Oil drilling exempted from federal environmental review on mixed-ownership land
H.R. 1555 — Bureau of Land Management Mineral Spacing Act · Filed by Stephanie Bice (R-OK) · 3 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 25, 2025 · Reported out
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill amends the Mineral Leasing Act to exempt oil and gas drilling on non-federal land from federal permitting requirements when the federal government owns less than 50% of the subsurface mineral rights being accessed. Operators need only a state permit and must notify the federal government; drilling can begin 30 days later. The bill also exempts these activities from federal environmental review (NEPA), historic preservation (NHPA), and endangered species protections (ESA), though royalty collection and audits remain unchanged. Indian lands are excluded from this exemption.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is removal of federal permitting and environmental review requirements for oil and gas drilling on mixed-ownership land. The stated purpose (streamline permitting) is achieved by exempting activities from NEPA, NHPA, and ESA protections—a deregulatory measure that benefits operators at the cost of federal environmental oversight.
What the text implies
- The 50% threshold creates a loophole: operators can drill on non-federal surface accessing federal minerals without federal environmental review if federal subsurface ownership is just under 50%, potentially affecting vast acreage in mixed-ownership parcels common in western states.
- Exemption from ESA section 7 consultation removes the requirement to assess impacts on threatened and endangered species, shifting species-protection burden entirely to state permitting (which typically lacks equivalent ESA expertise).
- NEPA exemption prevents public disclosure and comment on environmental impacts; activities commence 30 days after state permit submission with no federal action trigger, compressing review timelines below typical NEPA standards.
- Royalty collection remains federal, but auditing and enforcement occur post-drilling; exemption from NEPA and NHPA may reduce federal agency capacity to detect non-compliance or underpayment before extraction occurs.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Citizens lose federal environmental review, endangered species consultation, and historic preservation protections on oil and gas drilling sites where the federal government holds minority subsurface interest. These exemptions apply broadly to any non-federal surface where federal ownership is below 50%, removing public-interest safeguards without replacing them with equivalent state-level protections.
Who stands to gain
- oil and gas operators
- independent oil and gas companies
- drilling contractors
Named in the bill
Bureau of Land Management, Secretary of Interior, Mineral Leasing Act, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, Indian tribes
Where it stands
3 cosponsors: 3 Republicans.
- Feb 25, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Feb 25, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources”
- Mar 25, 2026 — Hearing held · Congress.gov: “Subcommittee Hearings Held”
- Sep 15, 2026 — Markup held in committee · Congress.gov: “Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held”
- Sep 15, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 16”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
4 lobbying clients named this bill on 4 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $1,770,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 16 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 72% of bills with at least one filing.
Stephanie Bice, the sponsor, reported $1,071,750 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Conocophillips — $750,000 on 1 filing
- American Exploration & Production Council — $500,000 on 1 filing
- Defenders of Wildlife — $270,000 on 1 filing
- Independent Petroleum Association of America — $250,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (2,563 characters) on Jun 8, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Oil drilling exempted from federal environmental review on mixed-ownership land” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr1555 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.