative rulemaking.

Thank you, Madam Examiner, for the opportunity to comment and I’ll look forward to the rest of the testimony.

Industry Plugs Its Wells; Enviros Simply Want To Kill Off Independent Producers

Beginning October 20th, the New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission will stage a rulemaking to consider proposals by radical environmental groups to impose significant new costs on industry. These new rules illegally bypass required legislative approval, and have been written with the explicit intention of shutting down small, local, multi-generational New Mexico independent producers.

The new language would immediately raise financial assurance bonding by orders of magnitude on later-in-life, marginal wells. With an immediate bond increase assessment per well, there will not be enough of the still-available, but yet-to-be extracted, oil & gas remaining in the underground to financially breakeven. As a result, most independent producers will have no choice but to shut-in and plug their lower producing wells, and prematurely cut off oil & gas production before the subsurface reservoir is drained. Such wells can often be reworked or repurposed to enhance production or to dispose of produced water. But, with these options effectively eliminated by the new rules, well revenues (including significant state revenues) will be lost for no justifiable reason.

The new bonding provisions are only part of the rewritten rule. If adopted, state regulators will be granted new authority to deny well operators from selling their existing marginal wells. The state, without due process and without justification, could simply kill the sale of production wells if they deem the buyer to not be financially solvent through their own estimations. This is autocracy over an entire industry on the regulatory level, and will certainly block most operators from selling or acquiring new wells altogether.

The rewritten rules and upcoming hearing has already had a chilling effect not only on the oil & gas industry, but the larger New Mexico business community. The message is clear: Environmentalists and regulators in New Mexico can write and implement their own regulations without the need for legislative consent or substantial consideration of industry feedback. In fact, the concerns of independent producers were not even solicited before this rule was filed. State-based oil & gas companies will testify that because no input from independents was considered, they may have no choice but to shut down and leave the state because of the excessive bonding costs and uncertainty over the ability to buy and sell producing wells.

There’s an ugly reality exposed by this rulemaking hearing. On one hand, the state touts industry’s increased production and feasts on enormous oil & gas state revenues. On the other hand, the state and the enviros continue to kill off smaller independent producers. Since 2017, the number of state oil & gas reporting entities has decreased by 20%. That’s over 100 mostly independent producers who are now either out-of-business, or have left New Mexico due to new regulations antagonistic towards smaller oil & gas companies. These are responsible, state-based, and multi-generational producers that live in the communities where they produce oil & gas, and contribute directly to their rural economies. Environmentalists even acknowledge and applaud the future shutdowns this new rule will cause in their already submitted written testimony, which reveals their true intentions.

To counter this inherent hostility, industry intends to present the real facts during the upcoming rulemaking hearing. Industry testimony will demonstrate that operators already plug over 95% of their own non-producing wells, which accounts for hundreds of wells each year. The state’s inflated projection of unfunded liability on wells does not account for that fact. Industry will also demonstrate that state regulators do not even draw upon the existing financial assurance bond money that exists to plug abandoned wells meaning that industry is being asked to bear significant new costs that will have virtually no benefit. Also troubling, the state does not adequately administer the already-existing industry-financed reclamation fund, which currently has a balance of over $50 million that remains unspent. Furthermore, the state only contracts with hand-picked oil & gas service companies to plug wells, where as other options are available and more efficient. These are the kinds of facts never show up in biased, environmentally-funded, state-endorsed studies on New Mexico’s unplugged well inventory.

The Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico (IPANM) will fight for the responsible, New Mexico-based independent producers at this hearing. These companies already plug their own wells, pay into the state’s reclamation fund to plug other wells, and protect the ground where they work upon. Sadly, they will face unnecessary shut-ins and complete shutdowns if this rule is passed. We urge the 3-member Oil Conservation Commission to listen to the testimony of the independent producers, recognize the intended and unintended consequences of these bad rules, and reject the environmentalists’ petition that will kill an important segment of the oil & gas industry. Finally, we urge everyday citizens whose lives are better because of oil & gas to stand up during the hearing public comments and defend the industry that provides for all New Mexicans.

A New Day at IPANM

Anti-Industry Politics

Anti-Industry Politics

Anti-Industry News

Hot Topics

Members

News

Annual Meeting

About IPANM

Web Tools

Hot Topics

Members

News

Annual Meeting

About IPANM

Web Tools

Search

Natural Gas (NG)

WTI Crude Oil (CL)

Search

Natural Gas

WTI Crude Oil

Epstein (Feb. 6, 2026) –

More than any other state, New Mexico depends on its oil industry, now #2 in the country, which provides 1/3 of NM’s budget. And the entire US depends on NM for low fuel prices.

