Bill Overview
Title: Offshore Pipeline Safety Act
Description: This bill establishes requirements to address the environmental risks of decommissioned oil and gas pipelines on the seafloor. Specifically, the bill requires the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to finalize regulations proposed in 2007 related to offshore pipelines. The regulations must require owners of oil and gas pipelines to provide for biannual, third-party inspections of pipelines and to equip pipelines with leak detection systems or devices. Further, the BSEE must issue regulations to charge an annual fee on such owners for the purpose of providing the BSEE with funds to decommission or remove offshore pipelines in the event the owner files for bankruptcy. When determining whether to permit an owner to decommission such pipelines, the BSEE must consider the navigational hazards, any interferences with other uses of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the environmental impacts of the pipelines. In addition, the BSEE must continually monitor the condition and location of all oil and gas pipelines that have been decommissioned and remain in place. If the BSEE identifies an exposed segment of any active or decommissioned pipeline, then it must either remove the pipeline from the ocean or ensure it is properly decommissioned and does not pose a threat. If a segment of any active pipeline is exposed or shifts, then the BSEE must resecure the segment to the sea floor.
Sponsors: Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on or affected by offshore oil and gas pipelines
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill impacts oil and gas companies that own offshore pipelines as they will bear the cost of compliance with new inspection and decommissioning regulations.
- Environmental impacts of offshore pipelines affect not only marine life but also people who depend on marine resources, including fishing communities and tourism industries.
- U.S. coastal states, especially those bordering the Gulf of Mexico and other areas with significant offshore oil and gas activities, may see a direct impact due to increased safety regulations.
- The bill indirectly affects consumers who rely on oil and gas, as companies may pass on the increased costs of compliance in the form of higher prices.
Reasoning
- The Offshore Pipeline Safety Act has varying degrees of impact on different sections of the population affected by the offshore oil and gas operations. The direct financial burden falls on the companies who must comply with the new regulation. This may lead to indirect impacts on various stakeholders, such as consumers facing potential increases in oil prices, and workers in related industries.
- Given the budget and policy scale, it primarily impacts those in the energy sector directly involved with offshore pipelines, and coastal communities where economic activities like fishing and tourism depend on the marine environment's health. However, as with any policy, there are individuals who will experience very little to no impact.
- The policy's nature means its impact is more significant in regions with higher offshore drilling activity, such as the Gulf of Mexico region. Coastal communities might experience environmental benefits over the long term due to reduced pipeline risks, potentially increasing their wellbeing.
- The policy also indirectly targets environmental health, which affects public wellbeing broadly but subtly over time, thus making the immediate benefits less palpable to the average person compared to those directly involved or living in proximity to affected areas.
Simulated Interviews
Pipeline Operations Manager (Gulf of Mexico, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will increase operational costs, but it's necessary for safety.
- There's a risk these costs will be passed on to the consumers, affecting prices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Marine Biologist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step forward in protecting marine life and reducing environmental risks.
- Regular inspections should have been mandatory long ago.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Fisherman (Houston, Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy leads to a safer environment for fishing.
- Worried about the impact of increased oil prices on fishing costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Tourism Business Owner (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cleaner sea means more tourists and a better business environment.
- Initial fear is the potential increase in fuel costs due to added regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Energy Policy Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Long overdue regulation that closes significant gaps in offshore safety.
- The economic implications should be studied further to minimize negative impacts on consumers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Consumer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about potential increases in gas prices, worse when commuting.
- It's good knowing pipelines will be safer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Lawyer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Pleased with increased monitoring, but enforcement will be crucial.
- This policy could set a new standard for other countries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired Navy Officer (San Diego, California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Offshore safety regulations are essential for our national security and environmental health.
- I believe increased oversight could be costly but beneficial in the long term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Student (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is an important move for future generations.
- It makes me hopeful for more environmental protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Investment Analyst (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased regulation could mean increased investment opportunities in technology enhancements.
- The oil sector might become more stable in high-risk zones.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $14000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $22000000)
Year 3: $13500000 (Low: $8500000, High: $21000000)
Year 5: $13000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $18000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Effective implementation will require adequate funding and staffing for the BSEE.
- The compliance measures could influence operational costs for oil and gas companies, possibly affecting consumer prices.
- Promoting advancements in leak detection technology may reduce costs over time.