Bill Overview
Title: A bill to streamline the oil and gas permitting process and to recognize fee ownership for certain oil and gas drilling or spacing units, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of the Interior from requiring a drilling permit under the Mineral Leasing Act for an action occurring within an oil and gas drilling or spacing unit, if (1) less than 50% of the minerals within the unit are federally owned, and (2) the federal government neither owns nor leases the surface estate within the unit's boundaries.
Sponsors: Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]
Target Audience
Population: People involved or impacted by oil and gas operations on mixed-ownership lands
Estimated Size: 3000000
- This bill impacts the oil and gas industry, specifically companies involved in exploration and extraction on lands where less than 50% of the minerals are federally owned and where the federal government does not own or lease the surface estate.
- Mineral rights owners and oil companies operating under these conditions will be directly affected as it streamlines the permitting process.
- Owners of the surface estate within drilling units that meet these criteria might see increased oil and gas activity.
- Local communities in areas with oil and gas operations can be impacted by changes in environmental management and economic activity.
- Interest groups focusing on environmental standards and federal land management will also be indirectly affected.
Reasoning
- The policy mainly targets operations on private and mixed ownership lands where federal minerals compose less than 50% of the drilling unit.
- The impacted groups include oil companies operating under the specified conditions, landowners of surface estates on these lands, workers in oil extraction industries, and local communities.
- The budget constraints indicate a significant level of change but must accommodate numerous stakeholders.
- Environmental advocacy groups are likely to respond, as reduced permitting could impact environmental checks.
- Overall, only a portion of oil and gas workers will see direct changes, but indirect effects might permeate through related economies.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Supervisor (Midland, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The current permitting is a hassle. This policy would let us move quicker on projects.
- I think it’ll boost jobs in the region, which is great for the community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Casper, Wyoming)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to more unchecked drilling, which is concerning.
- I fear long-term environmental damage could outweigh short-term economic gains.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Landowner (Grand Junction, Colorado)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it’s good; more drilling means more royalties.
- Environmental checks are important, but the slow process hurts revenue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Energy Policy Analyst (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This streamlines processes and maybe helps small companies dominate less-regarded lands.
- We should still be cautious of environmental integrity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Vice President of a Large Oil Company (Houston, Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This would reduce lead times extensively, which is advantageous.
- Financially beneficial for us, though we must manage regulatory reputation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may increase jobs but the ecological cost could hit marginalized communities the hardest.
- We need more sustainable community investment, not just raw oil profits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems short-sighted with potential grave environmental repercussions.
- Fighting this kind of deregulation is crucial for preservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Oil Business Owner (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change might just save our business! It’s time-consuming to deal with.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
State Policy Advisor (Bakersfield, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A balanced approach is needed to ensure we aren’t tipping too far towards unchecked practices.
- This could be good but must include increased oversight elsewhere.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Attorney for Environmental Group (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned this policy reduces necessary regulatory scrutiny.
- Legal battles are likely to increase if environmental protections are perceived to weaken.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)
Year 2: $75000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $95000000)
Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 5: $85000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $110000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $130000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between economic benefits from increased drilling and potential environmental impacts from reduced federal oversight needs careful evaluation.
- State regulatory frameworks vary; some states may be better equipped to handle increased regulation demands than others.
- Potential legal and environmental challenge costs to businesses and government entities need consideration.
- Long-term impacts on energy independence and global market positioning should be considered alongside short-term economic benefits.