A New Day at IPANM

 

 

Anti-Industry Politics

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.

Anti-Industry News

DEPA (Dec. 18, 2024) - Today's long-awaited report from the Department of Energy (DOE) on the impact of US LNG
EnergyNow Media (Nov. 30, 2024) - President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is crafting an executive order to lift a moratorium
IPANM (Nov. 27, 2024) - On Wednesday, the New Mexico Court of Appeals issued a ruling in IPANM's legal challenge
Power The Future (Nov. 21, 2024) - In a last-ditch effort to cement their radical climate agenda, the Biden-Harris administration’s Environmental
By Missi Currier, Jim Winchester, and Ben Shepperd | Nov 9, 2024 Published In Several State Newspapers (Nov. 9, 2024)
Washington Post via City Desk ABQ (Nov. 6, 2024) - President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House could reverse
CTEH Report (Nov. 1, 2024) - CTEH has releases a report summarizing their findings of existing data and studies on
Santa Fe New Mexico (Oct. 29, 2024) - Ozone pollution has been declining nationwide for decades. But there’s one location
Santa Fe New Mexican (Oct. 28, 2024) - The State Land Office wants to get top dollar for leasing prime
IPANM (April 13, 2024) - In response to the April 12, 2024 formal release of the new Fluid Mineral Leases

DEPA (Dec. 18, 2024) – Today’s long-awaited report from the Department of Energy (DOE) on the impact of US LNG exports comes as nosurprise from the current administration. The claim that increased LNG exports result in a “triple-cost increase to US consumers” is not supported by reality. This is according to the Domestic Energy Producer’s Alliance (DEPA).

“Ten years ago, the United States was not exporting LNG. Today, the US stands as the number one LNG exporter in the world. And what has happened to natural gas prices for American consumers during this period? They’ve gone down, not up. The narrative suggesting that LNG exports trigger significant domestic price spikes was thoroughly debunked in 2015, when DEPA played a pivotal role in lifting the crude oil export ban. That lesson holds true today: increased energy exports strengthen the US economy, enhance global energy security, and do not harm American consumers,” said Jerry Simmons CEO and President for the Domestic Energy Producers’ Alliance (DEPA).

Simmons went on to say “Attempts to stir public anxiety over consumer price impacts are unfounded, and this DOE report reflects a policy direction that fails to align with economic and energy realities. We are confident that the incoming administration will reassess this misguided approach and adopt energy policies that prioritize growth, energy security, and market-driven solutions.”

It’s telling that this DOE report was labeled as “final” even before the public comment deadline was released. That speaks volumes about the process. We look forward to policies that make sense for America’s energy future, support our leadership role in global markets, and benefit consumers at home.

IPANM stands in full agreement and in solidarity with our national oil & gas trade associations’ conclusion that the Biden Administration’s LNG Export report is highly flawed.

DOE’S LNG REPORT REPEATS DEBUNKED MYTHS U.S. ENERGY POLICY NEEDS A REALITY CHECK

 

EnergyNow Media (Nov. 30, 2024) – President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is crafting an executive order to lift a moratorium on natural gas export permits that was put in place by the Biden administration, people familiar with the matter said.

The move is part of broader package of actions on US energy planned for Trump’s early days in office, said the people who asked not to be named because the information is private. The LNG executive order could mandate that the Energy Department approve pending export permits, or it could direct the agency to resume its review of applications as part of directives on energy policy, though a final approach has not yet been determined, the people said.

The measures are also expected to include plans to make good on Trump’s campaign promises to increase drilling on federal lands and waters and repeal new environmental regulations for coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants, according to Reuters, which reported on the plans Monday.

A Trump transition team representative did not respond to a request for comment.

On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to rescind unspent funds from Biden’s signature climate law, get producers pumping more oil and gas and bring down energy costs as well as declare a national emergency to achieve a massive increase in domestic energy supply.

