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





            SAFEGUARDING AMERICAN JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH:
         EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF THE OFFSHORE LEASING PROGRAM

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

                           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

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        Thursday, July 27, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-52

                               __________

       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

53-076 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023











                     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 Thursday, July 27, 2023..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Minnesota.........................................     1

    Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New York.................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Chiasson, Archie, III, President, Lafourche Parish, 
      Thibodeaux, Louisiana......................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     8

    Danos, Paul, Chief Executive Officer, Danos Company, Gray, 
      Louisiana..................................................    10
        Prepared statement of....................................    12

    Minarovic, Mike, Chief Executive Officer, Arena Energy, The 
      Woodlands, Texas...........................................    17
        Prepared statement of....................................    21
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    26

    Solet, Justin, Gulf South Advocate, Dulac, Louisiana.........    28
        Prepared statement of....................................    30
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    31

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submission for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection 
          Fund, Statement for the Record.........................    54
                                     


 
  OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SAFEGUARDING AMERICAN JOBS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH:
          EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF THE OFFSHORE LEASING PROGRAM

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, July 27, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

              Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Stauber, Lamborn, Tiffany, 
Rosendale, Boebert, Hunt, Westerman; Ocasio-Cortez, Mullin, 
Kamlager-Dove, and Magaziner.
    Also present: Representative Carl.

    Mr. Stauber. 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 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

    Mr. Stauber. Today, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources will host an oversight hearing to examine the future 
of the offshore oil and gas leasing program. I would like to 
begin by thanking our witnesses for being here to discuss the 
future of the offshore oil and gas leasing program.
    Representing the Iron Range of Northeast Minnesota, I feel 
strongly that we must safeguard American jobs and economic 
growth through responsible development of our natural 
resources, whether it be the taconite and critical minerals in 
the district I represent or oil and gas on the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
    The actions taken by the Biden administration with regard 
to the offshore leasing program have hindered responsible 
development and made us more dependent on OPEC and adversarial 
nations for the energy resources our nation requires. The Biden 
administration has not allowed more than a year to pass without 
finalizing an offshore 5-year leasing program, and has refused 
to begin the planning process for lease sales in 2024.
    By ignoring Federal law for the first time in history, this 
Administration has threatened economic prosperity and energy 
security. Such actions have forced businesses to invest 
elsewhere, and led to increased oil prices and risks for 
producers which adversely affect American consumers.
    The Biden administration is taking unprecedented inaction, 
as we will discuss today. If the Department of the Interior 
does not take the necessary steps now to begin the NEPA process 
and begin to initiate an offshore oil and gas lease sale in 
2024, the United States will fail to hold an offshore lease 
sale involving the Gulf of Mexico for the first time in over 60 
years. This will have incredible implications for our nation 
for years to come.
    While the global oil market thrives, it is disheartening to 
witness the absence of investment opportunities here in the 
United States. Investments seem to flow to distant shores, 
benefiting countries like Guyana, Brazil, Venezuela, Russia, 
and OPEC nations, while our own rich reserves are neglected 
along with our workers.
    I am not from a coastal state. However, I understand the 
importance of certainty in the offshore oil and gas industry. 
Inland states and their citizens have played crucial roles in 
shaping America's energy landscape, and they continue to 
contribute to and benefit from offshore oil and gas 
development. Inland America innovation and leadership have long 
contributed to developments on the Outer Continental Shelf.
    One remarkable example is Robert S. Kerr of Oklahoma, who 
recognized the significance of offshore drilling for our 
nation's energy needs, and pioneered the first offshore 
drilling platform known as The Jacket in the early 1940s.
    Under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, GOMESA, 
offshore oil and gas development has generated significant 
revenues to Gulf producing states: $353 million in Fiscal Year 
2022 and $1.65 billion throughout the life of the program.
    Offshore revenues also benefit communities across the 
nation through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which 
received more than $125 million in Fiscal Year 2022.
    And just last Friday, the Department of the Interior 
announced nearly $5 million in distributions to my home state 
of Minnesota from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These 
funds will support important recreation and conservation 
projects throughout Minnesota, thanks in large part to our 
offshore oil and gas production. If the Biden administration 
continues to block offshore leasing, these funds will begin to 
dry up.
    According to the National Ocean Industries Association, 
there are approximately 345,000 workers in the offshore 
industry supply chain, and salaries for those who work in the 
oil and gas sector average over $51 per hour per the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, May 2023 data.
    Meanwhile, during this same time period, average private-
sector income across the United States was less than two-thirds 
of that, only $33 per hour. These are good-paying jobs that are 
supporting families and enabling the American Dream. But the 
Biden administration would rather forego these good-paying jobs 
and ship them to our adversarial nations overseas. And yet 
again, the Biden administration's motto is anywhere but 
America, any worker but American.
    In light of the challenges posed by the Biden 
administration, it is imperative to underscore the significance 
of offshore investments and their potential impact on our 
society, national security, and future economic growth. Without 
offshore leasing, our coastal communities are vulnerable to job 
loss, increased costs at home and at the pump, and the impact 
of hurricanes for which oil and gas revenues play a vital role 
in preparation and mitigation efforts.
    Instead of pursuing unrealistic goals for the energy 
sector, we must prioritize American competition to foster 
energy dominance and independence by continuing the offshore 
leasing program. We can work together to ensure a prosperous 
future for our nation, one that prioritizes American jobs, 
economic growth, and energy security. Our country's God-given 
resources are waiting to be responsibly tapped into to benefit 
all of our communities, and it is our duty to seize this 
opportunity for the betterment of the American people, energy 
independence, and our allies.
    I want to thank the witnesses again for their willingness 
to testify today, as well as what each of you do in service to 
the American people. We owe you a debt of gratitude.

    I now yield to my colleague from New York, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, for her opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A 
     REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairman.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity to examine the Federal 
offshore oil and gas program. The urgency to address Federal 
fossil fuel development is undeniable as we endure the sixth 
straight week of record-breaking heat waves from Arizona to New 
York City.
    As it stands, the United States is the world's No. 1 
producer of oil and gas, and the second highest emitter of 
greenhouse gas pollution. Our public lands and waters 
contribute nearly a quarter to those emissions. As the Federal 
Government, we have an obligation to make our public lands part 
of the solution to the climate crisis, rather than the problem.
    The Outer Continental Shelf Act, which allows the Federal 
Government to lease lands in our Federal waters, was passed to 
secure national energy security. With the support of Federal 
agencies like the Department of the Interior and the Department 
of Energy, our nation has pioneered offshore technologies that 
set the global standard.
    But the current arguments characterizing energy 
independence lose credibility when you discover that the United 
States is currently exporting 50 percent more oil and gas than 
we did in 2019, all while prices we see at the pump here at 
home and on our utility bills remain high. Why is that?
    Companies are profiting off of a volatile global market by 
pushing domestic prices higher, while communities here at home 
continue to suffer from the impacts of oil and gas development. 
That, ladies and gentleman, is what we call an oil cartel.
    Let's be clear. Oil companies brought in $200 billion in 
profit last year, while high energy prices meant that many 
families struggled to keep food on the table. These companies 
operate with light oversight and almost total disregard for the 
substantial pollution they cause, their climate impacts, and 
the neighboring communities that have become sacrifice zones.
    So, whose security is really at stake here? Let's get into 
what it could look like to protect our workers.
    To date, offshore drilling companies have amassed thousands 
of leases covering more than 11 million acres of Federal 
waters. A staggering 74 percent of these leases have never 
produced oil or gas; 9 million acres remain leased, but 
inactive. Despite these massive holdings, these companies 
continue to seek more.
    Companies will claim they are creating new jobs, but these 
claims fall flat as we witness the oil and gas industry 
systematically automate, shedding its workforce, leaving fuel 
workers with declining wages and uncertain futures as CEOs take 
in million-dollar bonuses. Between 2008 and 2019, offshore oil 
production in the Federal waters off Louisiana increased by 44 
percent, while direct employment in the industry crashed by 62 
percent. A 2020 survey of offshore workers in the Gulf revealed 
that nearly 50 percent had been laid off at least once, and 15 
percent reported being laid off more than once.
    We are producing more oil and gas than ever with fewer and 
fewer people. For generations, workers in the Gulf of Mexico 
have risked life and limb to sustain our way of life. But now 
it is time to build upon that legacy and look toward the 
future. We owe American workers energy stability and 
protection, not hollow promises.
    So, I ask again, as our communities lose jobs to volatile 
oil companies, whose security is really at stake when we talk 
about energy security and independence? And let's get into what 
it would look like to protect frontline communities.
    Gulf Coast communities bear the brunt of these impacts, 
economic and environmental. These communities experience the 
booms and busts of a volatile industry. Oil spills degrade 
fishing grounds and threaten coastal livelihoods. Pipeline 
canals and petroleum withdrawal have decimated the iconic boot 
of southern Louisiana. The release of toxic pollutants from 
industry leads to respiratory illnesses, disease, and higher 
rates of cancer. A 2001 study discovered that more than 80 
percent of residents of Port Arthur, Texas, the predominantly 
Black west side, suffered heart and lung ailments.
    Oil and gas infrastructure also destroys habitat and 
disrupts migratory patterns, endangering local biodiversity. 
Indigenous communities in low-income neighborhoods, which are 
more often closer to this infrastructure, suffer significant 
losses in cultural heritage and subsistence resources.
    Rather than maintaining the status quo and propping up the 
fossil fuel industry, let's invest in the cleanup of the 
thousands of miles of abandoned pipelines and countless 
abandoned wells and rigs to create jobs and protect the 
environment. The Department of the Interior's recently proposed 
regulations to hold companies better accountable with stronger 
financial assurances for cleanup of used wells is a step in the 
right direction.
    Last Congress, we signed into law historic investments in 
climate and clean energy, including long-overdue reforms to 
offshore oil and gas programs and essential investments in 
renewable energy to further the transition through the 
Inflation Reduction Act. But that legislation also included a 
deal to tie future renewable energy to oil and gas leasing for 
the next 10 years.
    This provision forces us to choose, continued burdens for 
environmental justice communities or renewable energy 
development to fight the climate crisis, a choice that we 
should not be forced to make. It is time we right that wrong 
and advance renewable energy without forced ties to fossil 
fuels.
    Yesterday, I introduced the Nonrestrictive Offshore Wind 
Act, or the NOW Act, to repeal that tie and pave the way for 
clean, union-led offshore wind industry. The stakes are high. 
The health of the planet and the well-being of the workforce 
and future generations hang in the balance.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I yield 
back to the Chair.

    Mr. Stauber. I thank you very much. I will now introduce 
our witnesses.
    Mr. Archie Chiasson serves as President, Lafourche Parish, 
Louisiana; Mr. Paul Danos is founder and Chief Executive 
Officer of Danos Company, based in Gray, Louisiana; Mr. Mike 
Minarovic serves as the Chief Executive Officer of Arena 
Energy, headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas; and Mr. Justin 
Solet, who is a Gulf South advocate from Dulac, Louisiana.
    I will now recognize Mr. Chiasson for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ARCHIE CHIASSON, III, PRESIDENT, LAFOURCHE PARISH, 
                     THIBODEAUX, LOUISIANA

    Mr. Chiasson. Good morning, Chairman Stauber and Ranking 
Member Ocasio-Cortez and members of the Committee. I appreciate 
the opportunity to be here with you today to speak on behalf of 
the 100,000 residents of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana, a 
majority of which wake up every day and put on their hard hats 
and their work boots and go to work in the offshore energy 
industry to help provide a significant amount of energy that 
every American needs in their everyday lives.
    I passionately believe that the energy sector and the 
environment can co-exist together, and I think technology 
advances in the industry have proven that to be true.
    Louisiana is considered to be an energy hub, but also a 
sportsman's paradise. In Louisiana and in Lafourche Parish, we 
wake up every day committed to preserving our way of life, our 
environment, our wildlife, our fishing habitats, our community, 
as well as helping to deliver much-needed energy. We are on the 
forefront of our energy and environmental progress, and as a 
result we have a certain amount of homegrown and real-world 
experience.
    For those of you that don't know Lafourche Parish, it is a 
mid-sized suburban parish in southeast Louisiana, and we end at 
the Gulf of Mexico. More importantly, Lafourche Parish is the 
home of Port Fourchon, the nation's premier energy port that 
services 100 percent of the deepwater oil and gas activity in 
the Gulf of Mexico. That means everything that goes offshore: 
the food, water, mud, and other essential mechanical items, all 
comes through Lafourche Parish and Port Fourchon.
    Some of you on the Subcommittee have seen this industry 
firsthand, thanks to Majority Leader Scalise's Energy Tour, 
which stops on active platforms and Port Fourchon, that show 
how energy and the environment can work together. This critical 
U.S. port represents $458 million in household earnings to the 
Lafourche MSA, $243 million in household earnings to the state, 
and $1.1 billion in household earnings to the U.S. economy.
    Economic numbers are hard to visualize, but offshore energy 
supports our entire community and much of the nation, including 
support for essential power to keep the lights on here in our 
nation's capital. The trickledown effect in our local economy 
in communities like ours all across America. Our offshore 
energy sustains local grocery stores like Rouses Supermarkets 
and restaurants like Grady V's or the Kajun Twist, small 
businesses, and many more. The same story can be shared in 
small towns all across the nation, all because we are 
maintaining the offshore industry.
    And the offshore industry is not just oil and gas, but also 
offshore wind and offshore carbon capture. Louisiana is set to 
service and provide manpower and expertise to help diversify 
American energy industry. For Lafourche Parish, it is critical 
that we have a robust offshore energy industry to help support 
our community.
    In the past few years, we have seen unexpected and 
unnecessary delays in Federal approvals for offshore oil and 
gas leasing, as well as permitting gaps that have created 
uncertain operating conditions, and undoubtedly led to 
increased energy prices for American consumers, families, and 
businesses. Getting our national offshore leasing program back 
on track and streamlining our broken permitting process are 
just two pieces of the many critical regulatory obstacles that 
need immediate attention.
    We are not just talking about impacts to little old 
Lafourche Parish, but policies that have an effect on every 
American. These regulatory obstacles impact our residents and 
businesses in profound ways. And just to give you a glimpse of 
what the industry means to the Bayou region, we have 8,015 jobs 
tied strictly to Port Fourchon and another 10,000 or so tied to 
the service industries within the oil and gas that mostly serve 
as companies in the offshore marine operators, but also dozens 
of ancillary businesses.
    For every one job lost, there are three other jobs lost in 
our region, and on the state level, that number is much worse. 
For every one job lost, there are five jobs lost elsewhere in 
our economy. It is the threats to families and the thousands 
more like this that keep me up at night because any job lost is 
unacceptable.
    We continue to watch our nation turn the switch off and 
move to alternative energy sources overnight. This is proving 
to be untrue, as evidenced by the fact that even as we ramp up 
the use of wind and solar alternatives, more than 80 percent of 
today's energy use still comes from oil and gas.
    Again, I fully believe in alternative energy resources, but 
it has to be not one or the other. The answer is we can support 
oil and gas while still supporting wind and carbon capture. We 
need to meet our energy realities while meeting our 
environmental challenges. In fact, if you speak to most 
Americans, they will support an all-of-the-above policy which 
includes oil and gas.
    For example, at the National Association of Counties annual 
meeting just this past weekend in Austin, Texas, I had the 
opportunity to meet with local officials from across the Gulf 
of Mexico and across the country that support oil and gas. NACO 
passed several resolutions on energy and the environment, 
including the support of a new 5-year plan; stable leases in 
the Gulf, both onshore and Federal lands; offshore oil and gas 
exploration and production; and offshore carbon capture.
    Now let's talk about the impact to lost revenue. We have 
spent time in reviewing the data and found that our economy 
would suffer an incredible 15 percent reduction per year should 
permits not be approved and no new oil and gas lease sales 
occur. That 15 percent equates to about a $15 million impact 
just to our parish government. That figure does not include 
money lost to GOMESA, which helps us to protect our wetlands.
    In Louisiana, GOMESA revenue is plugged into our state's 
coastal master plan, which is a science-based, 50-year, $50 
billion plan to save our coast and provide critical flood 
protection to our residents. The state of Louisiana just 
received $87.9 million in funds that were derived from offshore 
oil and gas industry. Our state relies on the promise of the 
Federal Government to help preserve the unique and critical 
habitat, and to ensure that we can continue to enjoy this 
environment. But we don't just rely on the Federal dollars. We 
also have worked with our industry partners to help rebuild our 
coast.
    That 15 percent revenue reduction also does not include 
impacts to our schools, law enforcement, fire services, or 
emergency medical service, or merchants, or hardware stores, or 
restaurants, and our small businesses, and on and on. That 
impact is extrapolated over and over again as it spreads to 
other parishes throughout the state, the region, and the entire 
country.
    As we have long said, Louisiana is special, and the 
offshore industry helps us to remain that. While we understand 
the importance of looking at other forms of energy, whether 
they be solar or wind, the oil and gas industry will still play 
a critical role in moving our nation forward, and the 
discussion needs to be centered on the energy addition, not an 
energy transition.
    Currently, many Louisianans work with BOEM and the Gulf of 
Mexico Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force that 
Governor Edwards helped create. The purpose of the task force 
is to provide education, coordination, consultation, related 
and renewable energy planning activities for the Outer 
Continental Shelf in the western Gulf of Mexico. Working with 
Federal, state, and local officials, this group has helped to 
shape the offshore wind energy lease areas and what they will 
look like.
    This is extremely exciting for us in Louisiana, since we 
know we have the skills and the equipment to play a major role 
in this new energy addition, so much so that Port Fourchon has 
already begun leasing property to Gulf offshore wind 
developers, and we have coined Lafourche Parish as the gateway 
to Gulf Wind.
    This is why Lafourche Parish has supported legislation like 
H.R. 1 and the BREEZE Act to help send revenues from offshore 
wind lease sales back to the producing states. The Shores 
Coalition has made numerous trips to meet with Members of 
Congress to talk about the importance of not only new offshore 
oil and gas leases, but also the importance of offshore wind 
and that revenue sharing.
    In Louisiana, we have consistently dedicated revenue from--
--
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Chiasson, can you wrap it up? Five 
minutes.
    Mr. Chiasson. Yes, sir. I am sorry.
    Finally, Chairman Stauber, we understand that there is a 
need for the energy addition to help continue to drive our 
nation forward. And we also understand that oil and gas 
exploration must still have to happen. And for the Biden 
administration to pretend that oil and gas can be easily 
removed from our energy mix is just not the case.
    Whether we are looking at lithium batteries mined in Mexico 
with natural gas or whether we are looking at offshore wind 
platforms that need to be lubricated with an oil and gas 
product, the boats from Cut Off, Louisiana who went up there 
went up there with diesel-powered engines.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be 
here today, and for everyone's support of the continued 
momentum to keep the energy sectors and the environment moving 
forward together.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Chiasson follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Archie Chiasson, III, President,
                      Lafourche Parish, Louisiana
    Good morning Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and 
members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today 
speaking on behalf of the 100,000 residents of Lafourche parish, 
Louisiana, a majority of which wake up every day, put on their boots 
and go to work in the offshore energy industry to help provide a 
significant amount of energy every American needs each and every day.
    I passionately believe energy and the environment can co-exist and 
flourish--and I think technological innovation has proven this to be 
the case.
    Louisiana is considered to be an energy hub, but also a sportsman's 
paradise. In Louisiana, and Lafourche Parish, we wake up every day 
committed to preserving our way of life, our environment, our wildlife, 
our fishing habitats, our communities, as well as helping to deliver 
much needed energy. We are on the frontlines of our energy and 
environmental progress; and, as a result, we have a certain amount of 
homegrown, real-world expertise.
    For those of you that do not know, Lafourche Parish is a midsize 
suburban parish in Southeast Louisiana that ends at the Gulf of Mexico. 
More importantly, Lafourche is home to Port Fourchon, the nation's 
premier Energy Port that services 100% of the deep-water oil and gas 
activity in the Gulf of Mexico. That means that everything that goes 
out to a platform: mud, water, food, and other essential mechanical 
items, comes through Lafourche Parish and Port Fourchon. Some of you on 
the Subcommittee have seen the industry first hand thanks to Majority 
Leader Scalise's Energy tour with stops on an active platform and Port 
Fourchon that show how industry and the environment can work together.
    This critical U.S. Port represents $458 million dollars in 
household earnings to the Lafourche MSA, $243 million dollars in 
household earnings to the state, and $1.1 billion dollars in household 
earnings to the United States economy.
    Economic numbers are hard to visualize, but the offshore energy 
industry supports our entire community--and much of the nation, 
including helping to provide the essential power to keep the lights on 
in our Nation's Capital. The trickle-down effect in our local 
community--and communities like ours across America: Our offshore 
energy sustains local grocery stores like Rouses Supermarkets, the 
restaurants, like Grady V's or the Kajun Twist, small businesses, and 
more. This same story can be shared in towns all across the nation--all 
because we are maintaining an offshore industry.
    And, the offshore industry is now not just oil and gas, but also 
offshore wind and offshore carbon capture. Louisiana is set and ready 
to service and provide the manpower and expertise to help diversify 
America's energy industry.
    For Lafourche Parish, it is critical that we have a robust offshore 
energy industry to support our community.
    In the past few years, , we have seen unexpected and unnecessary 
delays in federal approvals for offshore oil and gas leasing, as well 
as ongoing permitting gaps that have created uncertain operating 
conditions and have undoubtedly led to increased energy prices for 
American consumers, families and businesses.
    Getting our national offshore leasing program back on-track and 
streamlining our broken permitting process are just two pieces of many 
critical regulatory obstacles that need immediate attention. We are not 
just talking about impacts to little old Lafourche Parish; these 
policies have an impact on every American.
    These federal regulatory obstacles impact our residents and 
businesses in profound ways. Just to give you a glimpse as to what this 
industry means to the Bayou Region, we have 8,015 jobs tied strictly to 
Port Fourchon with another 10,000 or so tied to the oil and gas 
industry, mostly through service companies and offshore marine 
operators, but also through dozens of ancillary businesses. For every 
one job lost, there are three others lost in our region. On a state 
level, that number is much worse. For every one job lost, there are 
five others lost somewhere in the economy.
    It is the threat to these families and thousands more like them 
that keeps me up at night because any job lost is unacceptable! We 
continue to watch some in our nation think we can turn the switch off 
and move to alternative energy sources overnight. This is proving to be 
untrue, as evidenced by the fact that, even as we ramp up our use of 
wind and solar and other alternatives, more than 80% of today's energy 
use in the U.S. still comes from oil and natural gas.
    Again, I believe fully in alternative energy resources, but it is 
not one or the other. The answer is that we can support oil and gas, 
while also supporting wind and carbon capture. We can meet our energy 
realities while also meeting our environmental challenges.
    In fact, if you speak with most Americans, they support all of the 
above energy policy that includes oil and gas. For example, I was at 
the National Association of Counties Annual Meeting just this past 
weekend. I had the opportunity to speak with local officials from 
across the Gulf of Mexico states and across the country that support 
oil and gas. NACO passed several resolutions on energy and environment, 
including in support of a new five-year plan, stable lease sales both 
in the Gulf and on inshore federal lands, offshore oil gas exploration 
and production, and offshore carbon capture.
    Now let's talk about the impact of lost revenue. We have spent some 
time reviewing the data and found that our economy would suffer an 
incredible 15 percent revenue reduction per year should permits not be 
approved and should no new oil and gas lease sales occur. That 15 
percent equates to about a $15-million-dollar impact to just our parish 
government.
    That figure does not include the lost money going to protect 
Louisiana coastal environment and waters from GOMESA dollars. In 
Louisiana, our GOMESA revenue in plugged into the State's Coastal 
Master Plan which is a science based 50 year $50-billion-dollar plan to 
save our coast and provide critical flood protection to our residents. 
The State of Louisiana just received $87.9-million-dollars from funds 
that were derived from the offshore oil and gas industry. Our state 
relies on this promise from the federal government to help preserve 
this unique and critical habitat--and ensure we all can continue to 
enjoy this environment. But we don't just rely on the federal dollars, 
we have worked with our industry partners too.
    That 15 percent revenue reduction also does not include impacts to 
our schools, law enforcement, fire services or emergency medical 
services, merchants, hardware stores, restaurants, small business and 
on and on. That impact number is extrapolated over and over again as it 
spreads to other parishes throughout the state, the region and the 
entire United States. As we have long said, Louisiana is special, and 
the offshore industry helps ensure that we remain special.
    While we understand the importance of looking at other forms of 
energy, whether they be solar or wind, the oil and gas industry will 
still play a critical role in keeping our nation moving. The discussion 
needs to be centered on an Energy Addition not an either-or option. 
Currently, many Louisianans work with BOEM and the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) 
Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force that Gov. Edwards helped 
create. The purpose of the task force is to provide education, 
coordination and consultation related to the renewable energy planning 
activities on the outer continental shelf (OCS) in the Western Gulf of 
Mexico. Working with federal, state, and local officials, this group 
helped to shape what the offshore wind energy lease areas will look 
like. This is extremely exciting for us in Louisiana since we know we 
have the skills and equipment to play a major role in this new energy 
addition. So much so that Port Fourchon has already begun leasing 
property to offshore wind developers, and we have coined Lafourche 
Parish and the Gateway to Gulf Wind.
    This is why Lafourche has supported legislation like H.R. 1 and the 
BREEZE Act to help send revenue from the offshore wind lease sales back 
to the producing states. The SHORES (Sharing Offshore Revenues from 
Energy Sources) Coalition has made numerous trips to meet with members 
of Congress to talk about the importance of not only new offshore oil 
and gas lease sales but also importance of offshore wind revenue 
sharing. In Louisiana, we have constitutionally dedicated revenue from 
offshore lease sales to all things coastal and the work that is being 
done through the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration 
Authority's Coastal Master Plan.
    Additionally, State Representative Joseph Orgeron is working on a 
state constitutional amendment that would do the same for the revenue 
generated by offshore wind lease sales. You see, we are tirelessly 
working to restore our coast and protect our residents and our culture.
    Finally, Chairman Stauber, while we understand that there needs to 
be an energy addition to help continue to drive our nation forward, we 
also have to understand that oil and gas exploration and production is 
still a must. As the Biden Administration moves to increase the use of 
renewable energy, they are asking us to pretend that oil and gas can be 
easily removed from our energy mix. In reality, those lithium batteries 
that power electric cars come from mines in Mexico that are powered by 
generators fed with natural gas. The wind farms that dot the east coast 
and other parts of our country need to be lubricated and you cannot do 
that without petroleum products. And lastly, the lift boats that came 
from Cut Off, Louisiana, to help erect those windmills on Block Island 
did not get up there by themselves. They were propelled by diesel 
engines. There is a world where we continue to use oil and gas while 
also making environmental progress that not only supports Americans 
daily needs for energy, but also supports my community in Lafourche.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and for everyone's 
support for the continued momentum to keep the energy sectors and the 
environment moving forward together.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Danos for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF PAUL DANOS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DANOS 
                    COMPANY, GRAY, LOUISIANA

