[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                          ASSESSING DOMESTIC OFFSHORE 
                              ENERGY RESERVES AND
                         ENSURING U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE

=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                           MINERAL RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                       Wednesday, March 20, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-104

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-271 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------              


                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO			Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA			Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 	
Tom McClintock, CA			    CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ				Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA			Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS		Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA			Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL			Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR		Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID			Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN			Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT			Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI				Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL				Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT			Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO			Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR				Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA				Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU				Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX			Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                       PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
                     WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
              ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA                Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                   Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                               ---------                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, March 20, 2024........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Graves, Hon. Garret, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Louisiana.........................................     1
    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Cruickshank, Walter, Deputy Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy 
      Management, Washington, DC.................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
    Zaman, Amir, Partner and Commercial Director, Americas, 
      Rystad Energy, New York, New York..........................    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    12
    Milito, Erik, President, National Ocean Industries 
      Association, Washington, DC................................    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    29
    Dryer, Joe, President and CEO, Fairfield Geotechnologies, 
      Houston, Texas.............................................    37
        Prepared statement of....................................    38
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    46
    Dix, Kendall, National Policy Director, Taproot Earth, 
      Charlottesville, Virginia..................................    47
        Prepared statement of....................................    49

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Tiffany

        Majority Leader Scalise, Statement for the Record........    65

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

        Nature Article, ``Unextractable fossil fuels in a 
          1.5 deg.C world, September 2021........................     5

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        ``Principles for a Just Transition in Offshore Wind 
          Energy''...............................................    74

        2024 Policy Agenda, America the Beautiful for All 
          Coalition..............................................    78



 
    OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ASSESSING DOMESTIC OFFSHORE ENERGY RESERVES
                   AND ENSURING U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, March 20, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:22 p.m. in 
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Garret Graves 
[Member of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Graves, Tiffany, Rosendale, 
Duarte; Huffman, Mullin, Magaziner, and Velazquez.
    Also present: Representative Carl.

    Mr. Graves. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I ask unanimous consent the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Carl, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. GARRET GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

    Mr. Graves. Good afternoon. I appreciate all the witnesses 
being here. We are going to be talking today about assessing 
domestic offshore energy reserves and ensuring U.S. energy 
dominance.
    It is no secret that just a few years ago, the United 
States was effectively energy independent and well on our path 
toward energy dominance. We have seen a significant shift in 
energy policy over the last few years that has eroded that 
superiority, independence, and dominance, that has resulted in 
giving additional ground to countries like Russia, Iran, 
Venezuela, and others that don't share America's values.
    Much of the shift that we have seen in energy policy under 
this Administration has been under the auspices of actually 
reducing emissions, efforts to advance climate change 
initiatives to, as you have heard, promote this energy 
transition, where the reality is that energy emissions under 
the Biden administration have actually increased, whereas under 
the previous administration they went down.
    And I will say that again: Despite the efforts and the 
description of what is happening, and the impetus, the 
justification for changes in energy policy, we have seen 
emissions go up under the Biden administration, whereas they 
went down under the Trump administration.
    Let's look at other criteria to determine if this 
Administration's energy policies have been successful. When 
President Biden took office, in my home state of Louisiana, 
gasoline prices were $1.74 a gallon, $1.74. Being home this 
weekend, I think $2.90 was the cheapest that I saw. And we are 
all aware that right now gasoline prices are trending upward.
    We have also seen utility prices rise. This is having the 
biggest impact on those who can least afford it, to where 
families are literally having to choose among things like 
groceries, health care, utility costs, filling up their car, 
and other what I would call false choices. This is a direct 
result of flawed energy policies out of this Administration.
    Another factor is energy security. Have these policies 
promoted or advanced America's energy security? The answer is 
no. We have carried out policies that have helped countries 
like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and to a different degree, China, 
actually fill the void that is being created by U.S. energy 
policy. Let me give a few examples.
    I have gone back and looked at energy leasing for onshore 
and offshore energy development in the United States. If you 
compared what has been leased under the Biden administration, 
for example, to the Reagan administration, you had 357 times, 
357 times, the acreage for energy production leased under the 
Ronald Reagan administration than you have had under the Biden 
administration.
    Let's take a look at perhaps other Democrat Members of 
Congress. Even under the Jimmy Carter administration, you had 
100 times more acres of lands and waters leased than you have 
had under this Administration.
    I would like to remind my friends, I don't think I have 
ever heard anyone in my life say, ``Please bring back the Jimmy 
Carter energy policy,'' ever. Yet, at this point that looks 
much more attractive than what we are seeing right now.
    I will say one of the best opportunities that we have in 
the United States is the offshore. And I am very sensitive to 
the United States trying to continue a downward trend in 
emissions. And the reality is that our energy production in the 
United States is, on average, about 23 percent more efficient, 
or said another way, less carbon intensive, than the 
international average. In fact, offshore, what we are going to 
be discussing today, is one of the least carbon-intense sources 
of oil and gas in the world.
    Now, if we simply take data like, for example, the Energy 
Information Agency's data showing that oil and gas demand 
globally is going to be increasing, increasing over the next 
few decades, it is baffling to me, baffling to me why we would 
actually stop or shut down energy sources that are the most 
efficient in the world, or some of the most efficient in the 
world. It simply is nonsensical.
    Another policy out of this Administration was the LNG, what 
they are referring to as a pause. Just to put things in 
perspective, if we had simply taken one year, one year of 
Russian gas that was being supplied to the European Union and 
replaced it, supplanted it with LNG, with liquefied natural gas 
coming out of the United States, it would have reduced 
emissions globally to the tune of 218 million tons. That is for 
one year of supplanting Vladimir Putin's gas with American LNG. 
And that number blows away anything that my good friend from 
California and others have proposed in regard to emissions 
reduction, but it is just one example.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today to where 
we can learn more about opportunities that are before us to 
truly unleash America's energy economy, energy opportunities, 
while continuing to improve energy security, affordability, as 
well as reducing emissions.
    With that, I yield back, and I recognize my friend from 
California, Mr. Huffman, for an opening statement.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be 
pinch hitting for Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez today.
    And it is always interesting to hear my friend from 
Louisiana take us through the looking glass of the fossil fuel 
industry, where things like liquefied natural gas exports that 
we now know, the more we look, are huge net emitters, they are 
part of the climate crisis in a big way, but they are described 
as emission reduction strategies. So, it is always an 
adventure, a factual adventure, at least, when we talk about 
these things here in the Committee.
    Now, we are going to be talking about offshore oil and gas 
in this hearing. I guess it is about the sixth time in this 
Congress that we have had this conversation. Meanwhile, right 
now on the House Floor, Republicans are holding so-called 
Energy Week, rehashing their tired polluters-over-people agenda 
once again, instead of taking on the urgent problems facing our 
nation like transparently funding our government. That stuff is 
really hard for Team Extreme, so we do the performative 
cheerleading for the fossil fuel industry.
    The clock is ticking on another Republican-created crisis, 
but the priority is to check more bills off Big Oil's wish 
list. So, here we are, this hearing.
    Long-term planning for our energy security is important, 
but fossil fuels are not and cannot be the only solution. As 
many of us have said over and over again, when we talk about 
energy security we need to clarify: security for who?
    The focus needs to be on our most vulnerable communities, 
not Big Oil's profits. And they are rolling in profits, and the 
world is awash in their fossil fuel right now. What is best for 
the fossil fuel industry is not what is best for Americans. 
U.S. oil and gas production and profits are at an all-time 
high, but communities are facing high prices at the pump, 
skyrocketing utility bills, constant climate disasters. It is 
clear that Big Oil's so-called dominance isn't so good for 
regular folks out there in America. Coastal communities closest 
to where this oil is extracted are overburdened with pollution, 
erosion from pipelines, processing, and other industrial 
facilities.
    The oil and gas workforce is facing an increasingly 
volatile job market. The industry is laying off more and more 
workers, having learned how to do more with fewer people, 
making the remaining jobs more and more dangerous.
    While Big Oil plans to drill for decades to come, it is 
only planning for its own profits. A new report by the non-
partisan government watchdog, the GAO, found that the industry 
is shirking important but expensive decommissioning 
responsibilities at the end of its offshore operations, and 
instead of cleaning up and taking down their infrastructure 
when they are done using it, as they are required to do, they 
have left over 2,700 wells and 500 platforms to corrode in the 
Gulf past their decommissioning deadlines.
    And Mr. Graves and I will have a conversation about rigs to 
reefs. I believe there may be some situations where that makes 
some sense. I don't want to be too categorical about it, but to 
give a complete pass and liability relief and everything else 
to the fossil fuel industry is just another huge giveaway to 
folks who don't need it.
    So, when Big Oil walks away from its responsibilities, 
American taxpayers could be left holding the ballooning of the 
debt and the ballooning billion-dollar bill. The GAO found that 
the Department of the Interior only holds about $3.5 billion in 
supplemental bonds for offshore oil and gas infrastructure, but 
the total estimated costs are 10 to 20 times that, up to $70 
billion. This is an unacceptable liability.
    So, today's focus on oil and gas resource assessment and 
energy security, air quotes around that, doesn't address any of 
the costs the public pays so that Big Oil can continue to 
profit from the increasing frequency of billion-dollar climate 
disasters to the $70 billion in decommissioning liabilities 
waiting to be cleaned up off the ocean floor.
    Democrats support using the best available science to guide 
our policies. I would like to enter for the record that the 
best available science says that we need to leave most oil and 
gas reserves in the ground to keep global warming below 1.5 
degrees Celsius, and to contain the worst of the climate 
crisis. With unanimous consent, I would like to ask that this 
Nature magazine paper be entered into the record.
    Mr. Rosendale [presiding]. Without objection.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               *****

The full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20240320/116958/HHRG-
118-II06-20240320-SD007.pdf

                                ------                                


    Mr. Huffman. If we are going to discuss domestic offshore 
energy reserves, we should also be talking about one of our 
largest, most untapped energy sources: offshore wind. This has 
a technical potential of roughly double the country's current 
electric generating capacity, and could provide 90 percent of 
our nation's electricity needs by 2050. But it is not on the 
agenda today.
    Offshore wind promises true energy security, reliable, low-
cost, clean energy delivered to American homes, not shipped 
abroad to pat executives' pockets. It is time that we pursue an 
energy future that puts people over polluters.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Ranking Member, for your 
statement. We will now introduce our panel of witnesses.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button 
on your microphone.
    We will use timing lights. When you begin, the light will 
turn green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will 
turn yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning begins.
    Our first witness is Dr. Walter Cruickshank, and he is the 
Deputy Director for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in 
the Department of the Interior, and is stationed here in 
Washington, DC.
    Dr. Cruickshank, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF WALTER CRUICKSHANK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 
            OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Cruickshank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative 
Huffman. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's ongoing responsibility to 
assess oil and natural gas resources on the nation's Outer 
Continental Shelf.
    Resource evaluation has been carried out by geologists, 
statisticians, and economists for decades to offer insights 
into petroleum supply. The resulting estimates provide critical 
input to decision makers and inform various policy 
alternatives.
    Section 357 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory and analysis 
of oil and natural gas resources contained within the submerged 
lands of the Outer Continental Shelf. The Secretary is required 
to submit this analysis to Congress every 5 years. As directed 
by that statute, BOEM prepared and delivered the Comprehensive 
Inventory of OCS Oil and Natural Gas Resources 2023 update to 
Congress on January 17 of this year.
    BOEM also publishes a formal national assessment of 
undiscovered, technically-recoverable resources and 
undiscovered, economically-recoverable resources every 5 years. 
These national assessments inform the comprehensive inventory 
reports to Congress. The undiscovered, technically-recoverable 
resources are estimates of oil and gas that could be produced 
from the subsurface using conventional extraction techniques. 
Undiscovered, economically-recoverable resources are the subset 
of the technically-recoverable resources that are assessed to 
be commercially recoverable under particular economic and 
technological conditions.
    BOEM's most recent National Assessment of Undiscovered 
Resources was finalized in 2021, and work is underway to 
prepare the 2026 National Assessment. In developing these 
assessments, BOEM considers recent geophysical, geological, and 
technological information to estimate potentially recoverable 
oil and gas resources. This information comes from multiple 
sources, including wellbore data from the OCS, geophysical 
data, and geologic play information from domestic and global 
analogs. Economic parameters such as exploration and 
development costs and oil and gas prices are also factored into 
the assessment.
    Since 1975, the Department of the Interior has completed 11 
National Assessments of OCS Undiscovered Oil and Natural Gas 
Resources. During this period, geological and geophysical 
information available to BOEM has dramatically increased, and 
industry's technological capabilities have expanded 
considerably. Today, the oil and gas industry has the ability 
to drill both exploration and production wells in water depths 
exceeding 10,000 feet, and the use of three-dimensional and 
other advanced seismic data and interpretation techniques has 
served as a catalyst to transform the geosciences and petroleum 
industry by providing more accurate subsurface imaging. 
Resource assessment techniques have also become more 
sophisticated over time.
    Each National Assessment reflects a snapshot in time that 
should not be reviewed as either an understatement or 
overstatement when compared to later assessments that will 
reflect additional information, changed circumstances, and a 
better understanding of the OCS subsurface.
    The 2021 National Assessment contains BOEM's most recent 
oil and gas resource estimates, and served as a key input to 
the 2023 Congressional Report. Compared to the 2018 report, 
BOEM's estimate for undiscovered, technically-recoverable oil 
resources decreased by 23 percent, and the estimate of 
undiscovered, technically-recoverable gas resources decreased 
by 30 percent. The overall decrease reflects recent exploration 
results, and is due in part to improvements in BOEM's 
assessment practices.
    These advances have allowed BOEM to generate a clearer 
picture of the OCS subsurface geology, particularly in the Gulf 
of Mexico. As a result, BOEM refined the number and size of oil 
and gas prospects within the assessment, resulting in decreases 
in resource estimates.
    BOEM's National Assessment is one of a number of 
information sources used by policymakers for program planning, 
and to consider energy policy options. A primary example of 
this is the development of the National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing 
Program. Under the OCS Lands Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
is responsible for establishing a schedule of oil and gas lease 
sales for a 5-year period by evaluating specified attributes of 
OCS areas, including the potential for discovery of oil and 
gas, which the Secretary must balance, to the maximum extent 
practicable, with the potential for environmental damage and 
adverse impact on the coastal zone.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to 
discuss BOEM's efforts to responsibly manage our nation's 
energy resources on the OCS to meet the nation's energy needs 
while minimizing impacts to the ocean, ocean users, and marine 
life. And I look forward to answering any questions the 
Committee may have.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Cruickshank follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Dr. Walter D. Cruickshank, Deputy Director, 
   Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, U.S. Department of the Interior

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the 
Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's ongoing responsibility to assess 
existing oil and natural gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS). My name is Walter Cruickshank, and I am the Deputy Director of 
BOEM, a bureau within the Department of the Interior (DOI).
Comprehensive Inventory of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Natural 
        Gas Resources

    Resource evaluations have been carried out by geologists, 
statisticians, and economists for decades to offer insights into 
petroleum supply. To tackle the challenge, increasingly complex 
quantitative techniques and procedures have been developed in response 
to the needs and uses for these assessments. Resource estimates provide 
critical input to decision-makers and inform various policy 
alternatives.

    Section 357 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory and analysis of oil 
and natural gas resources contained within the submerged lands of the 
U.S. OCS. The Secretary is required to submit this analysis to Congress 
every 5 years.

    The statute mandates that the inventory and report meet the 
following criteria:

  1.  incorporate available data on oil and natural gas resources in 
            areas offshore of Mexico and Canada that are relevant to 
            estimate the resource potential of the OCS;

  2.  use any available technology except drilling to obtain accurate 
            resource estimates;

  3.  analyze how OCS resource estimates have changed over time in 
            relation to available data and exploration and development 
            activities;

  4.  estimate the effect of understated oil and natural gas resource 
            estimates on domestic energy investments; and

  5.  identify and explain how legislative, regulatory, and 
            administrative programs or processes restrict or impede 
            resource development and affect domestic supply.

    As directed by the statute, BOEM prepared and delivered The 
Comprehensive Inventory of OCS Oil and Natural Gas Resources: 2023 
Update (Comprehensive Inventory Report) to Congress on January 17, 
2024. The Comprehensive Inventory Report covered the years 2018 to 
2023.
National Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources 
        and Undiscovered Economically Recoverable Resources

    BOEM publishes a formal national assessment of Undiscovered 
Technically Recoverable Resources (UTRR) and Undiscovered Economically 
Recoverable Resources (UERR) every 5 years. These National Assessments 
inform the Comprehensive Inventory Reports to Congress. UTRR are 
estimates of oil and gas resources that could be produced from the 
subsurface using conventional extraction techniques. UERR are a subset 
of UTRR that are assessed to be commercially recoverable under 
particular economic and technologic conditions.
    BOEM's most recent National Assessment of undiscovered resources 
was finalized in 2021. The National Assessment is a component of energy 
policy analysis and provides important information about the potential 
of oil and gas resources on the OCS. Work is underway to prepare for 
the 2026 National Assessment.
    In developing the National Assessment, BOEM considers recent 
geophysical, geological, and technological information to estimate 
potentially recoverable oil and gas resources. This information comes 
from multiple sources, including OCS operator subsurface geologic and 
wellbore data, OCS geophysical and seismic data, and geologic play 
information from domestic and global analogs. Economic parameters, such 
as exploration and development costs and oil and gas prices, are also 
factored into the assessment.
Improved Technology and Methodology

    The 2023 Comprehensive Inventory Report assesses only technically 
recoverable hydrocarbon resources, both discovered and undiscovered. 
The interplay of technological advancement and changing economic 
conditions has an important role in assessing discovered and 
undiscovered technically recoverable resources, as well as the extent 
of the commercial frontier of hydrocarbon resources.
    Since 1975, DOI has completed 11 National Assessments of OCS 
undiscovered oil and natural gas resources. During this period, the 
geological and geophysical information available to BOEM assessors has 
dramatically increased. These data have increased BOEM's knowledge 
regarding OCS resource potential, particularly in the more mature areas 
of the central and western Gulf of Mexico.
    Over the period that the National Assessments have been conducted, 
industry's technological capabilities expanded considerably. Today, the 
oil and gas industry possesses the ability to drill both exploration 
and production wells in water depths exceeding 10,000 feet. The use of 
three-dimensional (3-D) and other advanced seismic data and 
interpretation techniques has served as a catalyst to transform the 
geosciences and the petroleum industry by providing more accurate 
subsurface imaging. Resource assessment techniques have also become 
more sophisticated during this period.
    Each National Assessment reflects a snapshot in time that should 
not be viewed as either understated or overstated when compared to 
later assessments that will reflect additional information, changed 
circumstances, and a better understanding of the OCS subsurface.
2023 Comprehensive Inventory Report Findings

    The 2021 National Assessment contains BOEM's most recent oil and 
gas resource estimates and served as a key input to the 2023 
Comprehensive Inventory Report. Compared to the 2018 Comprehensive 
Inventory Report, BOEM's estimate for undiscovered technically 
recoverable OCS oil resources has decreased more than 23%, and the 
volume estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable gas resources 
decreased 30%.
    The overall decrease reflects recent exploration results and is 
due, in part, to improvements in BOEM's assessment practices, as well 
as advances in technological capabilities for resource assessment, 
which continue to align with industry standards. These advances have 
allowed BOEM to generate a clearer picture of the OCS subsurface 
geology, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico region. As a result, BOEM 
refined the number and size of oil and gas prospects within the 2021 
National Assessment, resulting in decreases of UTRR and UERR estimates.
Informing Decisions

    BOEM's National Assessment is one of a number of information 
sources used by policymakers for program planning and considering 
energy policy options. A primary example is the development of the 
National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National OCS Program). Under 
Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act, the Secretary of the Interior is 
responsible for establishing a schedule of oil and gas lease sales for 
a five-year period by evaluating specified attributes of OCS areas. The 
Secretary is authorized to select the size, timing, and location of 
proposed OCS lease sales that best meet national energy needs while 
balancing, to the maximum extent practicable, the potential for 
environmental damage, discovery of oil and gas, and adverse impact on 
the coastal zone.
Conclusion

    Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to discuss 
BOEM's efforts to responsibly manage our nation's energy resources on 
the OCS to meet the Nation's energy needs while minimizing impacts to 
the ocean, ocean users, and marine life. BOEM's programs are essential 
for the Administration's continued commitment to ensuring a clean and 
secure energy future--one that is sustainable and benefits all 
Americans. I look forward to answering any questions that this 
Committee may have.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 
testimony.
    Our next witness is Dr. Amir Zaman. He is the Partner and 
Commercial Director of the Americas for Rystad Energy, and he 
is stationed in New York, New York.
    Mr. Zaman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF AMIR ZAMAN, PARTNER AND COMMERCIAL DIRECTOR, 
          AMERICAS, RYSTAD ENERGY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

    Mr. Zaman. Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you 
very much to the Committee for having Rystad join today.
    The United States is a world leader in hydrocarbon 
reserves, demonstrating substantial untapped potential in our 
offshore waters and shale plays. The nation ranks second in oil 
and first in gas reserves globally, with significant 
contributions from both conventional and unconventional shale 
resources that have reshaped the energy landscape the past two 
decades.
    The growth of U.S. oil production since 2010 has played a 
crucial role in balancing the global oil and gas market. The 
shale revolution has been the primary driver, with the Permian 
Basin leading the surge. However, deepwater supply has also 
achieved very positive additions year over year in the past 
decade.
    Despite challenges, including headwinds that we potentially 
see developing in exploration and development offshore, 
offshore remains a key contributor to the oil and gas supply. 
However, while the growth and resiliency that has been 
demonstrated by the U.S. oil and gas sector during recent 
downcycles and the COVID pandemic have been impressive, with 
the country setting a new record for total production to close 
out 2023, there are reasons to be wary about how long we can 
continue on this current path, in particular given that the 
market is so heavily weighted towards the shale market, which 
is facing headwinds of its own.
    Natural engineering characteristics to producing 
hydrocarbons from shale formations leads itself to requiring a 
much larger number of wells to be drilled than conventional and 
offshore fields. As a result, the number of potential wells 
that can be drilled in the future shrinks every single day. And 
this drilling inventory is what we are going to talk about for 
a second now.
    There are estimates that can range from company to company, 
from shale play to shale play anywhere from as small as 2 to 3 
years' worth of drilling locations left to upwards of 
potentially the mid-teens or maybe 20 years. But even that 
number is very nuanced, and will require some digging into to 
fully understand the grasp of what will happen if and when or 
when the shale patch will begin to see its downside.
    Regardless of what number applies, the second that that 
saturation point for wells becomes apparent, we will start to 
see a decline in production in the United States. And that will 
reverse a lot of the progress that we have made in energy 
security throughout this revolution.
    But there is a way to help and, if you will allow me a 
slight pun, we can stem the tide a bit by looking to our 
coasts. The offshore United States presents an attractive 
investment opportunity for exploration and production 
companies, characterized by competitive break-even prices and 
favorable fiscal terms. Stability and profitability offered by 
the U.S. fiscal regime makes it an appealing destination for 
global players seeking long-term investment opportunities, and 
is evidenced by the sheer number of companies who are active in 
the Gulf versus other places in the world.
    As mentioned previously, the U.S. oil and gas industry has 
one of the lowest upstream emission rankings in the world. And 
of particular note, given today's topic, it is worth noting 
that the nation's offshore sector comes out on top in emissions 
intensity from production of hydrocarbons versus every other 
country, according to Rystad Energy's Research. The only one 
that comes close is Norway, and in a virtual dead heat. We can 
talk a little bit more about some of the rankings of the United 
States versus other countries throughout today's session.
    However, one thing that is not talked enough about when we 
talk about emissions is how much emissions are related to the 
shipment of hydrocarbons from one location to another. I would 
position that the amount of atmospheric gases that we are 
putting into the atmosphere, plus the amount of fuel that is 
burned to ship hydrocarbons from other parts of the world 
versus using pipelines that exist here in the Gulf and other 
parts of the United States is very significant.
    While past decades have seen significant offshore 
discoveries, recent trends indicate a decline in yearly 
discovered volumes, posing challenges for future production 
growth offshore. Renewed exploration efforts and timely awards 
are crucial to unlocking undiscovered potential and sustaining 
production levels where they are today, around 2.5 million 
barrels of oil equivalent, let alone potentially needing to 
grow significantly more to offset the future potential losses 
in shale.
    As older vintages of licenses contribute to a substantial 
portion of the current offshore supply, the future growth 
trajectory hinges on successful exploration and development 
activities. The technical work and safety planning around 
developing offshore oil and gas fields is significant, making 
it a long cycle undertaking where it could take 3, 7, or even 
more than 10 years in some cases from the time a license is 
awarded to first production. And with this timeline in mind, 
should the United States seek to ensure it is producing a 
requisite level of hydrocarbons from its prolific and 
prospective offshore regions alike, immediate action would be 
needed to address declining discovery rates, beginning with the 
licensing process.
    Thank you very much.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Zaman follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Amir Zaman, Partner & Commercial Director,
                             Rystad Energy

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 __
                                 

    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. 
Zaman.
    Our next witness is Mr. Erik Milito. He is the President of 
the National Ocean Industries Association, and is stationed 
here in Washington, DC.
    Mr. Milito, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. Thank 
you.

STATEMENT OF ERIK MILITO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL OCEAN INDUSTRIES 
                  ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Milito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The National Ocean Industries Association represents all 
segments of the offshore energy industry, including offshore 
oil and gas, offshore wind, offshore carbon sequestration, and 
offshore minerals. We appreciate the efforts of the Committee 
to consider the importance of offshore oil and gas resource 
assessments so that we, as a nation, continue to improve our 
understanding of our energy potential.
    The long-term energy security, national security, and 
economic security of the country depends upon policy decisions 
that are grounded in our energy realities. Resource assessments 
help serve to bridge the gap between our demand for energy and 
the supplies necessary to meet that demand.
    Even with significant growth in renewables, oil and natural 
gas are expected to supply most of the energy consumed in the 
United States and globally through 2050, according to long-term 
forecasting from the EIA. For the past 40-plus years, each year 
the global economy has increased demand for oil by about 1 
million barrels per day. We continue to become more efficient 
in our use of energy, but population growth and the rise of 
developing countries out of conditions of poverty are expected 
to lead to significant growth in demand for all sources of 
energy, including oil and gas, over the coming decades.
    Global oil demand was at a record level of 102 million 
barrels per day in 2023, and it is expected to grow in the 
years ahead. The fundamental question becomes where do we 
secure this energy from? The answer should be simple and 
straightforward. We should secure our energy from the United 
States, and specifically the U.S. offshore region.
    The U.S. offshore, and the Gulf of Mexico in particular, 
have served as the backbone of U.S. energy production for 
decades. The United States has been producing oil in the 
Federal Gulf of Mexico waters since the 1940s, and production 
from the Gulf has been steadily increasing over the past 30 
years. In fact, this region has been producing more than 1 
million barrels of oil a day since 1997, and hit its highest 
level of production on record, just over 2 million barrels per 
day, in August 2019, right before the onset of the pandemic.
    When compared to other countries around the world, the U.S. 
Gulf of Mexico would be the eleventh largest producer of oil 
and gas in the global marketplace. In terms of energy 
affordability, production from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico plays a 
substantial role helping to meet global demand for our energy.
    U.S. oil and gas production provides Americans with the 
best product when it comes to low-carbon-intensity barrels of 
oil. According to a study we sponsored with ICF International, 
oil produced from the Gulf of Mexico has a carbon intensity per 
barrel that is 46 percent lower than the foreign average. 
Policies that restrict domestic offshore development require 
imports to make up the shortfall, and that supplemental 
production comes from higher-emitting operations in other 
countries.
    Policy decisions that restrict U.S. offshore energy 
development result in dramatic adverse consequences for our 
country by putting at risk many important benefits, benefits 
that include thousands upon thousands of good-paying jobs, 
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, funding for 
coastal resiliency and restoration for the Gulf Coast states, 
funding for urban parks and recreation, and importantly, our 
national security interests.
    It is crucial that we continue to research and understand 
our resource potential by updating our oil and gas estimates 
for the U.S. OCS, and it is critical that Federal policy 
promotes U.S. energy development in our offshore region through 
consistent leasing and permitting, and through open access to 
markets. This includes correcting the anemic OCS leasing 
program finalized last year.
    I also want to touch upon the vast potential for the U.S. 
OCS for storing carbon dioxide. Our offshore region is uniquely 
situated to emerge as a global hub for carbon capture and 
storage. Along with the excellent geologic prospects for 
storing carbon dioxide, the Gulf Coast is home to the full 
supply chain of energy companies with the engineering 
experience, expertise, and vision to deploy CCS projects with 
the scale and efficiency necessary for success.
    Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
in November 2021. As part of that legislation, Congress set 
forth the requirement for Interior to promulgate regulations 
for offshore CCS by November 2022. Interior is nearly 2\1/2\ 
years past the deadline, and a proposed rule has yet to be 
published. This puts the United States at a competitive 
disadvantage to other parts of the world, where countries are 
seizing the opportunity to approve and construct offshore CCS 
projects.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Milito follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Erik Milito, President, National Ocean
                         Industries Association

    For the past 50-plus years, the National Ocean Industries 
Association (``NOIA'') has represented the interests of all segments of 
the offshore energy industry. Today this includes offshore oil and gas, 
offshore wind, offshore minerals, and offshore carbon sequestration 
companies. Our membership includes energy project leaseholders and 
developers and the entire supply chain of companies that make up an 
innovative energy system contributing to the safe and responsible 
exploration, development, and production of energy for the American 
people. The assessment of domestic energy reserves is highly 
consequential for our nation's future energy security and should inform 
our public policy moving forward. NOIA appreciates the efforts of the 
committee for convening this hearing and promoting data-driven, 
impactful energy policy.
    The offshore energy sector is a proven leader in solving energy 
challenges and delivering diverse sources of energy to the global 
economy. For the foreseeable future, the offshore industry will play an 
integral role in shaping an energy system that promotes the provision 
of affordable and reliable energy while continuing to reduce 
environmental impacts, including emissions. Importantly, for the coming 
decades, oil and gas supplies will remain a vital energy source for 
Americans and our allies around the globe, while we simultaneously 
integrate and add lower carbon sources into the mix. The U.S. Gulf of 
Mexico is firmly established as a highly prospective region with 
abundant reserves of domestic oil and gas that will fuel our economy 
for decades to come.
    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has recognized a 
promising future for oil development in the Gulf of Mexico. According 
to its 2021 Assessment of Technically and Economically Recoverable Oil 
and Natural Gas Resources of the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental 
Shelf,\1\ the region contains estimated undiscovered technically 
recoverable resources in the range of 23.31 billion barrels of oil to 
36.27 billion barrels of oil. According to experts at Energy and 
Industrial Advisory Partners, ``A key requirement for continued Gulf of 
Mexico oil and natural gas production is continued lease sales, which 
enable operators to explore new acreage for previously undiscovered 
resources, develop new projects, and underpin existing and planned 
projects by allowing operators to backfill production into facilities 
with declining production.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/regions/
gulf-mexico-ocs-region/resource-evaluation/
2021%20Gulf%20of%20Mexico%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Resource%20Assessment% 
20%28BOEM%202021-082%29.pdf
    \2\ https://www.noia.org/noia-one-pagers-infographics/#flipbook-
df_223664/1/, at page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE U.S. OFFSHORE REGION WILL CONTINUE TO FUEL OUR ECONOMY

    As with many other forms of energy development, oil and gas 
production is contingent upon having acreage that can be explored and 
produced. Federal leasing is requisite to securing the acreage to 
develop and produce supplies of oil and gas for the country. Continued 
lease sales at regular intervals will enable declining production to be 
replenished and production levels to be increased when there are spikes 
in demand. Simply put, the more acreage that is available, the greater 
the potential for well-managed energy production.
    According to Rystad Energy, global oil exploration activities must 
ramp up to meet global demand through 2050. More than $3 trillion in 
capital expenditure is estimated to be needed to add the undeveloped 
and undiscovered resources necessary for the global market.\3\ Rystad 
analysts expect deepwater areas to play a prominent role in building 
essential energy supplies. According to Rystad Senior Upstream Analyst 
Palzor Shenga, ``Upstream players may have to more than double their 
conventional exploration efforts in order to meet global oil demand 
through 2050.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.ogj.com/general-interest/article/14188745/rystad-
exploration-must-be-accelerated-to-meet-world-oil-demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. has been producing oil offshore in the federal Gulf of 
Mexico waters since the 1940s and production from the Gulf has been 
steadily increasing over the past 30 years. In fact, this region has 
been producing more than one million barrels of oil per day since 1997 
and hit its highest level of production on record of 2.044 million 
barrels per day in August 2019, just before the onset of the pandemic:

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsAlthough production dropped during the pandemic in response to 
the related global economic downturn, the U.S. Gulf of Mexico has 
recovered and averaged 1.868 million barrels per day in 2023. We know 
from experience that technology advancements will continue to enable 
the discovery and development of ever-increasing volumes, resulting in 
a continuous upward trend over time in the estimated recoverable 
resources in the Gulf of Mexico. One of the earliest federal resources 
assessments, if not the earliest, was conducted by the U.S. Geological 
Service in 1975, which estimated a mean of 6.25 billion barrels of 
undiscovered crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico.\4\ The study reflected 
the geologic realities as best it could and focused only on water 
depths of less than 200 meters. Foreshadowing how dramatically 
innovation and technology can revolutionize an industry, the first 
deepwater oil field in the world was discovered in the Gulf of Mexico 
the very same year.\5\ Federal assessments throughout the 1980s and 
first half of the 1990s were expanded to include water depths up to 
2,500 meters. In 1996, Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) did 
not include any water depth limit in their assessment. Yet, by this 
point deepwater production was eclipsing shallow water production in 
the Gulf of Mexico.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/about-boem/
Historic%20Assessments_ 2021_fixed.pdf
    \5\ https://www.offshore-mag.com/pipelines/article/14075106/cognac-
pipeline-stretched-the-boundary-of-deepwater
    \6\ https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/regions/
gulf-mexico-ocs-region/US%20OCS 
%20GOMR%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Production%20Forecast%202022-
2031.pdf#::text=The% 
20plot%20is%20separated%20into,roughly%2090%25%20of%20total%20production

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, cumulative historical production from the Gulf of Mexico is 
well over 21 billion barrels of oil, and, as noted earlier, the federal 
government estimates that there are still 23 to 36 billion barrels of 
oil remaining.\7\ The offshore oil and gas industry is an exploratory, 
prospective business and there is often a gap between what we think is 
there based upon government estimates and what is actually there based 
on industry's exploration efforts, especially when considering the 
deployment of modern science and exploration techniques. Companies must 
have the opportunity to continue to lease acreage and conduct 
exploration activities through regular, formalized lease sales to close 
the gap. Exploration activities from seismic exploration to exploratory 
drilling add the necessary scientific data that is fundamental for more 
accurate estimates and the ultimate production of energy. These 
activities only occur once a company has secured a lease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gas-
energy/BOEM%202020-028.pdf#:: 
text=Cumulative%20Production%20from%20all%20fields,recoverable%20from%20
459%20active %20fields.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oil is a global commodity, and investment in oil production 
projects occurs on a global scale. Eliminating or reducing lease sales 
in the U.S. federal offshore leasing program only serves to shift that 
investment away from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico to other regions, both 
offshore and onshore, throughout the world. Companies will naturally 
invest where there is more certainty, and the U.S. Government can 
increase certainty by continually updating resource estimates and 
providing acreage for leasing. It is critical that the U.S. does not 
cede ground in offshore energy production to other regions and that it 
recognizes that it is in the best interests of Americans to encourage 
and attract investment to U.S. offshore production opportunities. The 
numerous adverse consequences of eliminating or scaling back offshore 
oil and gas leasing negatively impact all Americans, most particularly 
those struggling to cope with increased energy costs, which continued 
to be threatened by geopolitical uncertainty. Offshore leasing is 
requisite to replenishing and building new supplies of oil and gas for 
Americans. It is only the first step in the process, but, without it, 
our nation will be left without the energy that is vital for our 
everyday lives, including transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, 
groceries, education, and healthcare. Energy affordability is 
fundamentally and directly tied to the supply and demand of energy 
sources, and energy supplies are assured through continued leasing and 
permitting.
ENERGY REALITIES

    Energy lifts society. A system of reliable, abundant, and 
affordable energy is essential for meeting basic societal needs, 
including healthy living conditions, health care, education, and 
mobility, economic or otherwise. Oil, gas, and petroleum products fill 
the fuel tanks of passenger vehicles and airplanes. They are 
transformed into the essential building blocks of smartphones, 
clothing, and medical equipment. They are in so many products we use 
every day that they underpin the conveniences of modern life.
    Natural gas is recognized as a key energy source for providing 
electricity, heating, cooling, and clean cooking. More than 750 million 
people around the globe do not have access to electricity, which leaves 
entire communities at a severe and fundamental disadvantage. According 
to the World Health Organization (WHO), ``Access to energy is critical 
when it comes to the functionality of health-care facilities and the 
quality, accessibility and reliability of health services delivered. 
Electricity is necessary for the operation of critically needed medical 
devices such as vaccine refrigeration, surgical emergency, laboratory 
and diagnostic equipment, as well as for the operation of basic 
amenities such as lighting, cooling, ventilation and communications.'' 
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.who.int/activities/accelerating-access-to-
electricy-in-health-care-facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Globally, 2.6 billion people do not have the means for clean 
cooking and must use solid fuels such as wood, crop wastes, charcoal, 
and dung in open fires and inefficient stoves. The WHO attributes 3.8 
million premature deaths each year to indoor air pollution caused by 
the fumes and soot generated by inefficient and dirty cooking. The 
tragic impacts of energy insecurity are not only experienced abroad; 44 
percent of low-income American households experience energy insecurity, 
spending 10 percent to 20 percent of their income on energy 
expenses.\9\ Energy insecurity has adverse consequences on both 
physical and mental health. Millions of Americans are faced with the 
``heat or eat'' dilemma, regularly having to choose between paying 
utility bills and paying for food.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2020/ph240/radzyminski2/
    \10\ S. Jessel, S. Sawyer, and D. Hernandez, ``Energy, Poverty, and 
Health in Climate Change: A Comprehensive Review of an Emerging 
Literature,'' Front. Public Health 7, 357 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, global oil consumption is approximately 100 million 
barrels per day. Various scenarios forecast global oil consumption 
volumes through 2050 and beyond, and nearly all of them predict 
substantial oil production will be necessary through at least 2050. The 
facts, data, and our experience make clear that we should focus on the 
U.S. offshore region, and the Gulf of Mexico in particular, for 
securing those vital resources.
    Energy production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico demonstrates that it 
is possible to develop offshore resources while adhering to the highest 
safety and environmental standards. A multitude of companies involved 
in offshore energy development are working collaboratively to shrink an 
already small carbon footprint. From electrifying operations to 
deploying innovative solutions that reduce the size, weight, and part 
count of offshore infrastructure--thus increasing safety and decreasing 
emissions--the U.S. Gulf of Mexico hosts a high-tech revolution. Oil 
produced from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico has a carbon intensity one-half 
that of other producing regions.\11\ The technologies used in deepwater 
production--which represents 92 percent of the oil produced in the U.S. 
Gulf of Mexico--place this region among the lowest carbon intensity 
oil-producing regions in the world.\12\ Policies that restrict domestic 
offshore development require imports to make up the shortfall and 
supplemental production may come from higher-emitting operations in 
other countries. Foreign providers may employ less environmentally 
conscientious production methods, which when combined with the added 
emissions from transporting oil over great distances by tanker, can 
increase the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere rather than 
decreasing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Motiwala, and Ismail, ``Statistical Study of Carbon 
Intensities in the GOM and PB,'' ChemRxiv, April 13, 2020.
    \12\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/the-challenge-of-negative-
emissions/

    McKinsey estimates production from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico could 
decrease by about 800,000 barrels per day by 2040 without additional 
projects beyond those that have already been sanctioned. In that 
situation, McKinsey expects lost production would be made up by 
substitutions from other parts of the world without much oil demand 
destruction. The U.S. would be able to import sufficient oil, but it 
would come from higher-emitting basins, resulting in an increase in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
greenhouse gas emissions globally:

        This supply reduction would have to be offset by alternative 
        sources to meet global demand, which could hinder net-zero 
        goals significantly. Because many other oil producing regions 
        globally have total unit costs similar to those in the Gulf of 
        Mexico, global oil price increases or substitution with other 
        energy sources wouldn't be expected, and global demand for oil 
        would remain unchanged. Instead, the reduced Gulf supply would 
        be offset by production increases from other sources, such as 
        other deepwater basins, shale, and OPEC. Based on the higher 
        emissions per barrel of this new supply, global emissions would 
        increase by 50 million to 100 million metric tons of CO2e 
        through 2040.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Brown, Di Fiori, Smith, and Yanosek, ``Deepwater Gulf of 
Mexico's role during the energy transition,'' McKinsey, September 2022, 
at page 6.