New permits to export LNG to key Asian nations and other countries that aren’t free-trade partners with the US have been on hold since January while the Biden administration examines the climate, economic and national security implications of increasing US exports of the fuel. The Biden administration could issue a study with the results of their findings as soon as this week. The

Biden’s moratorium on export approvals has threatened to disrupt plans for multibillion-dollar export projects by Venture Global LNG Inc., Energy Transfer LP and Commonwealth LNG, among other projects with permits pending before the Energy Department.

Trump has promised to end Biden’s permitting pause his “very first day back.”

 

Trump Team Preparing Early Action to End Biden’s LNG Pause

IPANM (Nov. 27, 2024) – On Wednesday, the New Mexico Court of Appeals issued a ruling in IPANM’s legal challenge to the New Mexico Ozone Precursor (Methane) Rule.  The full ruling can be found here.

In response to the ruling, IPANM has released the following statement:

We respectfully disagree with the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruling on IPANM’s legal challenge to the Ozone Precursor (Methane) Rule. As our arguments indicate, we support the goal of the rule to reduce emissions, but not with current provisions in the rule that overreach by wiping out a secondary market for marginal wells that may otherwise continue to safely produce oil & gas to the benefit of all New Mexicans. While we are disappointed, we are reviewing our options moving forward in this case.

Unfortunately, this rule and many other overzealous regulations being pushed out by New Mexico state regulators continue to disproportionately hurt independent operators. The current state administration needs to stop it’s “death by a thousand cuts” hostility to the smaller, family-owned, New Mexico-based operators.

–Jim Winchester
IPANM Executive Director

Power The Future (Nov. 21, 2024) – In a last-ditch effort to cement their radical climate agenda, the Biden-Harris administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a new rule imposing a hefty methane fee on oil and gas companies. Just as the administration, which voters rejected at the ballot box, is on its way out, the EPA is scrambling to push through as many action as possible before former New York Congressman Lee Zeldin takes over.

According to an EPA press release, “$900 per metric ton of wasteful emissions in CY 2024, increasing to $1,200 for CY 2025, and $1,500 for CY 2026 and beyond.”

This methane fee is yet another example of the Biden-Harris administration’s heavy-handed approach to environmental policy. By imposing such a steep fee, the EPA is essentially penalizing American energy producers and driving up costs for consumers. This rule is not about protecting the environment; it’s about pushing a radical agenda that benefits special interests and hurts American workers and families.

Fortunately, there is hope on the horizon. Lee Zeldin is expected to be appointed EPA administrator and has made it clear that he will seek to undo much of the Biden-Harris administration’s overreach. Zeldin understands that a strong energy sector is essential to America’s economic prosperity and national security. He will work to reverse misguided policies like the EPA’s methane fee and restore common sense to environmental regulation. According to PTF Executive Director Daniel Turner:

As a conservative fighter from deep blue New York, Lee Zeldin knows how to win in the toughest political terrain. There is no greater priority for the incoming administration than rolling back the maze of regulations and red tape imposed by the Biden Administration on America’s energy producers. The EPA has been a chief culprit in this misguided endeavor, and we look forward to Administrator Zeldin restoring common sense, starting by rescinding their reckless mandates on methane and electric vehicles.”

The EPA’s last-minute methane fee is a desperate attempt to entrench the Biden-Harris administration’s failed policies before they leave office. This rule will only serve to burden American energy producers and drive-up costs for consumers. Fortunately, Administrator Zeldin will be committed to undoing this and other misguided policies. It’s time to restore common sense to environmental regulation and prioritize the economic well-being of American families. The EPA’s last-minute scramble is a clear sign that their days of overreach are numbered. With Zeldin at the helm, we can look forward to a more balanced and sensible approach to energy policy.

EPA’s Last-Minute Methane Fee: A Desperate Attempt to Entrench Biden-Harris Policies Before Zeldin Takes Over

By Missi Currier, Jim Winchester, and Ben Shepperd | Nov 9, 2024

Published In Several State Newspapers (Nov. 9, 2024) – The Oil Conservation Commission will consider changes to PFAS rules in New Mexico related to oil and gas use. This rulemaking request was made by WildEarth Guardians and New Energy Economy.