    Mr. Danos. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member 
Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 
having me here today to testify. My name is Paul Danos. I am 
the President and CEO and one of the owners of Danos. We are a 
76-year-old family business.
    Chairman Stauber, somebody gave you some bad information. I 
wasn't a founder, I wasn't around in 1947 when we started. That 
would be my grandfather. I represent the third generation of 
our business, actually. My youngest daughter is sitting behind 
me representing the fourth generation today.
    I am also current chair of the National Oceans Industry 
Association, or NOIA. For more than 50 years, NOIA has 
represented all segments of the offshore energy industry, 
including offshore oil and gas, offshore wind, offshore 
minerals, and offshore carbon sequestration.
    As I mentioned, my grandfather started the company in 1947, 
and he really did it, certainly, as a way to improve his life 
and his family's life, but also as a way to provide jobs for 
our community. And today, we have about nearly 3,000 employees, 
so our community has expanded. We provide jobs throughout the 
country, primarily in oil and gas, but also supporting other 
forms of energy and coastal restoration, which I will talk 
about.
    But today, the conversation around energy focuses, more 
often we think of and hear oil companies with names that we 
recognize, maybe that we see at the gas pump, the major oil and 
gas companies. And we appreciate those companies. Our company 
works for those companies. They invest billions of dollars of 
capital into this business.
    But really, most of the frontline workers who are on the 
rigs, on the platforms, work for companies like Danos, 
companies that you probably haven't heard of, family-owned 
companies that are putting people to work in our industry. And 
those are the folks that I am representing today, not just our 
employees, but all of those frontline workers who are really 
heroes that do the work for our business.
    My point here is to say that we know that the policy that 
comes out of Washington has a massive impact on these people, 
the people that are doing the work. And really, what I would 
like to say on their behalf is that any policy that limits 
production in the United States, and particularly offshore 
production for oil and gas in the United States and the Gulf of 
Mexico, is bad for national security, it is bad for jobs, and 
it is bad for the environment.
    And the reason it is bad for the environment, a recent 
study by ICF International commissioned by NOIA found that the 
barrels produced in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico deepwater have 
carbon intensity of 46 percent lower than the average barrel 
produced outside of North America. So, demand for oil and gas 
is about 100 million barrels a day. And if we reduce supply or 
production in the United States, that demand is not going to 
change, and those barrels are going to be produced elsewhere, 
so we are going to trade those barrels for dirtier, higher-
carbon-intensity barrels at the same time sending jobs 
overseas, reducing our national security, and impairing our 
economy.
    The next main point I would like to make is what we need in 
this industry is predictability when it comes to leasing. We 
talked about that. That has been said today. But really, when 
you think about the oil and gas industry, it is like a long 
conveyor belt. And the first thing that happens is those oil 
and gas leases get put on the conveyor belt. And as they go 
down along the conveyor belt, yes, it is true that some of 
those leases are found to be uneconomic and don't eventually 
produce oil and gas. But many of those leases eventually, as 
they work their way down the conveyor belt, exploration 
happens, appraisal happens, investment happens, we begin to 
provide jobs. People are working on those leases.
    One day, many of those leases get to a point where they are 
producing hundreds of barrels a day, thousands of barrels a 
day, tens of thousands of barrels a day, sometimes hundreds of 
thousands of barrels of oil and gas every day, they come from 
those leases. And what happens is, if we are not putting leases 
on the conveyor belt, at some point we are going to be sitting 
around with capital and people, trained people, here in the 
United States ready to deploy and do the work, and there will 
be nothing on that conveyor belt.
    So, we are in the midst of this unprecedented pause in 
leases, and I thank the Committee for the work that they are 
doing. But the ultimate result will be, again, sending those 
barrels overseas and increasing energy costs for Americans.
    The offshore energy sector has unparalleled expertise, as 
well, and experience in deploying technologies that are going 
to decarbonize energy going forward. And I would agree with Mr. 
Chiasson, it is not an either/or, it is a both. Even companies 
like Danos are investing in shoreline restoration. We are doing 
3D printed coral, 3D printed artificial reefs to stabilize 
shorelines. It is part of what we do. We are partnering with a 
company out of North Carolina that has some really amazing 
technology to deploy.
    So, again, thank you for your time today. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify, and I will look forward to your 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Danos follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Paul Danos, Owner, President, and CEO, Danos 
                                Company

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is 
Paul Danos, and I am Owner, President, and CEO of Danos, a 76-year-old, 
family-owned company out of Houma, Louisiana that provides labor and 
project services for energy companies throughout the country. In 1947, 
my grandfather started Danos as a small tugboat company supporting Gulf 
of Mexico oil and gas operations while conducting business from my 
grandmother's kitchen table. Today, Danos has grown into a global 
presence and a trusted strategic partner for energy project developers 
around the globe.
    Danos offers onshore and offshore customers an extensive range of 
integrated services, including workforce, construction, fabrication, 
project management, supply chain, shorebase and logistics, mechanical 
maintenance, coastal restoration, power generation, and various other 
services. Danos has 2,700 employees, with nine offices in Louisiana and 
Texas and operations across the Gulf of Mexico and North American shale 
plays. Looking forward, we plan to continue adding service lines, 
expanding into renewable energy, and increasing operations to meet the 
needs of our customers. Throughout the past seven decades, our company 
has maintained an unfaltering commitment to values, safety, and overall 
results for our clients. This is the ethos we will continue to embrace 
as we rise to meet the energy needs of tomorrow.
    A vital part of Danos' business profile has been the ability of our 
company to diversify our work in the energy sector and positively 
contribute to communities through environmental stewardship. Our 
environmental stewardship includes efforts taken to sustain and 
preserve the natural environment as well as actions to reduce or 
mitigate impacts to the environment.

    Our commitment to preserving and protecting the environment is a 
natural extension of our company purpose, ``to solve big challenges for 
our customers and communities.'' We have a great opportunity to 
leverage our expertise and competencies to help customers meet today's 
energy demands without compromising the environment for tomorrow. We 
aim to reduce our carbon footprint while supporting customers as they 
strive to meet global environmental standards. We have identified three 
key pillars of focus regarding the environment:

     Protect, preserve, and restore the natural environment.

     Reduce the environmental impact of Danos' operations.

     Support renewable energy business opportunities.

    Danos is leading the way in wetlands and coastal environmental 
restoration and protection through several key initiatives:

     Danos has embarked on a collaborative partnership with 3D-
            printing technology company Natrx to positively impact 
            coastal resiliency and restoration by designing, 
            manufacturing, and installing innovative nature-based 
            infrastructure solutions that reduce carbon emissions. The 
            revolutionary process cuts material usage by up to 70%, 
            generates up to 300% higher protective biomass, and 
            increases habitat by 650% per linear foot of infrastructure 
            vs. rock or solid concrete structure. Our first joint 
            project involved the placement of ``Cajun Coral,'' an 
            innovative 3D-printed infrastructure, to establish a new 
            reef in Catfish Lake, part of the Golden Meadow marshland 
            area. The installation has provided more substantial 
            protection from erosion for this vital coastal wetland and 
            home to a growing population of oysters and other sea life.

     To that end, Danos and Natrx have signed a letter of 
            intent to partner on coastal issues, and we have continued 
            to work on projects deploying nature-based technologies. 
            Danos has exclusive rights to manufacture Natrx's 
            proprietary Oysterbreak and ExoForm technology across the 
            Gulf South region. Through this partnership, we are able to 
            execute projects for coastal restoration, artificial reef 
            creation, and pipeline protection.

    Danos actively participates in various wetland conservation groups, 
including Partnership for our Working Coast (POWC), Coalition to 
Restore Coastal Louisiana, Coastal Conservation Association, Louisiana 
Sea Grant, Restore or Retreat, and the LSU College of the Coast and 
Environment. As a member of POWC, an alliance of industry and 
environmental entities led by the Water Institute of the Gulf, Danos 
supports efforts to protect vital infrastructure in Port Fourchon. With 
planned improvements to the Port expected to produce millions of cubic 
yards of dredged materials, POWC has identified the most beneficial 
ways to use this material to contribute to Louisiana's coastal 
sustainability efforts, protect coastal communities, and support 
America's Working Coast.
    I am also the current chairman of the National Ocean Industries 
Association, or NOIA. For more than 50 years, NOIA has represented the 
interests of all segments of the offshore energy industry, including 
offshore oil and gas, offshore wind, offshore minerals, and offshore 
carbon sequestration. The membership of NOIA includes energy project 
leaseholders and developers and the entire supply chain of companies--
like Danos--that make up an innovative energy system contributing to 
the safe and responsible exploration, development, and production of 
energy for the American people.
    The conversation around energy often focuses on the major oil and 
gas companies, but it is important to recognize and appreciate that it 
is companies like Danos that do much of the work and employ a 
substantial portion of the workforce that develops U.S. energy 
projects. For instance, there are thousands of companies and hundreds 
of thousands of U.S. workers that support oil and gas production out of 
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. So, when it comes to energy policy, decisions 
in Washington have a massive impact on the employees of Danos in 
Louisiana, throughout the Gulf Coast, and in communities all across 
America. I can also personally attest that companies throughout the 
energy supply chain are taking tangible steps to reduce the 
environmental and emissions impact of operations.
    The offshore energy sector is a proven leader in solving energy 
challenges and delivering diverse sources of energy to the global 
economy. The offshore industry brings together the companies that 
produce foundational energy sources such as oil and gas, while leading 
innovation and investment in energy sources and technologies that will 
drive decarbonization efforts well into the future. The offshore energy 
sector has unparalleled expertise and experience deploying and scaling 
technologies at levels necessary to achieve decarbonization objectives. 
Companies throughout the offshore industry continue to lead the way in 
innovating low emission solutions that include offshore wind, carbon 
capture and storage, hydrogen, and geothermal, among others.
    For the foreseeable future, the offshore industry will play an 
integral role in shaping an energy system that promotes the production 
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 low carbon sources into the mix.
    Energy production in my backyard--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.
    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 
similarly high levels of 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.

    Oil produced from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico has a carbon intensity 
one-half that of other producing regions.\1\ 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.\2\. Moreover, a recent 
study by ICF International, and commissioned by NOIA, found that that 
U.S. Gulf of Mexico has a carbon intensity 46% lower than the global 
average outside of the U.S. and Canada, outperforming other nations 
like Russia, China, Brazil, Iran, Iraq, and Nigeria.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Motiwala, and Ismail, ``Statistical Study of Carbon Intensities 
in the GOM and PB,'' ChemRxiv, April 13, 2020.

    \2\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/the-challenge-of-negative-
emissions/

    \3\ https://www.noia.org/new-report-u-s-gulf-of-mexico-oil-gas-
production-leads-with-lower-emissions-including-methane/

    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. Foreign 
providers generally employ less environmentally conscientious 
production methods,\4\ which when combined with the added emissions 
from transporting oil over great distances by tanker, increases the 
amount of carbon released into the atmosphere rather than decreasing 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
it.

    \4\ https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epi

    Emissions reduction is a global challenge. As analysts at Wood 
Mackenzie explain, ``Removing or handicapping a low emitter hurts the 
collective global average.'' \5\ 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.

    \5\ https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/could-restricting-oil-
production-in-the-us-gulf-of-mexico-lead-to-carbon-leakage/

    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.

    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 in the 
company of some of 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:


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .epsSource: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

    Offshore energy is truly a 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Director Scott Angelle, BSEE Director, BSEE Presentation to the 
Deepwater Technical Symposium, November 13, 2020.

    From a regulatory standpoint, federal government policy must serve 
to eliminate potential roadblocks to investment in energy projects, 
including offshore wind. The recent debt ceiling agreement included 
important changes that will hopefully help streamline the permitting 
process. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a bedrock law 
for guiding the federal decision-making process with due consideration 
of the potential environmental impacts. However, as with any rule or 
regulation, it is important that we take the time to review and improve 
rules and regulations as necessary to promote efficiency and 
effectiveness in regulation. The inclusion of many aspects of 
Congressman Graves BUILDER Act in the debt ceiling agreement was a very 
positive step toward streamlining the NEPA process. We remain hopeful 
that Congress will continue to work together to refine and improve all 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
aspects of permitting.

    We also remain concerned about potential delays to investment in 
American energy projects as a result of the actions of the 
Administration. As the Administration reviews and reworks regulations 
and energy programs, it will be important to ensure changes to the 
regulatory framework are conducted in a way that promotes the 
development of all forms of American energy. Environmental stewardship 
and energy progress are not mutually exclusive; for example, Danos and 
members of NOIA have consistently been leaders in both arenas. 
Promulgating rules that balance the need for energy development with 
effective environmental stewardship will provide the certainty these 
massive investments require.

