Overview
Title
To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to eliminate an administrative fee, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
S. 451 is a bill that wants to stop collecting a special fee when people rent land to dig for minerals, which might make it cheaper or easier for them to do so. However, some people are worried about how this change might affect the money the government makes and whether it might cause confusion.
Summary AI
S. 451 aims to change the Mineral Leasing Act by removing an administrative fee requirement. Specifically, it proposes to eliminate language in Section 35 of the act that involves subsections related to these fees and adjusts other legal references accordingly. This action seeks to simplify or potentially reduce costs associated with mineral leasing and revenue distribution. The bill was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill titled the "Restoring State Mineral Revenues Act" is proposed to amend certain sections of the Mineral Leasing Act. Its primary aim is to eliminate an administrative fee associated with mineral leasing. It involves amendments to the Mineral Leasing Act itself, as well as related laws like the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, and the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982. These changes are described in detailed legal language, focusing on removing outdated references and ensuring consistency across related statutes.
Summary of Significant Issues
A significant aspect of the bill is the elimination of an administrative fee under the Mineral Leasing Act. However, the proposal does not provide a rationale or analysis of the potential impacts of this elimination, raising concerns about possible revenue loss. The complex and technical nature of the amendments, including the restructuring and redesignation of various sections, can lead to confusion, especially for those without specialized legal expertise. Furthermore, in the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, the bill proposes deleting certain sentences without specifying their content, creating potential ambiguities and legal uncertainties.
Broad Public Impact
The bill's impact on the public could be multifaceted. By eliminating an administrative fee, the bill might reduce the financial burden on stakeholders involved in mineral leasing activities, potentially lowering costs for companies and promoting more investment in the sector. However, there is a risk of decreased governmental revenue, which can affect public funding in other areas if the fee historically contributed significantly to the budget.
The complex legal amendments proposed by the bill might also lead to misunderstandings and implementation challenges for those involved in mineral leasing and related activities, potentially resulting in unforeseen complications or disputes.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For companies and entities involved in mineral extraction and leasing, the removal of an administrative fee could be seen as a positive move. It might make leasing activities more cost-effective and encourage more exploration and extraction. State governments, which might receive mineral revenues, could also perceive potential benefits if these activities increase due to lower costs.
However, this could negatively impact government financials if the removal of the fee results in substantial revenue loss. Such a situation could lead to budgetary reallocations or cuts in other public services. Moreover, environmental and advocacy groups might express concerns over increased mineral extraction activities as a result of reduced financial barriers, raising questions about environmental protection and sustainable resource management.
Overall, while the bill seeks to simplify and enhance mineral leasing processes, the lack of transparency regarding its financial implications and the complexity of the amendments pose challenges that merit careful consideration by all stakeholders involved.
Issues
The elimination of an administrative fee under the Mineral Leasing Act as outlined in Section 2 may lead to potential revenue loss without a clear justification or analysis of its impacts, which raises financial and political concerns.
The technical nature and complexity of the amendments, particularly in Section 2 which involves striking and redesignating various subsections, could cause confusion without providing detailed explanations, raising legal and transparency issues.
The amendments to Section 205(f) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, specifically the removal of the fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences without specifying their content, might lead to ambiguities and legal uncertainties.
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. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of this act states its short title, which is the “Restoring State Mineral Revenues Act”.
2. Elimination of an administrative fee under the Mineral Leasing Act Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed changes to the Mineral Leasing Act aim to remove an administrative fee and make adjustments to various related sections and subsections of the Act, as well as conforming amendments to other related laws like the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, and the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982. These amendments focus on eliminating outdated references and clarifying language for consistency.