The New Mexico oil and gas trade associations and these environmental nonprofits (eNGOs) agree — PFAS should not be utilized in oil and gas production. However, we differ on what we see as fearmongering tactics that utilize half-truths and purposely ignore the best available science and PFAS facts. A common tactic used by eNGOs is playing on people’s fears in the pursuit of a much more sinister agenda — to shut down one of the most valuable industries in our beloved state.

PFAS are everywhere and are safely used in your everyday life. PFAS are a diverse class of thousands of fluorinated substances that have been used extensively in industrial, commercial and consumer applications, including electronics, gaskets and seals, friction reducers, outdoor gear and clothing, and nonstick coatings for household products.

PFAS are not intentionally used in fracking in New Mexico. Some PFAS are ubiquitous in the environment and come from sources such as municipal water, surface water and private well water. So, while your municipal water may have PFAS, so might the water used in fracking — and because of that, opponents of oil and natural gas claim fracking uses PFAS. This is a half-truth that conveniently leaves out the scientific research on PFAS in water sources.

Opponents of the industry are implementing additional scare tactics. For example, they are claiming oil and gas operators are not required to disclose their proprietary chemicals and they are actually trying to hide PFAS in their operations. These are false claims.

The New Mexico Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure mandates all oil and gas operators report the composition of the hydraulic fracturing fluid used during hydraulic fracturing operations. FracFocus records everything from the trade name to the supplier to the purpose of the ingredient and maximum concentration. Proprietary ingredients are recorded in the national database in a way that does not waive recognized trade secret protections. Translation: The industry is already required by law to report their chemical usage and ensure that PFAS are not intentionally utilized while protecting proprietary information and trade secrets that keep American companies competitive.

Industry opponents continue to use fearmongering and your tax dollars to engage in an unnecessary and costly state rulemaking process to address an issue that is simply not an issue.

As leaders in the energy sector, we are committed to ensuring New Mexico remains a safe and healthy place for all residents. We will continue working with regulators and researchers to ensure the safest and cleanest operations based on the full, factual picture from the best available science. Most important, we are committed to working with facts, not fear.

Missi Currier is the president and CEO of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association; Jim Winchester is the executive director of the Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico; Ben Shepperd is the president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association.

 

Washington Post via City Desk ABQ (Nov. 6, 2024) – President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House could reverse the gains the United States has made in fighting global warming, experts said, by cementing his plans to unleash domestic fossil fuel production, dismantle key environmental rules and scale back federal support for renewable energy and electric vehicles.

It has also raised fears amongU.S. allies and even some major energy executives who warn a U.S. exit from global climate efforts will hurt American industry as the rest of the world shiftsaway from fossil fuels.

Trump’s election creates “a very long pathway for fossil fuels,” Ben Cahill, an energy scholar at the University of Texas at Austin, said in a phone interview Wednesday. “Investors will feel the outlook is brighter. The industry will be under less pressure.”

While energy was not a focal point of a presidential campaign consumed by immigration, abortion and the future of democracy, it is a policy area where presidents have the authority to make sweeping changes.

Trump – who has dismissed climate change as a “hoax” and courted oil company executives throughout the campaign – has outlined plans that have the potential to boost oil and gas profits as well as greenhouse gas emissions that threaten the world’s climate goals.

Trump is expected to immediately take aim at the Paris climate accord. His plan to withdraw the United States from the pact – as he did during his first term – comes at a critical moment for the compact aimed at limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)above preindustrial levels. Climate scientists are already warning the planet is on track to blow pastthat target: on Wednesday the European climate agency Copernicus announced that 2024 is assured to be the first calendar year where the global temperature rise has averaged 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Trump has planned a flurry of other actions to bolster U.S. oil and gas companies. He is expected to ease a suite of restrictions on the oil industry’s emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. And he will probably cancel the Biden administration’s pause on permits for new liquefied natural gas export projects, clearing the way for the industry to build billions of dollars worth of infrastructure that could increase U.S. emissions and keep gas flowing to other nations for decades to come.