    The implementation of NEPA by federal agencies will ultimately 
determine the timeline and pathway for many U.S. energy projects. 
Timely and transparent NEPA processes are of significant importance to 
project developers, investors, employees, and contractors whose jobs 
and livelihoods are tied to projects subject to NEPA reviews. 
Preconstruction delays for projects typically add costs and delay the 
delivery of the benefits that projects can bring. Delays and associated 
cost increases can even result in projects being canceled altogether. 
In today's globalized economy, where there is a high level of 
competition for the world's investment, increasing uncertainty and 
delays in the federal permitting process can serve to drive investments 
elsewhere. It is imperative that U.S. energy policy supports the global 
competitiveness of U.S. energy investment.

    In order to fully unleash American energy potential, it is vital 
that federal policy promotes consistency and predictability in leasing, 
permitting, and regulation. In an unprecedented fashion, the 
Administration has paused and delayed offshore oil and gas leasing and 
has failed to timely develop a new leasing program for U.S. federal 
waters, putting into jeopardy U.S. energy production, major capital 
investments, and thousands of jobs.
    Since its inception, offshore oil and gas production has created 
hundreds of thousands of jobs and generated billions in royalties for 
the U.S. Treasury, boosting our nation's energy independence and 
national security--all while yielding approximately half of the carbon 
intensity per barrel of other producers worldwide. The offshore 
industry has also worked with the federal government and conservation 
partners, such as the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), to 
collaborate on innovative efforts like the Rigs-to-Reef program, which 
repurposes obsolete platforms into habitats for marine life and further 
helps create a national recreational fishing economy. Additionally, 
legislation and programs like the Great American Outdoors Act, the Gulf 
of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA), and the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund ensure that billions of dollars from federal offshore 
oil and gas leasing are dedicated to long-term coastal conservation and 
restoration, environmental protection, and urban recreation programs. 
Without continued reliable offshore oil and gas leasing this funding is 
at risk.
    The employees of companies like Danos, throughout the Gulf Coast 
and beyond, rely upon a steady stream of lease sales through a 
continuously maintained national leasing program so that our companies 
can thrive and grow. Importantly, based upon what we have seen with 
prior legislative proposals, Congress could consider legislation that 
sets a deadline for the completion of the next federal offshore oil and 
gas leasing program and mandates a minimum number of region-wide Gulf 
of Mexico lease sales. While the Inflation Reduction Act reinstates 
canceled lease sales, it does not address the lack of an active federal 
offshore oil and gas leasing program. Interior is legally required to 
maintain a leasing program and to schedule and hold lease sales, yet a 
federal offshore leasing program is currently going through an 
unprecedented lapse. The long-term success of the Gulf of Mexico as a 
premier energy region is dependent on the ability of companies to 
continuously secure acreage through new lease opportunities. 
Contractors like Danos then have the opportunity to compete for the 
work in constructing and maintaining these innovative projects. With a 
heightened level of uncertainty in the Gulf of Mexico, investment 
dollars could naturally leave the U.S. to be spent in regions with 
weaker environmental oversight and weaken our energy security. We 
appreciate the work of this Committee in advancing H.R. 1, the Lower 
Energy Costs Act, which passed the House of Representatives by a 
bipartisan vote and included requirements for continued lease sales in 
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
    Some critics audaciously claim that the industry has enough leases, 
and that it is unnecessary to offer more. However, this ignores 
fundamental realities of the oil and gas market, particularly in the 
offshore region where hundreds of millions of dollars may often be 
spent to simply determine if oil exists in commercial quantities within 
a lease block. One way to think about leasing is through the analogy of 
a conveyor belt. So long as leases are continuously placed on the 
conveyor belt, the industry has the ability to continuously take the 
steps necessary to explore for, discover, develop, and then produce the 
resources that may be found within the lease. As the leases move along 
the conveyor belt, companies are continuously analyzing the geology, 
acquiring and processing seismic data, contracting for drilling rigs 
and workers, drilling exploratory wells, evaluating drilling results, 
drilling additional wells, determining whether the field contains 
commercial quantities of oil and gas, and finally, designing and 
procuring production facilities and associated infrastructure. During 
each stage, companies must apply for various plans, permits and 
approvals. In many cases, companies determine that oil and gas is not 
commercially recoverable and the company ultimately relinquishes the 
lease back to the federal government. It is also important to recognize 
that companies pay bonus bids to obtain a lease, rentals to continue to 
hold the lease, and then royalties if the lease is producing oil or 
gas. All told, it costs companies significant resources, in terms of 
capital investment as well as time and man-hours, to explore for and 
potentially develop these resources.
    As the U.S. and its allies attempt to overcome mounting 
geopolitical instability provoked by the Russian Federation, the 
Chinese Communist Party, and other adversaries around the world, the 
importance of the Gulf of Mexico in providing energy and national 
security for our nation and our allies will only grow. With a five-year 
offshore leasing program and uninterrupted lease sales, energy experts 
predict that the Gulf of Mexico will continue as the backbone of U.S. 
energy production by producing an estimated average of 2.6 million 
barrels equivalent per day from 2022-2040. Conversely, experts also 
project that a delay in the program could translate to nearly 500,000 
barrels equivalent per day less over that period. The reason for this 
delta in future production under different leasing program scenarios is 
simple; without new leasing, companies cannot replenish their energy 
portfolios with new lease blocks. Having a robust and diversified 
exploration portfolio is critical to business health and delivering 
energy, as most leases do not contain commercially viable amounts of 
oil or natural gas. Put simply, continued lease sales in the U.S. 
offshore region means continued U.S. oil and gas production for years 
to come. With the Gulf of Mexico recognized as a region that produces 
some of the lowest-carbon intensity barrels in the world, more lease 
sales are good for us, our allies, and global emissions.
    The dire need for a healthy federal leasing program is compounded 
by the impact of the energy provisions passed within the Inflation 
Reduction Act (IRA). With periodic oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf 
of Mexico now required in order for the Department of the Interior to 
issue offshore wind leases, the urgency for leasing for both sectors is 
now tied together by Congressional mandate. Many of the same companies 
that built the offshore oil and gas sector in the Gulf of Mexico are 
now participating in the build-out of the offshore wind sector in the 
Atlantic. This includes many service and supply companies, like Danos, 
who have expertise in marine construction, fabrication, subsea 
engineering and design, and offshore vessel services. A steady stream 
of offshore oil and gas and offshore wind lease sales is needed for the 
supply chain to fully realize these incredible opportunities before us.
    The U.S. and global economies continue to depend upon reliable and 
affordable supplies of all forms of energy--and specifically oil and 
natural gas--to maintain a high standard of living. Continued U.S. 
domestic oil and gas development, particularly offshore production, 
provides vast benefits and a sensible pathway for energy security for 
the next few decades. At the same time, the U.S. energy industry is 
contributing to the development of low and zero carbon energy options, 
including wind, hydrogen, and carbon removal technologies. Danos, the 
members of NOIA, and energy companies across the nation stand ready to 
work with policy makers 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.
    It is an honor for me to testify before the committee. Thank you 
for this opportunity.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize Mr. 
Minarovic for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF MIKE MINAROVIC, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARENA 
                  ENERGY, THE WOODLANDS, TEXAS

    Mr. Minarovic. Thank you, Chairman Stauber and Ranking 
Member Ocasio-Cortez, for the opportunity to testify this 
morning. My name is Mike Minarovic, and I am the CEO of Arena 
Energy, which is an independent exploration company exclusively 
focused on the Gulf of Mexico. We are one of the most active 
drillers on the Gulf of Mexico.
    In the past 24 years, we have invested a total of $7 
billion in the Gulf, and paid the Federal Government $1.4 
billion of royalties alone. Last year, our company paid the 
Federal Government $230 million combined royalties and 
corporate taxes. That is including payroll taxes.
    I also speak to you today on behalf of the Gulf Energy 
Alliance, which is a coalition of independent Gulf producers. 
Although we are not household names, independents are the 
backbone for the offshore industry, producing 35 percent of the 
oil and natural gas from this basin.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Minarovic. I want to turn your attention to this plot 
of the world oil demand. Over the last 60 years, the bars are 
represented in green. You can see the steady increasing oil 
demand. And then the blue, purple is EIA's base projection 
going forward. I recognize that today we are using 102 million 
barrels of oil a day. And the EIA projects that we will 
continue to use more oil throughout the end of this decade, 
rising to 109 million barrels of oil a day.
    One of the remarkable parts of this plot, there is a lot to 
talk about here, but one of the remarkable things is when we 
shut down this world in 2020 because of COVID, when we stopped 
flying, when we stopped driving, we stopped industry, we still 
used 92 million barrels of oil a day. That is how hard this 
problem is.
    We can't restrict supply. We have to focus on demand. We 
have to transition away from this, but we have to do that by 
reducing demand. Reducing supply without reducing demand will 
only increase the price. And we learned what that will do in 
2020.
    The reason demand keeps going up is the next plot I would 
like to show you, which is the continued increase of the 
population of the world. We hit 8 billion people this year. We 
add a billion people every 12 years on a steady rate, and the 
World Health Organization expects that to continue.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Minarovic. If you look at the table on the upper left, 
it is dramatic. Who is using the oil? This is oil use per year 
per person by region. The United States, 22 barrels per person 
per year. Western Europe, half of that. The global average, 20 
percent of what we use in the United States.
    But the important thing for the future of oil demand is the 
three regions below: China, India, and Africa, the continent of 
Africa. Those three regions are using significantly less than 
the global average. Those are where the demand is growing, and 
those regions represent half the population of this world. Four 
billion people live in China, India, and Africa. That is where 
this global demand is going to be settled in the future.
    I would love to talk about this some more; we will get back 
to my testimony.
    The world is going to use a lot of oil for a long time, and 
we need to have a good price for energy as we transition away 
from it. If we have higher prices, it will make the transition 
more difficult. The best place to produce that oil is the Gulf 
of Mexico. The offshore industry creates numerous high-paying 
jobs, and residents in states adjacent to the Gulf 
overwhelmingly support offshore development. Our operations are 
many miles removed from any shoreline communities.
    The past 19 years, offshore production contributed $125 
billion to the U.S. Treasury through royalties and lease 
bonuses. About 17 percent of every dollar of offshore revenue 
goes straight back to the Federal Government and many state 
programs, including GOMESA and the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund.
    On top of all that, various studies, as referenced 
previously, show that oil produced in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 
has half the greenhouse gas emissions of other producing 
regions, and is among the most environmentally advantaged oil 
produced in the world.
    But the industry continues to face challenges, especially 
after the last few years. Future offshore lease sales remain 
uncertain as the 5-year lease plan expired in 2022, and no new 
plan has been presented, despite the statutory requirement to 
do so. New offshore leases are the feedstock for future 
production from the Gulf of Mexico, and delay will ultimately 
result in less production from the most environmentally 
advantaged barrels of oil.
    Compounding this leasing uncertainty, the Biden 
administration recently issued a proposed rule that requires 
massive increases in financial bonding for independent offshore 
producers. According to the proposed rule's own analysis, it 
will cost the industry $5 billion in total bonding costs over 
the next 20 years: $250 million per year. The stated purpose of 
the proposed rule is to protect the American taxpayer from 
exposure to decommissioning liability, which the proposed rule 
acknowledges is rare.
    To be clear, U.S. taxpayers should never be on the hook for 
any decommissioning liabilities, and there are several policy 
options available to fully address this risk without 
jeopardizing the very viability of independent offshore 
producers.
    Solving this problem by proposing a solution that will cost 
small businesses $5 billion is just ludicrous. The consequences 
are obvious, and the proposed rule actually states it clearly: 
``BOEM recognizes that this action may adversely affect in a 
material way the productivity, competition, or prices in the 
energy sector. By increasing industry compliance costs, the 
regulation could adversely make the U.S. offshore oil and gas 
sector less attractive than regions with lower operating 
costs.''
    In conclusion, today the reality is that we live in a world 
where one man controls the production of 10 percent of the 
world's oil. This same man has recently used his natural gas 
production as a weapon in the conflict in Europe. If he were to 
do the same with just 30 percent of his oil production, we 
would wake up tomorrow in economic chaos at the exact time when 
we have voluntarily reduced our strategic oil reserves by 
nearly 50 percent.
    We need to meet continuing U.S. demand, maintain affordable 
energy prices, minimize the greenhouse gas emissions from 
fossil fuels, and protect our energy and national security. Oil 
production from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico is a big part of that 
solution.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to 
take questions.

                                 *****


         Charts shown during Mr. Minarovic's testimony follow:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    [The prepared statement of Mr. Minarovic follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Mike Minarovic, Chief Executive Officer, Arena 
                              Energy, LLC

    Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members and 
staff of the Committee and Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 
to testify this morning. My name is Mike Minarovic, and I am the Co-
Founder, President and CEO of Arena Energy, an employee-owned 
independent exploration and production company with an exclusive focus 
on offshore oil and natural gas development in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
    Over the past twenty-four years, Arena has grown into one of the 
largest private offshore oil and natural gas companies, having invested 
over $4.7 billion of capital in the Gulf of Mexico, paid over $1.4 
billion in royalties to the government, and decommissioned over 350 
wells and 50 offshore platforms. Arena conducts its operations with an 
intense focus on the safety of our employees and contractors and 
safeguarding the environment. We have produced significant volumes of 
both oil and natural gas in an environmentally responsible manner, 
especially relative to foreign producers, many of whom do not share our 
commitment to environmental stewardship. Our operations support 
thousands of high-paying jobs along the Gulf Coast, largely in rural 
communities.

    Despite the challenging regulatory environment over the past 
several years, we have expanded our commitment to the U.S. Gulf of 
Mexico by creating new companies that provide drilling rigs, pipelines, 
and environmental remediation and decommissioning services to the 
offshore industry. These investments were made to ensure safer 
operations, mitigate pollution risks, and to decommission wells, 
pipelines, and platforms in the Gulf in a safe and environmentally 
protective manner. Most recently, we have dedicated resources to 
repurposing existing oil and gas platforms and pipelines to facilitate 
offshore renewable energy and carbon capture and sequestration 
projects. By the numbers, since inception in 1999, the Arena companies 
have:

     Invested approximately $7 billion in the U.S. Gulf of 
            Mexico

     Drilled over 330 wells

     Produced approximately 5 days of U.S. oil and gas demand

     Supports approximately 5,000 total jobs (directly and 
            indirectly), and

     Paid the federal government approximately $230 million in 
            royalties and taxes in 2022

    I also speak today on behalf of the Gulf Energy Alliance, a 
coalition of leading independent offshore producers whose operations, 
like Arena's, are primarily focused in the Gulf of Mexico. Independent 
offshore producers are not household names and have distinctly 
different business models than the major oil and gas companies. But 
collectively, independent producers were responsible for approximately 
35% of Outer Continental Shelf oil and natural gas production in 
2022.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Office of Natural Resources Revenue; Bureau of Safety and 
Environmental Enforcement (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. The World is Going to Need More Oil
    Earlier this week at the G20 Energy Transitions Ministers' Meeting 
in Goa, India, the ``Outcome Document and Chair's Summary'' recognized 
that the world will continue to need access to affordable energy, 
stating

        [w]e firmly believe that energy security, energy access, market 
        stability, and energy affordability need to be advanced 
        simultaneously while advancing energy transitions, in pursuit 
        of economic growth and prosperity, and ensuring access to 
        modern energy for all, leaving no one behind.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ G20 Energy Transitions Ministers' Meeting (22 July 2023), 
``Outcome Document and Chair's Summary,'' Goa, India (emphasis added).

    Until U.S. and global demand are fully offset by less carbon-
intensive energy sources, we cannot reduce or restrain American 
production. Doing so will have no impact on domestic demand for oil and 
natural gas; it will simply force us to meet demand by importing 
foreign crude barrels with a higher emissions profile than those 
produced in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The global COVID-19 pandemic 
revealed the national security need to have domestic supply chains for 
critical products and Russian's invasion of Ukraine demonstrated how 
precarious the global oil and gas supply and demand dynamic can be in a 
geopolitical crisis. This crisis demonstrates to the world that Russia 
is willing to use energy as a weapon, as it pulled natural gas 
shipments to Europe right before the winter. All these developments 
show that we must secure the oil and gas the country needs from clean, 
friendly American sources.
    The Energy Information Agency predicts we will need more forms of 
all energy in the future, projecting worldwide energy consumption to 
grow 50% by 2050.\3\ Indeed, within the past month, the International 
Energy Administration projected that demand would grow to 105 million 
barrels of oil per day by 2028.\4\ World population is growing, and 
growth is greatest in regions of the world with higher rates of 
poverty. It is beyond refute that access to affordable energy is a 
fundamental catalyst for raising standards of living and improving 
quality of life. Oil and natural gas will remain a necessary and life-
sustaining fuel source for decades to come, even as we transition to 
less carbon-intensive sources over the long-term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Capuano, Dr. Linda, ``U.S. Energy Information Administration's 
International Energy Outlook 2020,'' Center for Strategic and 
International Studies, Washington, DC (Oct. 14, 2020) p. 36, https://
www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/ieo2020.pdf.
    \4\ IEA Updated (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The U.S. Gulf of Mexico is the Best Place in the World for Oil and 
        Natural Gas Production

    The U.S. Gulf of Mexico is a world-class basin for oil and natural 
gas exploration and development due in large part to the historical and 
resounding success of the federal offshore leasing program. While the 
transition to a lower carbon future is inevitable, fully underway and 
supported by the industry, global demand for oil and natural gas will 
continue for the foreseeable future. During the energy transition, we 
should look for traditional energy sources that support the world's 
shift to lower emission sources, and oil and natural gas produced in 
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico is among the most environmentally-advantaged 
production in the world.

    Not all barrels of oil are created equal. If we are serious about 
addressing climate change in a way that will:

     Meet global demand in the short and medium term,

     Advance emissions reduction efforts,

     Promote environmental justice, and,

     Protect U.S. energy and national security

then what is our best option? The answer is simple: While the world 
continues to develop non-fossil fuel energy sources, and while we still 
have demand for fossil fuels, we should look to the least carbon-
intensive barrels to meet that demand. We need to look no further than 
our own backyard in the Gulf of Mexico to accomplish all these goals.
a. Oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico is among the most 
        environmentally advantaged production in the world

    The U.S. Gulf of Mexico has approximately half the carbon intensity 
of other producing regions.\5\ And the industry continues to improve. 
From 2011 to 2017, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 
(BOEM), carbon emissions from U.S. Gulf operations decreased by 
approximately 60% even though oil production increased by over 35%.\6\ 
A more recent comprehensive study on global oil production commissioned 
by ICF concluded that ``. . . [t]he U.S. Gulf of Mexico has a carbon 
intensity 46% lower than the global average outside of the U.S. and 
Canada, outperforming other nations like Russia, China, Brazil, Iran, 
Iraq, and Nigeria.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See note 3 on p. 2.
    \6\ See ``Year 2017 Emissions Inventory Study,'' OCS Study BOEM 
2019-072 (October 2019) https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/
BOEM_2019-072.pdf.
    \7\ GHG Emission Intensity of Crude Oil and Condensate Production, 
ICF (May 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are several factors explaining the lower carbon emissions of 
U.S. offshore production. Chief among them are the scale and inherently 
high level of investment and technology in U.S. offshore operations and 
the fact that the offshore industry has been intensely regulated for 
nearly 70 years, which currently includes over 13 regulatory agencies, 
including, among others: the BOEM, the Bureau of Safety and 
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), the U.S. Coast Guard, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corp of Engineers, the 
Pipeline Hazard Material Safety Administration, the Department of 
Transportation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Another reason for the 
lower carbon emissions is the extensive pipeline network which 
eliminates the need for shipping and trucking. The venting and flaring 
of natural gas produced offshore is tightly-regulated, and subsea 
infrastructure and tiebacks are also important components in driving 
down emissions.
    The U.S. Gulf of Mexico also outperforms the rest of the world in 
methane emissions. The offshore industry has consistently achieved a 
ratio of less than 1.25% of flared/vented gas to produced gas, making 
the U.S. Gulf one of the best performing areas in the world. What 
explains this? Several factors, including that gas fugitive emission 
detection systems are widely used on offshore facilities, Vapor 
Recovery Units are utilized on many large processing platforms to 
capture methane, and many Gulf platforms utilize ultra-low or zero 
emission instrumentation to control processing equipment. The Gulf 
accounted for 15% of U.S. oil production in 2019 yet accounted for only 
2.6% of nationwide natural gas venting and flaring emissions from 
energy production, and less than 1% of total nationwide methane 
emissions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id.