    In May 2023, NOIA released a report on emissions from global oil 
production by ICF International, the GHG Emission Intensity of Crude 
Oil and Condensate Production.\14\ According to the report, U.S. oil 
production, and in particular, production from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, 
has lower greenhouse gas emissions intensity than much of the rest of 
the world. According to ICF, increasing U.S. production (onshore and 
offshore) to a level that offsets foreign crude or condensate would 
result in a 23% reduction in the average international carbon intensity 
of those displaced oil production volumes. This translates to a removal 
of 5.7 CO2e kg/bbl from the global average outside of the U.S. and 
Canada of 24.4 CO2e kg/bbl. ICF estimates that increasing U.S. Gulf of 
Mexico production to offset foreign crude or condensate would lead to a 
significant reduction in the average carbon intensity of the 
substituted oil volumes. Specifically, they estimate a 46% decrease, 
which translates to a removal of 11.3 CO2e kg/bbl from the global 
average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/NOIA-Study-
GHG-Emission-Intensity-of-Crude-Oil-and-Condensate-
Production.pdf?utm_source=Mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_ 
campaign=ICF+study+emissions+
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Offshore energy is a true story of accomplishing more with less--
creating more energy with less environmental impact. Offshore 
production platforms are incredible edifices of continuously evolving 
technology that allow enormous amounts of energy to be produced through 
a relatively small footprint. Incredibly, 18 deepwater facilities, 
which equate to about the size of only nine city blocks, produce about 
the same amount of oil as the entire state of North Dakota.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Director Scott Angelle, BSEE Director, BSEE Presentation to 
the Deepwater Technical Symposium, November 13, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Emissions reduction is a global challenge. As analysts at Wood 
Mackenzie explain, ``Removing or handicapping a low emitter hurts the 
collective global average.'' \16\ Removing a proven, stable supplier 
such as the U.S. Gulf of Mexico would be a poor choice with devasting 
consequences. The better choice is to institute government policies 
that promote cleaner and safer domestic production, less reliance on 
higher-emitting foreign suppliers like Russia and China, and the 
preservation of hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/could-restricting-oil-
production-in-the-us-gulf-of-mexico-lead-to-carbon-leakage/

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Efforts to restrict U.S. energy development could eventually 
lead to Americans of every walk of life having to contend with the 
issues Europe has been experiencing as a result of disrupted supply 
from Russia, including potential industrial curtailment and families 
having to make difficult choices between heat and food. Our energy 
reality makes it clear that U.S. energy policy should support U.S. 
energy production of all types, including offshore oil and gas and 
wind. Government policies play a substantial role in the ability to 
develop energy in the U.S., whether onshore or offshore, and whether 
the energy source is oil and gas, wind, hydrogen, or another resource. 
Obstructive government policies inevitably lead to adverse consequences 
for our energy security, national security, economic security, and 
decarbonization efforts.
OFFSHORE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ENHANCES QUALITY OF LIFE

    Oil and natural gas touch every part of our daily lives. 
Fundamentally, ``Everything that is fabricated, grown, operated or 
moved is made possible by hydrocarbons.'' \17\ The U.S. Department of 
Energy states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Mark Mills, Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2019

        Oil and natural gas play an essential role in powering 
        America's vibrant economy and fueling a remarkable quality of 
        life in the United States. Together, oil and natural gas 
        provide more than two-thirds of the energy Americans consume 
        daily, and we will continue to rely on them in the future. In 
        addition to meeting our energy needs, oil and natural gas are 
        integral to our standard of living in ways that are often not 
        apparent. Several key advances in technology enabled a dramatic 
        increase in domestic oil and natural gas production over the 
        past 20 years. This increased production provides energy 
        security and economic benefits to the entire country, and 
        ongoing technology advances will help us to enjoy those 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        benefits into the future.

        Oil and natural gas are used in many ways that are familiar to 
        consumers. Petroleum products power transportation, providing 
        fuel for cars, trucks, marine vessels, locomotives, and 
        airplanes. Natural gas generates more than one-third of the 
        electricity needed for dependable heating, air conditioning, 
        lighting, industrial production, refrigeration, and other 
        essential services, and tens of millions of Americans rely on 
        oil and natural gas to heat their homes directly and on clean 
        burning natural gas to cook their food. But petroleum products 
        do so much more than fuel our cars and power our homes and 
        businesses.

        While perhaps less recognized, oil and natural gas also play 
        critical roles in supplying essential products and materials, 
        increasing agricultural productivity, and supporting the 
        expansion of new energy sources.

        Oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids are building blocks 
        for a range of modern materials used to produce life-changing 
        prosthetics, energy-efficient homes, safer cars that go farther 
        on a gallon of gasoline, and hundreds more consumer products 
        that Americans use every day. Plastics and chemicals derived 
        from oil and natural gas make our food safer, our clothing more 
        comfortable, our homes easier to care for, and our daily lives 
        more convenient.

        Natural gas is also a key ingredient for chemical fertilizers, 
        helping increase crop production and yield per acre planted, 
        and powering many important operations on the farm like crop 
        drying.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ U.S. OIL AND NATURAL GAS: Providing Energy Security and 
Supporting Our Quality of Life, U.S. Department of Energy, September 
2020, p. 4.

    According to the United Nations, access to affordable, reliable, 
and sustainable energy is critical to achieving many international 
development goals, specifically, the eradication of poverty through 
continued improvements in education, health, and access to water.\19\ 
Oil and natural gas play a central role in eliminating poverty and 
raising the standard of living for millions by serving as a key form of 
abundant and affordable energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/goal-07/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFSHORE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IMPROVES ENERGY AFFORDABILITY

    The cost of energy is fundamentally driven by supply and demand 
and, over the past decade, global markets have been impacted by supply 
disruptions in both the oil and natural gas markets. The energy 
paradigm has shifted over the past decade, with the United States 
rising to a position of energy power and emerging as the leading 
producer of both oil and natural gas in the world.

    Vice Chairman of IHS Markit (now S&P Global) Daniel Yergin explains 
how things have changed:

        According to the old script, United States oil production was 
        too marginal to affect world oil prices. But the gap today 
        between demand and available supply on the world market is 
        narrow. The additional oil Saudi Arabia is putting into the 
        market will help replace Iranian exports as they are 
        increasingly squeezed out of the market by sanctions . . .. But 
        if America's increase . . . [in oil production] . . . had not 
        occurred, then the world oil market would be even tighter. We 
        would be looking at much higher prices--and voters would be 
        even angrier.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Daniel Yergin, ``America's New Energy Reality,'' The New York 
Times, June 9, 2012

    Mr. Yergin made this point in 2012 at the outset of the shale 
revolution, but the significance of U.S. production for global energy 
markets is as important as ever today. In fact, Mr. Yergin reiterated 
this very point in February 2022 in the aptly title op-ed in the Wall 
Street Journal, ``America Takes Pole Position on Oil and Gas.''
    Analysts recognize that the downturn in the oil and natural gas 
industry from 2014-2020, combined with ill-conceived policies and 
investment approaches, led to significant underinvestment in oil and 
natural gas exploration and infrastructure. According to Simon Flower, 
Chairman, Chief Analyst at Wood Mackenzie and author of a weekly column 
called The Edge, in 2021, ``Underinvestment in oil supply will lead to 
a tight oil market later this decade. It's a narrative that's gained 
increasing traction as capital expenditure on upstream oil and gas has 
shrunk. Spend in 2021 is half the peak of 2014 after slumping to new 
depths in [2021's] crisis.'' \21\ Mr. Flowers poses the question, ``How 
much new oil supply does the world need?'' His answer is, ``A lot--we 
reckon about 20 million b/d from 2022 to 2030.'' According to Flowers, 
``This is the `supply gap', the difference between our estimate of 
demand in 2030 and the volumes we forecast existing fields already 
onstream or under development can deliver.'' \22\ If his numbers are 
correct, a huge amount of new oil is needed to close the expected gap 
between the supply and demand and help bring stability and 
affordability to oil and petroleum product prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/the-edge/is-the-world-
sleepwalking-into-an-oil-supply-crunch/
    \22\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/the-edge/is-the-world-
sleepwalking-into-an-oil-supply-crunch/

    Saudi Aramco CEO Amin H. Nasser identified the crux of the energy 
crisis in his remarks during the Schlumberger Digital Forum, on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 20, 2022:

        Unfortunately, the response so far betrays a deep 
        misunderstanding of how we got here in the first place, and 
        therefore little hope of ending the crisis anytime soon. So 
        this morning I would like to focus on the real causes as they 
        shine a bright light on a much more credible way forward.

        When historians reflect on this crisis, they will see that the 
        warning signs in global energy policies were flashing red for 
        almost a decade. Many of us have been insisting for years that 
        if investments in oil and gas continued to fall, global supply 
        growth would lag behind demand, impacting markets, the global 
        economy, and people's lives.

        In fact, oil and gas investments crashed by more than 50% 
        between 2014 and last year, from $700 billion to a little over 
        $300 billion. The increases this year are too little, too late, 
        too short-term.

        Meanwhile, the energy transition plan has been undermined by 
        unrealistic scenarios and flawed assumptions because they have 
        been mistakenly perceived as facts. For example, one scenario 
        led many to assume that major oil use sectors would switch to 
        alternatives almost overnight, and therefore oil demand would 
        never return to pre-Covid levels.

        In reality, once the global economy started to emerge from 
        lockdowns, oil demand came surging back, and so did gas.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ https://www.aramco.com/en/news-media/speeches/2022/remarks-by-
amin-h-nasser-at-schlumberger-digital-forum#

    Mr. Nasser's remarks about the challenges ahead are similarly 
profound, ``Oil inventories are low, and effective global spare 
capacity is now about one and a half percent of global demand. Equally 
concerning is that oil fields around the world are declining on average 
at about 6% each year, and more than 20% in some older fields last 
year. At these levels, simply keeping production steady needs a lot of 
capital in its own right, while increasing capacity requires a lot 
more.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ https://www.aramco.com/en/news-media/speeches/2022/remarks-by-
amin-h-nasser-at-schlumberger-digital-forum#
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We are fortunate in the United States that our Gulf of Mexico 
region is up to the task of delivering the oil and gas the economy 
needs. Production numbers from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico place it among 
the largest oil producing countries. If the Gulf of Mexico were its own 
country, it would be one of the top 11 oil producing countries in the 
world (source EIA):

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                 OFFSHORE CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE

    U.S. leadership in Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will help 
ensure the availability of abundant, reliable, and affordable domestic 
energy, while continuously driving down emissions. According to the 
International Energy Agency:

        Carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technologies 
        offer an important opportunity to achieve deep carbon dioxide 
        (CO2) emissions reductions in key industrial 
        processes and in the use of fossil fuels in the power sector. 
        CCUS can also enable new clean energy pathways, including low-
        carbon hydrogen production, while providing a foundation for 
        many carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-co2-storage

    As it relates specifically to the offshore, the National Petroleum 
Council concluded that ``One of the largest opportunities for saline 
formation storage in the United States can be found in federal waters, 
particularly in the Gulf of Mexico.'' Meeting the Dual Challenge, p. 
27. The U.S. Gulf of Mexico offshore region provides tremendous 
advantages for an emerging U.S. CCS sector. The Gulf of Mexico is 
characterized by vast geologic prospects for CO2 storage, extensive and 
established energy infrastructure along the Gulf Coast and throughout 
the outer continental shelf, a proximity to industrial centers for 
capturing emissions, and an assessable engineering and energy knowledge 
base and workforce, along with associated RD&D capabilities. The U.S. 
Gulf of Mexico could very well soon be the global leader in CCS. Early 
projections show that 50 million tons of CO2 annually could be stored 
beneath the Gulf of Mexico by 2030, more than all the CCS currently 
operating globally. The Gulf's storage capacity could double by 2040.
    However, the build-out of the U.S. offshore carbon storage industry 
will depend upon certainty and predictability in U.S. laws and 
regulations. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (P.L. 
117-58) included Sec. 40307, explicitly authorizing the Department of 
the Interior to grant leases, easements, or rights-of-way on the outer 
continental shelf for the purposes of long-term storage of CO2. It also 
mandated the Secretary to issue regulations to that effect within one 
year of enactment, or by November 2022. Our industry stands ready to 
invest in federal offshore carbon sequestration projects but it cannot 
be done without a regulatory framework. The regulations are more than a 
year past the Congressional-mandated deadline and have not even been 
proposed yet. This unnecessary, protracted timeline for the 
finalization of the rules and for the initiation of leasing and project 
development substantially impedes U.S. Gulf Coast investment and 
efforts to decarbonize through offshore CCS.
CONCLUSION

    Our national energy needs require continued supplies of oil and 
natural gas and part of this national imperative is understanding the 
resources with which our nation is blessed, particularly in the U.S. 
offshore region. Continued U.S. offshore oil and gas development 
provides vast benefits and a sensible pathway for energy security for 
the next few decades. NOIA and its members stand ready to work with 
policymakers to advance policies to ensure that Americans can rely upon 
an affordable and reliable energy system built upon strong pillars of 
energy, economic, national, and environmental security.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Milito. Our next 
witness is Mr. Joe Dryer, and he is the President and CEO for 
Fairfield Geotechnologies, and is stationed in Houston, Texas.
    Mr. Dryer, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF JOE DRYER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FAIRFIELD 
                GEOTECHNOLOGIES, HOUSTON, TEXAS

    Mr. Dryer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I present this 
testimony in my role as President and CEO of Fairfield, and as 
a board member of the EnerGeo Alliance. EnerGeo was founded in 
1971, and represents the geoscience companies, innovators, and 
energy developers that use Earth science to discover, develop, 
and deliver energy sustainably to our world. I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee.
    As the tip of the spear for nearly all energy sources, 
energy geoscience provides invaluable information about the 
resources beneath us that energy companies and policymakers can 
use to identify and prioritize. The reality is, no matter the 
preferred or prioritized energy source, virtually all sources 
of energy needed to support the world's energy evolution 
require eyes on something going in, out, or through the ground. 
And that simply cannot happen without the innovation and 
insight of the energy geoscience industry, which is why at 
EnerGeo Alliance we proudly say we are making energy possible.
    It is important to point out that seismic and other 
geoscience survey activities are temporary and transitory. They 
are the least intrusive and only commercially scalable way to 
explore the Earth's geology. The only viable process for the 
U.S. Government to understand the country's resource potential 
is through geoscience surveys conducted by advanced technology 
companies like Fairfield and those that comprise EnerGeo's 
membership. These surveys inform BOEM's comprehensive 
assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources on the OCS.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Dryer. The Gulf of Mexico is one of the least 
emissions-intensive resource plays in the world, second only to 
Norway, but according to my friend at Rystad, we are about 
even. With every new leap in geoscience innovation, energy 
sources broaden and energy discoveries, and subsequently, 
production, significantly increases, as you can see on the 
chart we provided.
    The reality is the geoscience industry has a long track 
record of safe, responsible operations around the world. 
Unfortunately, the permitting of this activity, critical to 
identifying the nation's energy supplies, is too often stalled 
or impeded by extreme environmental advocacy organizations 
exploiting existing, cumbersome regulatory processes, and 
litigation aimed at outdated and vague statutes.
    Permitting and authorization delays by both BOEM and NMFS, 
respectively, will ultimately lead to a reduced interest in 
pursuing energy projects in the United States. EnerGeo has 
conveyed to Congress and the agencies the need for legislative 
and regulatory efficiencies to meet future energy demands.
    By 2050, the world population is estimated to increase to 
almost 9.8 billion. Total energy use is expected to increase by 
34 percent. With an expected steady growth in main stage 
sources of energy, and even faster growth anticipated on all 
other sources, the energy and geoscience industry is integral 
to meeting policies of lower carbon economies, including in the 
United States.
    There are now 30 commercial operational CCS facilities 
worldwide that have a capture capacity of 40 million ton per 
annum. More than 20 have come on-line in the last 2 years. Over 
half of these are in North America. An additional 141 
facilities are in development or under construction and will 
provide an additional 112 million ton per annum of capture 
capacity by 2030. But to go net zero by 2050, these figures 
would have to grow by 140X.
    In March 2021, the Biden administration has set an 
ambitious goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind 
electricity generation by 2030. Further, in April 2023, the 
President highlighted new steps the United States was taking to 
meet its 1.5 degrees Celsius-aligned goal of reducing emissions 
50 to 52 percent by 2030. These goals are simply not possible 
to meet without the geoscience industry.
    The Alliance continues to call on BOEM and the current 
Administration to propose long-overdue regulations for offshore 
carbon capture. However, regulations should not be used to 
differentiate between given energy sources when it comes to 
permitting geoscience activities. Our members execute surveys 
and use advanced technology to provide products to energy 
developers and producers. Those activities employ the same 
general techniques, regardless of whether clients are 
developing gas and oil or offshore wind. The regulations should 
not make a distinction either way.
    At EnerGeo, we are advocating to ensure all policymakers 
and energy companies have access to reliable data analysis to 
support their forward-moving efforts. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dryer follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Joe Dryer, President & CEO, Fairfield 
                            Geotechnologies
                   on Behalf of the EnerGeo Alliance

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    For the record, my name is Joe Dryer and I am the President & CEO 
of Fairfield Geotechnologies. I joined Fairfield Geotechnologies in 
1997 as Sales Manager for the Systems Division. I have held several 
leadership positions of increasing responsibility within Fairfield 
which included Vice President of the Data Licensing Division and Chief 
Sales Officer. In 2021 I was promoted to President and Chief Executive 
Officer. Prior to joining Fairfield I worked on various acquisition 
crews around the globe. I graduated from Texas Tech University and 
completed the renowned Advanced Management Program at Harvard Business 
School. Since 2019, I have served on the EnerGeo Alliance Board of 
Directors working closely with our members, regulators, and other 
stakeholders around the world to ensure that energy resources are 
identified and developed in a sustainable manner.
    Privately held Fairfield Geotechnologies is a leading provider of 
high-resolution multi-client seismic data and services in the United 
States. Combining market-leading subsurface reflectivity and signal 
imaging techniques with strategic partnerships, Fairfield 
Geotechnologies delivers a superior solution for developmental 
exploitation. More than 30 years ago, Fairfield Geotechnologies 
established a standard for how we operate--a combination of innovative 
solutions, discipline, and exceptional leadership.
    I present this testimony in my role as President & CEO of Fairfield 
Geotechnologies and as a Board Member of the EnerGeo Alliance. Founded 
in 1971, EnerGeo is the global trade alliance for the energy geoscience 
and exploration industry, the intersection where earth science and 
energy meet. EnerGeo Alliance and its member companies span more than 
50 countries, representing onshore and offshore survey operators and 
acquisition companies, energy data and processing providers, energy 
companies, equipment and software manufacturers, industry suppliers, 
service providers, and consultancies. EnerGeo represents the geoscience 
companies, innovators, and energy developers that are using earth 
science to discover, develop, and deliver energy, sustainably, to our 
world. Together, we are Making Energy Possible.
    EnerGeo member companies, which operate in the U.S. both onshore 
and offshore across the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and extensively 
within the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), play an integral role in the 
successful exploration and development of offshore hydrocarbon, wind 
and low-carbon solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) 
resources through the acquisition and processing of geophysical and 
geological data.
    Through reliable science- and data-based regulatory advocacy, 
credible resources and expertise, and future-focused leadership, 
EnerGeo Alliance continuously works to develop and promote informed 
government policies that advance responsible energy exploration, 
production, and operations. As the U.S. and global energy demand 
evolves, we believe that all policymakers and energy companies, 
providing mainstay, alternative, and low-carbon solutions, should have 
access to reliable data and analysis to support their forward-moving 
efforts.
Geoscience Industry & Activities Overview

    I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Mineral Resources on Assessing Domestic Offshore Energy 
Reserves & Ensuring U.S. Energy Dominance. As the tip of the spear for 
nearly all energy sources and lower-carbon solutions, energy geoscience 
provides invaluable information about the resources beneath us that 
energy companies and policymakers can use to identify and prioritize 
high-density, lower-carbon intensive energy sources, locate where 
offshore wind facilities are best suited for harnessing the energy from 
wind, prolong the life of existing natural gas and petroleum assets, 
make it possible to store carbon beneath the surface, and more.
    The reality is, no matter the preferred or prioritized energy 
source, virtually all sources of energy needed to support the world's 
energy evolution require ``eyes'' on something going in, out, or 
through the ground, and that simply cannot happen without the 
innovation and insight of the energy geoscience industry. Which is why 
at EnerGeo Alliance, we proudly say, ``we are making energy possible.''
    Seismic and other geoscience surveys have been safely conducted in 
the U.S. and around the world for over 60 years. These geoscience 
surveys are the critical first step to better understanding the 
resource base of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and providing policy 
makers and regulators with the information they need to make informed 
decisions about energy development and carbon capture based on the best 
available data.
    There is an increasing need to educate on the criticality of 
exploration to ensure global access to energy in the future. By 2050, 
the world population is estimated to increase to almost 9.8 billion.\1\ 
Total energy use is expected to increase 34%, with an expected steady 
growth in mainstay sources of energy and faster growth anticipated in 
all other sources.\2\ In this scenario, exploration will be critical 
for the energy evolution. While about 5 billion barrels of oil were 
discovered in 2023, by 2050 we will need to discover 17.56 billion 
barrels per year to match the global energy demand.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Source: 2023 Population Data Sheet--https://www.prb.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/12/2023-World-Population-Data-Sheet-Booklet.pdf
    \2\ Source: EIA International Energy Outlook--October 2023 https://
www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/
    \3\ Source: RystadEnergy UCube; Rystad Energy U.CubeExploration; 
Rystad Energy research and analysis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The economic and technological advances over the last 200 years 
have transformed how we produce and consume energy. See Figure 1,\4\ 
showing how the global energy mix has evolved since 1800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Source: Elements.visualcapitalist.com; Vaclav Smil, BP 
Statistical Review of World Energy

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


     Global oil demand has reached new records; 2.2-2.4mbd increase 
in 2023 to 102mbd, compared to oil supplies only rising by about 1.4-
1.5 mbd. Over 108 mbd by 2030. Remarkable departure from scenario IEA 
laid out in its Roadmap to Net Zero by 2050 roadmap just two years ago 
where they had oil demand peaking in 2019 at 100 mbd and declining to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75mbd by 2030.

