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

EIA (Dec. 4, 2024) - As of 2024, the United States is still the single largest crude oil producer in
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
E&E News via Politico/Greenwire (April 24, 2024, Posted to IPANM Website on November 14, 2024) - A Trump administration Interior
E&E News via Politico (February 5, 2024, Posted to IPANM Website November 13, 2024) - A former Trump Interior Department
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

EIA (Dec. 4, 2024) – As of 2024, the United States is still the single largest crude oil producer in the world, a position it has held since 2018.

However, the U.S. is not a monolithic entity, and the amount of oil that a given area can produce is limited by how much crude is actually underneath it. As such, crude oil production varies from state to state. And though some states continue to pump out crude oil in enormous volumes, many have been experiencing a dwindling output over the years.

Here’s what to know about the top six oil-producing states, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and their respective petroleum industries.

1. Texas

  • ·       Total barrels annually (2023): 2.01 billion
  • ·       Share of U.S. production (2023): 42.61%
  • ·       Barrels per month (August 2024): 180.36 million

2. New Mexico

  • ·       Total barrels annually (2023): 665.55 million
  • ·       Share of U.S. production (2023): 14.1%
  • ·       Barrels per month (August 2024): 64.85 million

3. North Dakota

  • ·         Total barrels annually (2023): 431.72 million
  • ·         Share of U.S. production (2023): 9.14%
  • ·         Barrels per month (August 2024): 36.24 million

4. Colorado

  • ·         Total barrels annually (2023): 166.79 million
  • ·         Share of U.S. production (2023): 3.53%
  • ·         Barrels per month (August 2024): 14.09 million

5. Oklahoma

  • ·         Total barrels annually (2023): 156.78 million
  • ·         Share of U.S. production (2023): 3.32%
  • ·         Barrels per month (August 2024): 11.92 million

6. Alaska

  • ·            Total barrels annually (2023): 155.47 million
  • ·            Share of U.S. production (2023): 3.29%
  • ·            Barrels per month (August 2024): 12.28 million

New Mexico Remains No. 2 Oil Producing State

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

E&E News via Politico/Greenwire (April 24, 2024, Posted to IPANM Website on November 14, 2024) – A Trump administration Interior Department 2.0 — if it happens — could well turn out to be a reboot of the original.

Particularly at the department’s upper levels, Interior veterans of the first Trump administration are being cited by their former colleagues and others with skin in the game as strong potential candidates to serve again, if former President Donald Trump wins against President Joe Biden in November.

“I think there are going to be a lot of familiar faces that will want to go back,” said Cole Rojewski, Interior’s congressional liaison between 2019 and 2021. “I think a lot of people enjoyed their experience in the Trump administration.”

Many remain hesitant to publicly ‘fess up to specific Interior ambitions right now. But in interviews with former Trump administration officials, Capitol Hill veterans, GOP-connected lobbyists and others, a number of names keep popping up.

Those among the frequently mentioned range from former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt down to other political appointees now leading agencies in Republican-led states.

“I think there are some great people,” Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), Trump’s first Interior secretary, told E&E News, adding that “there are a lot of areas where the president is going to need some help [and] there are some folks that served before and understand the issues.”

Zinke stepped down after two years in the top job in the face of ethics inquiries that he called partisan and unfounded. He was subsequently elected to a House seat that he had held previously. Zinke said both that he has “not been asked” about a possible second appointment and that a “president is hard to say no to.”

The former Navy SEAL officer further stressed that “there are a lot of variables” affecting the decisionmaking both of an incoming president and a potential appointee. Down-ballot election results, partisan balances in the House and Senate and the idiosyncrasies of Trump’s approach to team-building all play a role.

“There are a lot of people who [were] involved in his first term and played a significant role and made a great contribution. I’m sure they’d be keen on going back and completing the work that we began,” said former Trump-era Bureau of Land Management official William Perry Pendley.

For Full Article: Interior Alumni Eye Return For A Second Trump Term

E&E News via Politico (February 5, 2024, Posted to IPANM Website November 13, 2024) – A former Trump Interior Department official has one overarching recommendation for his old boss, should former President Donald Trump win a second bid at the White House: undo what President Joe Biden did.

That directive from William Perry Pendley — who served as the de facto head of Trump’s Bureau of Land Management from 2019 to 2021 — is part of a policy road map advanced by the Heritage Foundation along with dozens of conservative groups, called Project 2025, that would help Trump swiftly reestablish his policy prerogatives should he prevail in the November election.

The road map’s Interior section, written by Pendley, would reinstate some of the department orders from Trump’s first stint in the Oval Office that Biden reversed. Pendley’s plans include reopening most of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to oil and gas developers, cutting new protections for migratory birds, and relocating the BLM national headquarters back to

Pendley called for a reinstatement of Trump-era secretarial orders, revoked by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland for being “inconsistent with protecting public health and the environment,” to limit National Environmental Policy Act reviews and expedite permitting for oil and gas developers.

For full story:  Trump Blueprint Would Revive Interior ‘Energy Dominance’ Push

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