Exclusive: Industry leaders react to proposed federal lands restrictions

On Jan. 27, President Joe Biden announced a series of executive actions designed “to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad, create jobs, and restore scientific integrity across the federal government,” as described at WhiteHouse.gov.

Of particular interest to the oil, gas and petrochemical industry is the following inclusion:    

“The order directs the Secretary of the Interior to pause on entering into new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or offshore waters to the extent possible, launch a rigorous review of all existing leasing and permitting practices related to fossil fuel development on public lands and waters, and identify steps that can be taken to double renewable energy production from offshore wind by 2030.”     

But according to Stephen Waguespack, president and CEO of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, a prohibitive ban on the U.S.’s federal lands will not deter global demand for energy.

“Investments are going to have to go somewhere to meet that demand. If investments leave federal lands with American standards and American restrictions and American guidelines, and instead go to Russia or some other area with more stringent guidelines, I would argue that that has the potential of making the climate issue worse instead of better,” Waguespack said.    

Waguespack explained that many industry and policy makers are willing and eager to work collaboratively to find better solutions to address the climate crisis, adding that he believes that solution begins with American ingenuity.

“It can only be harmed by taking American ingenuity out of the equation and instead rely on the ingenuity of other countries [that] do not have the track record America has. Energy production [is] cleaner, more efficient and more effective every year.”    

Waguespack recommended that energy leaders proactively evaluate industry standards to make sure that they are as effective as possible.     

“The original Clean Air Act, which was passed decades ago, has really been in partnership with industry,” he said. “A lot of the way we can make energy, burn energy, utilize energy and ship energy more efficiently has been by working with industry to find new ways to do it, not pushing them out of the room or taking them out of the equation. And we’re worried that a ban does that.” 

Collaboration is key 

Marty Durbin, president of U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, said he believes the most effective way for the industry to mitigate the climate crisis is by creating “a durable, bipartisan solution” with Congress. “We just had a clear action and model to follow in the 116th Congress where we had climate legislation that moved through the process,” Durbin said. “We played a leadership role in bringing a diverse coalition together where we sat on the Energy Committee in the Senate and the science and the energy committees in the House.”    

Durbin said this collaboration resulted in bipartisan bills “to get the most significant climate and energy legislation that we’ve seen in over a decade.”     

The legislation also included “a very difficult but very significant to phase out the production and use of hydrofluorocarbons,” Durbin said.    

Durbin pointed to a current infrastructure bill “that’s coming along,” as well as proposals that are were made last year in the House’s energy and Congress climate committees. 

“There’s a lot of areas there where there is common ground and we can make progress,” he said. “And with all of the reviews, whether it’s climate or what’s produced of federal lands, you don’t have to stop producing to be able to do those reviews. They can do whatever reviews they want without it harming the street level.

“We’re anxious to work with the [Biden] administration and Congress to build on that success.”