    Access to exploration relies on government authorizations, so 
policymakers' understanding of energy geoscience and exploration as the 
key energy enablers is imperative to ensuring energy optionality and 
security and meeting future energy demand.

    The only viable process for the U.S. Government to understand the 
country's resource potential is through geoscience surveys conducted by 
advanced technology companies like those that comprise EnerGeo's 
membership. According to BOEM's website, regarding resource evaluation, 
``Every five years BOEM provides a comprehensive assessment of 
undiscovered oil and gas resources on the OCS. The results are 
presented as both Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources (UTRR) 
and Undiscovered Economically Recoverable Resources (UERR). The 
assessment utilizes a geologic play-based approach that incorporates a 
complete analysis of geologic and petroleum system elements for the 
UTRR, and an assessment of engineering and economic considerations for 
the calculation of the UERR. DOI has released an Assessment of 
Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources on the US OCS regularly since 
1975.'' This information is not possible and would not be available to 
policy makers and U.S. citizens without the geoscience industry.
    As an example of the usefulness of geoscience data, in 2017 BOEM 
released a 1.4-billion-pixel map that will help scientists from 
academia, environmental agencies, and governmental agencies further 
understand the prolific Gulf of Mexico region. This once-impossible 
feat was created by using more than 200 individual maps from 
geophysical companies, all of which are EnerGeo members. The maps cover 
135,000 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico with datasets spanning more 
than 30 years.
    The GOM is one of the least emissions-intensive resource plays in 
the world, second only to Norway. The basin's success and incredible 
production record is only possible with the innovation of the energy 
geoscience industry, specifically, seismic surveys. With every new leap 
in geoscience innovation, energy sources broaden, and energy 
discoveries & subsequently production significantly increases. EnerGeo 
members are investing millions in research and innovation, leveraging 
technology to solve our most complex energy challenges. With each step 
change in technology, there has been a commensurate increase in the 
number of discoverable reserves (See Figure 2).

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Surveys do not necessarily lead to hydrocarbon development. In 
fact, surveys determine both areas that are and are not likely to have 
recoverable oil and gas resources, and are imperative to ensure those 
basins that are developed are done so targeting the highest energy-
dense, and least emissions-intensive barrels, and with the lowest 
environmental footprint. Energy geoscience does not only critically 
prove barrels are produced with the smallest footprint, but our 
industry is also committed to ensure our work is conducted with the 
least emissions possible. In 2022, EnerGeo published ``Guidance for 
Estimating and Reporting Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions'', to provide 
GHG emissions-based guidance and resources for the marine geoscience 
survey industry. This ensures the appropriate focus on a ``transition'' 
to lower emissions, not away from energy when the world needs it most.
    Meeting the growing demand for energy that is more accessible, 
affordable, reliable, and cleaner will require greater collaboration. 
At EnerGeo Alliance, we are proud of our unique collaborations between 
industry, scientists, and governments to support energy access. EnerGeo 
has implemented the Gulf of Mexico Proactive Regulatory Observational 
Program (GOM-PROP) to provide a self-sustaining structure for the 
continued successful implementation of, and compliance with, both 
present and future Incidental Take Regulations (ITR), governing the 
operation of geoscience surveys in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Our 
industry has also created the Netuno environmental database program, 
focused on Brazil and recently expanded to cover the Americas, to 
compile data that has been collected since 2005 in a standardized 
manner, make it accessible, and transform it into knowledge for 
stakeholders--including the industry and regulators. Netuno is a 
virtual portal containing public environmental data, derived from 
project implementation required as part of the environmental 
permitting.
    Today's advancements in technology, which can pinpoint the most 
fruitful areas for hydrocarbon potential, siting of wind turbines 
offshore and locating areas for carbon storage, have contributed to 
reducing the overall environmental footprint associated with energy 
exploration. Advances in the technology we deploy have also helped to 
decrease operational and safety risks associated with energy 
development.
    Seismic and geoscience surveying is a well understood and safe 
industry practice, and informed policy decisions regarding offshore 
energy development can only be made with the evaluation provided by 
modern seismic survey technology. And it is for this very reason that 
environmental advocacy groups have actively worked to politicize the 
seismic survey permitting process, under the pretense of alleged harm 
to marine mammals.
    As the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have continually stated time and time 
again--throughout changing political administrations--to date, there 
has been no documented scientific evidence of noise from acoustic 
sources used in seismic activities adversely affecting marine animal 
populations or coastal communities.\5\ They note that this technology 
has been used for decades around the world, including in U.S. waters in 
the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska, with no known detrimental 
impact to marine life populations or to commercial fishing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ BOEM stated in its August 22, 2014 Science Note
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indeed, more than six decades of worldwide geoscience surveying and 
scientific research demonstrate that the risk of direct physical injury 
to marine mammals is extremely low, and there is no scientific evidence 
demonstrating biologically significant negative impacts on marine life 
populations. Because survey activities are temporary and transitory, 
they are the least intrusive way to explore the earth's geology. In the 
more than 60 years of seismic surveying in the Gulf of Mexico, there 
has not been a single reported incidence of sound from seismic 
operations injuring marine life.
    The geoscience industry is committed to conducting its operations 
in an environmentally responsible manner, and utilizes mitigation 
measures, such as exclusion zones, soft-starts, and protected species 
observers to further reduce any possibility of potential impacts to 
marine life. The industry supports a process of developing and 
implementing effective mitigation measures that are proportionate to 
the level of potential risk and specific to the local population of 
marine animals.
    The reality is the geoscience industry has a long track record of 
safe, responsible operations around the world. Unfortunately, the 
permitting of this activity critical to identifying the nation's energy 
supplies is too often stalled or impeded by extreme environmental 
advocacy organizations exploiting existing regulatory and litigation 
processes.
BOEM Permitting & NMFS Authorization Delays

    In the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), Congress 
expressly mandated the ``expeditious and orderly development'' of the 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) ``subject to environmental safeguards.'' 
43 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(3). Courts have since confirmed that ``the 
expeditious development of OCS resources'' is OCSLA's primary purpose. 
California v. Watt, 668 F.2d 1290, 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Congress 
enacted OCSLA to ``achieve national economic and energy policy goals, 
assure national security, reduce dependence on foreign sources, and 
maintain a favorable balance of payments in world trade.'' 43 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1802(1). Congress expressly intended to ``make [OCS] resources 
available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible.'' 
Id. Sec. 1802(2)(A). Geoscience surveying has been and continues to be 
essential to achieving OCSLA's requirements because it is the only 
feasible technology available to accurately image the subsurface of the 
OCS before a single energy source is developed.
    Offshore geoscience surveys require authorizations from BOEM, 
pursuant to OCSLA. See id. Sec. 1340. There is no requirement for an 
applicant for an offshore survey permit under OCSLA to obtain an 
incidental take authorization under the MMPA. However, unlawful 
``takes'' of marine mammals incidental to lawful activities (such as a 
permitted offshore seismic survey) may nevertheless be subject to MMPA-
based penalties. See 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1375. Accordingly, many applicants 
for offshore survey permits from BOEM also request incidental (i.e., 
unintentional) take authorization under the MMPA from the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ FWS has jurisdiction over polar bears, walrus, sea otters, 
dugongs, and manatees. NMFS has jurisdiction over all other marine 
mammals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this context, it is important to recognize that the permit 
issued by BOEM authorizes the seismic survey and the MMPA authorization 
narrowly addresses the incidental take associated with the seismic 
survey. NMFS and FWS do not have jurisdiction over the survey; their 
authority under the MMPA extends only to the authorization of 
incidental take. Notwithstanding the limited role of FWS and NMFS, MMPA 
authorizations are often the primary cause of administrative delay in 
the offshore geoscience survey permitting process.
    Specific to BOEM geoscience permitting, EnerGeo members have 
experienced certain ambiguities and identified areas that may make the 
permitting process run more efficiently in the following suggestions:

  1.  Industry finds the timeliness of the permit process for 
            geoscience activities to be open-ended and uncertain. 
            EnerGeo has recommended that BOEM establish a certain 
            timeline for permit review and approval. The timing 
            requirements for drilling permit review and approval is a 
            good example that BOEM should strive to achieve for 
            geoscience permits.

  2.  Industry has encouraged BOEM to explore the creation of an 
            electronic permit application process. Efficiencies for 
            permit processing and man-hours may be realized through 
            electronic permit applications. Many countries around the 
            world utilize electronic permit application processes. This 
            allows the applicant to monitor the status of the permit 
            process and timely provide any information requests from 
            BOEM. This has been seen to drastically decrease the permit 
            process timeline.

  3.  Geoscience operations are consistently utilizing the same vessels 
            throughout the offshore U.S. BOEM should take steps to 
            create a catalogue of vessel information and certificates 
            to reduce permitting costs and burden hours.

  4.  Industry encouraged BOEM to develop a catalogue of equipment used 
            in offshore geoscience activities, including Ocean Bottom 
            Nodes, Ocean Bottom Cables, Streamers, etc. This would 
            reduce the time needed to collect pictures and physical 
            samples of all parts and equipment deployed in the water 
            column. Permit applications could then reference these 
            materials to reduce time spent.

    Specific to NMFS MMPA authorization processes, EnerGeo members have 
experienced extensive delays and note the following particularly 
problematic areas:

  1.  IHAs involving offshore oil and gas-related activities are 
            rarely, if ever, issued within the timing requirements of 
            the MMPA. NMFS even states on its website that the IHA 
            permitting process takes at least six to nine months to 
            complete. The process often takes much longer. The MMPA 
            provides no consequences for such delay, nor does it 
            provide any incentives to NMFS and FWS to avoid delay.

  2.  Because the MMPA contains no timing requirements applicable to 
            ITRs, the regulatory process for the issuance of ITRs often 
            takes years and, in industry's view, is de-prioritized by 
            the agencies because other agency obligations are subject 
            to timing requirements and consequences.

  3.  The ESA Section 7 consultation process is cumbersome and time-
            consuming. The Section 7 process is also subject to 
            statutorily mandated deadlines, but those deadlines are 
            routinely ignored by NMFS and FWS without consequence. The 
            Section 7 consultation process is often a significant cause 
            of the delay in the issuance of an authorization under 
            Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA, even though the substantive 
            standard governing the Section 7 process is less stringent 
            than the MMPA's ``negligible impact'' standard.

  4.  Another significant source of delay in the issuance of MMPA 
            incidental take authorizations involves the estimation of 
            the number of ``takes'' that are expected to occur. Because 
            the MMPA's definition of ``take'' is extraordinarily broad 
            and ambiguous (more so than the ESA's definition of 
            ``take''), FWS and NMFS struggle to determine what 
            activities actually cause ``take'' and, as a result, they 
            apply extremely conservative assumptions to ensure that 
            their ``take'' estimation modeling encapsulates all 
            conceivable ``take'' (and more). This process results in 
            estimates that are inaccurate and vastly exaggerate the 
            number of ``takes'' that will actually occur.

  5.  The ``take'' estimation modeling exercises are considerably more 
            complicated and play an unduly important role in the 
            permitting process because the agencies are required to 
            demonstrate that the incidental take authorization will not 
            only have a ``negligible impact'' on the potentially 
            affected marine mammal stocks but also affect ``small 
            numbers'' of marine mammals. The term ``small numbers'' has 
            no biological significance whatsoever to the marine mammal 
            population and is a legal term of art that has notoriously 
            confused courts and regulators alike.
  6.  All of these regulatory problems and inefficiencies create 
            fertile ground for legal challenges by advocacy groups that 
            will readily file any and all available lawsuits for the 
            sole purpose of impeding and preventing the energy 
            development of the OCS.

    When it was enacted in the early 1970s (and subsequently amended), 
the congressional intent behind the MMPA was cutting-edge and forward-
thinking. However, as described above, decades of regulation and 
litigation have exposed some significant flaws in the MMPA. The primary 
flaws in the MMPA stem from (i) poorly written statutory language that 
creates ambiguity and uncertainty in the application of the MMPA's 
legal standards, and (ii) procedural duplication and inefficiency. 
These flaws result in agency delays, overly conservative and inaccurate 
impact analyses, confusion by agencies and courts, and exploitation by 
environmental advocacy groups. Fixing some of the obvious flaws in the 
MMPA could result in tangible regulatory improvements that increase 
efficiency, decrease uncertainty and risk, and ultimately benefit all 
stakeholders and citizens and the implementing agencies.
    The modeling exercises relied upon by BOEM and conducted by NMFS 
for incidental take regulations and authorizations often use a 
multiplicative series of conservatively biased assumptions for all 
uncertain parameter inputs. These assumptions lead to accumulating bias 
as the cumulative conservative assumptions add up to increasingly 
unlikely statistical probabilities that are not representative of real-
world conditions. Consequently, the results are improbable worst-case 
scenarios, not accurate representations of likely effects.\7\ Using 
more realistic risk criteria and modeling assumptions, and taking into 
account standard monitoring and mitigation practices employed by the 
geoscience industry, the more likely estimate of potential Level A 
takes is zero or a comparably small number. This more likely estimate 
is corroborated by the best available information, which includes no 
observations of any harm to marine mammal populations (in any region) 
as a result of seismic exploration activities. Importantly, the DC 
Circuit Court recently held that, ``. . . implementing regulations call 
for an empirical judgment about what is ``likely.'' The Service's role 
as an expert is undermined, not furthered, when it distorts that 
scientific judgment by indulging in worst-case scenarios and 
pessimistic assumptions to benefit a favored side'',\8\ agreeing that 
agencies shall adhere to the best available science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ A technical critique of the agencies' flawed, overly 
conservative approach, as reproduced in BOEM's ITR petition for Gulf of 
Mexico activities, is provided in Attachment B.
    \8\ Maine Lobstermen's Association v. National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 70 F.4th 582 (2023) No. 22-5238
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoscience for Offshore Wind & Carbon Capture and Storage

    The energy & geoscience industry is integral to meeting policies of 
lower carbon economies, including in the U.S. There are now 30 
commercial operational CCS facilities worldwide that have a capture 
capacity of 40 (Million tons per annum), more than 20 have come online 
in the last 2 years. Over half of these are in North America. An 
additional 141 facilities are in development or under construction and 
will provide an additional 112 Mtpa of capture capacity by 2030, but to 
go ``net zero'' by 2050, these figures would need to grow 140X!

    As these projects are developed it is critical that they are sited, 
designed, and managed in a manner that ensures and demonstrates the 
long-term technical and environmental integrity of the storage or 
sequestration. A vibrant geoscience industry is integral in meeting 
these lofty goals and well-defined efficient regulatory processes are 
required by U.S. and other policy makers.

    In March 2021, the Biden administration has set an ambitious goal 
of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind electricity generation by 
2030.\9\ Further, in April 2023 the President highlighted new steps the 
United States was taking to meet its ambitious 1.5+C-aligned goal of 
reducing emissions 50-52 percent in 2030. Noting it would ``require 
responsible deployment of carbon capture, utilization, and storage 
(CCUS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies . . . CCUS has a 
critical role to play in decarbonizing the global economy, particularly 
the industrial sector, where process emissions are more difficult to 
address.'' \10\ These goals are simply not possible without the 
geoscience industry and the current regulatory delays and litigation 
impediments will disallow implementing the vast offshore wind and CCS 
needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ FACT SHEET: Biden Administration Jumpstarts Offshore Wind 
Energy Projects to Create Jobs https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2021/03/29/fact-sheet-biden-administration-
jumpstarts-offshore-wind-energy-projects-to-create-jobs/
    \10\ FACT SHEET: President Biden to Catalyze Global Climate Action 
through the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/20/fact-
sheet-president-biden-to-catalyze-global-climate-action-through-the-
major-economies-forum-on-energy-and-climate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following this ambitious goal, the Administration mandated the 
Department of Interior to publish CCS regulations by November 2022, a 
deadline that was missed and is still outstanding. Policymakers should 
prioritize now the infrastructure required, including ensuring the 
efficient permitting of geoscience surveys needed for the 
identification and monitoring of the storage areas.
    EnerGeo continues to call on BOEM and the current administration to 
propose long-overdue regulations for offshore Carbon Capture and 
Storage (CCS). Further, EnerGeo recently commented on BOEM's efforts to 
provide efficiencies in the regulations for development of offshore 
wind on the U.S. OCS for geoscience permitting. We strongly encourage 
BOEM to align regulations which currently exist or may be in 
development, which are specific to certain energy sources or low-carbon 
solutions; mainstay (gas and oil), alternative, carbon sequestration, 
marine minerals, and hydrogen, so that geoscience activities are 
analyzed and authorized under the same metrics.
    Regulations should not be used to differentiate between given 
energy sources when it comes to permitting geoscience activities. Our 
members execute surveys and use advanced technology to provide products 
to energy developers and producers--those activities employ the same 
general techniques regardless of whether their clients are developing 
gas and oil or offshore wind, the regulations should not make a 
distinction either. There is currently estimated 6,300 square miles 
available in the Lower Miocene of GOM for offshore carbon capture 
capacity with capability to contain 100s of billions of tons of CO2 
emissions.

    The energy geoscience industry has recommended the following to 
BOEM on development of offshore CCS regulations:

Permitting Certainty

     Defined timelines on approving or denying requested 
            permits.

     The process should not differ in a significant way from 
            existing geoscience permitting processes for hydrocarbons.

     The geoscience industry has a long history of obtaining 
            permits with the expectation that science-based mitigation 
            measures will match the potential impacts from activities.

     The geoscience industry supports a research and evaluation 
            phase, pre-leasing.

Lease Rounds

     Regularly held, predictable and well-defined lease rounds 
            should be held for CCS, if existing hydrocarbon leases will 
            not be available for CCS. Clarity from the agencies is 
            required on how leasing will be conducted for CCS.

     Recognition by BOEM and Federal Agencies of the critical 
            role of existing geoscience data available for licensing 
            and for bidding on CCS--and avoid disclosure of 
            confidential industry intellectual property.

     Lease lengths should be consistent with hydrocarbon 
            leases.

On-Lease

     Once leases have been awarded, or CCS work programs are 
            being developed, requirements for geoscience data to 
            confirm geological stability and for carbon injection 
            should be included.