    In short, demand for oil will continue for years to come and that 
demand will linger during the transition to lower carbon energy 
sources. So, we have a choice: Do we produce the oil the world needs 
here at home and reap the economic and environmental advantages that 
come with the lowest carbon-intensive production in the world? Or do we 
import dirty, foreign barrels from regimes that do not share our 
environmental stewardship and are often hostile to our interests and 
values?
b. Offshore US oil and natural gas production contributes significantly 
        to the U.S. Treasury and supports important government programs 
        across the country

    From 2004 to 2022, U.S. offshore production contributed over $125 
billion to the U.S. Treasury through royalties, lease bonuses, and 
rents.\9\ The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is funded almost 
entirely by offshore oil and gas production and is a predominant source 
of funding for conservation programs across all fifty states, including 
programs such as the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program, 
which provides funding to build or repair parks in economically 
distressed urban neighborhoods. In fact, just last week the Department 
of Interior announced the distribution of nearly $300 million to all 50 
states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia to support 
public outdoor recreation and conservation projects. Moreover, revenues 
from offshore production are also the single biggest contributor to 
coastal restoration efforts across the Gulf Coast, having provided over 
$353 million in disbursements through state revenue-sharing under the 
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) in Fiscal Year 2023 
alone.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See Office of Natural Resources Revenue historical data: 
https://www.onrr.gov/.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Oil and natural gas production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico is 
        strongly supported by local communities, many of which are 
        deemed ``Disadvantaged'' by the Biden Administration

    The U.S. offshore industry also contributes to local communities by 
creating numerous, high-paying jobs across a vast supply chain that 
reaches into almost every state in the country. Gulf Coast residents in 
adjacent states overwhelmingly support offshore oil and natural gas 
development. Offshore production also does not have fence-line 
pollution issues, as offshore production is completely out of sight and 
many miles removed from any shoreline communities. Significantly, many 
of the tens of thousands of jobs supported by the industry--both 
directly and indirectly--are located in areas that have been deemed 
``Disadvantaged Communities'' according to a screening tool developed 
by the White House, meaning that job losses attributable to policies 
that negatively impact offshore oil and natural gas development will be 
felt most acutely in areas of the country that can least afford to 
absorb them.
III. Since Day One, The Biden Administration Has Imperiled Oil and 
        Natural Gas Production in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico

a. Executive Order 14008, Which Paused the Federal Offshore Leasing 
        Program, Had an Immediate Chilling Effect on Investment, and 
        The Absence of a New Five-Year Plan Threatens the Future of the 
        Basin

    Despite the clear advantages of maintaining production from the 
Gulf of Mexico to meet the world's growing demand, the industry 
continues to face significant regulatory challenges, especially over 
the last few years. In January 2021, President Biden announced a 
temporary ``pause'' on federal lease sales for public lands and federal 
waters and thereafter began a series of actions that created a chilling 
effect on offshore oil and natural gas investment and the capital 
markets that support the industry.
    The suspension on new federal lease sales was temporarily lifted 
with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which 
required holding two offshore lease sales included in the Department of 
Interior's now expired five-year leasing plan. The IRA also ties new 
offshore wind sales to offshore oil and gas sales. While these 
provisions in the IRA were important, future offshore lease sales 
remain uncertain given the fact that the five-year lease plan, which 
provides the schedule of future lease sales, expired in 2022 and a new 
five-year leasing plan has not been developed by this Administration 
despite the statutory requirement to constantly maintain a five-year 
plan.\11\ The delay in the development of a new five-year plan 
potentially means that we will likely not see a new offshore lease sale 
until 2025 at the earliest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ See 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lack of a five-year plan and visible new lease sales will 
decrease domestic production, increase energy costs for all Americans, 
and threaten the disadvantaged areas along the Gulf Coast that rely on 
the high-paying jobs our companies provide. Additionally, the cost of 
domestic production has already increased because of additional tax 
burdens imposed by the Biden administration in 2021, which only made 
dirty, higher-carbon foreign imports more competitive.
b. The Recently Issued Financial Assurance Proposed Rule is Just the 
        Latest Step in the Biden Administration's Attacks on Domestic 
        Production and Is an Existential Threat to Independent Offshore 
        Producers

    Compounding the ongoing uncertainty regarding the future of 
offshore oil and gas lease sales and other policy challenges, on June 
29, 2023, the Biden administration issued a Proposed Rule that, if 
finalized, is an existential threat to independent offshore 
producers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ See Fed. Reg. 42136, 42159 (June 29, 2023) (to be codified at 
30 CFR Parts 550, 556 and 590) (``BOEM recognizes that the proportion 
of small companies adversely affected by the proposed rule would be 
higher than that of large corporations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Proposed Rule will disproportionately impact small businesses 
and, according to the Proposed Rule's own analysis, will cost the 
industry nearly $5 billion dollars in compliance costs over the next 20 
years, leading to dramatically less offshore activity and production. 
These costs will be borne entirely by small business, as 76% of the 
businesses operating in the Gulf are considered ``small businesses'' 
and the Proposed Rule expressly excludes major oil and gas companies 
from additional supplemental bonding.\13\ The stated purpose of the 
Proposed Rule is to protect the American taxpayer from exposure to 
decommissioning liability left behind by a defunct or defaulting 
lessee, which the Proposed Rule acknowledges is ``rare.'' \14\ In fact, 
based on the Department of Interior's own numbers, in over 70 years of 
offshore oil and gas activity, the total unfunded liabilities and 
exposure for U.S. taxpayers amounts to $58 million. To be clear, U.S. 
taxpayers should never be on the hook for any decommissioning 
liabilities, and there are a number of policy options available to 
address this risk without jeopardizing the very viability of 
independent offshore producers. But proposing a ``solution'' that will 
cost small businesses $5 billion in compliance costs to solve a problem 
amounting to $58 million after seventy plus years of offshore 
development is ludicrous. Moreover, the overall exposure to the 
taxpayer is rapidly decreasing. Of the nearly 7,000 platforms installed 
in the Gulf over time, just over 1,500 remain and the industry is 
removing the remaining platforms at average rate of 79 platforms each 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ 88 Fed. Reg. at 42157.
    \14\ Id. at 42141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is well-settled that regulations impose joint and several 
liability on not only all current owners of offshore properties, but 
all prior owners. This system of relying on the creditworthiness of all 
current owners and all predecessor owners has proven to be an effective 
shield for taxpayers for decades.\15\ Indeed, there have been a wave of 
recent bankruptcies in the industry to demonstrate the effectiveness of 
the current liability regime. The Proposed Rule admits that there have 
been over 30 bankruptcies with unbonded decommissioning liability with 
very little exposure to the taxpayer due to the existing joint and 
several liability regime that imposes the decommissioning liability on 
all current and former owners. Perhaps the best example was the recent 
bankruptcy of Fieldwood Energy LLC (Fieldwood). According to the 
government's claims in the case, Fieldwood carried over $7 billion of 
decommissioning liability and exactly zero liability was absorbed by 
the taxpayer. Instead, Interior used its existing regulatory powers to 
order predecessors to maintain and monitor the abandoned properties and 
to decommission the wells, platforms and other infrastructure left 
behind by Fieldwood. In short, the Proposed Rule is the classic case of 
a solution in search of a problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ The Proposed Rule admits that considering the creditworthiness 
of predecessors would reduce the disproportionate impact on small 
businesses: ``BSEE can order the prior lessee to complete the 
decommissioning obligations for facilities that existed on the lease at 
the time of ownership. If BOEM were to take into account the financial 
capacity of predecessor lessees in determining the amount of 
supplemental financial assurance required of the current owner, the 
financial burden on small companies would be substantially reduced to 
that resulting from the proposed rule, because a much smaller number of 
them would be required to post supplemental financial assurance.'' 88 
Fed. Reg. at 42159.

    The Proposed Rule admits that in solving for a ``rare'' problem 
that the new bonding requirements will materially impact domestic 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
production, competition and energy prices:

        At the same time, BOEM recognizes the costs and disincentives 
        to additional exploration, development, and production that are 
        imposed on lessees and grant holders by increasing the required 
        amounts of bonds and/or other financial assurance.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ 88 Fed. Reg. at 42142.

    If this Administration is successful in implementing the Proposed 
Rule, the consequences are clear: we will see a loss of production from 
the Gulf of Mexico, forcing the country to turn to less environmentally 
friendly production from foreign countries, a destruction of jobs 
throughout the Gulf South and beyond, a decrease in competition in the 
industry, which will inevitably lead to higher energy prices at home 
and at the pump, less royalties paid to the government, increased 
production costs on the few companies able to obtain the additional 
bonding required by the Proposed Rule, and a weakening of the country's 
energy security, making the country more vulnerable to price spikes 
caused by global instability.
IV. Independent Offshore Producers Need Your Help

    The Administration's systematic attack on offshore drilling must be 
reversed if we are to reap the benefits of continued production. The 
industry stands ready and willing to supply the energy the country 
needs using hardworking Americans. But we need this Subcommittee's 
help.

     Interior must quickly complete its environmental reviews 
            and publish a five-year offshore leasing plan; the five-
            year plan must hold at least two area-wide offshore lease 
            sales each year, and Interior should provide clear guidance 
            and transparency on the timing of the release of the five-
            year plan

     Congress must pass H.R. 1, ``Lower Energy Costs Act'', 
            including the BREEZE Act provisions of the bill

     Stop the Biden administration's latest attempt to shut 
            down production in the Gulf of Mexico in the guise of the 
            unnecessary and wildly disproportional Financial Assurance 
            Proposed Rule

     Congress must pass a calibrated, streamlined, and 
            efficient permitting process for new projects

    In summary, demand for oil and gas will continue through the energy 
transition. To support our country's economic, geopolitical, and 
environmental interests, we must continue to maintain and increase 
production in the Gulf of Mexico. But to do so, we must end the 
constant regulatory war on domestic production and reverse the 
regulatory course of this Administration.
    Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify and I am happy to 
take any questions.

                                 ______
                                 
 Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Mike Minarovic, CEO, Arena 
                                 Energy
           Questions Submitted by Representative Wesley Hunt
    Question 1. Mr. Minarovic, how will the Risk Management and 
Financial Assurance for OCS Lease and Grant Obligations Proposed Rule 
crush small and independent oil and gas companies like Arena Energy?

    Answer. The Risk Management and Financial Assurance for OCS Lease 
and Grant Obligation Proposed Rule (the ``Proposed Rule''), if 
implemented, would have a devastating effect on Arena Energy and many 
similarly situated independent oil and gas companies and small 
businesses operating in the Gulf of Mexico. While not household names, 
independents were responsible for approximately 35% of the total Outer 
Continental Shelf oil and natural gas production in 2022.

    The Proposed Rule would:

     Result in a decrease of oil and gas production in the Gulf 
            of Mexico

     Destroy high-paying jobs

     Decrease revenue paid to the U.S. Treasury

     Decrease the country's energy and national security at 
            time where geopolitical events are driving up energy costs

     Increase overall emissions due to the fact that the 
            production in the Gulf of Mexico is produced with a 
            substantially lower emissions footprint than oil we would 
            import to replace the drop in Gulf production

     Reduce competition in the offshore oil and gas industry, 
            potentially leading to higher energy prices

     Weaken an already tenuous supply chain that supports the 
            offshore oil and gas industry.

    The Proposed Rule would accomplish these devastating consequences 
by requiring that offshore lessees post an addition $9.2 billion of 
bonds to cover decommissioning liability at an annual cost of $327 
million. Based on our discussions with the international surety market, 
there is no market for an additional $9.2 billion in bonds. Without the 
bonds, the Department of Interior would be entitled to deny our 
operating permit, effectively shutting down our offshore operations. 
The surety market has absorbed significant losses over the last several 
years and it is difficult to obtain and maintain the approximately $3 
billion of bonds that have been issued to the industry. The Proposed 
Rule itself admits nearly all these disastrous consequences. The 
Proposed Rule concluded that the rule would have a ``significant effect 
on the supply, distribution and use of energy'' and that the rule may 
``adversely affect in a material way the productivity, competition, or 
prices in the energy sector.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 88 Fed. Reg. 42136, 42168.

    While the Proposed Rule acknowledged these far-reaching 
consequences, the Proposed Rule did not conduct the required cost-
benefit analysis of the regulation. The Proposed Rule did not attempt 
to quantify or weigh these consequences against the benefit of the 
Proposed Rule. However, a leading business advisory firm, Opportune 
LLP, recently published a cost-benefit analysis on the Proposed 
Rule.\2\ According to the report, the Proposed Rule, if implemented, 
would, over a 10-year time frame:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The Report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

     Result in a decrease in production of approximately 55 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            million barrels of oil equivalent from the Gulf of Mexico

     Destroy 36,000 high paying jobs from mostly disadvantage 
            areas along the Gulf South

     Remove $573 million in royalties that would otherwise be 
            paid to the U.S. Treasury

     Cause a decline in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 
            particularly in the Gulf Coast states) of as much as $9.9 
            billion.

    In addition to these more easily quantifiable consequences, the 
reduced domestic production will threaten the country's energy and 
national security at a time when we have seen oil and gas used as a 
geopolitical weapon by Russia. Indeed, Daniel Yergin, the renowned oil 
and gas analysist, recently pointed out to the Financial Times that 
``Vladimir Putin is also the CEO of Russia Oil Inc and he understands 
the dynamics of the market very well.'' \3\ The same article noted that 
market watchers are also concerned that Russia could chose to weaponize 
its oil exports next year to try to influence the U.S. election. The 
decrease in domestic production will make the country more vulnerable 
to extreme price spikes based on geopolitical events, especially with 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve depleted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Rising Petrol Prices Spark New Concern in Washington, The 
Financial Times, August 5, 2023.

    As I noted in my oral and written testimony, oil demand will 
continue to rise for decades to come. The shortfall of production from 
the Gulf of Mexico will have to be imported from countries like Iran or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venezuela, countries who have proven to be unreliable energy partners.

    In short, BOEM's rule relies entirely on the surety industry as a 
``solution'' to a massively overstated problem--i.e., taxpayer exposure 
to these liabilities--and the surety market has responded that BOEM's 
``solution'' will not work. Proposing a rule with a solution that is 
irrational and unworkable--and unjustifiably harms small business--is 
not in the best interests of the government, the industry, or 
taxpayers.

    Question 2. Mr. Minarovic, I know there has been some discussion 
previously about offshore bankruptcies as a justification for BOEM's 
new financial assurance requirements. Has the taxpayer had any exposure 
to those recent bankruptcies?

    Answer. As noted in the Proposed Rule, since 2009, there have been 
more than 30 bankruptcies in the offshore oil and gas industry. 
However, the taxpayer has borne only a small fraction of the 
decommissioning liability. We understand that, through response to 
written questions made by this Subcommittee, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management (BOEM) has stated that a total of $58 million of liability 
has been absorbed by the taxpayer. While the taxpayer should not be 
responsible for any decommissioning liability, this is an infinitesimal 
amount of liability given the 75 history of offshore production and in 
light of the hundreds of billions of dollars paid to the U.S. Treasury 
in the form of royalties, bonuses and rentals.

    The Proposed Rule admits that the instances when liability falls to 
the taxpayer are ``rare''.\4\ And the Proposed Rule explains this 
apparent paradox of there being a large number of bankruptcies in the 
industry with little liability going to the taxpayer by pointing to the 
fact that all current lessee and all former lessee are jointly and 
severally liable to perform and pay for the decommissioning that 
accrued during either before or during their ownership.\5\ The joint 
and several liability regime has been around since the enactment of the 
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in 1953. The regime has effectively 
shielded taxpayers from decommissioning liability for decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 88 Fed. Reg. at 42141.
    \5\ Id.

    A recent bankruptcy is perhaps the best example of how the taxpayer 
is protected under the joint and several liability framework. In 2020, 
the industry experienced the largest bankruptcy in the history of the 
offshore oil and gas industry when Fieldwood Energy filed for 
bankruptcy. According to the claims filed by the government in the 
case, Fieldwood had over $7 billion in decommissioning liability. 
Relying on the joint and several liability regime, the government 
issued decommissioning orders to all current co-owners and predecessors 
and the predecessors are currently rapidly performing the 
decommissioning of the properties abandoned by Fieldwood in the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bankruptcy. The taxpayer absorbed no liability in the case.

    Despite the resounding success of the joint and several liability 
regime in protecting the taxpayer, the Proposed Rule ignores the fact 
that there may be creditworthy predecessors in the chain of title in 
determining whether the current owner will be required to post 
supplemental bonds. Just a few years ago, in 2020, BOEM and its sister 
agency, the Bureau of Safety and Enforcement, introduced a proposed 
rule that concluded that supplemental bonding would not be required if 
there was at least one creditworthy predecessor or co-owner.\6\ 
Supplemental bonding would be required by the 2020 rule if there was 
not a creditworthy co-owner or predecessor. While the 2020 proposed 
rule was never finalized, the rule would have achieved the simultaneous 
goals of protecting the taxpayer from exposure to decommissioning 
liability while, at the same time, not cause the deleterious impacts 
that will ensue if this Proposed Rule is finalized without significant 
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See 85 Fed. Reg. 65904 (October 16, 2020).

    Instead of protecting major oil and gas companies by ignoring 
security already in place and re-trading private, commercial 
transactions between buyers and sellers, any bonding framework must 
recognize the joint and several liability of all current and former 
owners for decommissioning as a fundamental and grounding principle, 
which would be consistent with BOEM's actual practice and the stated 
intent of the Proposed Rule to protect taxpayers from exposure to these 
liabilities.

