Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4571

Bill Overview

Title: A bill to reaffirm that the President of the United States lacks the authority to stop oil and gas leasing on Federal public land.

Description: This bill specifies that the President may not cancel, delay or otherwise pause quarterly onshore oil and gas lease sales that are proscribed under current law. If a sale is canceled, delayed, or otherwise paused due to Executive Order 14008 (titled Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad and signed on January 27, 2021), the Department of the Interior must conduct a replacement sale within two calendar years of the cancelation, delay, or pause.

Sponsors: Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]

Target Audience

Population: people involved in or affected by onshore oil and gas leasing on federal lands

Estimated Size: 6000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Oil Rig Worker (Midland, Texas)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could lead to more stable work schedules.
  • I'm concerned about long-term sustainability, but we need jobs now.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 4

Environmental Activist (Santa Fe, New Mexico)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy undermines efforts to combat climate change.
  • Continuing fossil fuel reliance is a step backwards.

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 5
Year 20 3 6

Environmental Policy Analyst (Cheyenne, Wyoming)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • There's a need to balance economic and environmental priorities.
  • This policy could increase state revenues but risks ecological harm.

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 6
Year 20 4 5

Oil Company Executive (Houston, Texas)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy ensures continued growth and stability for the industry.
  • It strengthens energy independence but raises environmental questions.

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 9 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 5

Geologist (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While this will increase exploration opportunities, it's crucial to respect ecological boundaries.
  • The economic boost is necessary, but sustainable measures must be prioritized.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Climate Change Researcher (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 26 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could slow the transition to renewable energy.
  • It's important to continue advocating for climate-friendly policies.

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 3 5
Year 10 3 5
Year 20 2 6

Rancher (Casper, Wyoming)

Age: 40 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While beneficial for local economy, increased drilling raises environmental risks.
  • I worry about the long-term effects on my land.

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 5 6
Year 10 4 6
Year 20 4 5

State Economic Advisor (Bismarck, North Dakota)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will boost our state economy significantly.
  • Need to address potential environmental and public health concerns.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Energy Consultant (Sacramento, California)

Age: 30 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policy changes like this can create volatility in the market overall.
  • There's potential for investment in carbon capture with increased oil activity.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Natural Resource Economist (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)

Age: 47 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns with economic growth agendas but considers the environmental trade-off.
  • Balanced policy frameworks are essential for sustainable growth.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)

Year 2: $10500000 (Low: $8500000, High: $12500000)

Year 3: $10750000 (Low: $9000000, High: $13000000)

Year 5: $11000000 (Low: $9500000, High: $13500000)

Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)

Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)

Key Considerations