Bill Overview
Title: Lease Now Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of the Interior to resume sales of onshore and offshore oil and gas leases and specifies lease terms and other requirements related to those sales. The bill also prohibits the President from taking actions to cancel, delay, or otherwise impede federal processes related to energy mineral leasing without congressional approval.
Sponsors: Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]
Target Audience
Population: people worldwide impacted by changes in the oil and gas industry due to the continuation of leasing for onshore and offshore drilling
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill impacts the oil and gas industry by facilitating lease sales, which may lead to increased exploration and extraction activities.
- Communities located near areas where new leases are sold may experience environmental and economic changes.
- The bill may affect global oil and gas supply, possibly influencing energy prices and energy-dependent industries.
- Environmental impacts could be significant due to increased fossil fuel extraction activities, affecting both local and global ecosystems.
- International climate goals could be impacted as increased fossil fuel production may lead to higher carbon emissions.
Reasoning
- The Lease Now Act is designed to increase oil and gas production in the US, which could lead to more jobs in the industry and related sectors, influencing economic wellbeing, particularly in areas with new leases.
- Environmental impact concerns include potential harm to local ecosystems and global climate due to increased fossil fuel emissions. This might lower wellbeing for environmentally-conscious individuals and communities directly impacted by drilling activities.
- The increase in oil and gas supply may stabilize or lower energy prices, improving financial wellbeing for energy consumers, but this could conflict with the national and global climate action goals, potentially reducing wellbeing among advocates for sustainable energy.
- Considering cultural and regional differences, individuals in oil-rich regions may experience increased economic opportunities, while those in environmentally sensitive areas might see wellbeing decreases due to potential ecological damage.
- People in urban areas might be less directly impacted but could experience shifts in energy prices and indirect job market changes, aligning the policy with broader US economic health.
Simulated Interviews
Petroleum Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will likely increase job security in the oil industry, which is great for my career development.
- However, I'm concerned about the ecological impacts and how this aligns with climate goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Rancher (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that drilling could contaminate our water supply and harm our cattle.
- The policy might offer economic benefits to some, but at what environmental cost?
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 |
Small Business Owner (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy harms the Gulf's natural beauty, we could lose tourists.
- I'm concerned that short-term economic gains will be outweighed by long-term environmental damage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Steel Worker (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increase in oil supply could benefit our industry with lower energy costs.
- I'm optimistic about job growth and industrial expansion even though environmental concerns exist.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Santa Barbara, California)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm really worried about what this means for climate change.
- While lower energy prices help on a fixed income, the policy's potential environmental damage is distressing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Environmental Policy Advisor (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy undermines our climate initiatives.
- Increased fossil extraction could have dire consequences for the environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 5 |
Oil Rig Worker (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy secures my job and livelihood in the oil sector.
- I believe the economic benefits outweigh the environmental risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Tech Industry Professional (Brooklyn, New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like a step backwards for renewable energy transition.
- I'm worried about the impact on the planet but less so personally.
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 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Geologist (Fargo, North Dakota)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will likely boost local job markets and exploration opportunities.
- I'm equally concerned about long-term environmental implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Truck Driver (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lower energy costs mean operating my truck business will be more affordable.
- I am neutral on the environmental aspects, as my primary focus is economic feasibility.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)
Year 2: $310000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $410000000)
Year 3: $320000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $420000000)
Year 5: $340000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $440000000)
Year 10: $380000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $480000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1100000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental impacts of increased fossil fuel extraction could lead to higher regulatory costs.
- Fluctuations in global oil prices may affect the economic viability of new leases.
- There is potential for international backlash related to climate commitments.