Bill Overview
Title: American Petroleum First Act
Description: This bill exempts certain vessels transporting crude oil or petroleum products from vessel documentation requirements as well as coastwise endorsement requirements. Specifically, the bill authorizes a vessel certificate of documentation (i.e., registration) to be issued for a vessel transporting crude oil or petroleum products, unless the vessel is (1) owned by a Russian national or Russia, (2) a Russian-flagged vessel, or (3) a vessel with any Russian crew member. The bill also authorizes a coastwise endorsement to be issued for a vessel that is transporting oil or petroleum products. Such an endorsement allows a vessel to engage in certain trade.
Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Target Audience
Population: People working in the maritime and oil transportation industry
Estimated Size: 80000
- The legislation aims to alter vessel documentation and endorsement requirements, which will largely impact the maritime and shipping industry.
- Shipowners and operators, including those operating under American flags, will be able to reduce costs and administrative burdens when transporting crude oil or petroleum products.
- By exempting certain vessels from specific requirements, the bill may increase the number of domestic and international shipping operations relating to oil transport, thus impacting anyone working within or relying on this sector.
- The potential increase in domestic shipping operations could affect workers in the maritime industry, including sailors, dock workers, and associated logistics and supply chain professionals.
- If this change promotes more competitive shipping operations, it could indirectly impact oil prices and thus, consumers at a broader scale.
- The exclusion of Russian vessels indicates geopolitical intents could play a role, targeting the financial interest of Russian naval logistics.
Reasoning
- Considering the policy's focus on the maritime and oil transportation industry, the population primarily affected includes individuals directly employed in these sectors. This includes ship operators, dock workers, logistics managers, and other related roles.
- The budget constraints of $15,000,000 USD in the first year and $150,000,000 USD over ten years suggest a focus on administrative and logistical adjustments rather than large-scale infrastructure changes. This would primarily affect operational efficiencies and regulatory compliance costs.
- Given the geopolitical aspects of the bill, the exclusion of Russian vessels could shift some shipping contracts towards American-operated vessels, potentially benefiting American workers by increasing job availability or security in this sector.
Simulated Interviews
Dock Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could be good for us because it might mean more work coming through Houston.
- The increase in shipments could lead to better job security for us dock workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Ship Operator (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this bill will streamline some of our operations.
- Reducing red tape could allow our company to focus resources on better routes and logistics.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Logistics Manager (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might help us bypass some tedious steps that only slow down shipments.
- It remains to be seen how significantly it will impact our day-to-day processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Maritime Policy Analyst (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strategically, this policy seems designed to strengthen U.S. maritime operations.
- The exclusion of Russian vessels reflects broader geopolitical strategies.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Petroleum Trader (New York, New York)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential increase in U.S. maritime operations could stabilize or reduce shipping costs.
- The broader market impact will depend on how regional shipping dynamics shift.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Environmental Policy Advocate (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned that this policy emphasizes economic benefit over environmental responsibility.
- Relaxing regulations can sometimes lead to oversight in environmental protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Sailor (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It could mean more domestic trips for us, which is not a bad thing.
- I just hope the safety standards aren't compromised in the process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Dock Supervisor (San Francisco, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might lighten our load of paperwork and make throughput faster.
- Any operational changes need to prioritize safety along with efficiency gains.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Maritime Attorney (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy change could lead to fewer compliance issues for my clients.
- However, it's important that minimal regulations do not lead to increased legal risks due to safety lapses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Oil Rig Manager (Galveston, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased shipping operations could improve efficiency for supply vessels serving our rigs.
- It remains to be seen if this will lower costs or improve supply chain stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative changes present low direct expenditure impacts, highlighting the need to review indirect economic benefits more comprehensively.
- The geopolitical impacts, particularly with respect to Russian vessels, may influence foreign policy and trade relations.
- Impacts on oil prices and the exemption's potential influence on domestic oil supply should be observed closely.