Yet NM lawmakers are considering a “net-zero by 2050” mandate that would shut down the industry.

The “Clear Horizons Act” would demolish New Mexico’s oil industry

The “Clear Horizons Act” requires New Mexico to dramatically reduce its GHG emissions: to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, 75% below 2005 levels by 2040, and “net zero” by 20501. If this is passed it will require large parts of the New Mexico oil industry to shut down.

NM has already cut GHG emissions by >21% from 2005 levels2—at significant cost. E.g., NM recently shut down a 847 MW coal plant that supplied 12-15% of NM electricity3. Now prices are expected to rise because the utility is trying to replace it with wind/solar + expensive storage4.

“Clear Horizons” would require NM oil operators to eliminate emissions from their production via electrification. This accomplishes virtually nothing emissions-wise since most of oil’s emissions are from burning it. But it has the enormous cost of shutting down oil production.

Electrifying NM oil production would involve a >3X increase in the region’s electricity demand5 and require far more fossil fuel electricity. This is totally unrealistic given that NM has mandated “net zero” electricity and made it very hard to build and connect new power plants.

Myth: NM oil operators can meet “Clear Horizons” emissions standards by capturing their CO2. Truth: No they can’t, because carbon capture is extremely expensive as well as scarce.6

Myth: NM oil operators can meet “Clear Horizons” emissions standards by purchasing GHG offsets. Truth: No they can’t, because these GHG offsets are required to be from NM sources7, and there aren’t enough to go around near-term.

Why should we care if the New Mexico industry can’t comply with the “Clear Horizons Act” and has to shut down production? Because this harms not only the entire state of New Mexico but also the entire US through its outsized effect on US oil production.

Sabotaging NM oil is destructive for US oil production

At 15% of US production, New Mexico is the #2 oil producing state behind Texas—but its production is growing far more quickly than Texas’s. New Mexico’s oil production rose by 119% from 2019 to 2024, while Texas’s rose by only 11%.8

New Mexico’s “Clear Horizons Act” Would Destroy its Oil Industry and Standard of Living

Incredibly, New Mexico now produces more oil than Mexico and over 2X more oil than Venezuela. If New Mexico were a country, it would be the 11th biggest global oil producer.9

New Mexico has driven much of the US oil production growth in recent years. Two counties in NM accounted for 52% of the increase in US oil production between 2020 and 2024.10

American oil is an enormously important industry that keeps us secure and keeps gasoline prices low. And the New Mexico oil industry is a critical part of it. The “Clear Horizons Act’s” attack on NM oil is an attack on American energy dominance and American energy security.

Sabotaging NM oil is destructive for the state of New Mexico

While the sabotage of New Mexico oil by the “Clear Horizons Act” harms all of America, it is particularly destructive for the state of New Mexico, whose economy and therefore whose people would be in infinitely worse shape without its prolific oil industry.

Oil and gas tax revenue pays for >1/3 of New Mexico’s budget11. This means many NM government services—such as education, childcare, health services, roads, etc—are heavily dependent on oil and gas.

New Mexico’s oil and gas jobs are highly productive as well as high-paying. NM oil and gas extraction jobs pay >2x the average NM wage, and oilfield services jobs pay ~1.5x the average NM wage.12

In addition to sabotaging the NM oil industry the “Clear Horizons Act” threatens any large project that uses a significant amount of fossil fuels or requires a significant amount of reliable, fossil fuel electricity. E.g., data centers.

Consider Project Jupiter, the new data center campus in Doña Ana County that is set to bring 100s of billions in investment and 1000s of high-paying jobs to NM13. There’s little chance this project would survive under “Clear Horizons” given its need for reliable natural gas power

Consider New Era’s new huge 7GW data center project in Lea County, New Mexico. This project will be effectively banned under the “Clear Horizons Act,” given that it will require at least 2GW of reliable natural gas power to operate.14

By requiring costly emissions reductions across the NM economy, the “Clear Horizons Act” is guaranteed to raise the cost of living in NM. The people of New Mexico (which has a median household income of $64,140, the fourth lowest in the country) cannot afford that.15

Myth: The “Clear Horizons Act” makes New Mexicans more resilient to climate danger. Truth: New Mexico cannot affect climate conditions no matter how much it reduces its GHG emissions. “Clear Horizons” only makes New Mexicans poorer and therefore less resilient to climate danger.

Myth: New Mexico’s recent “climate” policies have shown that NM can “achieve economic growth and reduce pollution at the same time.” Truth: NM’s economic growth has been in spite of not because of these policies, which ban some economic activity and make the rest more expensive!

