Bill Overview
Title: ONSHORE Act
Description: This bill makes various changes to expand and otherwise addresses onshore oil and gas resources on federal land and non-federal surface estates. Specifically, the bill requires, subject to some limits, the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service to lease certain public lands and Forest System land with known or potential oil or gas deposits. (Current law authorizes but does not require leasing.) Other changes in the bill include (1) allowing Interior to delegate authority over certain federal permitting and other regulatory responsibilities for oil and gas leases to states; (2) exempting some oil and gas activities conducted on non-federal surface estates from certain permitting and environmental review requirements; and (3) requiring deference to state regulations, guidance, and permit requirements for all activities regarding hydraulic fracturing (a type of process used to extract underground energy resources) on federal land.
Sponsors: Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by changes in onshore oil and gas policies
Estimated Size: 3500000
- The bill affects onshore oil and gas extraction on federal lands, which directly involves industries and workers in the oil and gas sector.
- Federal lands across the United States are located in multiple states, impacting local economies and communities adjacent to these lands.
- Oil and gas extraction has various economic, environmental, and public health implications.
- Changes in leasing requirements may lead to increased extraction activities, impacting states with large federal land reserves such as Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.
Reasoning
- The policy targets mostly workers and communities involved with or close to federal lands where oil and gas extraction occurs.
- Those employed in the oil and gas industry are likely to be directly impacted, with possible increases in employment opportunities.
- Local economies, particularly in states with significant federal land holdings like Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, might experience economic shifts.
- There may be indirect environmental and social impacts, influencing community wellbeing, especially in smaller towns dependent on natural resources.
- The policy's exemption from some permitting and environmental requirements might lead to concerns from environmental groups and local communities.
- Budget constraints imply that the policy will need to focus on high-impact areas to justify costs.
Simulated Interviews
Oil Rig Operator (Casper, Wyoming)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is great. It means more jobs and stability for us.
- However, I hope they don't ignore safety and environmental regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the environmental implications.
- State exemptions might undermine federally set standards.
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 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
State Government Official (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Delegating federal authority to the states could streamline processes, but it depends on the state's capacity for effective oversight.
- It might increase my workload but also offers more control over our lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Hotel Manager (Rural Utah)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More oil workers might mean more business for my hotel.
- But if the environment gets worse, we could lose tourists.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Oil Company Executive (Houston, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could boost our operations significantly.
- I am optimistic about the reduced federal red tape.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Retired School Teacher (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about increased pollution and its impact.
- But I recognize that jobs could bring more prosperity to our town.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Tour Guide (Durango, Colorado)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased oil and gas might negatively impact the natural scenery.
- I'm concerned about potential impacts on tourism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Tribal Leader (Farmington, New Mexico)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could encroach on tribal sovereignty.
- I'm skeptical of the benefits extending to our communities.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Environmental Lawyer (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could erode environmental protections.
- Legal battles could increase, which keeps us busy but is concerning for the bigger picture.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Graduate Student (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- State deference worries me in terms of environmental standards.
- This might be a good case study for my research, though.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $110000000 (Low: $85000000, High: $140000000)
Year 3: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $130000000)
Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)
Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Environmental impacts due to increased extraction activities.
- Potential pushback or support from states depending on their resource management priorities.
- Changes in energy prices due to shifts in supply.