Oil companies welcome the radical policy shift. “Energy was on the ballot, and voters sent a clear signal that they want choices, not mandates, and an all-of-the-above approach that harnesses our nation’s resources and builds on the successes of his first term,” Mike Sommers, president of the American Petroleum Institute,said in a statement.

What Trump’s victory could mean for oil companies and climate change policy

CTEH Report (Nov. 1, 2024) – CTEH has releases a report summarizing their findings of existing data and studies on the health impacts of well production and whether setbacks are necessary or provide any measurable benefits.  Here are some key conclusions:

Leveraging Best Available Science for New Mexico

  • Health outcome studies of assumed exposures are largely inconsistent, lack cohesiveness of
    findings, and cannot be reliably used to show causal evidence that O&G emissions cause specific
    adverse health outcomes.
  • Measured exposure data collected in communities near oil and gas development in NM and other
    states, along with formal risk assessments, have shown chemicals NOT to been at levels of concern
    for adverse health risks.
  • Performance of additional environmental measurement and risk assessment analysis in NM would
    reduce scientific uncertainty and public concern for public health impacts.
  • A policy mandating a prescriptive, “one-size-fits-all” setback is NOT a public health policy based on
    best available science.
  • A process using established frameworks would allow best available science to inform policy to
    protect New Mexico citizens.

Setbacks: Decision Making Using Best Available Science (CTEH Report)

Water & Natural Resources Committee Handouts

Santa Fe New Mexico (Oct. 29, 2024) – Ozone pollution has been declining nationwide for decades. But there’s one location seeing an increase — and it’s here in New Mexico.

At a Monday meeting of the legislative Water and Natural Resources Committee, a Colorado researcher presented findings that Loving, in southeastern New Mexico’s oil and gas powerhouse Eddy County, has seen an increasing amount of ozone pollution. According to presenter Detlev Helmig, the ozone pollution was above National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and the village’s concentration of other pollutants was higher than that of comparison monitoring sites in Colorado. The average concentration of benzene was between nine and 11 times higher than the sites in Colorado, Helmig said.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long-term benzene exposure can damage bone marrow and decrease red blood cells, which can set off a cascade of symptoms. Ground-level ozone pollution can irritate asthma and other lung diseases.

The panel discussed the potential health benefits of adopting setbacks in the oil and gas industry from schools, homes and other structures. Jozee Zuniga, a 22-year-old Eddy County resident and daughter of an oil worker, pushed for setbacks from schools.

“Currently, there are only 800 wells within a mile of schools,” said Zuniga, who is an organizer for Youth United for Climate Crisis Action. “This is 800 wells out of about 70,000 productive wells in the state. We’re asking that the state prohibit all wells around schools and ask the new production to occur at least a mile from the schools. This is not a huge ask. It is a small ask but will do a lot to protect the health of the children in New Mexico.”

Not everyone who spoke Monday agreed. Michael Lumpkin, a toxicologist for Arkansas-based consulting company CTEH, said health outcome studies about oil and gas exposure were “inconsistent” and “thus unreliable to show causal evidence that oil and gas emissions cause specific adverse health outcomes in communities that have been studied.”

Lumpkin even said he would be comfortable living and raising his children near oil and gas production facilities. ”There’s an opportunity here now to leverage [the] best available science to inform the best setback distance policies for New Mexico,” Lumpkin said.

But Colin Cox, staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed to other studies that linked proximity to oil and gas production to low birth weights and cancer hospitalizations. ”They all show health risks from living too close to oil and gas production,” Cox said.

It’s the second time setbacks have been debated by a legislative committee in as many weeks. Last week, Legislative Finance Committee staff presented an analysis on the fiscal impact of proposed setbacks, which found the state would lose out on about $800 million by 2035.

But that doesn’t include existing health costs borne by New Mexicans, which by one estimate based on 2016 oil and gas production was between $624.4 million and $1.5 billion, although LFC staff said the amount paid by the state would likely be smaller. The study made waves last week as legislators debated how to balance the economic impact of the industry with public health.