The New Mexican government needs to unleash New Mexican oil, starting by rejecting the “Clear Horizons Act”

NM oil is already being sabotaged by some of the strictest anti-oil policies in the country—e.g., requiring operators to capture much of their methane emissions, requiring “net-zero” electricity by 2045. But the “Clear Horizons Act” would be the most destructive policy to date.

New Mexico should recognize that oil is essential to New Mexico’s prosperity, and unleash it by repealing the existing anti-oil policies (e.g., “Methane Waste Rule,” “Energy Transition Act”). But first New Mexico must reject the “Clear Horizons Act.”

Citizens and lawmakers of New Mexico, please don’t sabotage your energy future—or we will all pay the price. Tell New Mexico Senators and Representatives to unleash New Mexican oil, starting by voting NO on the “Clear Horizons Act.”

This content is for members only.

This content is for members only.

The “Clear Horizons Act” requires New Mexico to dramatically reduce its GHG emissions: to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, 75% below 2005 levels by 2040, and “net zero” by 20501.

If this is passed it will require large parts of the New Mexico oil industry to shut down.

NM has already cut GHG emissions by >21% from 2005 levels2—at significant cost.

E.g., NM recently shut down a 847 MW coal plant that supplied 12-15% of NM electricity3. Now prices are expected to rise because the utility is trying to replace it with wind/solar + expensive storage4.

“Clear Horizons” would require NM oil operators to eliminate emissions from their production via electrification. This accomplishes virtually nothing emissions-wise since most of oil’s emissions are from burning it.

But it has the enormous cost of shutting down oil production.

Electrifying NM oil production would involve a >3X increase in the region’s electricity demand5 and require far more fossil fuel electricity.

This is totally unrealistic given that NM has mandated “net zero” electricity and made it very hard to build and connect new power plants.

Myth: NM oil operators can meet “Clear Horizons” emissions standards by capturing their CO2.

Truth: No they can’t, because carbon capture is extremely expensive as well as scarce.6

Myth: NM oil operators can meet “Clear Horizons” emissions standards by purchasing GHG offsets.

Truth: No they can’t, because these GHG offsets are required to be from NM sources7, and there aren’t enough to go around near-term.

Why should we care if the New Mexico industry can’t comply with the “Clear Horizons Act” and has to shut down production?

Because this harms not only the entire state of New Mexico but also the entire US through its outsized effect on US oil production.

At 15% of US production, New Mexico is the #2 oil producing state behind Texas—but its production is growing far more quickly than Texas’s.

New Mexico’s oil production rose by 119% from 2019 to 2024, while Texas’s rose by only 11%.8

American oil is an enormously important industry that keeps us secure and keeps gasoline prices low. And the New Mexico oil industry is a critical part of it.

The “Clear Horizons Act’s” attack on NM oil is an attack on American energy dominance and American energy security.

Consider Project Jupiter, the new data center campus in Doña Ana County that is set to bring 100s of billions in investment and 1000s of high-paying jobs to NM13.

There’s little chance this project would survive under “Clear Horizons” given its need for reliable natural gas power

By requiring costly emissions reductions across the NM economy, the “Clear Horizons Act” is guaranteed to raise the cost of living in NM.

The people of New Mexico (which has a median household income of $64,140, the fourth lowest in the country) cannot afford that.15

Myth: The “Clear Horizons Act” makes New Mexicans more resilient to climate danger.

Truth: New Mexico cannot affect climate conditions no matter how much it reduces its GHG emissions. “Clear Horizons” only makes New Mexicans poorer and therefore less resilient to climate danger.

Myth: New Mexico’s recent “climate” policies have shown that NM can “achieve economic growth and reduce pollution at the same time.”

Truth: NM’s economic growth has been in spite of not because of these policies, which ban some economic activity and make the rest more expensive!

NM oil is already being sabotaged by some of the strictest anti-oil policies in the country—e.g., requiring operators to capture much of their methane emissions, requiring “net-zero” electricity by 2045.

But the “Clear Horizons Act” would be the most destructive policy to date.

New Mexico should recognize that oil is essential to New Mexico’s prosperity, and unleash it by repealing the existing anti-oil policies (e.g., “Methane Waste Rule,” “Energy Transition Act”).

But first New Mexico must reject the “Clear Horizons Act.”

Citizens and lawmakers of New Mexico, please don’t sabotage your energy future—or we will all pay the price.

Tell New Mexico Senators and Representatives to unleash New Mexican oil, starting by voting NO on the “Clear Horizons Act.”