Bill Overview
Title: To restart oil and gas leasing and permitting on Federal land, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the President to immediately resume issuing oil and gas leases on federal lands and offshore submerged lands in the Outer Continental Shelf as specified under the bill. In addition, the bill prohibits the President from delaying such leases, including delaying related permits, approvals, or authorizations.
Sponsors: Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals whose wellbeing is impacted by US oil and gas leasing and permitting on federal lands
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill targets federal lands and offshore areas, which are significant energy production zones in the United States.
- Communities located near or dependent on federal lands may experience changes in economic activity due to increased oil and gas operations.
- Oil and gas industries and their employees will be directly impacted, potentially increasing employment opportunities in the energy sector.
- Environmentalists and conservationists may have concerns due to potential ecological impacts, which could affect public wellbeing on a larger scale.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on increasing oil and gas leases on federal and offshore lands, hence the primary demographic affected will be communities residing close to these areas or dependent on the industry.
- Workers in the oil and gas sector and businesses supporting this sector might experience economic benefits from increased activity.
- Environmental activists and individuals concerned about climate change may experience negative impacts on their perceived wellbeing due to environmental concerns.
- Indigenous communities and others reliant on federally preserved lands may have cultural and environmental concerns, potentially affecting their wellbeing.
- The policy's financial limitations suggest it may not drastically change the landscape immediately due to its budget constraints.
- Urban populations may have minor concerns or benefits indirectly related to energy prices, but the primary effects will be localized to rural and energy-producing regions.
Simulated Interviews
Petroleum Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction for our energy independence.
- The increase in leasing can lead to job security in the industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Ranch owner (Casper, Wyoming)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the effects on the land and water from increased drilling.
- There are potential benefits to the local economy if managed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Wildlife Biologist (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased activities could severely impact wildlife habitats.
- Environmental balance should be prioritized over energy interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Environmental Lawyer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy increases risks to ecosystems and climate.
- We need more sustainable solutions and policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Retired Oil Worker (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could bring back opportunities for the younger generation.
- However, I've seen the boom-bust cycle and its impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Software Developer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may not affect me directly but I care about its environmental impact.
- Energy policies should focus more on renewables.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Financial Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could present new investment opportunities.
- I'm neutral on the environmental impacts due to my distance from them.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Artisan (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cultural and environmental integrity should be prioritized.
- There's concern about the intrusiveness of expanded oil and gas operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Energy Consultant (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see increased work due to policy changes.
- The environmental impact will need careful management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Public Health Researcher (Little Rock, Arkansas)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Environmental policies significantly affect public health outcomes.
- The focus should be on minimizing health impacts from fossil fuels.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential environmental and ecological impacts on federal lands from increased fossil fuel activities.
- Balancing economic benefits with sustainable energy and climate commitments.
- Local communities may experience economic growth along with environmental challenges.