On Monday, committee chairman Rep. Matthew McQueen, D-Galisteo, criticized the analysis focused on the costs and included very little on the potential benefits of setbacks. “I hear from both sides we need more information about the impact,” McQueen said. “I think [we] can’t just ignore the public health costs, [or] the public health benefits that will be included and realized by providing some level of protection to our students.”

Greg Bloom, assistant commissioner for mineral resources at the State Land Office, questioned if the expected fiscal impact on the state would be affected if different setback amounts were limited. Last year, State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard issued a moratorium on new oil and gas leases within one mile of schools.

Lawmakers discuss oil, gas pollution in southeastern New Mexico

Santa Fe New Mexican (Oct. 28, 2024) – The State Land Office wants to get top dollar for leasing prime oil and gas land in New Mexico. If that sounds familiar, it’s probably because Monday marked the fourth time in recent years the agency has pushed for an increase in oil and gas royalties. Greg Bloom, assistant commissioner of mineral resources for the office, made the pitch once again Monday during a meeting of the Legislature’s Water and Natural Resources Committee in Mescalero.

The pitch comes after lawmakers failed to pass a bill aiming to increase oil and gas royalties during the 2024 legislative session. In response, State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard announced in March the office would no longer lease the most valuable tracts of land until the Legislature plays ball, a pause that is still in effect. The current maximum rate, which Bloom called “antiquated,” hasn’t increased since the era of disco, falling behind the rates on state and private land in Texas as well as private land rates in New Mexico.

Increasing rates for the best tracts is anticipated to increase state revenues by a billion dollars in a 25-year period, including providing additional millions for the State Land Office and the Legislative Finance Committee and adding between $1.5 billion and $2 billion to the Land Grant Permanent Fund — which helps fund education needs — by 2050. The office is proposing increasing the maximum rates from 20% to 25%, with the higher rates only applicable to new leases (Editor’s Note: Higher Royalty Rates would also apply to leases that SLO cancels and then relists for bid, which is a tactic the SLO is aggressively using.)

Currently, about 99% of the land likely to include high-value tracts has already been leased. “It’s difficult to put an exact number on the amount of land we are talking about, as new parcels become available as leases expire and other leases go into effect,” State Land Office spokesperson Joey Keefe wrote in an email to The New Mexican. “However … there are not many premium lands to be had.”The majority of state land lessees are out-of-state companies. Just 1% of the leaseholders are based in New Mexico, with Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma companies making up the rest.

The office could be missing out on one-time bonus payments as a result of the delay in leasing the best tracts, Keefe wrote. Tracts are “nominated” for oil and gas leasing by private companies. If the office decides those tracts are viable, they go out to bid.

The winning bidder pays a bonus payment that “typically can range from tens of thousands of dollars up to a few million dollars.” “Currently, we are withholding the tracts that are nominated by industry that we determine would attract a 25% royalty rate on the open market,” Keefe wrote.

He added, “By withholding premium tracts temporarily, we are missing out on some of those initial payments. But the Commissioner is willing to forgo a few million dollars now if it potentially means billions more for school kids in the long run.”

Sen. Joe Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, said more analysis is needed to determine whether that strategy will pay off.

“Holding back on these leases, waiting for the Legislature, increasing royalty rates … that makes some sense,” Cervantes said. He added, “On the other hand, while you’re setting those leases, you’re depriving yourself of revenue and business in, perhaps, a market condition that exists today. It may not exist next year … as prices fall.”

State Land Office Pushes for Increased Royalty Rates — Again

IPANM (April 13, 2024) – In response to the April 12, 2024 formal release of the new Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Rule, IPANM released the following statement:

“The Biden administration has created new leasing rules that are unreasonable and go beyond the the existing authority granted to the BLM. The new anti-oil and gas development policies will substantially handcuff production opportunities for small producers. The ultimate goal is clear, bureaucrats in Washington D.C. want to use this rule to prohibit oil and gas development on federal lands. As IPANM made clear in our prior comments, the new rule purposefully allows the administration to deny future leasing without adequate justification or explanation.”

–Jim Winchester, Executive Director, IPANM