A New Day at IPANM

 

 

information & issues

Welcome to IPANM’s Information & Issues webpage!

IPANM is not afraid to take strong stances on many current issues threatening our industry. We have to! Seemingly minor changes to regulations or rules can have a major impact on the financial solvency of our small oil & gas producers. While we will never compromise on our duties to protect human health, fresh water and the environment in our daily activities, we will fight unnecessary government overreach when new regulatory proposals are not based on sound science and do little to protect the environment.

Below, we’ve identified serious issues facing our producers. Please click on the corresponding button to learn more about each issue and IPANM’s stance on the issue. (Note: Some of this content may be restricted for members only. To access this exclusive content, please join our association!)

RECENT NEWS: All Issues

You will find the draft application from NMOCD for the proposed Lybrook; Mancos-Gallup Oil Pool and a draft of the
Below please find attached the emergency order and notice of hearing pertaining to suspending certain approved APDs and for adoption
On Nov 17th, the New Mexico Tax and Revenue Department will hold a hearing on a proposal to change several
Service Announces a 6-Month Extension of the Final Determination for the Proposed Listing of the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard to Allow
Use of Natural Gas (CNG) as a Transportation Fuel On November 28, 2011, Kevin K. Washburn, Dean & Professor of
The NM Oil Conservation Commission is scheduled to come out with its final order on this issue at the January
There are concerns about a new, very preliminary BLM proposal for hydraulic fracturing. According to API staff, "there has been
Yesterday in two parallel decisions, the Colorado Supreme Court struck down the Longmont ordinance banning fracking and the Fort Collins
On Friday, April 22, IPANM submitted a 22-page comment to the BLM regarding their very flawed proposal to increase regulations
As the current Presidential administration draws to a close, bureaucrats at the BLM are feverishly moving forward with amending existing

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.

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.

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.

This content is for members only.

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

Yesterday in two parallel decisions, the Colorado Supreme Court struck down the Longmont ordinance banning fracking and the Fort Collins five year Moratoria on oil and gas development. These decisions are very helpful in that, like New Mexico, the Colorado General Assembly has not expressly preempted local authorities from enacting ordinances that affect development. However, the court held that since the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act is so expansive and specific as to the regulations pertaining to oil and gas development, that there is an ‘operational’ conflict.

As you know, IPANM has been at the forefront of the discussions regarding preemption. We were plaintiffs against Mora County when they enacted their ordinance in 2011. US District Court Judge Browning agreed with IPANM that the Mora County Ordinance was unconstitutional. IPANM has drafted and aggressively lobbied legislation to clarify the preemption issue in New Mexico and we successfully got the bill passed through the House. Many thanks to Representative Nate Gentry for sponsoring that bill. IPANM has also worked closely with NMOGA on their version of a preemption bill that was sponsored by Senator Stewart Ingle. IPANM has testified before several County Commissions, including the Sandoval County Commission in support of development within that county. We will continue to work with the Sandoval County Commission and the Planning and Zoning staff to push back against a moratorium or an ordinance that mirrors that of San Miguel County. With decisions on the preemption issue coming down all over the country, it is my hope that in New Mexico that we can continue the discussion with the legislature, our regulators and the public.

A copy of the decision is linked for your review.

On Friday, April 22, IPANM submitted a 22-page comment to the BLM regarding their very flawed proposal to increase regulations on the practice of venting and flaring (copy linked here). Although it is rather lengthy, I think it covers all the bases on this very complex rule. Thank you Tom Mullins and Dan Girand for their valuable comments on this issue.

As the current Presidential administration draws to a close, bureaucrats at the BLM are feverishly moving forward with amending existing regulations. In addition to direct attacks on industry with the venting and flaring regulations and the revamped Onshore Orders #3, #4, #5 and #9, they are quietly revamping the processes by which the public may be involved in stopping activities on federal lands. These indirect attacks, under the guise of process overhauls, may have greater impact on industry–particularly if we are not engaged now and the environmental community manages to have only their voice heard. One such example is the overhaul of the process for which Resource Management Plans will be completed. The BLM is calling this major overhaul “Planning 2.0 initiative” in the hopes that industry will overlook the impacts. On February 25th, the BLM published the proposed rule in the Federal Register, and we have until April 25th to respond to it. A copy of the 63 page rule is linked here. According to the BLM fact sheet, the main points are (points of concern are highlighted in RED):
Highlights of the Proposed Rule
Early Public Involvement. The proposed rule would establish several new opportunities for early public involvement during the planning process. The public would be provided opportunities to submit data and information and to review preliminary versions of key planning documents including a preliminary statement of purpose and need, preliminary alternatives and their rationale, and preliminary procedures, assumptions, and indicators to be used in the effects analysis. Translation: The public would be able to slow the process down.
Planning Assessment. The proposed rule would require the development of an upfront planning assessment prior to developing a land use plan. The planning assessment would provide a description of baseline resource environmental, ecological, social, and economic conditions in the planning area. This step would provide for additional public involvement, including an opportunity to submit data and information. Translation: More “assessments” on top of those already required like the “Reasonable Foreseeable Development Plan” which will require more time.
High Quality Information and Best Available Science. The proposed rule would improve the BLM’s ability to utilize the high quality information, including the best available science and geo-spatial data, when it develops plans and implements future actions. The proposed changes affirm the importance of using high quality data as a foundation for BLM planning and management. Translation: We have seen the Administration rely on non-science from the environmental community, maybe “high quality information” needs to be defined?
Landscape-Level Planning. The proposed rule would provide the agency flexibility to plan across traditional administrative boundaries. The BLM Director would also be provided discretion to determine future RMP boundaries. Translation: What does this mean? Should we demand that our local governments have a stronger ability to coordinate? With the BLM Director having discretion, this becomes a political not administrative based on science process.
Planning Framework. The proposed rule would distinguish between the plan components that are mandatory elements of a plan and with which all future decisions must be consistent, and optional implementation strategies that are not components of the plan but may help guide plan implementation.
Protest. The proposed rule would revise the protest procedures to provide more detailed information on what constitutes a valid protest issue and for consistency with new terminology. The proposed rule would also provide electronic methods for protest submission.
The BLM is offering a webinar on April 13, 2016 from 3:00-5:00 pm EDT for the pubic to learn about the proposed rule before the close of the comment period. Participants can register for the webinar by visiting www.blm.gov/plan2.