Overview

Title

To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to amend references of gilsonite to asphaltite.

ELI5 AI

S. 3596 wants to change a word in a big rule about digging minerals, swapping "gilsonite" for "asphaltite," but it doesn’t explain why this change is needed.

Summary AI

S. 3596 proposes an amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act. It aims to replace all mentions of "gilsonite" with "asphaltite" in the Act. The bill has been introduced, read twice, referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and reported without amendment.

Published

2024-11-21
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: SENATE
Status: Reported to Senate
Date: 2024-11-21
Package ID: BILLS-118s3596rs

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
1
Words:
228
Pages:
4
Sentences:
7

Language

Nouns: 75
Verbs: 18
Adjectives: 1
Adverbs: 1
Numbers: 26
Entities: 28

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.02
Average Sentence Length:
32.57
Token Entropy:
4.29
Readability (ARI):
16.92

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The proposed legislation, known as S. 3596, aims to amend the Mineral Leasing Act by replacing the term "gilsonite" with "asphaltite" throughout several sections of the Act. This change affects specific sections referenced by their United States Code (U.S.C) citations. The bill was introduced by Mr. Lee in early 2024 and was reported by Mr. Manchin in November of the same year, without any amendments.

Summary of Significant Issues

One significant issue with this bill is the lack of clarity regarding the rationale behind changing the term "gilsonite" to "asphaltite." The legislation does not provide context or justification for this change, which could lead to confusion and potential legal challenges. It is crucial to understand why "asphaltite" is deemed more appropriate or accurate, especially as it pertains to legal contracts and regulatory interpretations.

Another concern is the potential broader implications this terminology change might have on existing contracts and legal interpretations. Changing a term in a legislative act could alter the intended meaning or application of prior agreements and regulations. This lack of clarity might result in disputes or necessitate legal clarifications.

Moreover, the bill does not address any specific financial implications. Without clear details on spending, it is difficult to assess whether there could be wasteful expenditures or if certain organizations might benefit unduly from the changes in terminology.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, the impact of this bill might seem minimal at first glance since it primarily involves a technical terminology adjustment. However, if the change affects the legal interpretation of contracts or the way resources are managed under the Mineral Leasing Act, the consequences could extend to industries and communities that rely on these resources. For example, if gilsonite and asphaltite have different market values or extraction methods, businesses involved in mining or processing these materials might be directly impacted.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Specific stakeholders, particularly those in industries related to mineral extraction and leasing, could experience the most significant effects from this legislative change. Companies currently operating under leases or contracts using the term "gilsonite" might need to re-evaluate their agreements to ensure compliance and avoid potential legal issues. This amendment could also influence the valuation of mineral rights and affect negotiations for new leases.

Legal professionals and regulators might need to invest additional time and resources to interpret and apply the changes appropriately, ensuring that the altered terminology aligns with the intended legal framework and business practices.

Issues

  • The terminology change from 'gilsonite' to 'asphaltite' might have broader implications on existing contracts or legal interpretations, as this terminology shift could alter the understanding of prior agreements or regulations. The absence of a rationale for this change could lead to legal ambiguity or challenges. (Section 1)

  • The bill does not provide context or justification for why 'asphaltite' is preferred over 'gilsonite'. Understanding the reasons behind the choice is important to assess the necessity or consequences of this amendment. (Section 1)

  • There are no specific spending details provided, making it difficult to determine whether any spending related to the amendment might be wasteful or potentially favor certain organizations or interests. (Section 1)

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

1. Mineral amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act changes the term “gilsonite” to “asphaltite” in several parts of the law, specifically within the first section and several other sections of the Act.