Bill Overview
Title: A bill to prohibit a Federal agency from promulgating any rule or guidance that bans hydraulic fracturing in the United States, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill prohibits federal agencies from proposing, implementing, or finalizing a rule or guidance that bans hydraulic fracturing (i.e., fracking) in the United States. Hydraulic fracturing means a process that (1) stimulates or increases the production and recovery of oil or natural gas from a well by pumping a fluid and a propping agent (e.g., sand) at high pressure into a well to create fractures in the reservoir that the propping agent holds open, and (2) increases the surface of the formation available for oil and natural gas to flow into the well.
Sponsors: Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by hydraulic fracturing (fracking)
Estimated Size: 3500000
- Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a widely used method for extracting oil and natural gas, with millions of wells worldwide.
- The prohibition of banning fracking would significantly impact those employed in the oil and gas industry, which according to various estimates, amounts to millions globally, including not only direct jobs but also indirect and induced jobs.
- Fracking has environmental impacts that can affect communities in proximity to fracking sites, potentially impacting their health and environment. These communities can also be considered part of the affected population.
- According to global estimates, the oil and gas industry employs over 10 million people directly, and when considering indirect and induced jobs, this number can increase significantly.
- The energy markets and consumers globally could also be impacted due to changes in oil and gas supply dynamics.
Reasoning
- The target population is quite large and diverse, encompassing both those directly employed in the fracking industry and those living near fracking sites.
- The policy is likely to directly impact workers in the oil and gas industry and indirectly affect residents near fracking operations and general consumers of energy.
- Given the budget constraints, significant impacts are likely to occur more within the direct fracking employment segment of the population due to their reliance on the industry's stability and growth.
- Considering a large part of the population is unaffected directly by this legislative move, many people's wellbeing scores will remain unchanged.
Simulated Interviews
Fracking site engineer (Midland, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy allows my job to be more secure, which is crucial for my family's livelihood.
- I understand the environmental concerns but believe we can regulate it better instead of banning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Environmental advocate (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am disappointed as this policy does nothing to address environmental concerns.
- I feel the health of communities is being sidelined for economic reasons.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Restaurant owner (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy means continued business from the fracking workers, which is good for my business.
- I worry about local health effects, but my business depends on the local economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech industry employee (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't feel directly impacted by this policy, but reduced energy prices could be stabilizing.
- Environmental effects concern me, but my day-to-day life isn't affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Oil and gas sector manager (Houston, Texas)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is essential for the industry's growth and job security.
- It reassures our investors and allows for future planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Pennsylvania)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ongoing permission for fracking is a disappointment due to increased pollution.
- My concerns over environmental degradation remain unaddressed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Teacher (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 57 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fracking puts community health at risk, so I see this policy as a setback.
- More energy independence is good but should not come at the expense of our environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Research scientist (Baltimore, Maryland)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as restrictive on progress towards renewable energy solutions.
- The continuation of fracking delays necessary advancements in sustainable energy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Energy sector analyst (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides stability in energy markets, which is positive for economic forecasts.
- It stabilizes jobs in the region but environmental concerns remain a secondary issue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Local government official (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Economic stability is vital, and this policy aids that by securing fracking operations.
- There's a need to balance industry benefits with environmental protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental impacts and their indirect costs, such as water contamination and seismic activity, are not covered in this estimate but are relevant.
- Potential global shifts toward renewable energy could reduce the long-term benefits of continued fracking.
- Federal, state, and local balance between economic benefits and environmental concerns remains a critical point of consideration.