                                  ****

                               EXHIBIT A

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Increased OCS Bonding, by Opportune, July 
        2023

The Exhibit can be viewed on the Committee Repository at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20230727/116214/HHRG-118-II06-
20230727-SD005.pdf

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I will now recognize Mr. 
Solet for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF JUSTIN SOLET, GULF SOUTH ADVOCATE, DULAC, 
                           LOUISIANA

    Mr. Solet. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Representative 
Ocasio-Cortez. Halito, bonjour, bienvenue. I am Justin Solet, a 
citizen of the United Houma Nation.
    I was born in the town of Dulac, Louisiana, where I grew up 
in a family of fishermen and fisherwomen. My mother worked in a 
shrimp processing factory while my father ran my grandfather's 
shrimp boat. My dad also shucked oysters alongside my 
grandmother between shrimp seasons. Commercial fishing earned 
my parents a modest living, which they used to raise three 
boys.
    As the eldest of those three boys, when I was old enough to 
get on the boat, around seven or eight, I worked with my dad as 
a deckhand until I eventually went to work in the Gulf of 
Mexico as a snubbing hand on oil rigs. I shrimped until the 
last night of my graduation, until the night before graduation. 
On my days off from the rig, I still helped my dad on the boat. 
Shrimping was not just a job. It was a way of life, not only 
for my family, but our culture and our community.
    On April 20, 2010, an explosion aboard the Deepwater 
Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico held everyone in disbelief as 
we found out it took the lives of 11 men. In the coming days 
and weeks, we would learn 5 million barrels of oil spilled in 
the Gulf. It took 9,700 vessels, 127 aircraft, 47,829 people, 
and nearly 2 million gallons of toxic dispersants called 
Corexit, and 89 days to stop the spill. Three thousand miles of 
beaches and wetlands along the Gulf Coast were contaminated by 
oil. Even the clean-up effort was damaging to the wetlands and 
vegetation. Our lives were turned upside down with fear, 
questions, and a future full of unknowns.
    BP was a highly visible and catastrophic disaster that 
received national attention. My people in south Louisiana feel 
the impacts from the oil and gas industry on a daily basis, and 
are mostly ignored. You have probably heard about BP and Cancer 
Alley, but have you heard about these?
    Since 2004, undersea wells owned by Taylor Energy have been 
leaking in the Gulf of Mexico after they were damaged by 
Hurricane Ivan. It is the longest-running oil spill in U.S. 
history, and shows why building this stuff in the path of an 
active hurricane zone is crazy.
    Two incidents in 2015 and 2018 at a Fieldwood Energy 
facility in Louisiana, two workers intentionally allowed oil to 
spill in order to avoid requirement shutdowns that would have 
hurt company profits. Workers on one of these company platforms 
are reported to have joked that their motto was ``safe and 
sound until production is down.''
    Putting profits over safety is incredibly common in this 
industry. The pipelines needed to transport the oil and gas 
extracted in the Gulf of Mexico come onshore, where they tear 
through the marsh, one of our most important forms of hurricane 
defense. That is why Hurricane Ida remained so strong even 
after it made landfall. Ida then caused thousands of chemical 
releases and spills that made a horrible situation even worse.
    The oil and gas pipelines don't just cause land loss. They 
also compete with offshore wind. You can't lay transmission 
lines near oil pipelines for good reason. Disturbing them could 
cause yet another oil spill. This means that even though people 
in my community are ready to go to work in offshore wind 
industry, the jobs won't be coming to southeast Louisiana until 
we clean up our mess.
    Tribal lands in my community are being sacrificed to oil 
and gas. Hurricanes are destroying our precious wetlands, which 
have been weakened by dredging for pipelines. Between the 
destruction of our land from oil and gas and these storms, some 
of my people have become the first climate migrants in the 
continental United States.
    This cannot continue. We must get our nation's energy from 
justly-sourced materials and renewable energy. What we are 
fighting for is the right for people of Louisiana to remain in 
their homes, have clean air to breathe, and clean water to 
drink.
    The leadership of this Committee and the oil and gas 
companies have decided Louisianans, especially poor Black and 
Indigenous folks, don't deserve that. It is nuts that we are 
talking about reinvesting in fossil fuels while wealthier areas 
are already putting their money in wind and solar so they can 
make clean energy, create jobs, and keep their people safe.
    Unless you live in or around communities like mine that are 
continuously sacrificed for the benefit of a few jobs which 
aren't held by the people who are impacted, you have no clue. 
The generational scars that have been left on my people, the 
land, and the waters we hold sacred in the name of industry are 
still painful today.
    Climate resilience is my community's ability to continue 
living and working on the land and waters that we have called 
home for hundreds of years. Because of many factors which 
include land loss at the hands of oil and gas cutting through 
protective marshes, under-investment in bayou communities, and 
hurricanes, Indigenous peoples in Terrebonne and Lafourche have 
become some of the first climate migrants again.

    When can our communities begin to thrive instead of always 
being resilient?

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Solet follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Justin Solet

    Halito, bon joure, bienvenue, I'm Justin Solet, a member of the 
United Houma Nation. I was born in the town of Dulac, Louisiana where I 
grew up in a family of fishermen and fisherwomen. My mother worked in 
the shrimp processing factory while my father ran my grandfather's 
shrimp boat. My father also shucked oysters alongside my grandmother 
between shrimp seasons. Commercial fishing earned my parents a modest 
living which they used to raise three boys. As the eldest of the three 
children, when I was old enough to get on the boat--around 7 or 8--I 
worked with my dad as a deckhand until I eventually went to work in the 
Gulf of Mexico as a snubbing hand on oil rigs. On my days off from the 
rig, I still helped my dad on the boat. Shrimping was not just a job, 
it was a way of life, not only for my family but our culture and our 
community.
    On April 20, 2010, an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig in 
the Gulf of Mexico held everyone in disbelief as we found out it took 
the lives of 11 men. In the coming days and weeks we would learn 5 
million barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf. It took 9,700 vessels, 
127 aircraft, 47,829 people, nearly 2 million gallons of toxic 
dispersants called COREXIT, and 89 days to stop the spill. 3,000 miles 
of beaches and wetlands along the Gulf Coast were contaminated by oil. 
Even the clean up effort was damaging to the wetlands and vegetation. 
Our lives were turned upside down with fear, questions, and a future 
full of unknowns.

    BP was a highly visible and catastrophic disaster that received 
national attention, but my people in South Louisiana feel the impacts 
from the oil and gas industry on a daily basis and are mostly ignored. 
You have probably heard about BP and Cancer Alley, but have you heard 
about these:

     Since 2004, undersea wells owned by Taylor Energy have 
            been leaking into the Gulf of Mexico after they were 
            damaged by Hurricane Ivan. It's the longest-running oil 
            spill in U.S. history and shows why building this stuff in 
            the path of an active hurricane zone is crazy.

     In two incidents in 2015 and 2018 at a Fieldwood Energy 
            facility in Louisiana, two workers intentionally allowed 
            oil to spill in order to avoid required shutdowns that 
            would have hurt company profits. Workers on one of the 
            company's platforms are reported to have joked that their 
            motto was ``safe and sound until production's down.'' 
            Putting profits over safety is incredibly common in this 
            industry.

    The pipelines needed to transport the oil and gas extracted in the 
Gulf of Mexico come on shore where they tear through the marsh, one of 
our most important forms of hurricane defense. That's why Hurricane Ida 
remained so strong even after it made ``landfall.'' Ida then caused 
thousands of chemical releases and spills that made a horrible 
situation even worse.
    The oil and gas pipelines don't just cause land loss. They also 
compete with offshore wind. You can't lay transmission lines near oil 
pipelines for good reason: disturbing them could cause yet another oil 
spill. This means that even though people in my community are ready to 
go to work in the offshore wind industry, the jobs won't be coming to 
Southeast Louisiana until we clean up our mess.
    Tribal lands in my community are being sacrificed to oil and gas. 
Hurricanes are destroying our precious wetlands which have been 
weakened by dredging for pipelines. Between the destruction of our land 
from oil and gas and these storms, some of our people have become 
Climate Migrants. This cannot continue, we must get our nation's energy 
from justly sourced materials and renewable energy.
    What we're fighting for is the right of the people of Louisiana to 
remain in their homes and have clean air to breathe and clean water to 
drink. The leadership of this committee and the oil and gas companies 
have decided Lousianans--especially poor, black and Indigenous folks--
don't deserve that. It's nuts that we're talking about reinvesting in 
fossil fuels while wealthier areas are already putting their money in 
wind so they can make clean energy, create jobs, and keep their people 
safe.
    Unless you live in or around communities like mine that are 
continually sacrificed for the benefit of a few jobs, which aren't held 
by the people who are impacted, you have no clue. The generational 
scars that have been left on my people, the land, and the waters we 
hold sacred in the name of industry are still painful today. Climate 
resilience is my community's ability to continue living and working on 
the land and waters that we have called home for hundreds of years. 
Because of many factors which include, land loss at the hands of oil 
and gas cutting through our protective marsh, underinvestment in Bayou 
communities, and hurricanes, Indigenous peoples in Terrebonne and 
Lafource have become some of the first climate migrants. When can our 
communities begin to thrive, instead of always being resilient?

                                 ______
                                 

  Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Justin Solet, Gulf South 
                                Advocate
             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva
    Question 1. The Federal Government provides $20.5 billion per year 
in subsidies to the oil and gas industry, including direct subsidies 
and indirect subsidies such as tax breaks and below-market lease and 
royalty rates. According to the International Monetary Fund, the U.S. 
spends $649 billion dollars a year on fossil fuel subsidies when the 
externalized costs of fossil fuel production are accounted for, 
including the health, environmental, and climate costs. Could you 
please elaborate on what these external costs look like for your 
community? How are they experienced by Gulf communities?

    Answer. A recent peer-reviewed study identifies the public health 
harms as well as the disproportionate impacts on communities at each 
stage of the coal, oil, and gas life cycles--extraction, processing, 
transport, and combustion. It was authored by experts from Greenpeace 
USA, Salem State University, and Taproot Earth and published in Energy 
Research & Social Science:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629623001640

    The publication draws from 200+ academic studies which reveal a 
consistent pattern: fossil fuel pollution is associated with asthma, 
birth complications, cancer, respiratory disease, heart conditions, and 
premature mortality. Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor communities 
bear a disproportionate burden of these harms. These same communities 
are hit hardest by the impacts of the climate crisis.

    Additionally, the study concludes that policies solely focused on 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions without reducing fossil fuel usage 
could fail to reduce local air and water pollution, fail to alleviate 
public health harms, and end up perpetuating the racially inequitable 
impacts of the fossil fuel economy. Black, Asian, Hispanic or Latino, 
and low-income populations already have an elevated burden of exposure 
to air pollutants that can harm the respiratory system known as PM2.5, 
a pattern that is consistent across nearly all emission source types. 
Poorly designed climate policies could concentrate this pollution in 
community ``hotspots'' even as overall carbon emissions decline.

    Question 2. Could you please elaborate on the unique challenges and 
barriers Tribal nations face in participating in decision making around 
offshore development? Do Tribal nations receive the same benefits as 
state and local governments from offshore development?

    Answer. This article details the challenges that the United Houma 
Nation has faced in receiving the same benefits and local governments 
from offshore development:

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/5/louisiana-
wetlandsenvironment climatechange.html

    In short, tribes--especially state-recognized tribes like mine--do 
not receive the same tax benefits of offshore development. We often do 
not receive the jobs. As Mr. Danos said during the hearing, oftentimes 
people are coming in from out of state for offshore jobs. We don't 
receive the same amount of clean up and remediation money. And our land 
and way of life is being taken away by the offshore oil and gas 
industry.

    Question 3. Were there any other issues or questions that you were 
not able to fully address or respond to during the hearing? If so, 
please elaborate here.

    Answer.

     The delay of leasing is not causing job losses in the Gulf 
            of Mexico. There are 1,600 existing offshore leases.

     Why is it important not to link offshore wind to offshore 
            oil?

          o  I would like to reiterate that offshore oil and 
        gas and offshore CCS are incompatible with offshore wind 
        development because of the conflicts between pipelines and 
        transmission cables. Unless we stop permitting new pipelines in 
        the ocean floor, my community will continue to be stuck with 
        dirty energy while the rest of the country moves on and takes 
        advantage of the jobs in the new offshore wind economy. Please 
        see this comment letter for more information:

                https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-c4P44xVeRNgS-CDb-
                fnNqjX1Bg_Zwr PU_04VV2pZt4/edit

          o  We recommend that House Natural Resources read 
        and adopt the ``Principles For A Just Transition In Offshore 
        Wind Energy:''

                https://taproot.earth/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/
                JustTransition-Offshore WindEnergy_v2.pdf

     To expand my answer about the impact of fossil fuel 
            lobbyists on the state of Louisiana, Air Products--an out 
            of state company--hired lobbyists who were past 
            representatives of Louisiana to thwart the will of the 
            people, who were pushing for carbon capture regulation and 
            moratoria. Air Products hired 25 lobbyists for the 2023 
            session alone:

          https://www.wwno.org/coastal-desk/2023-04-13/this-company-
        has-hired-25-
          lobbyists-for-the-louisiana-legislative-session.

          o  Recently the Louisiana attorney general hired 
        lawyers for EPA negotiations who were also representing 
        chemical firm at center of inquiry.

                https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/10/cancer-
                alley-louisiana-attorney-general-epa-lawyers-formosa

          o  Louisiana Sen. Sharon Hewitt has history of 
        passing bills to benefit oil and gas and her husband, who works 
        for the oil and gas industry.

     To expand on my answer about who holds the power when it 
            comes to people or the oil and gas industry, 
            representatives of Louisiana has for decades been the 
            rubber stamp to projects that endanger the lives of their 
            constituents.

     To expand my answer about which technologies and expertise 
            the Global South should have access to, I'm referring 
            specifically to wind, solar, and green technologies.

          o  Global North should be funding Global South 
        countries to transition to justly renewable energy, as well as 
        providing Loss and Damage financing for nations that are unable 
        to adapt to the climate crisis. The United States is the 
        world's largest historic emitter of greenhouse gasses. We have 
        a debt to pay.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much for your testimony. I will 
now recognize Members for 5 minutes of questions, and I 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Danos, how does the delay in issuing the 5-year plan 
for offshore oil and natural gas leasing impact companies like 
yours and the affordability and availability of energy for 
American taxpayers and consumers?
    Mr. Danos. Thank you for the question. The delay, as 
stated, eventually will create a situation where we don't have 
leases to work on, we don't have wells to drill and develop, 
and we won't have production. So, that costs jobs.
    Again, companies like Danos and many other companies out 
there provide personnel that support those activities. And when 
we have delays, I talked about a long conveyor belt. That 
conveyor belt, for some of the really big projects, can be 6 or 
7 years, but there are projects out there with tie backs to 
existing infrastructure that can come on as quickly as 18 
months. So, we are already in a time now with the delays that 
we have experienced that is costing jobs and, again, costing 
production that is being sent overseas and increasing energy 
prices.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
    Mr. Minarovic, in your written testimony you discuss the 
environmental advantages we gain from producing oil and gas in 
the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, you note that oil produced in the 
Gulf of Mexico has a carbon intensity 46 percent lower than 
Russia, China, Brazil, Iran, Iraq, or Nigeria. Can you share 
with the Subcommittee why oil from the Gulf of Mexico has this 
environmental advantage?
    And how is American oil from the Gulf of Mexico cleaner 
than other sources around the world?
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman. That is an 
important point.
    There is not anything special about the oil. It is the way 
we produce it. We produce it into high volume, into centralized 
platforms where we can monitor the emissions very closely. We 
are highly regulated. This year is the 75th anniversary of 
setting the first platform in the Gulf of Mexico. We have been 
regulated by the Federal Government for 75 years.
    My company, we get 200 inspections a year where inspectors 
come out from the BOEM and BSEE and spend about 4 days offshore 
on each inspection for each of our facilities. We monitor 
emissions closely, and we don't do any flaring, or very little 
flaring and venting offshore. And then that oil is processed at 
that central facility. It is immediately sent down a pipeline. 
It is not barged at a truck, it is not exposed to atmospheric 
pressures at any time. It is under pressure the whole time 
offshore, so we know if there is a leak, and we monitor very 
quickly. We have vapor recovery units offshore that collect any 
gas at low pressure and put it back into the system. And there 
are a lot of different high technology systems that we use on 
our biggest platforms that monitor emissions.
    There is no question that this is the best environmentally 
advantaged barrel of oil in the world.
    Mr. Stauber. And then you employ an average of 650 full-
time contractors and subs. How does the company navigate 
workforce management in a market with potential fluctuations in 
offshore drilling opportunities?
    And how do uncertainties in the leasing program influence 
your long-term planning for workforce needs?
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, that is a great question, and 
Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez pointed to the boom-and-bust cycle 
of our industry and the layoffs that have occurred. And it is 
just basically, we are price takers, and we have to respond to 
the price.
    So, if price goes down for a period of time, we have excess 
workers, and it makes it incredibly challenging to man a rig, 
or man a facility, or man a crew to do abandonment work if they 
can't get full-time, full-year work. And the lack of leases 
ultimately will result in the lack of stability of us being 
able to drill, and that is what causes problems with workforce. 
And eventually people say, well, I can only get 6 months of 
work, so I am just not going to work in this industry anymore.
    And it used to be we could pick up a crew of 80 people to 
work on a rig pretty easily. But that is not the case anymore. 
And you have to continually work that rig, and that is why 
leases are important.
    Mr. Stauber. If the Biden administration does not move 
forward with offshore oil and gas lease sales in 2024, what 
kind of impact might that have on the future of your workforce?
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, lease sales are the future for 
production in the Gulf of Mexico. And it takes a long time to 
develop a lease. Our reserves are depleting. Every single day 
we are fighting depletion of our reserves. You bring on a well 
and it is making a certain amount of oil. It begins depleting 
very quickly, so you have to continually renew your inventory. 
And the source of that is leases.
    So, it won't have an immediate impact in 2023 or 2024, but 
soon after that we will start seeing decreases in workforce.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. My time has expired, and 
I will now turn it over to Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez for her 
questions.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Chair Stauber.
    Mr. Solet, we often hear private interests cite job 
benefits of the oil and gas industry. But from your testimony 
and from that of many communities, we know that extractive 
industries often force communities to make the choice between 
their work and their health, and long-term economic stability, 
as well. One of my highest priorities is to work with 
communities like yours to make sure that it is not a choice 
that people have to make anymore.
    How, in your view, would offshore wind provide 
opportunities for a more diversified economy in the Gulf?
    Mr. Solet. For one, we would create jobs cleaning up the 
8,000 miles of pipeline that lie off the coast of Louisiana.
    Oil and gas workforce is also prepared to take on offshore 
jobs in manufacturing. We already have the knowledge and 
experience here in the Gulf to do the jobs that it takes to 
bring in renewables. We have pipeline hands to build windmills. 
We have pipeline hands to remove the pipelines that are there.
    Who else knows our waters like our boat captains and our 
deckhands?
    And one of the best ways to take full advantage of offshore 
development would be the full or partial community ownership. 
This is already modeled, and has already been established 
overseas with CBAs.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And I also understand why 
many Gulf communities may hesitate when a new industry comes in 
to develop. What can offshore wind learn from some of the 
mistakes of the fossil fuel industry?
    And why is it important for Gulf communities that offshore 
wind is not linked to oil production?
    Mr. Solet. Offshore wind should not just learn from the 
mistakes of the oil field, but the good that comes from the 
health industry by adopting the promise of do no harm before 
they do good.
    Oil field came in, they used my people to dredge pipeline 
canals. And then, when the pipeline canals were dug, my people 
were forgotten, and the jobs dried up because they had what 
they wanted.
    By linking oil and gas to wind, you create a distrust in 
wind because coastal communities remember how industry stole 
the land, destroyed it, and the water. Groups have highlighted 
that Gulf communities cannot continue to be a sacrifice zone 
with oil and gas and wind. We just don't need a real 
transition, we need a just transition.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Solet. Some of the 
earlier testimony that we saw today also referred, and I am 
glad to hear that there was agreement on this, that the public 
should not bear the costs of decommissioning. But the last I 
checked, BOEM held only $3.5 billion in decommissioning 
financial assurance and bonding for debts that were actually 
between $42 and $64 billion in total future decommissioning 
debts. And as much as 94 percent of clean-up costs are 
currently not financially assured by oil and gas producers.
    Mr. Minarovic, you mentioned your company had about $239 
million in royalties and taxes. That was last year, correct?
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. How much of that was royalties?
    Mr. Minarovic. It was about $200 million.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Two hundred? So, $39 million was taxes?
    Mr. Minarovic. About that, yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. How much did your company receive in 
direct Federal fossil fuel subsidies?
    Mr. Minarovic. None.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. No money in Federal subsidies, correct?
    Mr. Minarovic. Right.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And how much was posted in profit?
    Mr. Minarovic. We are a private company. I am not going to 
reveal that.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, we are not sure the share of that 
$39 million relative to the profit that was made. OK, 
understood.
    The latest bankruptcy from Cox, a Louisiana oil company, is 
also yet another potential billion-dollar tab pushed to the 
American people. The Department of the Interior has an 
obligation to the American people to ensure that it receives a 
fair return on its shared resources, and not shouldered with 
the legal obligations of private corporations that profited 
significantly from those public resources.
    Mr. Solet, what risks do under-bonded offshore operators 
pose to the community?
    And as we have heard, the industry can be quite volatile, 
and even seemingly healthy companies can go through bankruptcy.
    Mr. Solet. Communities are left with abandoned 
infrastructure, and which can lead to pollution and no funds to 
clean up. Communities are left with abandoned infrastructure, 
which can lead to pollution and no funds to clean it up.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And with that, my time is up.
    I yield back to the Chair.
    Mr. Lamborn [presiding]. Thank you. I will now recognize 
myself for 5 minutes, and then we will continue as we go.
    In 2020, President Biden said, ``I want you to look at my 
eyes. I guarantee you, I guarantee you, we are going to end 
fossil fuel.'' He has regrettably kept this promise. By 
canceling lease sales, trying to raise royalty and bond rates, 
and massively subsidizing unreliable alternative energy 
sources, the Federal Government has waged war on the free 
market and tried everything they can to end fossil fuel usage.
    Despite this monumental and unprecedented government over-
reach, energy derived from fossil fuels has only fallen from 86 
percent in 2000 to 84 percent today. That is a 2 percent drop 
in 23 years. In other words, this war against fossil fuels has 
done nothing to curb American's need for affordable and 
reliable energy.
    So, Mr. Danos, what will happen to the price of energy if 
there are no offshore lease sales until 2025?
    Mr. Danos. As you pointed out, demand is not going 
anywhere. We can't flip a switch and move to renewables 
immediately. We are going to have a long-term and need a long-
term transition. So, that is going to increase prices, right?
    The predictability that comes with leases allows 
investment. That investment is going to lead to production, and 
this is low-cost, reliable energy, environmentally responsible, 
the lowest, cleanest barrels in the world right here in the 
Gulf of Mexico, in the United States. And that is going to keep 
energy prices down.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you. Higher energy prices hurt working 
families, which is so ironic when I hear the other side profess 
to sympathize with the struggles of working families. Their 
stated goal is to artificially raise prices in order to wean us 
off of fossil fuels, no matter how much that hurts working 
families.
    Mr. Minarovic, I hope I said that right, how does private 
industry respond with regard to investment and exploration when 
the government refuses to hold lease sales?
    And, of course, that includes offshore leasing, which is 
the subject of our hearing this morning, as well as onshore 
leasing, which affects and hurts my state of Colorado.
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, the leasing issue is, as I mentioned 
earlier, a longer-term issue. It is not going to affect 
activity and prices in 2024. It is more of a longer-term issue.
    But all these issues chill the offshore industry, chill 
investment into that industry, chill desire to want to work 
there because of the uncertainty. Businesses want to work in a 
certain environment.
    And your point about energy prices being low, we have to 
have production to meet the demand. If we are going to 
transition away from oil, we have to have a healthy economy, we 
have to have low energy prices. That is what will allow us to 
transition. If prices go up, as we saw in 2022, we start doing 
things like releasing from the strategic reserve, which we 
can't do any longer. And, ultimately, we will have impairments 
to our economy, which will slow the transition.
    So, lease sales are important. They are on a longer-term 
basis. It allows us to continue to offset those declines that I 
mentioned earlier.
    Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. We know now that renewables 
cannot make up for fossil fuels. Wind and solar only make up 11 
percent of our nation's electricity, and electricity is only 38 
percent of the total energy consumption as a nation.
    Mr. Danos or Mr. Minarovic, knowing that renewables cannot 
substitute for fossil fuels, at least in the foreseeable 
future, how will the deficit of energy be met if the United 
States stops producing oil and gas, which some of our people, 
colleagues on the other side, want to do?
    Mr. Danos. That is pretty simple. It is going to come from 
other countries around the world, right? So, we are trading 
those barrels again for barrels produced in other countries 
around the world. We are giving up our energy security when we 
are doing that, we are giving up the cleanest barrels in the 
world, lowest carbon intensity barrels for an exchange for 
barrels produced elsewhere.
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, I would just like to add that I think 
that some oil can come from other countries. But as we try to 
meet these demand forecasts that EIA is suggesting, and also 
IEA and a lot of other organizations project the similar 
increases in demand, ultimately there will be a rationalization 
of price, and we will have higher prices, which was mentioned 
earlier, will impact the lower- and middle-income families of 
America the most.
    Higher energy prices is a regressive tax on middle and 
lower-income families.
    Mr. Lamborn. And I am going to make an editorial comment 
and then hand it back to the Chairman, who has returned to the 
room here. I don't mind seeing the government incentivize 
alternatives, and renewables, and things like that. But when 
they go further and mandate that we can't use certain kinds of 
fuels that are traditionally part of our energy mix, to me that 
crosses the line and becomes manipulation and interference, and 
trying to control and run our lives.
    And as a freedom-loving American, and as someone who 
respects the free market, I just think that that is going too 
far. And I wish that that wasn't part of the mix.
    Mr. Chairman, back to you.
    Mr. Stauber [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes 
Representative Kamlager-Dove for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I was sort of struck by some of the opening comments and 
testimony suggesting that the Biden administration has 
threatened economic prosperity when news has just come out 
today confirming how healthy the U.S. economy is. Consumer 
sentiment is up, annual growth is up, business investment is 
up. So, that is why reading is fundamental.
    Over the last 10 years, American export of crude oil and 
other petroleum products has increased by nearly 400 percent 
and natural gas exports by over 500 percent. At the same time, 
our constituents rode the roller coaster of gas prices.
    My colleagues across the aisle say we need to maintain or 
expand our energy dominance, but the communities in my district 
and across the country aren't feeling the benefits of such 
dominance. Last year, we experienced the largest annual 
increase in residential electricity spending since the EIA 
began calculating it in 1984.
    So, Mr. Solet, as a community member where this abundant 
energy is from, who do you believe benefits more from this 
energy dominance, the oil companies or the American people?
    Mr. Solet. The oil companies, the shareholders. And just an 
example, I have never seen Louisiana hire lobbyists to do good 
in Louisiana.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Can you say that again?
    Mr. Solet. I have never seen Louisiana hire lobbyists to do 
good in Louisiana.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. That is telling. Thank you for saying 
that.
    What barriers, Mr. Solet, do communities like yours come up 
against when trying to engage with the Federal Government on 
offshore projects?
    And do you believe that your concerns have historically 
been heard by the Federal Government as we consider new 
offshore oil and gas lease sales?
    Mr. Solet. The sway of power in the oil and gas industry is 
held by the representatives who represent Louisiana, and the 
lobbyists and the industry that actually control the power. Our 
voices are not heard.
    And one of the big reasons our tribal voices aren't heard 
is because we have been held to only a state-recognized tribe. 
I feel, and this is my personal opinion, that industry doesn't 
want us federally-recognized because then we would actually 
have a seat at the table.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that.
    The infrastructure footprint of the oil and gas industry in 
the Gulf of Mexico is massive. There are about 1,800 offshore 
platforms and about 26,000 miles of pipeline in the Gulf, more 
than enough to circle the Earth. And there is almost no 
oversight of any of these pipelines to make sure that they 
aren't causing oil spills or moving around and posing a danger 
to shipping or fishing vessels.
    The oil industry has had its chance for decades to pollute 
our ocean. We now have a chance to develop clean, renewable, 
offshore wind energy, and build a better future with good-
paying jobs and affordable energy. But every offshore drilling 
lease we sell to an oil company means an area that we can't 
develop offshore wind.
    The Biden administration is on track to exceed its goal of 
developing 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, which is 
enough energy to power 10 million homes and support tens of 
thousands of jobs. In the meantime, oil jobs in Louisiana and 
other offshore drilling states are declining.
    So, Mr. Chiasson, do you agree that investing in offshore 
wind energy will strengthen our energy security, create many 
new jobs, and fuel our future for renewable energy?
    Mr. Chiasson. Thank you, ma'am. I have no doubt that moving 
to that energy addition will create new jobs. We have the 
expertise in the Gulf. We have the captains who can run boats. 
We have the engineers who have built many of these oil and gas 
platforms.
    But I don't see how putting a wind platform next to an 
existing oil and gas jacket hurts anything. As a member of the 
BOEM Governmental Task Force, we have asked over and over again 
to use those existing pipeline corridors to cut down on the 
environmental impact of what those offshore wind platforms 
could have so we are not cutting new pipeline corridors for 
energy transmission back onto shore. It is things like that, 
the common-sense approaches that we know how to do in southeast 
Louisiana that we have tried to bring to the table.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. So, it sounds like you have 
the expertise, you have the human capital, and you have the 
energy. You just need the common sense of this Congress to help 
you get some of that done.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Tiffany from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Solet, I believe you commented that you want to see 
things justly sourced. Isn't that correct?
    Mr. Solet. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. And would that include wind and solar, like 
solar arrays, wind turbines? Do you expect those to be justly 
sourced?
    Mr. Solet. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Materials that we are seeing for some of those 
items like wind turbines, solar panels are coming from 
communist China using child labor in the Congo. Do you believe 
that is justly sourced?
    Mr. Solet. No, sir.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, if in the United States of America we can 
produce those minerals and not use child labor, that we can do 
it in a way that is justly sourced, do you believe we should 
produce those minerals here in America, rather than those 
countries that don't?
    Mr. Solet. Yes, I think we should.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Because the Chairman of this Subcommittee 
has an abundance of it that we could produce right here in 
America to be able to produce those wind and solar panels.
    Mr. Minarovic, did I hear you take no subsidies?
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. No subsidies.
    Mr. Minarovic. That is correct.
    Mr. Tiffany. The statement was made that safe and sound 
until production goes down. Does your company live by that 
ethic?
    Mr. Minarovic. No, sir. Absolutely not. And the regulators 
should take care of companies that aren't performing properly, 
I agree with Mr. Solet. And our company has operated at the 
highest standards for 24 years, both environmentally and from a 
safety perspective. And the regulators should get rid of 
companies like that.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Danos, I take it you work for companies 
including some of the big companies. Has your company lived by 
the ethos of safe and sound until production goes down?
    Mr. Danos. No, sir. We spend a lot of time, effort, and 
energy in protecting our people. Last year, our total 
recordable incident rate was 0.13. We are really proud of that 
record of protecting our people. And we have seen that continue 
to go down over the years. And it has been in partnership, 
really, with companies like Mr. Minarovic's, as well as major 
oil and gas companies that we have learned from each other and 
invested in safety and keeping our people safe.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chiasson, based on the opening remarks 
that we heard from the Ranking Member, it sounds like Louisiana 
is going to pieces. Is that the case in Lafourche Parish?
    Mr. Chiasson. No, sir. We have a very robust economy. We 
have managed to carry about a $100 million budget for 100,000 
residents for almost the past 20 years. We work day in and day 
out with companies like Danos, who are homegrown companies, 
right? Mr. Danos grew up in Lafourche Parish, and his family 
still lives there.
    We work with these companies day in and day out, and have 
tasked ourselves over and over again to protect ourselves from 
things like hurricanes. And we work with the industry to help 
rebuild millions of acres of our coastal wetlands every day.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is the quality of life going down in your 
parish or the neighboring parishes also? Is it going down?
    Mr. Chiasson. No. We like to coin ourselves as the parish 
people like to live, work, and play.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Danos, am I hearing correctly from you 
that there are fewer permits that are being offered at this 
point that the NEPA process is not being instituted, or it is 
not being implemented on a number of these projects. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Danos. There have been significant delays in and 
extension of the time that it takes to get the NEPA permitting 
done. And that is a big concern when it comes to the 5-year 
leasing, because we have to get the 5-year plan that we don't 
have in place. Then we have to go through the NEPA process. So, 
we are looking again at extending that gap of time period where 
we aren't having lease sales.
    Mr. Tiffany. If you look at the memo that we received here 
today, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Haaland said, in answer to 
Chairman Joe Manchin of the Senate Energy Committee, ``Yes, 
Chairman, of course we are going to comply with the IRA as 
written.'' The IRA said that we are going to do both wind and 
solar, as well as oil and gas.
    I was in the Judiciary Committee yesterday with Secretary 
Mayorkas. I hope this isn't a case of another cabinet secretary 
who, at a minimum, is misleading, perhaps lying to the American 
people. This is getting pretty frustrating to watch this 
Administration operate at this point when they won't tell us in 
Congress or the American people the truth.
    I am going to close by saying this. People are purporting 
to do the green fantasy here. We had people that told us global 
cooling is going to end the world in 1975. The eminent 
scientist Paul Ehrlich said that millions of people are going 
to die by the year 2000. Now, we hear it is global warming is 
going to be the end of the Earth. It is time to put to rest 
this green fantasy stuff, and allow the American people to lead 
a life of prosperity.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Tiffany. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Magaziner for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman.
    In my home state of Rhode Island, we are on the front lines 
of climate change. We know it is real. We know that it is 
impacting working people every day. There are literally entire 
neighborhoods in Rhode Island that are being wiped off the map 
because of rising sea levels. The Narragansett Bay in Rhode 
Island has risen more than 6 inches in the last 30 years. And, 
of course, this year is on pace to be, by far, the warmest on 
record.
    It is hurting our commercial fishing industry, as well. We 
have a big commercial fishing industry in my district in Rhode 
Island, just as many of you have in the Gulf. And warming 
waters and changing migration patterns are having a real impact 
on the men and women who work in that industry, as well.
    On the flip side, we know in Rhode Island that a transition 
to responsible, clean energy is possible and can save consumers 
money. We know it because we are leading the way in Rhode 
Island on offshore wind. My district has the first operational 
offshore wind farm in North America off the coast of Block 
Island. We are eagerly anticipating the expansion of offshore 
wind in Rhode Island, and we believe that a majority of our 
state's electricity will come from offshore wind by the end of 
this decade.
    Today, as we sit here in our state, we still get more than 
90 percent of our electricity from natural gas, which we have 
to import because we don't produce gas or oil in our region. 
And it was just announced the other day that Rhode Island 
ratepayers are going to see a 40 percent increase to the rate 
on their electric bills this winter because of instability in 
the oil and gas markets driven by a range of factors including 
the war in Ukraine and other things that are outside of our 
control.
    We know in Rhode Island that we can build out clean, 
domestic, American-made energy through offshore wind that will 
create American jobs, union jobs, lower cost for consumers, and 
help us do our part to reverse climate change. We know it 
because we are doing it.
    And the job impact alone is phenomenal. Already in Rhode 
Island, millions of dollars are being invested in ports. Men 
and women in the trades are already working to stage offshore 
wind projects, not just for Rhode Island, but all across the 
Northeast. And the jobs aren't limited just to New England, 
either.
    The Block Island Wind Farm, which I just mentioned, and is 
the first operational offshore wind farm in the United States, 
has bases. The structures at the base of those turbines were 
constructed in Louisiana. The crew transfer vessels that take 
men and women out to the offshore wind farms to perform 
maintenance, some of those crew transfer vessels are being 
built in my district in Rhode Island. A number of others are 
being built in Louisiana.
    I should mention, by the way, I am born and raised from 
Rhode Island, but I actually used to live in south Louisiana. I 
lived in Opelousas Saint Landry Parish for a period, so I have 
an affinity for Louisiana, even as a native Rhode Islander 
myself.
    So, this is not fiction. This is real. The threat of 
climate change is real, and also the opportunity to create 
good, American jobs, produce American energy at lower cost to 
consumers is real. But we need, as a Congress, to advance 
policies that will help make this transition to clean energy, 
particularly offshore wind, a reality.
    That is why I am pleased that the Biden administration has 
launched a goal of achieving 30 gigawatts from offshore wind, 
that BOEM and NOAA are working with all relevant stakeholders 
to make sure that offshore wind development is done in a way 
that is responsible, that protects coastal communities, that 
protects impacted industries, stakeholders, and tribes, but 
that we move in an aggressive way because, as I said earlier, 
in my state entire neighborhoods are already having to be 
relocated because of sea level rise. And I know that the same 
is true in the Gulf and many other parts of the country.
    So, I want to thank the witnesses during the previous round 
of questioning for validating a lot of what we are seeing in 
Rhode Island, that there is good, job-creating potential in 
offshore wind. There is good potential for bringing back more 
American jobs, lower costs to consumers.
    We cannot allow the incumbents in the energy space to block 
that progress. If we believe in markets, and if we believe that 
American energy independence is of paramount importance, we 
have to continue this transition in a responsible way toward 
offshore wind as we have been leading the way doing in my home 
state, in Rhode Island.
    I see my time is expired, but you can tell that I get 
passionate. I yield back.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much for your comment. Just a 
reminder, we also need permitting reform to do that, what you 
just suggested. Thank you very much.
    We will go to Mr. Rosendale for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you 
very much for the panel for coming in and trying to bring some 
good information and education to a lot of our Members here. It 
is amazing to me.
    I am in ranch country, I am from Montana, and the ranchers 
are very, very protective of their inventory, and their 
inventory are their cattle. And in the spring time their 
inventory for the next year are their calves. And I can tell 
you that the ranchers are extremely protective of that 
inventory, whether they have to fight against grizzly bears, 
mountain lions, or just the weather, they do whatever is 
necessary to protect that inventory because that is how they 
get paid, to the extent that I have literally seen more than 
one rancher bring a calf, a half-frozen calf, into their 
kitchen to warm it back up so that it can survive and start 
suckling on its mother.
    So, when I hear these references of operators having a 
complete disregard for the oil that they are trying to produce, 
which is literally their product, which is literally their 
inventory, is just outlandish to me, and is completely contrary 
to what anybody would believe.
    So, I don't know if Mr. Minarovic or Mr. Danos would like 
to comment, which one is better suited, but some of the 
processes that you have in place to make sure that your product 
makes it to market and it is protected from being leaked out 
into the environment.
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, are you talking about the inventory of 
leases? Is that what you are saying?
    Mr. Rosendale. I am talking about the product, the oil that 
you are producing.
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, in the Gulf of Mexico we don't store 
much production at all on our facilities. The wells are 
produced in a radius around a fixed structure or a floating 
structure. The oil comes to that facility. It is processed at 
that facility very quickly. And process, I mean basically 
separates out the oil, the water, and the gas. They all three 
go a different direction, directly back into pipelines, or the 
water goes back into the Gulf of Mexico after it has been 
cleaned.
    So, there is very little time or exposure, there are no 
tanks of any significance in the Gulf of Mexico that store oil 
at atmospheric conditions. All this oil is processed under 
pressure, and it is on the platform for a very short amount of 
time, and that is really the difference, that along with the 
high level of regulation that we have been under for over 70 
years is what makes this such an environmentally advantaged 
barrel of oil.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, any oil that you would lose is oil that 
you could not sell. Is that a fair statement?
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, we are not losing any oil. We are not 
losing any oil.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you.
    Mr. Minarovic. In onshore sometimes, we are talking a lot 
about venting and flaring, and the regulator severely restricts 
any of that activity. It would only be in a short-term 
emergency situation we would be allowed to do anything like 
that. And it is all reported and recorded.
    So, we are very, very restricted. And what happens is in a 
situation, the platform may shut in and the wells get shut in 
ultimately, and then we get everything straightened out and 
fixed again, and then restore production and put the wells back 
on-line.
    Mr. Rosendale. Very good. I also want to go down another 
line.
    We hear about the leasing and all of the problems that it 
is causing when you have the unpredictability of basically your 
inventory coming on this conveyor belt that you are talking 
about.
    But the other thing that we also are having problems with 
is actual funding. So, I would like one of you gentlemen to 
give me some information about how these ESG standards are 
starting to impact your access to capital, which is causing you 
problems when it comes to actually developing your resources.
    I know that the oil producers in Montana, the small 
drillers that we have, say that they have gone from having 12, 
15 different institutions that used to lend them money, that 
now they are down to like three different institutions because 
the Federal Government, through the Securities and Exchange 
Commission, is putting these ESG standards in place that is 
making it more difficult for you to access capital. Are you 
having the same experience?
    Mr. Danos. I would just say that our companies care deeply 
about environmental social issues. I grew up in Cut Off, which 
is a community much like Mr. Solet's, I lived just up the road 
from him. So, we care deeply about those issues.
    And I think Mr. Chiasson talked about a place where we 
work, live, and play. A lot of that play is the fishing that we 
do on the coast. So, again, we care deeply about our 
environment. We have to report every drop of oil. If a drop of 
oil were to hit the Gulf of Mexico, that is reportable. There 
is tremendous oversight.
    But at the end of the day, those standards are restricting 
capital. Mike and I both have private companies, so we are 
having to access capital to continue to grow our businesses. 
And those standards are going to make that more and more 
difficult if they are arbitrary. Good, strong ESG standards are 
absolutely warranted. We want them. We welcome them. But we 
just need to be careful about how those get applied from a 
capital standpoint.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I will yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. The gentleman yields. I would like 
to recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Westerman, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
witnesses for being here today.
    We hear this idea of all-of-the-above energy, but I am 
starting to hear from my friends on the left and, really, from 
the actions of the Biden administration that it is not an all-
of-the-above energy approach, it is a wind-and-solar energy 
approach, which just, quite simply, won't work.
    I have always said the problem with the Biden 
administration's energy plan is twofold. It is physics and 
math. You just cannot meet the energy demands going down the 
road of wind and solar. I have no problem with wind and solar, 
but in the world's energy demands, it is about the equivalent 
of a hair on a mole's rear end of the impact to the energy.
    Also, it is about more than energy. If we quit natural gas 
production, if it stopped, like many people are proposing, it 
affects fertilizer, which affects food, which means people are 
going to starve to death around the world. That is the 
importance of this issue that we are facing, and I am judging 
the Administration on their actions, and it is really on their 
inactions.
    And I would like to take a closer look at the timeline for 
lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the impact of the various 
factors on the process.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Westerman. If you look at the chart behind me, at the 
top you can see when BOEM should have started the NEPA process. 
That is the yellow arrow up there, in June 2022.
    If they could have issued a notice of intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement for the site-specific leases in 
June 2022, we could be at this stage down here, which we may 
have to raise the board up to even see it. That is where they 
should be, where that red arrow is, ready to hold sales in 2024 
had BOEM started the process as early as the previous 
administration did. And as you can see, it is a quite 
complicated process.
    However, BOEM has not even begun the NEPA process for new 
sales, meaning the process is currently stalled, which means 
they are using the process to stop new production in the Gulf. 
That is the bottom line of what they are doing because they 
hate oil and gas. They hate it. And you cannot replace oil and 
gas with wind and solar and do it overnight like a lot of 
people are proposing.
    This is very serious, and it is damaging our country, it is 
damaging our security, and it is going to hurt the American 
taxpayer in more ways than just the pocketbook.
    And Mr. Minarovic, has BOEM started any sale-specific 
environmental reviews for potential 2024 sales?
    Mr. Minarovic. Not that I am aware.
    Mr. Westerman. At a recent Offshore Operators Committee 
meeting in New Orleans, BOEM officials suggested that the 
review timeline for NEPA for any forthcoming sales would take 
at least 2 full years to get through this chart behind me. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Minarovic. I think that is probably right.
    Mr. Westerman. So, let's do the math together. If the 5-
year plan is finalized in December, and the NEPA is projected 
to take 2 years, when will the first sale happen if everything 
goes perfectly?
    Mr. Minarovic. 2026, at the earliest.
    Mr. Westerman. 2026, at the earliest for the first new 
sale, after the next election, far into the next term of the 
next President.
    So, BOEM is effectively implementing the Biden 
administration's policy of the attack on energy, which is an 
attack on America is really what it is. So, we are seriously 
looking at an oil and gas lease sale delayed until after the 
spring of 2026. That is the earliest it could happen now 
because of the delays that they have already built into the 
process.
    This is unacceptable. BOEM needs to be held accountable for 
this, and as far as I can see BOEM is useless in the job that 
they are supposed to be doing if they are using the process to 
stop the very thing that they are supposed to be spending 
American taxpayer dollars to make happen in the safest, most 
environmentally friendly way.
    And you can't even go down the argument that this is best 
for the climate, because the demand for oil and gas is not 
going down. It is on an exponential increase, which means we 
are going to rely on OPEC, on Russia, on OPEC+ to produce the 
energy for the world because we can't get past this mess that 
we have created and that the American taxpayer dollars are 
funding to happen.
    So, we are working hard to try to change this, but I 
appreciate you all staying in the fight, and hopefully it will 
get better soon. But we are already in a very precarious place 
because of the delays that BOEM has put in place.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to 
recognize Mr. Mullin for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our 
witnesses for your testimony this morning.
    July is likely to be the hottest month on Earth since 
records have been kept. This week, a new report found that 
ongoing U.S. and European heat waves would have been, and I 
quote, ``virtually impossible without the influence of human-
caused climate change from burning fossil fuels.'' This, of 
course, is no surprise. Experts have been predicting these 
extreme impacts for decades.
    My question is for Mr. Solet, we have heard from the oil 
and gas companies and some of my colleagues from across the 
aisle that oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico is 
some of the safest, most environmentally friendly extraction in 
the world. I just would like to get your reaction to that 
suggestion.
    Mr. Solet. You can speak to the 11 workers that died on the 
Deepwater Horizon about how safe that is.
    I was a blowout specialist for 10 years. There are 3,000 
spills recorded a year in the Gulf of Mexico, but God knows 
what goes unrecorded because when I was working in an oil 
field, every time you disjoint a pipe coming out of the ground 
when that well is under pressure, those platforms are made of 
grating, and there is nothing to stop the fluid in a 30-foot 
joint of pipe of going into the Gulf.
    I do know there are more than 3,000 oil spills a year that 
go unreported.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. And Mr. Solet, why, in your 
view, does the United States have a responsibility to play a 
leadership role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions?
    Mr. Solet. Because America is a leader in the Global North, 
and by allowing the Global South to attain what the Global 
North has attained, it makes the world a cleaner place, and 
allows monies to travel around the world faster, and it also 
allows job growth to become a cleaner environment for the 
workplace, for the worker. And we can actually make that true 
in just transition to renewables by allowing the Global South 
to use what we have used in over-abundance in the last 50 
years.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, sir. Thank you all.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. Do you want to yield the balance of your time 
to me, Mr. Mullin?
    Mr. Mullin. [No response.]
    Mr. Tiffany. I am teasing you.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. My questions would be different than yours.
    I would like to recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 
Carl, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Did you say I get 15 minutes? Is that what you 
said, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Rosendale. We know you talk slow.
    Mr. Carl. Yes, I talk slow. I am from the South. I noticed 
a few more down here talk a little slow, too. I appreciate 
that.
    I am from Mobile, so the offshore energy industry is very 
important in my district, whether it is working on rigs, 
whether it is actually crewing those rigs, crewing those boats. 
I appreciate everything we do down there.
    Paul, is it Danos? Did I pronounce that correct?
    Mr. Danos. Danos.
    Mr. Carl. OK. I have to say it faster.
    Mr. Danos. Well, I will answer to Danos, too.
    Mr. Carl. All right, sir. I have a question for you. I 
would like for you to give me a broader understanding of your 
company's involvement in the community engagement and 
development. And could you please share information about any 
initiatives or programs your company has undertaken to support 
the community?
    Mr. Danos. Yes, that is a great question. Thank you.
    In my original testimony, I talked about the desire of my 
grandfather to put people to work in his community back in 
1947, when he started the business. And he has done that, and 
we have done that over that whole time.
    I will tell you that probably about 5 years ago, we had a 
group of employees that thought, maybe 10 years ago now, that 
thought we could do better. And with the support of the owners, 
they created what we call the Danos Foundation. And through the 
Danos Foundation, we have been able to give back probably over 
$1 million over the last 7 years to our community.
    In fact, the Dulac Community Center has been a big 
recipient of grants from our Foundation for the last 4 years. 
We have a great partnership with the center there and the folks 
that run it.
    And, really, our desire is solving challenges for our 
communities where we work and live. And we have been able to do 
that in a significant way because, at the end of the day, I am 
blessed to be from a place like Cut Off, Louisiana, to live in 
Terrebonne Parish now, and to live and work with and have grown 
up with the people that work for my company and other companies 
that work offshore that, again, we strive very hard to take 
care of while they are working, but also to be engaged in their 
lives.
    We have an arm of our Foundation that helps our employees 
when they hit tough patches. We had some hurricanes that 
devastated a lot of folks that worked for us, went right up 
through Mr. Solet's hometown, and we were able to do a lot to 
give back, from our folks showing up to provide generators and 
meals, to cash to help folks get back on their feet. So, there 
are a lot of things that we do.
    And it is not just us. We are just an example of the things 
that happen in our industry, many of the companies involved in 
this industry are doing the same things, and have similar 
initiatives to give back and support the communities.
    Mr. Carl. As a county commissioner, I got involved a lot in 
that. And when we would look for economic developments for 
groups to come in, that was one of the questions I would drill 
them with. What is your involvement in the community? What are 
you going to do in the community?
    In Mobile, we have Airbus, for example, and they have a 
program for their employees to go in and read with the 
children. Well, you think that is not a big deal, but it is to 
those teachers. And, of course, those students are picking up 
on it also.
    And I also want to point out that my dad used to run crew 
boats out of southern Louisiana down there of Otto Candies. I 
am sure you are probably familiar with that name. They have 
been around a while. He ran them back in the, I think, 1970s 
and 1980s. So, the industry down there fed me and my family 
growing up. So, thank you for that.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will return my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. We will go to a second 
round of questions now, and I am going to start out recognizing 
myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Minarovic, in the slides that you showed the Committee 
here, you had something in regards to global population. So, my 
question for you is, if we decrease American demand, will oil 
demand go down on a global scale?
    I don't know if we have the capability to bring that up, or 
you could just speak to it if you choose to. I thought that was 
an interesting slide, so if we decrease American demand for 
oil, is global demand going to go down?
    Mr. Minarovic. I think we have done a lot, actually. If you 
look at this per-person use of oil per year, that is the United 
States, 22 barrels per person per year. That has gone down over 
time as we became more efficient with our automobiles, we 
became more efficient with our heating. We use less oil for 
heating and other things.
    Mr. Tiffany. Sorry to interrupt, but do you know, like, 50 
years ago, do you know what that number was?
    Mr. Minarovic. I have that number, but I am not aware 
exactly what it is.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. No problem.
    Mr. Minarovic. Maybe in the thirties. I would say about in 
the thirties. We have worked it down.
    But I think we are somewhat at a limit of that. And we only 
have 350 million people in this country, so you do the math. 
And the key thing is the drivers, is the China, India, Africa 
bloc, 4 billion people. As India, Africa, and China move toward 
that global average, we estimate that if they got to the global 
average, that it would require about 30 million barrels a day 
incremental from where we are just to get to the average. And I 
am assured that China is not going to stop at the world 
average.
    So, that is the driver of world demand. The United States 
will have some impact on it. But net, it is all about these 
three regions.
    Mr. Tiffany. When we talk about the global picture, haven't 
we become more dependent, shall we say, over the barrel to, 
like, the Saudis once again, which with the advent of fracking 
and the technologies that we have had, I mean, we got ourselves 
energy independence. It seems to me we are moving in the 
opposite direction now in the last couple of years. Do you 
agree with that?
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Minarovic. So, this plot right here shows world oil 
demand. And you can see the shaded, tan color shows the 
percentage of oil demand that was provided by shale. I mean, 
this is an amazing gift to America. Both shale oil and shale 
gas, which is not represented here, has helped to keep our 
energy costs at the lowest level in the world.
    And these 8 million or 10 million barrels a day that that 
shale oil discovery has led has really been a huge driver for a 
positive economy over the last 12 years. It got us out of the 
recession. It helped balance that increase in concerns about 
peak oil that we were reaching in 2007, 2008.
    But that production is stabilized now. It is not likely to 
increase substantially from the point it is at now. It is not 
going to go down a lot, probably, but we are not going to see 
that same growth. So, I agree with your question that there is 
more exposure.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, we are still going to need to produce oil 
from the Gulf to be able to meet the demand both for our 
country and for the world.
    Mr. Minarovic. Yes, that is correct. And what I think we 
should focus on, if we want to really change and look at 
alternatives, we should first reduce demand.
    The movement to reduce supply doesn't impact demand until 
prices go up. So, I really struggle with understanding why the 
Biden administration is restricting lease sales, restricting 
activity in the Gulf of Mexico, which is the best environmental 
barrel that we can produce in order to reduce supply.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would just close by saying this in regards 
to the questioning and comments we just heard on the Minority 
side. Experts have been predicting for decades that we would 
see these rising global temperatures that are a sure sign that 
man is causing climate change. That is not correct.
    In 1975, I have the copy of Newsweek magazine where Paul 
Ehrlich said that global cooling is the threat to the world, 
that we were going to lose millions of people by the year 2000 
as a result of temperatures cooling on a global scale. Well, 
now we are here, what almost 50 years later, and it is going to 
be higher temperatures caused by man that are going to make 
this happen.
    And, by the way, the heat waves that we are having at this 
point, I think some people forget the 1930s and the Dust Bowl. 
Go back and look at that temperature data. Those were higher 
temperatures at that point. And to say that this is all caused 
by man is at the heart of the green fantasy, and it is nothing 
but that, a fantasy.
    I want to recognize the gentleman from Montana for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Chiasson, coming from a water-related area, I have to 
believe that the fish and seafood industry and tourism all sort 
of tie into your local economy, as well, do they not?
    Mr. Chiasson. Yes, we provide about 20 percent of the 
nation's seafood. And I think if you come to any restaurant in 
Washington, DC or around this area, you are eating a blue crab 
from Lafourche Parish.
    Mr. Rosendale. So, if you were to estimate, or you maybe 
even have this, how much of your parish's budget actually comes 
from either tourism related to the water activities or from the 
fish and seafood industry?
    Mr. Chiasson. Probably about 20 percent. About 28 percent 
of our parish is made up of oil and gas, and the rest is made 
up of household earning incomes.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK. So, it would be a pretty big hit to your 
budget, I would say, if you were to lose your tourism and/or 
your fish and seafood industry. Would that be a fair 
assumption?
    Mr. Chiasson. Yes, and that is why you have seen us invest 
so much in ecotourism. That is why you have seen places like 
Port Fourchon develop kayak launches and kayak paths through 
their facilities. That is why you have seen the parish invest 
over the last 3\1/2\ years, about $5 million in new boat launch 
facilities and upgrades to help our charter fishery captains, 
to help our recreational fishermen who are coming from places 
north of us that want to get to the Gulf more easily to fish. 
And it has proven to be an economic boon for us.
    Mr. Rosendale. Very good. And I would imagine, as you have 
conversations in your community with the oil and gas industry, 
which I am sure that you do, the fact that you are so reliant 
also on the fisheries and the tourism certainly enters into 
that conversation so that everybody is working together.
    Mr. Chiasson. Yes. And I think that is why you have seen 
some of the majors invest in so many wetland restoration 
projects, why we partner with things like the NAWCA, the North 
American Wetlands Conservation Act, to not only focus on the 
fishing industry, but also the waterfowl habitat, to get 
hunters to come down, as well.
    As those migratory bird patterns change, we know that our 
wetlands are a huge part of that. So, to be able to rebuild 
that, not only to expand the hunting aspect, but also to 
protect our culture. I would like to go fishing in the same 
places in Montegut and Dulac that my dad took me fishing. I 
would love to take my two little girls there one day when they 
get old enough and they actually want to get on a boat and go 
fishing.
    So, I think that is why you have seen us invest. We are in 
about our 12th year of a partnership with the oil and gas 
industry. We have developed over 200,000 linear feet of wetland 
terraces that help waterfowl habitat. We have rebuilt somewhere 
about 500 acres of wetland marsh habitat. We have partnered 
with people like Nicholls State University, which is our 
university closest to the coast here in Lafourche Parish, and 
our new Coastal Wetlands Center to be able to do things like 
that.
    Mr. Rosendale. Very good. I myself traveled down to New 
Orleans probably 18 years ago, and went fishing off of a rig. 
It seems to me that they were attracting a lot of fish, 
certainly not hurting the habitat.
    Mr. Danos or Mr. Minarovic, from the time that you lease 
until the time you actually get a permit, discounting actual 
drilling operations, what kind of time frame are we looking at, 
roughly?
    Mr. Minarovic. I mean, that varies. When we lease a block, 
we have 5 to 10 years to develop that block before the lease 
expires. So, it really is driven by our decision on when to 
really submit that permit.
    But the whole process of permitting for a new lease 
probably could be done in a year. So, you have to plan ahead 
and make sure you have it, but it is pretty well established 
procedures.
    Mr. Rosendale. And how much of the lease do you actually 
end up finding that is developable for a resource as opposed to 
that that you just end up leasing anyway, just because it is 
part of the block, and then you sort of determine what is the 
best area to go?
    Mr. Minarovic. Typically, the blocks in the Gulf of Mexico 
are 5,000-acre blocks, around there. And depending on the 
reservoir size that you are targeting, how many reservoirs and 
everything, it varies greatly. But it is a percentage of the 
total block. It is a quarter or half of the total.
    Mr. Rosendale. That is what I was going to say. So, 
anywhere from 20 up to, if it is a really good block, you might 
get 50 percent of that area that is developable.
    And then the permit to actually drill, from there to 
production when you are actually drilling, what kind of time 
frame are we dealing with there?
    Mr. Minarovic. It is really widely varying, depending on 
water depth, really. The deeper the water, it could take years 
to establish production if you are going to put in a full 
facility. If you are going to tie that well back to an existing 
facility, it will be a lot less. And if it is on the shelf in 
the shallow water, it could be very quickly.
    Mr. Rosendale. My last question before I run out of time 
here is, we have seen the prohibition by this Administration of 
the leasing, and to stop the leasing so that we can't even 
begin the research. Are you also finding that you are having 
problems with the permits to do the drilling being slow-walked, 
as well?
    Mr. Minarovic. I think that was a concern, honestly, when 
the Biden administration came in. But from our company's 
perspective, the permits have been slow with regard to 
pipelines, and decommissioning, and things like that. But 
generally, the well drilling permits have been pretty standard 
response times.
    Mr. Rosendale. OK. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to 
recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the 
witnesses for being here today. Thank you so much for your 
time.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Hunt. This is why we are here.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hunt. Mr. Minarovic, behind me, is this is a picture of 
the Rice's whale or the Loch Ness monster?
    Mr. Minarovic. It appears to be the Loch Ness monster.
    Mr. Hunt. One would say, sir. Well, according to the 2020 
Biological Opinion, the Rice's whale might, might, have been 
seen in the Gulf. Or maybe it was swimming next to Nessie. I 
guess we will never know. I don't think we need a marine 
biologist to tell us this. Yesterday, we were talking about 
UFOs. So, if the Rice's whale might have been seen, maybe we 
saw some other things, as well.
    I say this because the sighting of the Rice's whale is not 
the reason that we should drive up energy prices and costs of 
American families. Mr. Minarovic, should we stop drilling in 
the Gulf of Mexico because of the possible sighting of the 
Rice's whale or any other unknown species in the Gulf of 
Mexico, including but not limited to Nessie, of course?
    Mr. Minarovic. We have a long track record of understanding 
the endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico and tracking them. 
And this Rice's whale thing seems to be a significant departure 
from the way that we have handled things in the past.
    But we need to keep drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and all 
these things are attacks on our industry to slow that effort 
and all the things we have been talking about today. The Rice's 
whale, the lease sale, the permit issue, the new proposed rule 
that we are dealing with out of BOEM, all those things are 
intended to slow down development of this basin that delivers 
the best source of American energy, the best source of 
environmentally advantaged oil, that Americans can access. And 
it keeps prices low, and it keeps middle-class families and 
lower-class families in a good economic situation.
    I don't understand it. I really don't understand how the 
attack on supply somehow reduces demand. It doesn't reduce 
demand unless we see higher prices. Maybe that is the end game.
    Mr. Hunt. It is the end game, and that is why we are here 
to fix that, sir.
    Mr. Danos, this question is for you, sir. You mentioned in 
your oral statement, could you let the Committee know once more 
where do we produce the cleanest oil and gas barrels in the 
entire world?
    Mr. Danos. In the Gulf of Mexico, 46 percent cleaner than 
the average barrels produced anywhere else in the world outside 
of North America.
    Mr. Hunt. And why is that?
    Mr. Danos. Mr. Minarovic did a good job earlier talking 
about that, and I will just add on, it is really about the kind 
of regulatory oversight and commitment that we have, both from 
regulators in terms of it is really world-class oversight for 
the operations that we do.
    And it is a commitment from the operators, a commitment 
from service companies like Danos and others that are out 
there, because, again, we care about the environment, most of 
us that work in this industry, many of us, live in coastal 
communities, fish off of oil and gas platforms. And that is a 
secret that, as we were talking about this a second ago, if you 
want to catch fish, you go out to the platforms, you go to old 
platform sites. That is where all the fish are caught, because 
it creates an environment.
    So, we care about it, we are passionate about it. We are 
regulated to make sure that we do a good job, and we work 
together, and we get that done.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you. I have been on one of Mr. Minarovic's 
rigs, actually, in the Gulf. It is an incredible operation. It 
is technologically advanced. You are correct. It is clean. 
Safety is paramount. I mean, if they are going to allow a 
Congressman on there, it better be safe, I would assume.
    But what I really want to talk about is how important what 
you do is to not just the energy here in this country, but to 
the entire world. I don't think you hear this enough, but I 
just want to tell you gentleman thank you so much for what you 
do for us every single day. Because right now I am sitting 
here, in a nice air-conditioned room wearing this suit, and I 
feel quite comfortable because of the very energy that you 
provide for us.
    And Mr. Danos, you were talking about how safely that we do 
it here, how clean we do it here, and why that is the case. I 
can assure you that Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other 
countries don't care about safety nearly as much as we do. We 
live in a world where we need more electrons.
    And I want to do away and dispel this myth of a transition. 
There is no such thing as a transition. There is only energy 
addition, and it is going to be a mix. It is going to be 
redundancies. It is going to be provided by the people in this 
room right now. If we don't continue to hammer this point home, 
we are literally going to destroy our economy at no gain to the 
globe.
    We are living in times of record inflation, record debt, 
record energy prices, and, quite frankly, middle America and 
the flyover states can't afford it. And the only way that we 
are going to be able to afford it is to unleash American energy 
and unleash companies like yours, Mr. Minarovic, to continue to 
fuel our world.
    We have to stand on this together. This is not a partisan 
issue. This is about not just fueling our country, but making 
sure that we become a net exporter and getting back to what it 
means to have the greatest country in the entire world, and you 
gentleman provide that for us. Thank you so much for your time, 
I really appreciate it. God bless you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to 
recognize Mr. Carl for another 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Mr. Chairman, I don't have to follow Mr. Hunt, do 
I?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Carl. You missed your calling. You should be a 
charismatic TV evangelist. I have determined that.
    Mr. Hunt. There is time after this. I will do it after 
this.
    Mr. Carl. There you go.
    I want to talk about the delays in the leasing. On this 
side of the aisle we have argued this, this is my third year 
here, and we have argued it every year, the delays, the delays, 
the delays in the leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.
    So, Mr. Danos, did I say it fast enough at that time? All 
right. What are the specified challenges your employees are 
facing due to the delays and uncertainty in the offshore 
leasing program?
    Mr. Danos. Yes, again, you hit the key word there. It is 
uncertainty, right? That uncertainty, those delays create 
uncertainty that chills investment, that moves capital 
elsewhere.
    Many of the companies that are investing capital in the 
Gulf of Mexico have options. They are competing for capital. If 
you hear the companies that have an international footprint, 
they talk about how their companies are competing for capital.
    So, if we create more uncertainty, then that capital will 
go elsewhere. Ultimately, that sends jobs elsewhere, and 
increases energy prices not only for our people, but that is an 
impact on everybody in the United States, right, those 
increased energy prices.
    And we talked about exports, and instability, and some of 
the prices here recently. We are exporting more natural gas 
because we are trying to resolve for the instability from other 
countries in Europe who are dealing with, what they did is they 
outsourced their production to Russia and other places like 
that. And now they are in a bind, and we are having to bail 
them out. We don't want to put ourselves in that same 
situation. And we risk doing that by continuing to delay the 
leasing.
    Mr. Carl. Tell me the impact on your workforce and how you 
are supporting the needs from a policymaker standpoint to 
ensure those jobs are stable and can continue to grow. Does 
that make sense?
    Mr. Danos. Yes, allow us to continue to invest in the Gulf 
of Mexico, where we can produce those barrels and support the 
people that are doing it, those folks that are, again, the 
frontline heroes that are doing the work that live in these 
coastal communities.
    And, frankly, the nature of the offshore work allows 
people, many of our folks live in coastal communities, but many 
of them drive in from around the country because they work that 
shift work. These are good jobs. I think we talked about some 
of them having a $51 an hour average wage. These are over 
$100,000 a year salaries for a lot of folks that are out there. 
And anything that we do that restricts supply is going to 
ultimately restrict jobs, and it is going to cause people to 
lose their jobs.
    And there isn't a one-to-one automatic switch, just like 
there isn't one-to-one switch for energy to renewables, nor is 
there a one-to-one switch for jobs, oil and gas jobs straight 
into renewables. Over time we will get there, but we are not 
going to move people over immediately, just like that.
    Mr. Carl. Also, I was on with Mr. Hunt, I came out on your 
rig, Mr., I am going to mess this one up.
    Mr. Minarovic. Minarovic.
    Mr. Carl. Minarovic, yes, OK, we will get close there. I 
came out on your rig, and you have the best drill master out 
there I have ever seen. He is from my district. So, if you can 
find him, all you have to do is scream ``Roll Tide,'' and he 
will answer.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Carl. That was my way of finding him.
    But I think most folks also don't understand what your 
industry does for local government on the GOMESA money, for 
example, in the Gulf. As a county commissioner, we counted on 
that GOMESA money to finance so many environmental projects, 
and we don't need to lose sight of local governments all around 
the Gulf of Mexico that depend on that money to do things like 
restoring wetlands, boat ramps, virtually anything that is 
environmentally related.
    So, I thank all of you for your service and for what you 
provide for this country. I am one of those that believe we 
ought to be self sufficient, we shouldn't buy anything off 
shores if we can produce it ourselves. So, thank you. You have 
my support.
    With that, I yield back.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Carl [presiding]. It looks like I am going to close.
    All right. I thank the witnesses for their valuable 
testimony and the Members for their questions. The members on 
the Subcommittee may have some additional questions for the 
witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing. 
Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must submit 
questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, August 
1. The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days 
for any responses.

    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                  The United South and Eastern Tribes
                 Sovereignty Protection Fund (USET SPF)

    The United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund 
(USET SPF) is pleased to provide the House Subcommittee on Energy and 
Mineral Resources (Subcommittee) with the following testimony for the 
record of the July 27, 2023 hearing on, ``Safeguarding American Jobs 
and Economic Growth: Examining the Future of the Offshore Leasing 
Program.'' This hearing focused on concerns with the Department of the 
Interior (DOI) and its delay in authorizing a five-year offshore lease 
program for oil and natural gas and the Biden Administration's delay in 
planning for oil and gas lease sales for 2024. Although USET SPF will 
refrain from engaging in much of the debate around issues raised during 
the hearing, we feel compelled to expand upon and highlight some 
related issues.

    As a matter of Tribal sovereignty and self-determination, Tribal 
Nations continue to pursue the rebuilding of our Tribal economies, 
especially following the COVID-19 public health emergency. The 
deployment, upgrade, and maintenance of infrastructure on Tribal Lands 
remains a critical component of these efforts in our pursuit of Nation 
rebuilding. However, the deployment of new infrastructure projects, 
including energy infrastructures, and the streamlining of federal 
permitting processes remain a major concern for USET SPF because of the 
potential impacts to Tribal sovereignty, cultural and sacred sites, and 
the public health and lifeways of our communities. We note that the 
Subcommittee did discuss issues with National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) permitting and how the law needs to be revised in favor 
streamlining the process. USET SPF has serious concerns regarding 
changes to NEPA, particularly because the federal government is already 
failing to uphold its process and streamlining would further threaten 
our cultural and sacred sites. We also have serious concerns with the 
ongoing authorization of offshore wind leases absent early and 
appropriate Tribal consultation, as well as the lack of funding and 
planning for avoidance and mitigation measures and impact aid to Tribal 
Nations.

    USET Sovereignty Protection Fund (USET SPF) is a non-profit, inter-
tribal organization advocating on behalf of thirty-three (33) federally 
recognized Tribal Nations from the Northeastern Woodlands to the 
Everglades and across the Gulf of Mexico.\1\ USET SPF is dedicated to 
promoting, protecting, and advancing the inherent sovereign rights and 
authorities of Tribal Nations and in assisting its membership in 
dealing effectively with public policy issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ USET SPF member Tribal Nations include: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe 
of Texas (TX), Catawba Indian Nation (SC), Cayuga Nation (NY), 
Chickahominy Indian Tribe (VA), Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern 
Division (VA), Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Coushatta Tribe of 
Louisiana (LA), Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (NC), Houlton Band of 
Maliseet Indians (ME), Jena Band of Choctaw Indians (LA), Mashantucket 
Pequot Indian Tribe (CT), Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (MA), Miccosukee 
Tribe of Indians of Florida (FL), Mi'kmaq Nation (ME), Mississippi Band 
of Choctaw Indians (MS), Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (CT), 
Monacan Indian Nation (VA), Nansemond Indian Nation (VA), Narragansett 
Indian Tribe (RI), Oneida Indian Nation (NY), Pamunkey Indian Tribe 
(VA), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township (ME), Passamaquoddy Tribe 
at Pleasant Point (ME), Penobscot Indian Nation (ME), Poarch Band of 
Creek Indians (AL), Rappahannock Tribe (VA), Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe 
(NY), Seminole Tribe of Florida (FL), Seneca Nation of Indians (NY), 
Shinnecock Indian Nation (NY), Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana (LA), 
Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe (VA) and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head 
(Aquinnah) (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns with Offshore Wind Development Without Proper Tribal 
        Consultation, Compliance with NEPA, and Resources and Technical 
        Assistance for Tribal Nations

    The planning and deployment of offshore wind energy projects 
without early and appropriate Tribal consultation has become an 
increasingly alarming issue throughout Indian Country. The recent, 
historic funding authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
the Inflation Reduction Act have overwhelmed Tribal Nations and our 
Tribal departments and personnel responsible for reviewing NEPA permit 
applications for infrastructure projects. The aggressive pursuit of 
offshore wind development has led to decisions to streamline or 
outright ignore federal responsibilities to appropriately engage in 
consultation with Tribal Nations and hold non-Tribal developers 
accountable for Tribal engagement and coordination. Tribal Nations are 
contending with the impacts of the deployment of offshore wind energy 
projects due to the failure of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 
(BOEM) to conduct appropriate consultation and engagement with Tribal 
Nations prior to the approval of permits for these projects. Though 
these issues have the potential to impact Tribal Nations across the 
United States, several of these projects are currently under 
construction and affected USET SPF member Tribal Nations have been 
engaged with BOEM to avoid adverse impacts. Let it be strongly 
emphasized that USET SPF is not opposed to renewable energy 
development, especially when those projects are being pursued and 
initiated by Tribal Nations. The issue we have is when non-Tribal 
entities and agencies of the federal government do not properly engage 
and consult with Tribal Nations when these projects are occurring 
outside of our jurisdictional boundaries and threatening our cultural, 
environmental, and natural resources and sacred sites.
    BOEM is currently considering additional offshore wind project 
proposals and several Tribal Nations, both within and outside the USET 
SPF region, continue to raise concerns about potential threats to 
submerged sites of cultural significance, natural and environmental 
resources, and aquatic life. The development of these projects is 
moving forward without necessary avoidance and mitigation measures or 
impact aid to Tribal Nations. In recognition of these concerns, USET 
SPF adopted USET SPF Resolution No. 2023 SPF:013, which urges a 
temporary moratorium on BOEM's offshore wind scoping and permitting 
processes until a nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) is developed 
and agreed upon with Tribal Nations.\2\ USET SPF has been engaged with 
BOEM and the other agencies within DOI regarding ongoing concerns with 
offshore wind development absent Tribal consultation. Any type of 
offshore development that is outside of Tribal Nations' jurisdictional 
boundaries must require Tribal engagement and consultation prior to the 
issuance of any new offshore leases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ USET SPF partner organizations, the National Congress of 
American Indians and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, share 
these concerns and have passed similar resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We understand that the Biden Administration has a goal of deploying 
30 gigawatts of offshore wind electricity generation by 2030. However, 
this development, as well as the continued development of oil and gas 
on the Outer Continental Shelf, must not occur at the expense of 
destroying our sacred sites, cultural, natural, and environmental 
resources, and aquatic wildlife. Consistent with the Administration's 
commitment to Indian Country and ``the whole of government'' approach, 
the process must provide full mitigation through the completion of 
comprehensive and transparent procedures to appropriately protect 
Tribal Nation religious, cultural, environmental, and sovereign 
interests. We believe that the Administration's goals of developing 
clean energy and increasing Tribal co-management opportunities can and 
must be harmonized. Indeed, Tribal Nations have extensive experience in 
navigating the deployment of federal infrastructure in a way where 
multiple interests are satisfied1 and our cultural heritage is 
preserved. We are committed to exploring solutions with our federal 
partners that will benefit both Tribal Nations and the Administration's 
offshore wind deployment goals.
    The federal government must uphold its trust and treaty obligations 
by ensuring it, and non-Tribal developers of these projects, engage and 
consult with Tribal Nations early in the process when considering 
awarding a lease for development of these projects. Similarly, in the 
event our cultural and sacred sites and cultural lifeways are 
disrupted, disturbed, and otherwise adversely impacted, the federal 
government as well as the non-Tribal developer must be held accountable 
and provide mitigation measures, impact aid, and other necessary 
resources to Tribal Nations. Tribal Nations have already sacrificed too 
much in the way of land loss, the destruction of our communities, 
cultural heritages, and sacred sites, and the exploitation of our 
natural resources.
Concerns with Considering Legislation that Expedites the NEPA Review 
        Process Absent Consultation with Tribal Nations

    One of the other issues raised by Witness testimony to the 
Subcommittee during the July 27, 2023 hearing, was the issue of the 
lengthy NEPA review process. Since Congress has begun to raise issues 
with the costs and time constraints associated with finalizing NEPA 
reviews for permitting energy projects, USET SPF has been seriously 
concerned with the potential disastrous ramifications to Tribal Nations 
that the enactment of legislation streamlining the NEPA review process 
would have on our sacred sites, cultural and natural resources, and 
public health. While the NEPA review process may need to be reexamined 
on Tribal Lands for projects being pursued by Tribal Nations, USET SPF 
strongly opposes the streamlining of NEPA and other permitting review 
processes without early engagement and consultation with Tribal 
Nations. Just as the federal government has trust and treaty 
obligations to protect our cultural heritage and well-being, it also 
has obligations to empower us to exercise self-determination and 
utilize funds and other resources to protect what is important to us.
    The resources available to Tribal Nations to fully participate in 
the NEPA review process have always been inadequate--yet another 
reminder of the federal government's failure to uphold its trust and 
treaty obligations to fully fund technical assistance and support for 
Tribal Nations. For instance, while funding for Tribal Historic 
Preservation Officers (THPOs) received an increase in Fiscal Year 2023 
appropriations--after remaining stagnant for far too long--these 
funding levels are still insufficient to support the costly and time-
consuming review of leases and permits for proposed infrastructure 
projects. This issue is further compounded due to enactment of the 
COVID-19 relief laws and the recent Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and 
Inflation Reduction Act that are making historic investments in 
infrastructure deployment. These investments are further exacerbating 
and straining the resources, personnel, and capacity of Tribal Nations 
to participate in and review NEPA permits within and outside of our 
jurisdictional boundaries.
    Furthermore, it is important to note that in the instances that 
Tribal Nations have a THPO and/or a cultural or natural resources 
department dedicated to conducting environmental, cultural, and 
historic preservation reviews, oftentimes these individuals and 
departments are inundated with multiple projects and permit 
applications that exceed their available capacity and resources. Review 
of these projects can also be lengthy because they are often broken 
into multiple, segmented reviews of a single project and span across 
multiple agency jurisdictions and oversight authorities. Additionally, 
these individuals and departmental staff may fulfill multiple roles 
within their Tribal government due to the historic and persistent 
failures of the federal government to appropriate the necessary 
resources for these positions. It is not uncommon for a THPO/cultural 
resource manager to also fulfill the role of a natural resource manager 
or serve in an emergency management role.
    For these reasons, we urge Congress to uphold its trust and treaty 
obligations to Tribal Nations and allocate the appropriate funding for 
Tribal Nations to fully engage in the NEPA review process on 
infrastructure/energy projects being considered for leasing and 
development outside of our jurisdictional boundaries. This would 
benefit both the federal government and Tribal Nations by hastening 
review processes, limiting the potential for costly and lengthy 
litigation, and advancing the infrastructure/energy development 
initiatives. We will continue to oppose any legislative efforts until 
bill language respects Tribal Nation sovereignty and does not threaten 
environmental and cultural review processes on Tribal homelands and 
beyond. This includes H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, which 
consolidated multiple energy development bills into one to enact a 
legislative package overhauling multiple sectors of energy development. 
Many of these bills, including H.R. 1, have not received proper Tribal 
input and consultation. Congress has legally binding trust and treaty 
obligations to ensure that any legislative overhaul to permitting for 
infrastructure/energy development projects is not enacted without 
Tribal consultation and does not come at the expense of protecting our 
sacred sites from environmental degradation as well as safeguarding the 
public health of our communities.
Conclusion

    The failure of the federal government to fully fund and uphold its 
trust and treaty obligations to provide critical resources for Tribal 
Nations to review the permitting of energy projects occurring outside 
our jurisdictional boundaries has resulted in the degradation and 
destruction of our cultural and natural resources, sacred sites, and 
public health. While we strongly support robust and strengthened 
national energy infrastructure, and energy infrastructure build-out in 
Indian Country and beyond, it must not occur at the expense of Tribal 
consultation, sovereignty, sacred sites, or public health. Tribal 
Nations should not have to bear the brunt of these harms so the nation 
can further develop and transport its energy resources.
    Congress has solemn legal obligations to ensure that the history of 
the atrocities of destroying our homelands, natural and cultural 
resources, sacred sites, and harming the public health of our 
communities does not continue to repeat itself. As the Subcommittee 
moves forward in considering any further legislative action to develop 
the nation's energy resources or revise and streamline NEPA review 
processes, we strongly urge you to consider its implications to Tribal 
Nations and engage in early and appropriate outreach and consultation 
with us prior to the award of an offshore wind development lease. 
Further, the federal government must ensure that any offshore 
development does not harm our cultural and sacred sites now submerged, 
and that any development includes avoidance and mitigation measures and 
impact aid to Tribal Nations in the event our cultural lifeways are 
impacted. Although a private entity may receive a license or permit to 
proceed with offshore development, it is still the responsibility of 
the federal government to uphold its solemn trust and treaty 
obligations to protect our cultural heritage and the public health of 
our communities.

                               [all]