Bill Overview
Title: A bill 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: Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on or significantly impacted by oil and gas sectors.
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The bill will likely lead to increased oil and gas exploration and production activities.
- Environmental and conservation groups concerned with the impact of drilling on federal and offshore lands could see increased challenges.
- The reopening of leases could boost employment in oil and gas sectors, especially in regions with federal lands rich in resources such as the Western United States.
- Communities living near these federal lands might experience economic growth opportunities but also face increased environmental risks.
- The global energy market may see shifts owing to increased oil and gas from the U.S., potentially affecting global oil prices.
Reasoning
- The policy mainly targets states and communities with significant oil and gas activities. It's reasonable to believe those who are employed by the oil and gas industry could see job security or opportunities rise. Conversely, those involved in tourism or environmental protection may view this move as a risk to their interests.
- Given the substantial target budget and focus, the effects are likely to be more direct and pronounced in oil-centric states and less noticeable in other regions.
- Participants are selected to represent different demographics and views, ensuring a comprehensive perspective on the policy impact.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am optimistic about this policy as it ensures more jobs and stability in our industry.
- Offshore drills provide my livelihood, so it's crucial that the government supports oil and gas expansions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Environmental Activist (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is worrisome and disregards the environmental damage these activities cause.
- I'm worried about the long-term effects on our wildlife and natural landscapes in North Dakota.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Local Business Owner (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will likely harm the scenic and environmental appeal that attracts tourists here.
- Business might suffer if these projects drive tourists away due to environmental concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see a complex balance; increased energy independence versus potential ecological harm.
- This policy could boost certain economic sectors while imposing risks on others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Lawyer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could set back years of progress toward sustainable energy and environmental legislation.
- Expect to see increased legal battles aimed at halting drilling activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Oil Field Worker (Midland, Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means more work and better job security for people like me.
- It's reassuring to know that we have steady government support for oil production.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Retired School Teacher (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Uncontrolled drilling could lead to long-term damage to our cherished natural sites.
- I worry about leaving a healthier planet for the next generation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Science (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy heavily influences my area of study and raises ethical concerns.
- Balancing energy needs and environmental preservation is critical but challenging.
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 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Energy Sector Executive (Tulsa, Oklahoma)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is crucial for maintaining the momentum in domestic energy production.
- Our company could significantly benefit from increased drilling operations and leases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
National Park Ranger (Jackson, Wyoming)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how increased drilling might affect the parks and wildlife.
- Our work involves maintaining natural beauty, which might be compromised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)
Year 5: $165000000 (Low: $115000000, High: $215000000)
Year 10: $175000000 (Low: $125000000, High: $225000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Key Considerations
- Long-term environmental impacts and associated remediation costs need to be considered.
- Estimates assume stable global oil prices; significant fluctuations could impact revenue and cost projections.
- State-level impacts may vary widely based on local infrastructure, regulations, and natural resources.