     Monitoring requirements throughout the lease term will 
            require geoscience activity to confirm safe injection and 
            stability of depleted reservoirs and/or aquifers.

Post-Lease

     Following the expiration of a lease term, continued 
            monitoring of the injection site will be required.

     Liability should be borne by the Federal Government, ie: 
            Plume Leaks. At no time should liability surrounding the 
            sequestration site be placed on geoscience companies 
            providing data to the leaseholders or the government.

Conclusion

    By 2050 the world population will increase to 9.8 billion and total 
energy use is expected to increase by 34 percent. The projected energy 
mix to meet this demand; 22% natural gas, 20% coal, 28% petroleum and 
other liquids, 4% nuclear, and 26% alternatives. With the current 
global energy supply crisis, a growing population and inflation on the 
rise, citizens around the world will need greater access to reliable 
and affordable energy, including petroleum and natural gas, as well as 
alternative energies.
    The energy geoscience industry has always been in the business of 
minimizing the footprint, by pinpointing where the resource is and 
importantly where it is not, allowing companies and policymakers to 
identify and prioritize high-density, low-carbon intensive energy 
sources, closer to existing infrastructure and the end user, locating 
where offshore wind facilities are best suited for harnessing the 
energy from wind, prolonging the life of existing natural gas and 
petroleum assets, and making it possible to store carbon beneath the 
surface. Geoscience surveys provide the information governments and 
policymakers need to make informed decisions in the best interest of 
their citizens regarding accessing mainstay energy and alternative 
sources, as well as developing low-carbon strategies. As nations 
develop and implement their energy evolution goals to make reliable, 
affordable energy available to their citizens and meet Net Zero 
Emissions (NZE) policy ambitions, it is important to understand that 
those goals cannot and will not be realized without the critical data 
and technology the geoscience industry provides.

    At EnerGeo we are advocating to ensure all policymakers and energy 
companies have access to reliable data and analysis to support their 
forward-moving efforts.

    With an increasing need for energy from all sources, many predict 
the energy industry is at the start of an ``international upcycle.'' 
Where the industry invests now will be influenced by where they have 
access to insight (data), infrastructure and supportive regulatory and 
policy structures.
    We urge Congress to review the MMPA and pass meaningful reform, 
that will rectify the existing delays for geoscience survey 
authorizations and urge the administration to implement regulations to 
provide for efficient carbon capture and storage projects on the OCS. 
Streamlining the permitting process along with reducing the ability for 
outside special interest groups to obstruct energy exploration is a 
necessary step to ensure our continued development of energy resources 
and low carbon solutions for future generations in the U.S.

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Joe Dryer, President & CEO, 
                       Fairfield Geotechnologies

             Questions Submitted by Representative Fulcher

    Question 1. Can you discuss the latest technological advancements 
in seismic surveying and how they can improve the accuracy and depth of 
offshore energy resource assessments?

    Answer. The geoscience industry, through a global competitive 
market, continually advances technologies to better image the 
subsurface. Our industry is made up of technology companies that 
utilize computer processing capabilities second only to the U.S. 
military, allowing for ever faster processing times and delivery of 
more accurate imaging of the globes subsurface.
    In the recent past, the industry has been deploying ocean bottom 
nodes (OBN) and at an increasing pace the industry uses remote operated 
vehicles (ROV) or autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) to place the 
nodes. The use of nodes, to receive the sound refraction from below the 
surface, allows for vast areas to be covered by data acquisition 
through fewer vessels on the surface. Further, acquiring data through 
use of nodes allows for larger offsets (wider angle) which has shown an 
increase in image quality and accuracy.
    The geoscience industry is conducting 4D (time) surveys at a higher 
rate than in the past, allowing for the extension of the life of oil 
and natural gas producing basins, ensuring the industry is targeting 
energy dense resources with lowest footprint possible. Additionally, 4D 
surveys are the only viable solution to monitoring sites for CO2 
injection to ensure the carbon remains in the targeted location and 
whether the plume is migrating over time.
    Further, advances in geoscience sources (compressed air sources) 
are allowing the industry to focus the sound produced at the lower 
frequencies which removes various marine life species from possible 
exposure to sound generated by our industry's activities. It is 
important to note here, as I included in my testimony, more than six 
decades of worldwide geoscience surveying and scientific research 
demonstrate that the risk of direct physical injury to marine mammals 
is extremely low, and there is no scientific evidence demonstrating 
biologically significant negative impacts on marine life populations. 
Geoscience survey activities are temporary and transitory, and are the 
most effective way to explore the earth's geology. In the more than 60 
years of seismic surveying in the Gulf of Mexico, there has not been a 
single reported incidence of sound from seismic operations injuring 
marine life.

    Today's advancements in technology, which can pinpoint the most 
fruitful areas for hydrocarbon potential, siting of wind turbines 
offshore and locating areas for carbon storage, have contributed to 
reducing the overall environmental footprint associated with energy 
exploration. Advances in the technology we deploy have also helped to 
decrease operational and safety risks associated with energy 
development.

    Question 2. From your perspective, what are the major hurdles in 
conducting more comprehensive and up-to-date seismic surveys for the 
OCS and how might these be overcome?

    Answer. Without question, the major hurdle to conducting a more 
comprehensive and up-to-date geoscience library evaluating the 
resources for the U.S. OCS, is bureaucratic delays and duplicative 
processes for permitting and environmental authorizations with little 
to no benefit for the marine environment and marine life. 
Unfortunately, the permitting of this activity critical to identifying 
the nation's energy supplies is too often stalled or impeded by groups 
opposed to the identification/imaged (mapped) energy source--whether 
wind, petroleum or natural gas--exploiting existing regulatory and 
litigation processes.
    Starting at page 4 in my written testimony, ``BOEM Permitting & 
NMFS Authorization Delays'', I provide detailed explanation of current 
hurdles to permitting, and suggestions on how the processes could be 
more efficient. Fairfield Geotechnologies, through our participation in 
the EnerGeo Alliance, urges Congress to pass legislation to ameliorate 
the redundant processes such as the duplicative authorizations/
consultation required within the Marine Mammal Protect Act (MMPA) and 
Endangered Species Act (ESA), which have twisted those statutes into 
something never intended resulting in ambiguity, uncertainty and costly 
delays in the permitting process.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Rosendale. I thank Mr. Dryer for his testimony. Our 
final witness is Mr. Kendall Dix, and he is the National Policy 
Director for Taproot Earth, and is stationed in 
Charlottesville, Virginia.
    Mr. Dix, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF KENDALL DIX, NATIONAL POLICY DIRECTOR, TAPROOT 
                EARTH, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Dix. Hello. Thank you for inviting me here today to 
testify in front of this Committee. I will read a brief 
statement here, but have submitted a longer statement for 
inclusion in the record.
    My name is Kendall Dix. As a former career line cook in New 
Orleans, I have vivid memories of my time as a low-wage worker 
who was forced to work through hurricane evacuations while my 
family begged me to leave. Through my later work as a 
sustainable fisheries advocate, and then an organizer working 
in the industrial corridor along the Mississippi River, an area 
infamously known as Cancer Alley, I am all too aware of the oil 
and gas industry's impact on the people and the environment of 
the Gulf Coast. The oil and money flow out while the pollution 
remains; the people get poorer and sicker; and the climate 
disasters get worse every year.
    I am now a policy specialist at Taproot Earth, a global 
climate justice organization rooted in Slidell, Louisiana. We 
work with communities across 18 states, from the Gulf south, up 
through Appalachia, and across the globe. We evolved out of an 
organization called the Gulf Coast Center for Law and Policy, 
which was founded in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a 
climate disaster that killed thousands of people and changed 
the Gulf south region forever. Taproot Earth is an organization 
that works with communities to advance solutions around 
essential resources such as water, energy, and land to ensure 
that we can address climate change in an ecological and 
holistic way.
    I am honored, excited, and extremely nervous to testify in 
front of you today, but I am also a bit tired. I am tired and 
frustrated that somebody from the climate and environmental 
world is again being asked to convince you that oil and gas 
extraction is harming people on the planet, and that we should 
actually do something to change it. I am exhausted from seeing 
good people attend funeral after funeral of their loved ones in 
Cancer Alley, while policymakers insist that nothing can be 
done to permit their premature deaths.
    At every stage of its life cycle, from when it is extracted 
to when it is refined, burned, and/or transformed into forever 
chemicals that may never break down, oil and gas is toxic to 
human health and the environment. Not only are these impacts 
making the planet unlivable, they are disproportionately 
harming poor, rural, Black, Indigenous, and communities of 
color who have already suffered under centuries of systemic 
discrimination in this country. To continue leasing oil and gas 
extraction in the Gulf of Mexico is to continue sacrificing the 
region.
    As an organization, Taproot Earth works for climate 
justice. That does mean phasing out fossil fuels, but it also 
means simultaneously addressing the legacies of racism and 
domination. We are working for a world in which we can all 
live, rest, and thrive in the places we call home. However, 
most of the people I know and love in this world live in south 
Louisiana. Between catastrophic storms, skyrocketing insurance 
rates, poor water quality, extreme heat waves, and school and 
housing closures, the climate crisis is displacing people right 
now. The problem is even worse than we thought.
    The good news is that we now have viable alternatives to 
oil and gas, such as wind and solar, that will reduce our 
energy system's impact on the environment and make our region 
more resilient to climate disruption. However, oil and gas 
infrastructure can directly compete with or block these 
solutions. Simply put, you cannot build a wind turbine or run a 
transmission cable through an active oil and gas pipeline 
without risking another catastrophic oil spill.
    More than 18,000 miles of pipelines lie abandoned in the 
sea floor, in addition to 2,700 wells and 500 drilling 
platforms. The Government Accountability Office recently 
released two harrowing reports that show the Federal Government 
has failed for years to stop polluters from littering our 
public lands and waters with their garbage. While some parts of 
energy policy can be technical or complicated, making sure 
companies clean up their mess is not one of those issues.
    The time has long passed for us to move away from energy 
sources that poison our people and planet. We can build a world 
that upholds the rights of everyone to have clean air to 
breathe, clean water to drink, and no more abandoned wells and 
pipelines in the oceans. However, that world does not include 
additional fossil fuel extraction.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dix follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Kendall Dix, National Policy Specialist,
                             Taproot Earth

    Dear Committee Members, my name is Kendall Dix. As a former career 
line cook in New Orleans, I have vivid memories of time as a low wage 
worker who was forced to work through hurricane evacuations while my 
family begged me to leave. Through my later work as a sustainable 
fisheries advocate and then an organizer working in the industrial 
corridor along the Mississippi River--an area infamously known as 
Cancer Alley--I am all too aware of the oil and gas industry's impact 
on the people and environment of the Gulf Coast. The oil and money flow 
out, while the pollution remains, the people get poorer and sicker, and 
the climate disasters get worse every year.
    I'm now a policy specialist at Taproot Earth, a global climate 
justice organization rooted in Slidell, Louisiana. We work with 
communities across 18 states from the Gulf South up through Appalachia 
and across the globe. We evolved out of an organization called the Gulf 
Coast Center for Law and Policy, which was founded in the aftermath of 
Hurricane Katrina, a climate disaster that killed thousands of people 
and changed the Gulf South region forever. Taproot Earth is an 
organization that works with communities to advance solutions around 
essential resources such as water, energy, and land to ensure that we 
can address climate change in an ecological and holistic way.
    I am honored, excited, and nervous to testify in front of you 
today, but I am also a bit tired. I'm tired and frustrated that 
somebody from the climate and environmental world is again being asked 
to convince you that oil and gas extraction is harming people and the 
planet and that we should actually do something to stop it. I am 
exhausted from seeing good people attend funeral after funeral of their 
loved ones in Cancer Alley while policymakers insist that nothing can 
be done to prevent their premature deaths.
    At every stage of its life cycle from when it is extracted to when 
it is refined, burned, and/or transformed into forever chemicals that 
may never break down, oil and gas is toxic to human health and the 
environment. Not only are these impacts making the planet unlivable, 
they are disproportionately harming poor, rural, Black, Indigenous, and 
communities of color who have already suffered under centuries of 
systemic discrimination in this country. To continue leasing oil and 
gas extraction in the Gulf of Mexico is to continue sacrificing the 
region. As an organization, Taproot Earth works for climate justice. 
That does mean phasing out fossil fuels, but it also means 
simultaneously addressing the legacies of racism and domination, so we 
can all live, rest, and thrive in the places we call home. Most of the 
people I know and love in this world live in South Louisiana. Between 
catastrophic storms, skyrocketing insurance rates, poor water quality, 
extreme heat waves, and school and housing closures, the climate crisis 
is displacing people now. The problem is even worse than we thought.
    The good news is that we now have viable alternatives to oil and 
gas, such as wind and solar, that will reduce our energy system's 
impacts on the environment and make our region more resilient to 
climate disruption. However, oil and gas infrastructure can directly 
compete with or block these solutions. You cannot build a wind turbine 
or run a transmission cable through an oil and gas pipeline without 
risking another catastrophic oil spill.
    More than 18,000 miles of pipelines lie abandoned in the sea floor, 
in addition to 2,700 wells and 500 drilling platforms. The Government 
Accountability Office recently released two harrowing reports that show 
the federal government has failed for years to stop polluters from 
littering our public lands and waters with their garbage.1,2 
While some parts of energy policy can be technical or complicated, 
making sure companies clean up their mess is not one of those issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``Offshore Oil and Gas: 
Interior Needs to Improve Decommissioning Enforcement and Mitigate 
Related Risks,'' January 2024, https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24106229.pdf
    \2\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``Oil and Gas Pipelines: 
Agencies Should Improve Oversight of Decommissioning,'' January 18, 
2024, https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24106444.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The time has long passed for us to move away from energy sources 
that poison our people and planet. We can build a world that upholds 
the rights of everyone to have clean air to breathe, clean water to 
drink, and no more abandoned wells pipelines in the oceans. That world 
does not include more fossil fuel extraction.
Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on the Gulf of Mexico

    The storm surge that made Hurricane Katrina so devastating was a 
direct result of the damage caused by decades of oil and gas extraction 
and its associated pipelines that destroy coastal wetlands and cause 
sea level rise through the burning of fossil fuels. Emissions drive 
ocean acidification as well as deadly methane and other toxic 
pollution. Further, there are documented slow leakages and pipeline 
accidents related to associated infrastructure, and property values 
near these sites continue to decrease. Addressing climate change now by 
ceasing to extract fossil fuels would be just the first step toward 
repairing the harm the industry has wrought.

    Abandoned Oil and Gas Infrastructure: Since the 1960s, the Bureau 
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has allowed the offshore 
oil and gas industry to leave 97% of pipelines (18,000 miles) on the 
seafloor when no longer in use.\3\ As mentioned above, this aging oil 
and gas infrastructure inhibits the development of offshore wind. 
Unfortunately, many companies who own offshore oil rigs at the end of 
their life cycle are no longer financially solvent.\4\ To make sure 
this doesn't happen in the future, the Department of Interior (DOI) 
must end the practice of allowing lessees and Right of Way holders to 
decommission pipelines in place. The DOI must require that all 
pipelines be removed and operators clear the seafloor of all 
obstructions created by the lease and the pipeline right-of-way 
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``Offshore Oil and Gas: 
Updated Regulations Needed to Improve Pipeline Oversight and 
Decommissioning,'' March 19, 2021, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-
293.
    \4\ Wolf, Alex, ``Bankruptcies Fueling Environmental Crisis at 
Abandoned Oil Wells,'' Bloomberg Law, September 2, 2021, https://
news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/bankruptcies-fueling-
environmental-crisis-at-abandoned-oil-wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOI should also complete and issue its financial assurance 
rulemaking and require lessees to hold fully vested trust funds and/or 
a sinking trust fund and supplemental financial assurance for all 
infrastructure and wells. The recent Fieldwood Bankruptcy and the still 
existing gap between the cost to decommission all associated 
infrastructure reveals an eminent crisis if not met with appropriate 
government actions. The government must require cash on hand to cover 
asset retirement obligations if companies seek to profit from the 
collective resources of the U.S.
    For infrastructure in the ocean that has already been 
decommissioned in place, the Secretary of Interior should order all 
lessees to remove the pipelines immediately.\5\ 30 CFR Sec. 250.1754 
establishes clear authority to the BSEE Regional Supervisor to order 
the removal of a pipeline decommissioned in place if that pipeline 
constitutes an obstruction. These pipelines provide no physical or 
material benefit to the American public, but they do impose an 
artificial limit on how much area can be available for offshore wind 
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ 30 CFR Sec. 250.1754.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We recommend the establishment of an ``Idle Iron Pipeline'' program 
to make this administratively feasible. The Department should identify 
which of the 18,000 miles of decommissioned pipelines in place obstruct 
future offshore wind, and prioritize their expedient removal. If the 
lessees are not financially solvent, DOI should be funded to remove 
this infrastructure itself, and Congress should fund this activity with 
a tax on companies that benefit from offshore oil and gas drilling. 
Anything less than aggressively removing oil and gas infrastructure no 
longer in use delays the buildout of American offshore wind and 
functions as a de facto subsidy to the oil and gas industry.
    Unfortunately, offshore oil and gas infrastructure and proposed 
development in federal waters hinder transition to renewable sources. 
For example, oil and gas rigs require a 500-ft setback for and active 
oil pipelines require a 200-ft setback as noted in a July 2022 memo by 
Michael Celata, BOEM's Gulf of Mexico Regional Director.\6\ This makes 
sense because interactions between turbines and oil rigs/pipelines 
could cause oil spills or other dangerous disasters, but it also means 
that you can't build anything--including offshore wind infrastructure 
anywhere near oil infrastructure. With so much oil and gas 
infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, otherwise viable wind energy 
areas have been and will continue to be limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Celata, Michael, ``Request for Concurrence on Preliminary Wind 
Energy Areas for the Gulf of Mexico Area Identification Process 
Pursuant to 30 C.F.R. Sec. 585.211(b),'' Memorandum dated July 20, 
2022, p. 13, https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents//
Draft%20Area%20ID% 20Memo%20GOM%20508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is a map of oil and gas drilling platforms both historical and 
active, pipelines, and active leases in the Gulf of Mexico: \7\ It 
affirms that Southeastern Louisiana has far too much oil and gas 
infrastructure for wind energy to be developed safely:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Fracktracker, Oil and Gas Infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico 
https://maps.fractracker.org/latest/
?appid=0b3260e4417d4299b750b6b2447d7f33.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For reference, here are the Wind Energy Areas that BOEM chose:

 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
    

    Here is a map of industry interest from the July 20 Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) memo: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Celata, Michael, ``Request for Concurrence on Preliminary Wind 
Energy Areas for the Gulf of Mexico Area Identification Process 
Pursuant to 30 C.F.R. Sec. 585.211(b),'' Memorandum dated July 20, 
2022, p. 32, https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents//
Draft%20Area%20ID% 20Memo%20GOM%20508.pdf.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT3


    Comments by regional director Celata at an August 22, 2022 
meeting hosted by BOEM confirm what these maps indicate. Celata was 
asked directly whether oil and gas infrastructure that had been 
decommissioned in place was inhibiting offshore wind development. He 
answered that the proposed Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) were selected 
because wind companies would be able to run new infrastructure 
``around'' the existing oil infrastructure to the shore, unlike most of 
the rest of the coast which is too thick with oil gear to make it 
practicable.
    Further, BOEM has made previous decisions to site oil and gas 
infrastructure in southeast Louisiana, and we can only conclude that 
these decisions are a direct cause of the region not being selected by 
BOEM for offshore wind development. As BOEM may begin to permit 
dangerous and unnecessary offshore carbon capture and storage 
infrastructure, these pipeline conflicts will only continue to grow. 
This is particularly troubling because the Gulf of Mexico has some of 
the highest net technical wind energy potential of any region.\9\ 
Taproot Earth's view is that carbon capture and storage is a false 
solution that will extend the life of fossil fuels and dump more 
pollution in overburdened frontline communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Lopez, Anthony et al. ``Offshore Wind Energy Technical 
Potential for the Contiguous United States, National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory, August 15, 2022, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/
83650.pdf.

    Ocean Acidification: The emissions from oil and gas extraction are 
fueling the acidification of the ocean.\10\ The risks to marine goods 
and services amplify with increasing acidification causing shifts to 
macroalgal dominance, habitat degradation and a loss of biodiversity at 
seep sites in the tropics, the sub-tropics and on temperate coasts.\11\ 
Based on this empirical evidence, scientists expect ocean acidification 
to have serious consequences for all of us who are dependent on coastal 
protection, fisheries and aquaculture.\12\ If we don't stop extracting 
fossil fuels, we risk the collapse of ocean ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Xiangfeng Zeng, Xijuan Chen, Jie Zhuang, ``The positive 
relationship between ocean acidification and pollution,'' Marine 
Pollution Bulletin, Volume 91, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 14-21, ISSN 0025-
326X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.001.
    \11\ Jason M. Hall-Spencer, Ben P. Harvey; Ocean acidification 
impacts on coastal ecosystem services due to habitat degradation. Emerg 
Top Life Sci 10 May 2019; 3 (2): 197-206. doi: https://doi.org/10.1042/
ETLS20180117.
    \12\ Id.

    Drilling Disasters: Offshore oil drilling can lead to catastrophic 
drilling disasters, such as the BP Drilling Disaster of 2010.\13\ The 
BP disaster directly killed 11 human beings and millions of living 
creatures that live in or around the Gulf of Mexico. In total, it 
caused an estimated $17.2 billion in damage to the Gulf of Mexico 
ecosystem.\14\ The BP drilling disaster is an example of the 
catastrophic damage done when offshore drilling goes wrong, but even 
without gross negligence and recklessness, offshore drilling has 
negative impacts on the marine, coastal and human environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Department of Justice, ``U.S. and Five Gulf States Reach 
Historic Settlement with BP to Resolve Civil Lawsuit Over Deepwater 
Horizon Oil Spill,'' October 15, 2015, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/
us-and-five-gulf-states-reach-historic-settlement-bp-resolve-civil-
lawsuit-over-deepwater.
    \14\ Bishop, R.C. et al.''Putting a value on injuries to natural 
assets: The BP oil spill,'' Science 356(6335), 2017, doi:10.1126/
science.aam8124

    Slow Leakage of Oil and Gas at Drill Sites: In 2018, scientists 
discovered that a 14-year-old oil spill owned by Taylor Energy was 
leaking much more oil than previously thought.\15\ Taylor had been 
caused by a hurricane-induced mudslide. Taylor Energy tried to cover up 
the spill, and it was mostly ignored by regulators until citizen 
scientists visually documented the spill's oil sheen during a 
monitoring flight in 2010. Oil spills caused by hurricanes are a 
guaranteed outcome when you permit oil and gas infrastructure in the 
Gulf of Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Dears, Darryl, ``A 14-Year-Long Oil Spill in the Gulf of 
Mexico Verges on Becoming One of the Worst in US History,'' The 
Washington Post, October 23, 2018, https://www.agricanto.org/uploads/5/
2/6/3/52634281/a_14-year-long_oil_spill_in_the_gulf_of_mexico.pdf.

    Emissions from Normal Operations: Methane, a powerful greenhouse 
gas, is an inevitable byproduct of oil and gas extraction. Each year, 
oil and gas operations emit an amount of methane that is equivalent to 
211 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, or about 4 percent of total 
U.S. emissions.\16\ Even when operations are going well, the extraction 
sector is a major contributor to the climate crisis before the fuels 
are even burned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ United States Environmental Protection Agency, ``Estimates of 
Methane Emissions by Segment in the United States (2020),'' https://
www.epa.gov/natural-gas-star-program/estimates-methane-emissions-
segment-united-states

    Pipeline accidents: Offshore oil drilling requires the building of 
pipelines to move the oil and gas onshore where it reaches refineries 
and other pipeline networks. These pipelines leak and sometimes 
explode. Over 2,600 hazardous gas pipeline leaks in the United States 
caused more than $4 billion in damages and emergency services, killed 
122 people, and released 26.6 billion cubic feet of fuel as methane or 
carbon dioxide over a 10 year period.\17\ The only way to prevent these 
accidents from happening is to stop extracting oil and gas and 
transporting it via pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Dutzik, Tony, Abraham Scarr, and Matt Casale, ``Methane Gas 
Leaks: Frequent leaks are resulting in death, injury and other damage 
to our health and environment,'' U.S. PIRG, Environment America, and 
Frontier Group, June 2022, https://publicinterestnetwork.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/05/USP-EA-FG-Methane-Gas-Leaks-Jun22-screen_0.pdf

    Other toxic emissions: After oil and gas is extracted from the Gulf 
of Mexico, it arrives onshore for refining. The family of products 
derived from oil and gas is vast. It includes gasoline, plastics, 
fertilizers, and more.\18\ The factories where these products are 
refined are located all over the country, but they are heavily 
concentrated in the Gulf South and other places near the sites of 
extraction.\19\ While Black and Hispanic people suffer nearly 48 
percent of the pollution exposure from such sites, they receive barely 
a fifth of the total jobs.\20\ The disparity is particularly pronounced 
in the oil and gas industry, especially for Black workers, who hold 
just 9 percent of the jobs in oil and gas extraction and earn 23 
percent less than their white counterparts.\21\ Race--not poverty--is 
the strongest predictor of exposure to PM 2.5, a health-damaging 
particle created when fossil fuels are burned.\22\ Environmental racism 
is baked into the fossil fuel extraction industry and its downstream 
toxic affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Department of Energy, ``Products Made From Oil and Gas,'' 
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/11/f68/
Products%20Made%20From%20Oil%20and%20Natural%20Gas%20 Infographic.pdf.
    \19\ Shaw, Al, Lylla Younes and Ava Koffman, ``The Most Detailed 
Map of Cancer-Causing Industrial Air Pollution in the U.S.,'' 
ProPublica, November 2, 2021, https://projects.propublica.org/toxmap/.
    \20\ Neuhauser, Alan, ``Minority Communities Near Industrial Sites 
Get Pollution, Not Jobs,'' US News and World Report, October 1, 2018, 
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-10-01/minority-
communities-near-industrial-sites-get-pollution-not-jobs.
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ Mikati, Ihab et al. ``Disparities in Distribution of 
Particulate Matter Emission Sources by Race and Poverty Status,'' 
American Journal of Public Health 108, 2018, p. 480-485, https://
doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304297.

    Decreased property values: Home prices along the Gulf Coast are 
already much lower than on the Pacific or Atlantic Coasts.\23\ This 
makes sense given the amount of fossil fuel extraction along the Gulf 
Coast.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ National Association of Realtors, ``County Median Home Prices
    \24\ US Minerals Management Service, `` http://www.mms.gov/ld/PDFs/
OCSstatusMap8e(3).pdf

    We know that fossil fuel development can cause property values to 
fall. Applying a research design based on the openings and closings of 
1,600 industrial plants to rich data on housing markets and infant 
health, one study found that plant openings lead to 11 percent declines 
in housing values within 0.5 mile.\25\ The same study found that a 
plant's operation is associated with a roughly 3 percent increase in 
the probability of low birth weight within 1 mile. It reasons that 
people don't want to live near fossil fuel infrastructure because they 
correctly associate it with poor health impacts. In order to protect 
people's health and wealth stored in the value of their homes, BOEM 
should cease permitting new fossil fuel infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Currie J. et al. ``Environmental Health Risks and Housing 
Values: Evidence from 1,600 Toxic Plant Openings and Closings.'' Am 
Econ Rev. 2015 Feb;105(2):678-709. doi: 10.1257/aer.20121656. PMID: 
27134284; PMCID: PMC4847734.

    Land loss: Oil and gas extracted offshore must eventually come 
onshore for processing and transportation via pipeline. The building of 
pipelines requires digging up the earth to bury them. In coastal 
habitats, this can lead to land loss. In Louisiana, Outer Continental 
Shelf pipelines covered 480 square miles of wetlands and land, and the 
navigation channels covered 137 square miles, representing about 11 
percent of the Louisiana coast.\26\ The construction of pipelines 
related to oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf of the 
Gulf of Mexico ``can cause locally intense habitat changes, thereby 
contributing to the loss of critically important land and wetland 
areas.'' \27\ Louisiana has now lost more than 2,000 miles of land, 
roughly equivalent to the state of Delaware.\28\ The National OCS Oil 
and Gas Leasing Program is directly responsible for a portion of this 
land loss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Johnston, James & Cahoon, Donald & La Peyre, Megan, ``Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS)-Related Pipelines and Navigation Canals in the 
Western and Central Gulf of Mexico: Relative Impacts on Wetland 
Habitats and Effectiveness of Mitigation.'' U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 
Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico Region, New Orleans, LA. 
OCS Study MMS 2009-048. 200 pp.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ United States Geological Service, ``Louisiana's Changing 
Coastal Wetlands,'' July 12, 2017, https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-
news-release/usgs-louisianas-rate-coastal-wetland-loss-continues-slow
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Land loss makes the region more vulnerable to hurricanes, as we saw 
during Hurricanes Katrina, Ida and others. When Hurricane Ida struck in 
2021, it remained a Category 3 hurricane long after ``landfall'' 
because so little land was left to stop the storm.\29\ When those 
hurricanes hit, they can cause spills at the toxic facilities that 
process oil and gas. After Hurricane Ida, there were more than 2,000 
chemical spills.\30\ New oil and gas extraction would only make future 
impacts worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Pappas, Stephanie, ``Why did Hurricane Ida stay so strong for 
so long?,'' Live Science, August 30, 2021, https://www.livescience.com/
hurrixacane-ida-brown-ocean.html.
    \30\ Baurick, Tristan, ``Reports of Hurricane Ida oil, chemical 
spills escalate in Louisiana waters,'' nola.com, September 8, 2021, 
https://www.nola.com/news/environment/article_0d4b138c-10dc-11ec-8269-
cfc16666a808.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fossil fuels are primarily extracted to be burned for energy. When 
they are burned, they create toxic pollution. Exposure to this 
pollution causes lung cancer.\31\ Like other forms of pollution, this 
air pollution from burning fossil fuels disproportionately impacts poor 
people and people of color.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Chen G et al. ``Traffic-related air pollution and lung cancer: 
A meta-analysis,'' Thorac Cancer, 2015 May;6(3):307-18. doi: 10.1111/
1759-7714.12185. Epub 2015 Apr 24. PMID: 26273377; PMCID: PMC4448375.
    \32\ Park YM, Kwan MP. Understanding Racial Disparities in Exposure 
to Traffic-Related Air Pollution: Considering the Spatiotemporal 
Dynamics of Population Distribution. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 
2020 Feb 1;17(3):908. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17030908. PMID: 32024171; 
PMCID: PMC7037907.

    Pollution from oil and gas derivatives: Oil and gas is used to make 
plastics, which are harmful to human health at every stage of their 
life cycles.\33\ Once plastic reaches the environment in the form of 
macro or microplastics, it slowly fragments into smaller particles, 
where it contaminates all areas of the environment (air, water, and 
soil), accumulates in food chains, and releases toxic additives or 
concentrates additional toxic chemicals in the environment, making them 
bioavailable again for direct or indirect human exposure.\34\ This 
affects cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal, neurological, 
reproductive, and respiratory systems, impacts include cancers, 
diabetes, neuro-, reproductive, and developmental toxicity.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Azoulay, David et al. ``Plastic & Health The Hidden Costs of a 
Plastic Planet,'' February 2019, https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/02/Plastic-and-Health-The-Hidden-Costs-of-a-Plastic-
Planet-February-2019.pdf.
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are chemicals that are a 
part of the plastics family. PFAS are synthetic substances that are 
toxic in minuscule amounts and do not break down in the 
environment.\36\ They end up in the water supply, eventually 
accumulating in the human body over time and causing a range of serious 
health effects.\37\ These ``forever chemicals'' are used in fracking 
fluid for oil and gas, including in offshore oil drilling in the Gulf 
of Mexico, where they escape to the broader environment.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Kelso, Matt, ``Mapping Pfas: Forever Chemicals In Oil & Gas 
Operations,'' Fractracker Alliance, July 15, 2021, https://
www.fractracker.org/2021/07/mapping-pfas-forever-chemicals-in-oil-gas-
operations/
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Center for Biological Diversity, ``Toxic Waters: How Offshore 
Fracking Pollutes the Gulf of Mexico,'' July 2021, https://
www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/fracking/pdfs/Toxic-Waters-
offshore-fracking-report-Center-for-Biological-Diversity.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chemical fertilizers are responsible for 2.4 percent of global 
emissions, or more than the aviation industry.\39\ Fertilizers are 
derived from oil and gas and processed in highly toxic and greenhouse 
gas-intensive refineries.\40\ About 20 percent of these nutrients are 
lost to runoff or leach into the groundwater.\41\ This nutrient 
pollution eventually flows to the ocean where it fuels harmful algae 
blooms that kill marine life through hypoxia and/or produce airborne 
toxins that cause diseases in human beings.\42\ Meanwhile, the excess 
nitrogen and phosphorus in the groundwater leads to a variety of human 
health problems including blue baby syndrome.\43\ Nutrient pollution 
threatens the future of wild capture fisheries and sustainable 
aquaculture, endangering the nation's food security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Huber, Bridget, ``Report: Fertilizer responsible for more than 
20 percent of total agricultural emissions,'' FERN, November 1, 2021, 
https://thefern.org/ag_insider/report-fertilizer-responsible-for-more-
than-20-percent-of-total-agricultural-emissions/.
    \40\ Chai, R., Ye, X., Ma, C. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from 
synthetic nitrogen manufacture and fertilization for main upland crops 
in China. Carbon Balance Manage 14, 20 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13021-019-0133-9
    \41\ Howarth, R. et. al, ``Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Policy 
Responses,'' Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), Volume 3. Chapter 9: 
Nutrient Management: pp. 295-311.
    \42\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, ``What is a 
harmful algae bloom?'' https://www.noaa.gov/what-is-harmful-algal-
bloom.
    \43\ Knobeloch, L. et al. ``Blue babies and nitrate-contaminated 
well water.'' Environmental health perspectives, vol. 108,7, 2000, 675-
8. doi:10.1289/ehp.00108675.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pesticides are hazardous to human, biodiversity, and ecosystem 
health.\44\ Many pesticides such as neonicotinoids, pyrethryoids, and 
glyphosate formulants are produced from gas and oil. They cause cancer 
in human beings.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Demeneix BA. How fossil fuel-derived pesticides and plastics 
harm health, biodiversity, and the climate. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 
2020 Jun;8(6):462-464. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30116-9. PMID: 
32445732; PMCID: PMC7239621.
    \45\ Bassil KL, et al. ``Cancer health effects of pesticides: 
systematic review,'' Can Fam Physician. 2007 Oct;53(10):1704-11. PMID: 
17934034; PMCID: PMC2231435.

    Ecosystem services: The Gulf of Mexico has multiple important other 
uses of the sea and seabed, including fisheries, tourism and 
recreation, shipping, and other anticipated uses such as offshore wind 
or offshore carbon capture and storage. Offshore oil production 
conflicts with all of them. The natural environment of the Gulf of 
Mexico provides numerous valuable ecosystem services,\46\ including: 
Supporting services (nutrient balance, hydrological balance, biological 
interactions, and soil and sediment balance); Regulating services 
(pollutant attenuation, water quality, gas regulation, climate 
regulation, hazard moderation); provisioning services (air supply, 
water quantity, food, raw materials, medicinal resources, ornamental 
resources); and cultural services (aesthetics and existence, spiritual 
and historic, science and education, recreational opportunities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ ``5 Ecosystem Services in the Gulf of Mexico.'' National 
Research Council. 2013. An Ecosystem Services Approach to Assessing the 
Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18387.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. An 
Ecosystem Services Approach to Assessing the Impacts of the Deepwater 
Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Washington, DC: The National 
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18387.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These ecosystem services are provided ``for free'' by nature but 
provide economic benefit to other sectors. Some of these benefits such 
as fisheries landings or the tourism industry can be more easily 
quantified. In 2003, one study estimated that the Gulf of Mexico ocean 
economy generated an estimated $32 billion, or more than $52 billion in 
2022 dollars.\47\ Other estimates put the annual economic value of the 
Gulf of Mexico at $2 trillion, or $2.73 trillion adjusted for 
inflation.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Colgan, Charles. 2008. ``The Ocean Economy of the Gulf of 
Mexico in National Perspective'' in The Changing Coastal and Ocean 
Economics of the Gulf of Mexico. Edited by Judith Kildow, Charles 
Colgan, and Linwood Pendleton, University of Texas Press. (pp. 2, 3).
    \48\ Shepherd, Andrew N., ``Economic Impact of Gulf of Mexico 
Ecosystem Goods and Services and Integration Into Restoration Decision-
Making,'' Gulf of Mexico Science, 2013(1-2), pp. 10-27, https://
www.disl.org/assets/uploads/publications/goms-31-01-10-27.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some ecosystem services such as spiritual value can be impossible 
to quantify and are invaluable. Others such as the ocean's ability to 
attenuate pollution or absorb carbon dioxide can be difficult to 
quantify but the economic cost of reproducing them through mechanical 
means would be astronomical. Whenever we choose to sacrifice some part 
of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas production, we should account for 
the accompanying decrease in ecosystem services.
Moving Forward

    We now have viable alternatives to oil and gas, such as justly 
sourced renewable wind and solar, that will reduce our energy system's 
impacts on the environment and make our region more resilient to 
climate disruption. However, oil and gas infrastructure directly 
competes with or blocks these solutions such as offshore wind. This 
does not have to be the case where the federal government can play a 
major role in leading the energy transition.
    For the people of the Gulf South, degrees of warming are not an 
abstraction or a future problem. This year, we documented a full 12 
months of global temperatures that were 1.5 degrees celsius above 
historical measures, the warming threshold scientists had said we 
should not exceed in 2030 to avoid the worst impacts of the climate 
crisis. We need to act now.
Recommendations

     Invest in Justly Sourced Renewable Energy. We now have 
            viable alternatives to fossil fuels that can meet our 
            national energy needs and do not accelerate the climate 
            crisis. Peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated viable 
            pathways to transition our energy system to 100 percent 
            renewable energy.\49\ This transition to renewable energy 
            would pay for itself in about 6 years.\50\ Renewable energy 
            is now less expensive than fossil fuels. Almost two-thirds 
            of newly installed renewable power in 2021 had lower costs 
            than the cheapest coal-fired option in the world's top 20 
            economies. Renewable energy is safer, cleaner, and cheaper 
            than offshore oil and gas drilling. Simply put, we can best 
            meet our national energy needs by transitioning away from 
            fossil fuels and transitioning as rapidly as possible to 
            renewable energy made from materials that are sustainably 
            sourced and respect Indigenous sovereignty. From 
            ``Principles of a Just Transition in Offshore Wind 
            Energy'': \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Khalili, Siavash et al. ``On the History and Future of 100% 
Renewable Energy Systems Research,'' IEEE Access. 10, 2022, 1-1. 
10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3193402.
    \50\ Jacobson, Mark Z. et al., ``Low-cost solutions to global 
warming, air pollution, and energy insecurity for 145 countries,'' 
Energy Environ. Sci., 2022, 15, 3343
    \51\ UPROSE, Rogue Climate, Taproot Earth, and Climate Justice 
Alliance, ``Principles for a Just Transition in Offshore Wind Energy,'' 
March 2023, https://taproot.earth/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
JustTransition-OffshoreWindEnergy_v2.pdf.

            o  Supply Chains and Life Cycles compatible with 
        Zero Waste, Circular Economy Principles, and Ecological 
        Mindfulness: While offshore wind energy does not create 
        greenhouse gasses emissions, its production, transportation, 
        and maintenance can produce emissions and waste. We must 
        advocate for local manufacturing in existing industrial areas 
        to support, protect, and revitalize local production capacity 
        where applicable and in accordance with local frontline 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        community priorities to avoid transportation emissions.

     Clean Up the Ocean:

            o  Terminate the Rigs-to-Reef Program: The Rigs-
        to-Reef program encourages platforms to be left in place (or 
        toppled or removed and moved to a predetermined reefing 
        location) and placed in a state-driven and funded rigs-to-reefs 
        program, as an alternative option to the requirement of 
        removal. Naturally this option has become attractive to oil and 
        gas operators because it is less expensive to ``reef'' a 
        structure instead of removing it. Today, there are more than 
        515 ``reefed'' rigs on the seafloor in federal waters, not 
        counting ``reefed structures'' in state waters. Because reefed 
        structures require a mandatory buffer of 500 feet per rig, we 
        strongly recommend the termination of this program so as to not 
        impede the buildout of domestic renewable energy.

            o  Disclose Progress of Idle Iron: Idle Iron is 
        a policy established in Notice to Lessees (NTL) No. 2010-G05 
        \52\ and updated with NTL No. 2018-G03 \53\ to address 
        timelines associated with the completion of platform removal 
        requirements and well plug and abandonment. BSEE introduced 
        Idle Iron to prevent ``inactive facilities and structures from 
        littering the Gulf of Mexico by requiring companies to 
        dismantle and responsibly dispose of infrastructure after they 
        plug non-producing wells.'' The last known structural Idle Iron 
        list contained over 600 platforms as of 2010.\54\ It's critical 
        that there is a public disclosure of the progress of this 
        program. Idled platforms not only pose both a real time threat 
        with hazards, but with a mandatory buffer of 500 feet per rig, 
        substantially constrain the future scale of offshore wind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ US BOEMRE (2010). Notice to lessees and operators of federal 
oil and gas leases and pipeline right-of-way holders in the Outer 
Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS region. NTL No. 2010-G05. https:/
/www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/notices-to-lessees-ntl/notices-to-
lessees/10-g05.pdf
    \53\ US BOEM (2018). Idle Iron Decommissioning Guidance for Wells 
and Platforms. NTL No. 2018-G03 https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/
files/notices-to-lessees-ntl//ntl-2018-g03.pdf
    \54\ Keen, Elena. The Billion Dollar Brewing in the Gulf. https://
www.ecomagazine.com/in-depth/featured-stories/the-billion-dollar-
problem-brewing-in-the-gulf

            o  Jobs: Legacy oil and gas infrastructure 
        litters the ocean floor, especially in the Gulf of Mexico. We 
        should increase federal funding to put people to work cleaning 
        up the ocean floor to make communities whole again and aid 
        transmission. For all future leases, when an oil and gas 
        operator signs a lease with BOEM, they should agree to remove 
        all equipment and clear the seafloor when the infrastructure is 
        no longer useful for operation.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ BOEM, ``OIL AND GAS LEASE OF SUBMERGED LANDS UNDER THE OUTER 
CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT,'' Sec. 22(a), https://www.boem.gov/sites/
default/files/about-boem/Procurement-Business-Opportunities/BOEM-OCS-
Operation-Forms/BOEM-2005.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Dix, I appreciate 
your testimony. The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 
minutes of questioning, and I now recognize myself for 5 
minutes.
    Our country's energy producers continue to face attacks 
from every Federal regulatory angle. However, despite President 
Biden and the radical left's continued desire to move away from 
traditional fuel sources, our nation's power grid still relies 
heavily upon these baseload energy sources. For example, the 
model leftist state of California meets nearly 60 percent of 
its electrical demand through natural gas due to the 
inconsistency of their favored alternative sources like solar 
and wind. More than 80 percent of today's energy use in the 
United States comes from oil and gas, even as the climate 
zealots do everything in their power to move our country to 100 
percent renewables.
    Offshore production is critical to the necessary all-of-
the-above approach to energy and a strong American future. 
Offshore production helps ensure that our country does not 
eventually become utterly reliant on foreign and adversarial 
sources of energy to help meet our rising electrical grid 
demands.
    Under President Trump, this country achieved energy 
independence and dominance. To see this Administration not walk 
back, but run back the great work that President Trump and his 
Administration had done on the energy front over these past 3 
years is painful to watch, not only for the effects it has had 
on our nation, but the effects it has had right in my backyard 
with the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline and the 
continued war on coal production.
    We need to open back up these offshore leases and start 
producing all we can right here in America. We must not rely on 
foreign adversaries for energy, and we can no longer hamper our 
important LNG exports, allowing these adversaries to increase 
their global influence.
    This Administration needs to start getting serious about 
producing here, producing for the American people, and 
producing for our economic and national security.
    Furthermore, refusing to take advantage of this country's 
vast offshore reserves puts increased pressure on the Interior 
to produce.
    Yet, Montana is also struggling to get the necessary 
leases, and not for lack of trying.
    This all-out assault on oil and gas and other traditional 
baseload energy sources must stop. We, as a government, need to 
focus on putting our citizens' energy needs first, rather than 
placating the radical climate activists.
    I thank you so much for your testimony, Mr. Cruickshank. As 
an avid supporter of wind energy, are you not concerned about 
the potential unreliability that comes with that energy?
    I posted a video online about a month-and-a-half ago as I 
was driving through north central Montana in a location called 
Judith Gap, in the middle of a wind farm. The temperature was 
about 30 degrees below 0, and it is on film that not a single 
one of those turbines was turning. Does that not give you any 
pause for concern?
    Because I can tell you, the people that lived in that area 
that were dependent on that energy, they needed it when it was 
30 below.
    Dr. Cruickshank. Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned. Offshore 
wind has a long track record globally. I have been producing 
energy for over 30 years, and have been doing so successfully. 
One of the----
    Mr. Rosendale. So, at what rate are they producing that 
energy? Is it 100 percent reliable, as a coal facility would 
be, or as a liquid natural gas facility would be, or are they 
operating more at that 38 to 40 percent production level that I 
see the wind farms across Montana?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Something between 40 and 50 percent, I 
think, right now, but the efficiencies are improving. And I 
would note that offshore wind tends to blow at times----
    Mr. Rosendale. OK, so if we have 40 to 50 percent of the 
time that we can rely upon that energy, some quick math tells 
us that that means 50 percent of the time we cannot rely on 
that energy. So, what I have seen is the footprint that is 
necessary in order to produce the energy that would be 
supplanted, replaced by this wind energy covers, literally, 
thousands and thousands of acres.
    How about the environmental impacts? What is that doing to 
the ocean beds?
    And what is that also doing to all the seashore birds, 
seabirds that are traveling around those areas, have you done 
any research on the impacts?
    Dr. Cruickshank. We have put tens of millions of dollars 
into research on those impacts, Mr. Chairman, and the offshore 
leases are sited in areas that avoid or minimize impacts, 
staying out of migratory bird flyways, away from the----
    Mr. Rosendale. ``Minimize'' is a very subjective word.
    Does your agency hold any concerns relating to Russia's 
increased Arctic Circle oil production and its increasingly 
close drilling towards U.S. maritime borders?
    Dr. Cruickshank. That question is better directed at the 
State Department, sir.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK, I have used my 5 minutes of time, so I 
am going to yield back and recognize Mr. Mullin for 5 minutes 
of questioning.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you all for being here. I believe that before we 
discuss yet more offshore oil and gas development, we need to 
talk about existing oil and gas infrastructure that is no 
longer being used, and the danger it poses to coastal 
communities, including my district in the San Francisco Bay 
area.
    Last year, a GAO report noted that there are over 2,700 
wells and 500 platforms which are overdue for decommissioning. 
And as I am sure you well know, the marine environment can 
corrode this equipment over time, threatening oil spills and 
gas leaks that would devastate our coastlines. I am concerned 
that, although decommissioning has been estimated to cost 
between $40 to $70 billion, your agency has only $3.5 billion 
in supplemental bonding to cover this liability.
    My question is for Dr. Cruickshank. What is your agency 
doing to ensure that oil and gas companies fulfill their 
responsibilities to close this aging infrastructure and protect 
our coastal communities?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Representative Mullin, our Bureau is in 
the process of preparing a final rule to upgrade the 
supplemental financial assurance that is required of companies. 
That rule is currently undergoing interagency review through 
OMB, and we expect to publish later this year. It will 
strengthen and modernize the requirements we have in place for 
supplemental financial assurance to ensure the American 
taxpayer is not left having to pay the cost of decommissioning 
oil and gas infrastructure.
    Mr. Mullin. OK, thank you for that. A question about 
offshore wind.
    California in particular has very ambitious clean energy 
goals, and offshore wind has enormous potential to help meet 
these goals. When I was speaker pro tem of the California State 
Assembly, we passed a bill requiring state agencies to develop 
a plan for offshore wind while creating good jobs and 
protecting California's unparalleled marine ecosystem. But 
actual development still appears to be a number of years away.
    So, again, Dr. Cruickshank, and I welcome comments from 
others, what are the main hurdles slowing offshore wind 
development in the Pacific region, and what are some ways that 
Congress can help on that front?
    Dr. Cruickshank. We just recently issued our first leases 
offshore California in a sale at the end of 2022. And we are 
currently doing a programmatic environmental impact statement 
on development of those leases.
    As far as some of the challenges on the West Coast, I 
think, as elsewhere, one of them is transmission, how you get 
the power to shore and move it from where it comes ashore to 
where the demand is.
    There is also need for investment in domestic supply chain 
from ports and vessels all the way through to the components of 
the wind farms themselves.
    And we are also dealing with floating offshore wind, which 
is a relatively new technology for the offshore wind industry.
    The Biden administration has taken an all-of-government 
approach to these issues. All agencies are working together to 
try to support the development of this industry to provide 
benefits to communities, good-paying jobs, and energy security 
going forward.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Rosendale. The gentleman yields.
    Ms. Velazquez.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for your testimony. And Mr. Dix, I would like 
to ask you. In your testimony, you highlighted how offshore oil 
and gas drilling and refining disproportionately burden poor, 
rural, Black, Indigenous, and communities of color in the Gulf. 
Could you please elaborate and give one example of this 
negative impact?
    Mr. Dix. Yes. I think one of the best examples that we have 
is, again, the area along the industrial corridor. This is the 
area between Baton Rouge and Plaquemines Parish, which is 
really the mouth of the Mississippi River. Everything is really 
focused on the river because of the need for water resources.
    So, if you can think about the whole supply chain, you have 
the fracking fields in northwest Louisiana, where there are 
significant water and air impacts from that activity, in some 
cases, earthquakes. Those pipelines are then transferred over 
private lands. Sometimes those lands are expropriated against 
people's will, there are disruptions to the land and water 
again.
    Then they come to these large industrial facilities that 
are often located on what were former plantation lands. And 
with some of the people that I know there, their family has had 
that land since the end of the Civil War. So, really, these 
plants have come to them, and we really think that it is no 
accident that the industry has found its way to places where 
people who are too often seen as disposable, poor people, Black 
people, people of color, live and have less political power.
    So, when these companies come, there is air pollution, 
there is water pollution, there is premature death. And I think 
what is even harder sometimes is that people are not believed.
    And then, on top of that, once these fuels are burned we 
have climate change that creates the climate disasters, which 
many times can cause these plants to explode during disasters. 
So, people are waiting to be evacuated on their rooftops 
breathing in toxic chemicals.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, and we are all very familiar with 
the climate benefits of prioritizing offshore wind development. 
But the local benefits to coastal communities are not often 
part of the conversation.
    Mr. Dix, how would transitioning from offshore fossil fuel 
drilling to offshore wind benefit Gulf communities?
    Mr. Dix. Yes, I think that that is exactly the type of 
question that we are grappling with and working on, because I 
think a lot of communities have questions. I think, on the one 
hand, they understand the imperative to transition away from 
dirty energy as quickly as possible, but they don't want to be 
further dominated by a new industry that is coming in.
    And I think the way that we can work through that and 
create something better is through better processes, with 
consultation with Indigenous communities, with frontline 
communities. We think that there can be much better revenue-
sharing that is directed directly at frontline communities.
    Right now, the offshore wind program, I believe, is not 
included under Justice40. So, changing that would be at least 
one step in the right direction.
    Ms. Velazquez. And do you think it is important to fully 
transition, and not simply develop both?
    Mr. Dix. Yes, it is incredibly important to transition 
because, as we were saying, climate change is one problem, but 
the problems of the refinement from oil and gas byproducts like 
fertilizers and plastics also have an incredible toll on our 
environment, both from the people who live near the refining, 
to the plastics, to the nitrogen pollution that creates the 
dead zone off the Gulf of Mexico.
    There are so many problems that we have to address at the 
same time, and I would say nothing less than a full phase-out 
is going to help get us there.
    Ms. Velazquez. Thank you. And while we transition to 
renewable energies like offshore wind, what are some 
considerations policymakers should bear in mind so that we do 
not accidentally replicate the injustices in our current energy 
system?
    Mr. Dix. Well, I have worked with environmental justice 
groups in New York, Oregon, and a broad coalition called the 
Climate Justice Alliance to create a document called Principles 
of a Just Transition in Offshore Wind Energy. And as I see that 
our time is running down, I would love to submit that for the 
record or follow up via e-mail.
    Ms. Velazquez. OK, thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. The gentleman from Rhode Island is 
recognized for 5 minutes,
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you all for 
being here today.
    Coming from Rhode Island, offshore wind is not a 
hypothetical for us; it is a reality. My district is the home 
of the first operational offshore wind farm in the country, the 
Block Island Wind Farm that has been spinning for about 5 years 
now. We are currently underway on building out the Revolution 
One wind farm. When that is done, about a third of Rhode 
Island's electricity will come from offshore wind, a third of 
our entire state's electricity.
    And then there is a second procurement, along with 
Connecticut and Massachusetts, our neighboring states, that we 
are working on. That has the potential to get us to close to 
100 percent of our electricity needs just from offshore wind. 
This is domestic energy, American-made, American jobs. And the 
procurements we have had so far from Revolution One are 
attractive to ratepayers, as well, and are roughly in line with 
the market rate for electricity. So, good for ratepayers, good 
for American jobs, good for American energy independence. And 
we can speak from experience on this because it is actually 
happening.
    I will also note that the other wind farms that are 
currently under construction in the area, in Massachusetts and 
New York, a lot of that work is actually being done in Rhode 
Island, so we are very familiar with that, as well.
    We can say for sure in Rhode Island, offshore wind is a big 
part of our energy future, a big part of how we maintain our 
energy independence. And frankly, a lot of the myths and 
fearmongering around offshore wind, we can tell you from 
experience in Rhode Island, just is not true. And if you place 
the wind farms in a thoughtful way, with stakeholder feedback 
and stakeholder engagement, you can find a way to build out 
offshore wind in an affordable way, in a fair way, and a just 
way, and do it while meeting the concerns of other local 
stakeholders, as we have done in Rhode Island.
    So, let's dig into this a little more. Mr. Cruickshank, you 
are with BOEM. NOAA also is a partner agency with you all in 
figuring out where offshore wind is most appropriate to 
develop.
    One of the myths that I think we want to push back on is 
this sense that it is the Wild West out there, and we are going 
to be building wind farms in places where we shouldn't, it is 
going to have an impact on wildlife and on local industries. 
Can you just demystify this a little bit?
    The regulatory process to get approval to build an offshore 
wind farm is extensive. It takes years. And I know you are 
trying to streamline that at BOEM, but can you just educate 
everyone here a little bit?
    What are the controls that are in place to make sure that 
offshore wind is not being developed in places that will have 
an excessive impact on marine life, on local industry, et 
cetera?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, I would be happy to. We actually 
start the process long before any lease sale is proposed, 
creating an intergovernmental task force with state 
governments, local governments, tribes, and other Federal 
agencies to walk through a region of the ocean and understand 
what is out there, how it is being used, what the environmental 
resources are, and try to identify what areas might be most 
suitable in terms of being able to provide wind while avoiding 
most conflict.
    We actually partner with NOAA's National Centers for 
Coastal Ocean Science. They have a planning model that allows 
us to look at all of that data for marine uses and 
environmental resources and determine the least conflicted 
areas where wind farms might fit.
    Once we have this sort of information, we then go public 
and have a multi-year process in which we are asking for public 
input on the areas we are looking at. We have plenty of public 
meetings, meet with individual stakeholder groups, ocean users 
to get their input, refine the models, refine the data, and 
eventually propose an area that, again, we continue to get 
input on throughout until we get to a lease sale.
    Mr. Magaziner. I thank you.
    I have noticed that some of my colleagues don't seem to 
care very much about impacts on marine life when we are talking 
about offshore oil and gas, only when we are talking about 
offshore wind. But the larger point is that we should always 
care about marine life, but that there are significant 
processes in place at BOEM and at NOAA to ensure that offshore 
wind is only being developed in appropriate areas where that 
impact can be mitigated.
    And then just real quick, Mr. Milito, from the industry 
perspective, can you talk a little bit about what you see as 
the economic and job-creating potential from offshore wind 
nationally?
    Mr. Milito. Yes, it could be huge. We represent the entire 
supply chain. We have vessel companies, marine construction 
companies. We have cable-laying companies. Those companies in 
our membership were active in Block Island and are going to be 
active in a future upcoming project, so we view it as an 
opportunity. They view it as a business investment opportunity. 
And we are hopeful that, moving forward, they are going to be 
able to continue to do the core oil and gas work they have been 
doing, and add to it the offshore wind work that is on the 
horizon.
    Mr. Magaziner. I thank you all. I will yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the 
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Graves.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you all for being here, and I appreciate 
your testimony.
    I just continue to be a little bit baffled by what we are 
seeing with energy policy right now. I am looking at the 2023 
EIA, the Energy Information Agency projections that show that, 
for example, global oil demand is going to increase 57 percent, 
that global gas demand is going to increase 58 percent, and 
that right now coal accounts for about 63 percent of China's 
energy portfolio.
    All right. So, look, I am from south Louisiana, I am just 
looking at numbers. There is going to be a global increase in 
oil and natural gas demand. All right? You look at the carbon 
intensity of oil and gas. We have some of the most efficient 
sources in the world in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Mr. Milito, what am I missing? What am I missing? Why would 
you not have lease sales, ban additional lease sales whenever 
there is going to be increased demand globally, and we have 
some of the least carbon-intensive sources in the world?
    Mr. Milito. Yes, sir. You are not missing anything. It is 
very straightforward. We have the resource base, we have the 
demand surging, moving forward, and we need to provide 
reliable, affordable supplies of energy to the American 
consumer so we can maintain our high quality of life while we 
are going to be competing globally with countries like China. 
And we are going to see regions like the global south, India, 
Africa, Southeast Asia continue to grow their economies, and it 
is going to be a global competition. And we need to make sure 
we are positioning ourselves for future energy security.
    Mr. Graves. I know that we have had Department of the 
Interior officials that have transcended or been through 
various administrations that have sat right here in this 
Committee and have told us that decreasing supply of oil and 
gas production in the United States doesn't do a damn thing for 
demand, doesn't do anything. It doesn't change demand. So, the 
demand is just filled, voids are filled by other countries. In 
this case, Iran, Russia, and then, of course, China, as well.
    Now, China's economy is much less efficient than ours is. 
While the United States has led the world in reducing 
emissions, for every 1 ton of emissions we have reduced, China 
has gone up by 5. Gone up by 5. Today, China emits more than 
all of the industrialized countries combined. So, you have a 
country that has less efficient economy in terms of economic 
activity per emissions unit. Why does it make sense to continue 
to cede ground to China?
    I mean, again, I am just trying to understand this 
Administration's energy policies.
    Mr. Milito. It doesn't. And it is interesting, because this 
week at the big energy conference, CERAWeek, we heard the 
Secretary of the Department of Energy, Jennifer Granholm, make 
the point that I found very interesting. She said our passivity 
is their opportunity. She was talking about clean tech in 
China, but that applies just as much to oil and gas, CCS, even 
offshore wind.
    Mr. Graves. It applies to everything.
    Mr. Milito. When we have passive or intentionally failing 
policies on the energy side here in the United States, that 
creates the opportunity for other countries around the world 
like Russia, China, Venezuela to seize that opportunity and get 
that economic benefit and that energy security and take it away 
from us.
    Mr. Graves. I just can't understand this Administration's 
energy policy, as hard as I have tried to rationalize. Higher 
prices, more dependence upon unfriendly countries, higher 
emissions. All day long, it makes no sense at all. It makes no 
sense. And watching this Administration, higher royalties, 
pipeline fees, all of these different regulatory burdens, and 
stopping or preventing any new production, all it does is 
further curtail supply. It drives up prices and makes us 
dependent upon foreign countries. It is just a baffling thing 
to me.
    Mr. Cruickshank, I appreciate you being here. I wanted to 
change gears a little bit. I know that you and I have had the 
chance to talk about financial assurance a good bit. Could you 
quickly just give the Committee an update on where that stands?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, that draft final rule is with OMB's 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, undergoing 
interagency review. And we expect to be able to publish it 
later this year.
    Mr. Graves. Can you talk at all about how BOEM is going to 
try to strike the right balance in the regulation in sort of 
fulfilling their decommission liability and ensuring the Gulf 
of Mexico remains competitive for new investment?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes. I can't actually speak to what is in 
the final rule, but based on the proposed rule, we took an 
approach of trying to really focus, asking for supplemental 
financial assurance of those companies that pose the greatest 
risk of defaulting on their lease obligations.
    The majority of the liability that is out there, we 
believe, are covered by companies that have strong financial 
credit ratings and will not be asked to provide supplemental 
financial assurance.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
statement from Majority Leader Scalise. His district is home to 
Port Fourchon, which services 90 percent of our country's 
offshore energy development.
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]
                        Statement for the Record
                       Congressman Steve Scalise

    Thank you to Chairman Stauber for hosting this important hearing 
and to our witnesses for taking the time to share their testimony.

