The bill titled the "Abundant American Resources Act of 2024" seeks to authorize comprehensive studies on the potential monetary value of mineral resources both onshore and offshore. The bill mandates that three federal bodies—the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Forest Service, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management—conduct these studies within three years to evaluate the financial worth of various minerals, including oil and gas, in specific areas under their jurisdiction.

General Summary of the Bill

The primary goal of this legislation is to determine the economic potential of mineral resources available on U.S. lands and waters. This involves assessing both liquid and gaseous minerals, such as crude oil and natural gas. By undertaking these studies, the bill aims to provide a clearer picture of resource availability, which could guide future mining and resource extraction policies. However, the bill explicitly excludes any examination of mineral values within the National Park System and certain national monuments designated as critical environmental areas before the year 2000.

Significant Issues

One critical issue with the bill is the three-year timeline for the completion of these studies. Given the pace at which both scientific understanding and national policy can evolve, this delay might impede timely economic decisions. Moreover, the bill's reliance on "private entities" to conduct these assessments raises concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest and the need for clear criteria in choosing qualified and impartial contractors.

The focus of the bill on merely assessing the "dollar value" of mineral resources may result in an imbalance, placing economic considerations above environmental, cultural, or social impacts. This narrow focus could shape policies that favor economic development at the expense of environmental preservation.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, the implications of this bill could be profound. Should the studies reveal significant mineral value, there might be increased interest in resource extraction, potentially leading to job creation and enhanced energy independence. However, it could also lead to environmental degradation if not coupled with environmentally conscious policies.

Positive and Negative Impacts on Specific Stakeholders

Positive Impacts:

• Industries and Private Contractors: Opportunities for economic gain through new mining ventures and research contracts could arise. Mining and energy companies would benefit from clearer guidance based on the studies.

• Government and Local Economies: Increased mineral extraction could result in revenue boosts from leases and taxes, which might support public services and infrastructure development.

Negative Impacts:

• Environmental and Cultural Stakeholders: There might be concerns about the disruption of sensitive ecosystems or the disregard for cultural sites. Without specific measures in place, the risk to biodiversity and natural heritage could be significant.

• Local Communities: Potential environmental impacts might pose risks to health and wellness. Communities that are heavily reliant on tourism or agriculture might face adverse effects due to the environmental changes spurred by increased mineral extractions.

In summary, while the "Abundant American Resources Act of 2024" aims to enhance the economic evaluation of the U.S.' mineral wealth, it simultaneously opens up debates on environmental priorities and the need for balanced policy-making that weighs both economic benefits and environmental sustainability.

The bill H. R. 9859 aims to commission studies on the financial value of both onshore and offshore mineral resources in the United States. While the bill's primary focus is on these economic valuations, it does not directly incorporate any specific appropriations or allocations of funds. Instead, it mandates that these studies be conducted by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the Chief of the United States Forest Service, and the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, with the possibility of contracting private entities to complete the work.

Financial References in the Bill

The text of the bill specifically calls for the determination of the dollar value of various types of minerals. This includes liquid, gaseous, locatable, leasable, and salable minerals for onshore resources, and liquid, gaseous, and locatable minerals for offshore ones. The use of the term "dollar value" indicates a direct financial assessment which could dictate future economic strategies or resource management plans.

Relationship to Identified Issues

1. Timeline for Completion: The bill sets a timeline of three years for completion of these studies. While this does not involve immediate spending, the extended timeframe means that any financial insights gained will not be available quickly, potentially delaying any policy decisions or economic initiatives that could result from these findings.

2. Contracting Private Entities: Section 2(a) and 2(b) of the bill allows for the potential contracting of private entities to conduct these studies. The selection process for these entities is not detailed, leading to concerns about the potential for misaligned financial interests. Should entities be chosen that do not uphold rigorous standards, the study's financial integrity and outcomes could be compromised.

3. Focus on Financial Valuation: By centering on the "dollar value" of mineral resources, the bill emphasizes financial metrics over environmental or cultural assessments, which could lead to an imbalanced focus where financial considerations overshadow other important factors.

4. Exclusions: The bill excludes national parks and certain older monuments from the studies, potentially overlooking broader financial assessments that might consider a wider scope of areas. This exclusion means that any financial valuation does not comprehensively assess all public lands.

5. Ambiguity in Post-Study Actions: Finally, there is no explicit direction within the bill on what financial actions or allocations might follow the completion of these studies. Without a clear post-study roadmap, there may be uncertainty regarding how these financial assessments will drive future decisions or investments.

In conclusion, while H. R. 9859 does not explicitly involve appropriations, its mandate for financial valuation studies of U.S. mineral resources underpins the economic dimension of resource management policies. The concerns highlighted, such as the potential influence of private contractors and the narrow focus on financial metrics, suggest a need for careful consideration of how these valuations will be conducted and used in practice.