Stop the royalty rewrite for oil, gas, and coal
Federal Oil, Gas, and Coal Amendments
Office of Natural Resources RevenueFederal Register 2026-13133 ↗
A rule change would let energy companies pay the public less for drilling and mining on federal lands.
What’s at risk
Federal royalties from oil, gas, and coal extraction fund public schools, conservation, and the U.S. Treasury. This rule would simplify valuation calculations in ways that reduce what companies owe and limit the public's ability to appeal those decisions.
If this goes through
Energy companies would pay lower royalties on fossil fuels taken from public lands and offshore areas, permanently shrinking the revenue Americans receive in exchange for depleting those shared resources.
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
5 holes in the agency’s own analysis
What the public could have raised, from the agency’s own document
- I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
- This rule changes how ONRR calculates royalties on oil, gas, and coal extracted from federal public lands and offshore areas, which means the public could receive less money for resources that belong to all Americans.
- Simplifying the valuation rules for oil, gas, and coal royalties is designed to reduce costs for energy companies, not to protect the public revenue stream those royalties fund.
- Limiting the scope of Director-level appeals removes a key oversight tool that the public and government rely on to challenge incorrect royalty calculations on federal lands.
- This rule is explicitly designed to incentivize more oil, gas, and coal production on federal lands, locking in expanded fossil fuel extraction at a time when that direction is being widely questioned.
Show all 7 points from the document
- Table 1 lists the Gathering Definition and Offshore Policy Amendments as producing a $329,543,000 annual royalty decrease, the largest transfer in the entire rule, but the Estimated Annual Administrative Benefits and Costs for that same provision is marked 'TBD' with ONRR still soliciting comment on the cost estimate. Finalizing a rule that changes hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty flow without a completed cost-benefit analysis for that provision is a gap the agency should close before finalizing the rule, by publishing a quantified administrative cost estimate and reopening comment on it.
- Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
In the agency’s own words
Consistent with Executive and Secretary's orders, ONRR proposes to amend ONRR's Federal oil, gas, and coal valuation regulations and to specify the standard of review for Director-level appeals. This rulemaking also proposes changes that will likely reduce cost and burden to industry and the Federal Government by simplifying regulatory requirements and ultimately incentivize production to unleash energy dominance. ONRR solicits comments on all aspects of this proposed action.
The reporting behind this
From More Than Just ParksIt’s referred to as Unit 346 in the Twin Mountain II Timber Sale. On the ground, it’s some of the most spectacular old growth we’ve ever witnessed, and it’s marked for clearcutting.
To document and do our part to save America’s greatest old growth forest
More actions that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .