Bill Overview
Title: Innocent Landowners Protection Act
Description: This bill exempts a person who has an ownership interest in a facility for oil exploration, development, production, or storage but does not participate in managing that facility from certain liability for oil spills and related pollution.
Sponsors: Rep. Gibbs, Bob [R-OH-7]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals with ownership interests in oil facilities
Estimated Size: 20000
- The bill affects individuals with ownership interests in facilities involved in oil exploration, development, production, or storage.
- These individuals are exempt from certain liabilities if they do not participate in management, potentially affecting financial and legal responsibilities related to oil spills.
- Oil exploration and production is a global industry, with stakeholders in numerous countries, suggesting a broad impact.
Reasoning
- The target population for the policy is individuals with ownership in oil facilities, which represents a small, specialized segment of the US population, estimated around 20,000 people.
- The policy's direct impact excludes individuals without ownership interests in oil facilities and those who are actively managing such facilities.
- The simulated interviews should include a range of scenarios from direct impacts on owners to broader public opinions from those not directly affected.
- Approximately half of the sample will have no tangible benefit directly from the policy, while the others may see varying degrees of personal legal or financial relief.
- The policy does not notably impact the general public apart from indirect environmental or economic effects which are likely minimal over the short term.
Simulated Interviews
Retired Oil Industry Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe that this policy provides a necessary safety net for investors like myself who are removed from day-to-day operations.
- The policy helps protect financial interests without punishing passive investors for situations they cannot control.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Energy Investment Consultant (Oklahoma City, OK)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy indirectly benefits my clients, who can now feel more secure about their passive investments in oil.
- While it does not affect me directly, a sense of stability for my clients may increase business 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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned this legislation reduces accountability for potential environmental harms.
- While business stability is important, we must balance it with responsibility for environmental impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Oil Facility Owner (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a relief as it reduces undue legal risks associated with my investments, which I'm not directly managing.
- It allows me to focus on aligning investments with strategic goals without the worry of operational liabilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Tech Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's troubling to hear about policies that seem to prioritize investor protection over environmental safety.
- I worry this might less incentivize careful management of oil facilities.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Oil Rig Worker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It doesn't affect me directly since I don't own any shares, but I can understand why people invested would want some level of protection.
- My concern remains safety and security on site which isn't addressed by this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Oil Investor (Fort Worth, TX)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the reassurance this policy provides in terms of legal liabilities.
- This protection allows me to maintain my investments without fear of unexpected legal battles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Corporate Energy Lawyer (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Legally, this reduces the burden of proof for my clients who are passive investors, potentially saving them from hefty lawsuits.
- The policy makes the legal landscape less risky for non-managing stakeholders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College Student (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried that this might excuse part-owners from being responsible for the protection of the environment.
- There needs to be more inclusive policies that balance both investment and environmental safeguarding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this policy may protect investments, it seems to undermine accountability in environmental stewardship.
- My concern is that extending more 'passive immunity' could lead to adverse environmental impacts without clear benefits to investment quality.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $125000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $155000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $140000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $170000000)
Year 10: $160000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- Exemption from liability could lead to changes in the way businesses operate facilities, with less focus on mitigating risks that they are no longer liable for.
- The impact of these exemptions on the financial stability of emergency response and environmental remediation plans should be considered.
- Changes in liability may influence the nature and distribution of insurance policies in the energy sector.