PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Hunt, Wesley [R-TX-38] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 25, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1926 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1926 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1926 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1926 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would require the Interior Secretary to approve applications to mix oil and gas production from multiple sources before it reaches the point where production is measured for royalty payments. Applicants would have to agree to measurement requirements. The proposed approval rule would apply regardless of ownership, royalty rates, or acreage, affecting producers seeking to combine production from different sources.
the Secretary of the Interior shall approve applications allowing for the commingling of production from two or more sources (including oil and gas leases, unit participating areas, communitized areas, or non-Federal or non-Indian properties) before production reaches the point of royalty measurement regardless of ownership, the royalty rates or the number or percentage of acres for each such source.
Provided that the applicant agrees to either install measurement devices for each source or utilize an allocation meter or method that achieves volume measurement uncertainly levels within plus or minus 2 percent during the production phase reported on a monthly basis.
The proposed requirement would cover mixing production from two or more sources, including oil and gas leases, areas grouped for production, and non-Federal or non-Indian properties. The text states that minimizing activities that disturb the surface is its purpose; it does not establish that this outcome would occur.
To promote and allow for the minimization of surface disturbing activities, the Secretary of the Interior shall approve applications allowing for the commingling of production from two or more sources (including oil and gas leases, unit participating areas, communitized areas, or non-Federal or non-Indian properties)
An applicant would have to agree either to install measurement devices for each source or to use an allocation meter or method—a way to assign measured production among sources—that meets the stated plus-or-minus 2 percent volume measurement uncertainty requirement during production, reported monthly.
Provided that the applicant agrees to either install measurement devices for each source or utilize an allocation meter or method that achieves volume measurement uncertainly levels within plus or minus 2 percent during the production phase reported on a monthly basis.
The bill would add the mixing requirement as subsection (h) of section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act and relabel existing subsections (h) through (q) as (i) through (r).
Section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 226) is amended— (1) by redesignating subsections (h) through (q) as subsections (i) through (r), respectively; and (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following: (h) Commingling
The supplied actions snapshot, updated March 25, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Natural Resources on March 6, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2025-03-25T14:35:44Z. 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the contents of other versions or any separate earmark disclosures or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The proposal's general treatment of its intended applicants does not alone qualify as a targeted benefit. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Mar 25, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI