Bill Overview
Title: Use it or Lose It Act
Description: This bill modifies requirements for certain oil and gas leases and related drilling permits. For example, it requires prospective leaseholders to, as a condition of participating in certain oil and gas lease sales, certify that they have diligently developed any prior leases and relinquished any undeveloped leases.
Sponsors: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: People connected to the oil and gas industry
Estimated Size: 10300000
- The bill modifies requirements for oil and gas leases, affecting companies in the oil and gas industry.
- Leaseholders who fail to develop their leases must relinquish them, which impacts their business operations.
- Prospective leaseholders must certify development of prior leases, impacting their eligibility and participation in future lease sales.
Reasoning
- Considering the targeted population includes around 10.3 million people involved in the U.S. oil and gas industry, the policy is expected to primarily affect those directly involved in leaseholding and business operations.
- The budget constraints suggest the policy is intended to incentivize efficient use of resources rather than provide direct financial support to individuals.
- A wide range of people within the industry—from executives making leasing decisions to workers dependent on upstream jobs—will be impacted, though the magnitude varies.
- There is likely minimal impact on populations not directly connected to oil and gas lease sales or development.
Simulated Interviews
Oil and Gas Lease Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any measure that encourages development over stockpiling resources.
- Our company always aims to develop leases diligently, so this policy wouldn't change much for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Petroleum Engineer (Midland, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy leads to more stable long-term projects.
- Development constraints could mean more jobs for engineers if companies are forced to actively use their leases.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Policy Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction to ensure resources are used efficiently and avoid environmental degradation.
- It pushes leaseholders toward responsible project development.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Drilling Operator (Williston, ND)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Active lease development could mean more drilling jobs and project continuity.
- The policy might stabilize job growth in the region.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
CEO of Small Oil Company (Dallas, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Could introduce increased competition in smaller lease markets as larger companies shuffle resources.
- Might force us to rethink our strategic acquisitions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Geologist (Denver, CO)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This approach might elevate the importance of my work in ensuring prospective leases are well-analyzed.
- Policy guides the focus on existing lands, potentially reducing environmental strain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy attempts to address wasteful practices, but broader changes toward renewables are required.
- Incremental improvements are appreciated, though long-term impact feels minimal as yet.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Energy Market Analyst (Oklahoma City, OK)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to increased short-term market volatility as companies adjust.
- In the long-run, could provide stability due to efficient resource usage.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Oil Executive (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could impact previous strategic planning and asset valuations.
- Long-term benefit might be seen in improved land use practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Lease Auditor (Billings, MT)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy enhances job security by increasing the need for compliance audits.
- It could push more resources toward meeting audit requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $18000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $23000000)
Year 3: $18000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $23000000)
Year 5: $19000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $24000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Initial costs include setting up monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
- Potential legal fees from companies challenging the relinquishment of leases.
- Revenue gained from better-utilized leases may offset initial government costs.