It sounds like these are just open auctions, aren't they? Couldn't a well-funded NGO just bid on these auctions in order to prevent drilling? It would of course take a lot of money to do what the government was supposed to do.
They are open auctions, yes, but it appears from the article that the BLM has taken steps in the past to cancel leases that have been purchased explicitly to prevent drilling from occurring.
Regardless of how you feel about that, you could make a point that the BLM and ONRR (Office of Natural Resources and Revenue, the department of the Feds who collects revenue from hydrocarbon production) have a fiduciary duty to seek the highest revenue from the mineral rights they own. Canceling leases which will never be drilled would follow this goal.
Now, any environmental damage being more than the revenue derived in the end is another point altogether...
Why would they have that duty? I'd prefer to make the point that they have a duty to manage the land the best they can, and that could include refusing drilling in cases where it is harmful. BLM is a government agency, isn't it? They have other concerns than mere profit. And even for companies, focusing only on profit above everything else is very harmful.
Regardless of how you feel about that, you could make a point that the BLM and ONRR (Office of Natural Resources and Revenue, the department of the Feds who collects revenue from hydrocarbon production) have a fiduciary duty to seek the highest revenue from the mineral rights they own. Canceling leases which will never be drilled would follow this goal.
Now, any environmental damage being more than the revenue derived in the end is another point altogether...