    America's offshore resources--including the nearly 15% of America's 
domestically-produced oil and natural gas that comes from the Gulf of 
Mexico--are critical to our nation's energy, economic and national 
security. My district is home to Port Fourchon, which services over 90% 
of the energy exploration and development activity in the deepwater of 
the Gulf, and the valuable energy and maritime industries that call 
Southeast Louisiana home.

    The Biden Administration has waged a war on American energy, and my 
constituents are situated at Ground Zero in this battle. And families 
and small businesses across the country are feeling the pain from the 
failure of this Administration to understand that their radical ``Green 
New Deal'' agenda has real-world, devastating impacts on hard-working 
taxpayers. This Administration's failed energy policies are not only 
killing American jobs and shipping them overseas, but are also 
jeopardizing the energy and national security of our country and 
leading to higher costs on everything from gasoline to groceries.

    Whether it's delaying the 5-year offshore lease plan, attempting to 
illegally cancel lease sales or issuing radical regulations from myriad 
agencies that make developing American energy costlier, this 
Administration seems intent on shutting down American energy 
exploration and development at every turn. Look no further than 
President Biden's own comments in the past--he said during his campaign 
in 2020: ``No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, 
including offshore. No ability for the oil and gas industry to continue 
to drill. Period. It ends.''

    That's all we need to know about what this Administration is trying 
to accomplish. And to be clear: Joe Biden's radical policies are 
killing American jobs, increasing costs on families and small 
businesses, and emboldening our enemies abroad.

    I applaud the Committee for holding this hearing to examine the 
vast potential of our nation's offshore resources--and what that means 
America's economic, energy and national security--and for the important 
work that the Committee continues to do to hold this Administration 
accountable for their devastating policies.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Dr. Cruickshank, we heard about the offshore, 
what was it, the Block Island project off in Rhode Island? Do 
those projects receive any Federal subsidies?
    Dr. Cruickshank. There are tax credits that are available 
to offshore wind developers, much like they are to many other 
industries.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are those tax credits significant?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I believe they are significant in putting 
the financial package together to build the wind farms.
    Mr. Tiffany. Without the tax incentives, would those 
projects be able to be built in a competitive marketplace?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I believe some would, some others might 
not. It really depends on which region of the country you would 
be operating in.
    Mr. Tiffany. The three gentleman in the middle, do you care 
to comment on that at all? Would they be built without tax 
credits?
    Mr. Milito. It is going to be project-specific, depending 
on the financing, and the company, and the location. There are 
going to be a lot of variables that go into that. But it would 
depend on the project.
    Mr. Tiffany. Because I know, where I sit in Wisconsin, 
those projects would not get built for wind and solar, the 
intermittent sources of power, without the rich subsidies that 
are given to developers in order to be able to build those 
projects.
    Mr. Dix, does your organization have a plan to have China 
and India cut down on their emissions?
    Mr. Dix. Well, as you probably know, the United Nations 
process is quite complicated because it is entirely voluntary, 
and the United States plays a large role in how those 
negotiations play out.
    But I have heard various testimonies today about that we 
are competing with China. And one way that I think that would 
be better for the world and for the environment would be if we 
were competing to help other countries transition to renewable 
energy. I think that would increase the energy security that 
people are here today saying that they want, and I think that 
it would address our climate crisis at the same time.
    So, there are a number of things, I think, that we could do 
to help speed the transition in other countries so that 
everyone can enjoy energy security and energy independence.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, we should be trying to convince India and 
China to use windmills and solar panels?
    Mr. Dix. Well, I think that international diplomacy when it 
comes to climate change means that we do have to do a lot of 
convincing for other countries in the world for a great number 
of things.
    Mr. Tiffany. But China keeps fending us off. They say, yes, 
we will sign on to those accords, but it doesn't apply to them 
until some date in the future, whereas we accept those burdens 
now, and we have actually been the best country in terms of 
reducing our carbon footprint, if you believe that is actually 
a problem. That is actually quite a success story, yet they 
keep telling us that, no, give us until 2030, and then we will 
comply.
    Mr. Dix. Yes, and we have also heard a lot today about the 
amount of oil and gas that the United States is producing, and 
we are a net exporter. We are also continuing to approve large 
projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline. So, as a net 
exporter of oil and gas, I think there is a lot that we could 
do. And I think one of the best things that we can do is lead 
by example.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, lead by example by shutting down using 
carbon sources of energy?
    Mr. Dix. I think developing clean energy is going to be 
good for people and the planet, and I think it is going to be 
good for creating jobs, because in the Gulf of Mexico we have 
certainly seen automation and other market forces actually 
decrease the number of jobs in the offshore oil and gas sector 
for quite a long time now, even as production of barrels has 
gone up.
    Mr. Tiffany. Does Taproot Earth have subsidiaries in China, 
India, anywhere around the world, other than the United States?
    Mr. Dix. We don't have subsidiary offices, but we work 
globally. So, a lot of what we do is work with people across 
what we call the African diaspora, which are countries in 
Africa and places where African-descended peoples live, to talk 
about climate justice. We really are thinking about this from a 
global perspective, not really in terms of having one country 
participating in energy dominance, but more like energy 
cooperation.
    Mr. Tiffany. But, you are not in China or India.
    Mr. Dix. Currently, no.
    Mr. Tiffany. The number of climate-related deaths in the 
last 100 years, what direction has that gone?
    Mr. Dix. I think climate-related deaths, I would have to 
know more about how that is categorized.
    Mr. Tiffany. It is a really interesting chart that 
highlights, and I can show it to you afterwards. They actually 
went down 98 percent as a result of the advancements in 
technology. It is no different than life expectancy. What was 
it, like 52 years old in the year 1900? One in ten babies died 
here in America in infancy, and life expectancy is so much 
higher now. Infant mortality is so much better. Climate-related 
deaths are significantly less, 98 percent less, over the last 
100 years. Wouldn't you call that a success story?
    Mr. Dix. Well, I was just in Louisiana 2 weeks ago for some 
other meetings, and I participated in a coastal tour and a tour 
of Cancer Alley, areas that I have seen many times, and I find 
it very difficult to talk to people who are losing their land 
and being forced to evacuate, and watching their friends and 
neighbors die of cancer, and telling them that they should be 
grateful for how good it is.
    I think we can do a lot better. I think we have solutions. 
I think we have a lot of expertise in this country, and I think 
we could do a lot more to make sure that the poor people in 
this country have a much better life.
    Mr. Tiffany. Wouldn't you say poor people are far better 
off than they were 100 years ago?
    Mr. Dix. I think that there are a lot of different ways 
that you can measure better off or worse off. I just really 
think that we could do a lot better than we are. And it really 
pains me to see people suffer.
    Mr. Tiffany. You talked about renewables earlier. Does your 
organization support any new mining projects in America?
    Mr. Dix. What we support, and I would love to share with 
you a platform produced by the America the Beautiful for All 
Coalition. I am actually here to participate in meetings with 
them. This is a group of people that are focused on public 
lands and Justice40, and we call for mining----
    Mr. Tiffany. Does Taproot Earth support any new mining 
projects in the United States of America?
    Mr. Dix. Well, I would say that we are an organization that 
is focused on looking at the costs and benefits of energy 
sources, providing that information to frontline communities, 
and making sure that frontline communities are at the decision-
making table so that we can plan our energy system and our 
environmental impacts together, and share the benefits much 
more easily----
    Mr. Tiffany. What would you say to a frontline community 
like the Iron Range of Minnesota, which is a neighboring 
district to mine, what would you say to those folks that would 
like to expand mines and build new mines up on the Iron Range, 
and yet you see these out-of-staters, oftentimes, or 
interlopers from hundreds of miles away who would not be 
impacted, and they fight tooth and nail to stop those projects 
and oftentimes are successful in stopping them, when local 
people, by and large, would like to have them built? Do you 
call that local control?
    Mr. Dix. I would never advocate for an energy project in a 
place that I don't live, and that I am not from, and that I 
haven't talked to the community that is in there. And our 
organization is dedicated to redistributing the power to make 
those decisions.
    So, I would welcome a dialogue with this Committee, with 
the communities up in Minnesota, and the communities all across 
the country about how we can reform our mining laws and how we 
can reform governance of our energy system to make it much more 
inclusive.
    Mr. Tiffany. You should take a look at the mining laws. 
When I was in the State Legislature, I rewrote our mining laws 
and modernized them, made them the toughest mining laws in the 
United States of America, but also allowed it to happen, 
whereas previously we simply had a moratorium, which I think is 
ridiculous. When you have something that is legal to be done, 
there shouldn't be a moratorium. There should at least be a 
regulatory process.
    I see Taproot Earth, on their website, it talks about you 
practice anti-capitalism. What is anti-capitalism?
    Mr. Dix. Well, I think that you can ask people about what 
the definition of capitalism is and get a million sort of 
different responses.
    But I think what we are talking about is a shorthand for, 
again, sort of the system that I described in Louisiana, where 
a few large, private companies are allowed to extract resources 
that are natural, that weren't created by anyone, sell those 
for a profit, and then pass on the pollution, again, back to 
our public waters and public air, so that these externalities 
aren't factored into their prices. The money tends to flow----
    Mr. Tiffany. But haven't we reduced emissions significantly 
here in the United States of America?
    I don't live on the Gulf Coast, but I just think about the 
electrical generation plants that we have in Wisconsin from the 
early 1990s. So, that would be 30 years later. We have reduced 
sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, various emissions like that by 
as much as 90 percent. Isn't that a success story?
    Mr. Dix. I think that you are right. I think what you are 
getting at is that we can, in fact, reduce pollution and not 
necessarily experience a decrease in quality of life. And I 
just think that we need to go further. I think that when we 
have cleaner energy, cleaner air, cleaner water, everyone can 
benefit, and it is just----
    Mr. Tiffany. Are you talking zero emissions when you say go 
further? Are you saying you expect zero emissions?
    Mr. Dix. I definitely----
    Mr. Tiffany. Because there is no human being or human 
enterprise that has been created that is zero emissions.
    Mr. Dix. Well, I think when we are talking about net zero, 
we are sort of talking about the net aggregate emissions for 
the entire globe. So, what we are trying to do is get our 
energy system in balance, where we are not emitting----
    Mr. Tiffany. Have you studied the entire life cycle chain 
for wind and solar? Because we are seeing wind turbines now 
being buried in coal mines out in Wyoming. Is that the best way 
for us?
    I mean, are you doing the full measurement of the life 
cycle?
    Mr. Dix. I think there are some really good life cycle 
assessments out there, and I do think that renewable energy 
compares quite favorably to fossil fuel energy, from what I 
have read.
    But I think that we are in complete agreement that there 
are costs and benefits to every energy source. And what we are 
trying to do is evaluate those, and then make sure that the 
costs and benefits are being shared much more equally, so that 
frontline communities in places like the Gulf Coast aren't 
receiving most of the pollution and very few of the benefits.
    I think you are absolutely right that we need to have a 
dialogue, and eventually a policy shift, to make sure that 
costs and benefits of the energy system are being shared much 
more equally. And I think that that absolutely includes 
renewable energy, as well as fossil fuels. I just think 
renewable energy compares favorably to fossil fuels when you 
look at the entire life cycle and all of the impacts.
    Mr. Tiffany. I went far over my time. And to the three 
gentleman in the middle, sorry that I was not able to address 
more questions to you. We appreciate the work that you do.
    Production of energy is one of the most important things 
that we can do. I do have to say, though, I have a bill that 
would eliminate the subsidies for wind and solar, intermittent 
sources of power, if they are put on productive farmland. I do 
believe there is one thing more important than producing 
energy, and that is growing food. And I think taking our food-
producing areas like in Wisconsin, where we are now sidelining 
thousands of acres, turning it into these wind and solar farms, 
by the way, industrial facilities, they are not farms, where we 
are eliminating farms at this point, I think, is very 
shortsighted in terms of the public policy front here in the 
United States of America.
    I yield back and I turn to Mr. Duarte for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cruickshank, thank you for coming here today. In Santa 
Barbara, California there are about 10 oil platforms that are 
going to be decommissioned over the next 10 years because the 
regulatory environment is just too severe for them to remain 
profitable. Is this part of the regulatory scheme that you 
oversee?
    Dr. Cruickshank. BOEM is responsible for determining where 
lease sales are held, looking at the resources that are 
available, and looking at the plans that companies submit. We 
don't oversee the actual operations.
    Mr. Duarte. Got you, thank you.
    When you look at new oil leases, and there are a lot of 
opportunities for new offshore oil leases up and down the 
California coast, some of them that could be onshore access to 
offshore oil reserves through horizontal drilling. Is that 
within your jurisdiction?
    Dr. Cruickshank. We would have jurisdiction over leasing of 
the offshore resources. We would not have jurisdiction over any 
onshore activities that support.
    Mr. Duarte. Some of these oil reserves are so abundant. 
They are under such pressure that they are literally seeping 
oil into the ocean environment because they are not tapped. 
Does that fall into some of your assessments as to whether you 
issue leases on these types of reserves?
    Dr. Cruickshank. We provide the Secretary of the Interior 
information on the resources that are available in all OCS 
areas, and the Secretary looks at the various factors that the 
OCS Lands Act requires, and she looks at and makes a 
determination of what areas she believes would best meet the 
energy needs of the nation over a 5-year period.
    Mr. Duarte. Is relieving of pollution by natural seepage 
one of those parameters?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Well, I suppose we could have a 
conversation around whether a natural seep is pollution or not, 
but I think there have been some areas where they have shown 
where production does reduce the flow from natural seeps.
    Mr. Duarte. OK. But it may not be seepage. I mean, seepage 
may not be pollution because it is naturally occurring? Even if 
the volumes are far greater than any kind of contamination from 
actually offshore oil drilling itself?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I can't speak to the comparison of the 
volumes. I would just say things were occurring in nature 
before man was doing any activity there. I personally would 
have a hard time considering that to be pollution.
    Mr. Duarte. OK, so some oil on the beach is OK, as long as 
it is not anything to do with anthropogenic activity.
    I will just throw it out to the other panelists. Do you 
have knowledge in this area? Would any of you like to chime in?
    Mr. Milito. I would just point out that there is an 
organization out of California called SOS, Stop Oil Seeps, and 
they were campaigning to have additional offshore drilling to 
ease the seeps and help prevent them in the future because of 
the pressure in the formation.
    So, anecdotally, there was at least one organization out of 
Santa Barbara that was trying to get us to get out there and 
drill more wells to ease up on that pressure.
    Mr. Duarte. Is it true that a lot of this pressure can be 
relieved not from offshore drilling, but from onshore drilling 
with current technology?
    Mr. Milito. I don't know. We have a geologist maybe who 
could speak better to that than me.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Dryer. Yes, I think it would just be proximity to land 
as to how far out they could go. But certainly, the technology 
today can drill down to 40,000 feet in the Gulf of Mexico. So, 
it is very likely that could be the case. I am not that 
familiar with the geology in California, but----
    Mr. Duarte. Mr. Zaman, do you have comments on this?
    Mr. Zaman. Yes. So, I think, generally, anything over 6 
miles offshore would probably be problematic. It will be a 
determination as to where exactly the formations that are 
seeping are located.
    Mr. Duarte. Would you agree that oil seepage can be 
relieved by offshore drilling?
    Mr. Zaman. It is not my technical expertise area, but 
anecdotally I have heard that, yes.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. Do any of you have opinions as to 
whether natural seepage has a different pollutant value than 
incidental leak from oil exploration rigs?
    Do the fish care? Do the birds care? Do the turtles care?
    Mr. Milito. No oil is oil, and there is substantial oil in 
the water from natural seeps throughout the world.
    Mr. Duarte. I read one article that natural seeps in the 
Santa Barbara area are actually 50 to 100 times more than the 
entire history of oil platform leaks since they have been 
active down there. Do you have any perspective on that, Doctor?
    Dr. Cruickshank. I would have to look at the numbers. And 
certainly, over the time periods, there is a different impact 
from seepage that is coming out regularly at low amounts every 
day, every hour, versus a very large spill where everything 
sort of hits the water at once.
    Mr. Duarte. Last question. Have you recommended any new 
offshore oil leases to the Secretary during this 
Administration?
    Dr. Cruickshank. The Secretary just issued a National OCS 
Oil and Gas Leasing Program that does include three lease sales 
over the course of that 5-year period.
    Mr. Duarte. Over the next 5 years?
    Dr. Cruickshank. Yes.
    Mr. Duarte. There are three lease sales approved. And how 
does that compare to the previous 5 years?
    Dr. Cruickshank. There are a fewer number of lease sales 
than we have seen in earlier programs.
    Mr. Duarte. Is that because we have less oil, or we are 
just approving less oil lease sales?
    Dr. Cruickshank. It is the Secretary's determination that 
the number of lease sales she proposes in the program would 
best meet the nation's energy needs for the next 5 years.
    Mr. Duarte. We are depleting our petroleum reserve with no 
plan to refill it, and we are going to cut our leases, and you 
still believe that would meet the nation's petroleum needs in 
the next 5 years?
    Dr. Cruickshank. When we look at the OCS, almost 99 percent 
of the production is coming from the Gulf of Mexico. These 
lease sales would be in the Gulf of Mexico, and make all of the 
acreage that is legally available part of the lease sale 
process. So, I think that companies will have access to the 
acreage that they have been traditionally looking to have 
access to.
    Mr. Duarte. That is not a market assessment, it is just 
what lands are legally available by your assessment that you 
are basing this on. You are not saying that this is going to 
meet our energy needs; you are saying that is all the land that 
is available.
    Dr. Cruickshank. Well, no one has ever looked at the OCS to 
meet 100 percent of the nation's energy needs. So, it is a 
matter of what role the OCS plays in the nation's energy 
portfolio.
    Mr. Duarte. And does your group have anything to do with 
the pipeline permitting and pipeline processes around the 
country?
    Dr. Cruickshank. We do not.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Duarte, if I may ask, did I hear that it 
is three lease sales over the next 5 years?
    Mr. Duarte. That is what I heard. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Milito, do you know how many we had the 
previous 5 years?
    Mr. Milito. The last program, I believe, had 11, 1 in Cook 
Inlet and 10 in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Mr. Tiffany. There were 11. And do you know what the 
previous to that was?
    Mr. Milito. I think 15, and then 16, and then 20, and then 
20, and it has been declining since the 1980s with each 
program.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it is a steady decline.
    Mr. Milito. Correct.
    Mr. Duarte. If the Chairman will permit me, is it a steady 
decline in production volume or does the decline also----
    Mr. Milito. Production volume is at almost its highest 
levels in the history of the offshore leasing program, or 
nearly 1.9 million barrels per day now, which is a significant 
amount of production.
    Mr. Duarte. So, we are getting more per lease.
    Mr. Milito. We get much more production with far less 
acreage. We are much more efficient as an industry.
    Mr. Duarte. Will these three oil leases match the 
production of the previous 10, 12, 15, 16 oil lease awards?
    Mr. Milito. That is very hard to speculate, as to how it 
will play out. But fewer leases and only having three sales 
will likely lead to a shift in investment to other parts of the 
world, because the companies that are investing in these 
offshore projects have to decide where to send their capital, 
and this likely will lead to decisions where, because they 
don't have opportunities annually, they will have to shift that 
capital to other parts of the world.
    In addition, under the Inflation Reduction Act, in order 
for there to be an offshore wind lease issued, there has to be 
an oil and gas lease sale the year before. So, they are 
creating gaps of 2 years between oil and gas, which means there 
is going to be at least 3 years where they cannot issue wind 
leases, which is also a big problem for our organization.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I want to thank the 
witnesses for your testimony and Members for your questions.
    The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in 
writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday, 
March 25. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business 
days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                                        


                               *****

The full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20240320/116958/HHRG-
118-II06-20240320-SD009.pdf

                                 [all]