PACMESA
- Sponsor
- Del. King-Hinds, Kimberlyn [R-MP-At Large]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 8, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to provide economic security and environmental protection for U.S. Pacific territories by ensuring they receive a share of revenues from adjacent seabed mining and have a formal voice in environmental planning and oversight.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to establish new requirements for seabed mining leases in areas adjacent to U.S. Pacific territories. It prohibits royalty relief, mandates initial and supplemental surety bonds for lessees, requires a study on environmental impact mitigation methods, and establishes a revenue-sharing mechanism for affected territories. It also requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide notice and invite comments from governors of adjacent territories on prospecting and production plans.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill provides much-needed economic security and environmental safeguards for Pacific territories, which are uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of seabed mining. They contend that revenue sharing will help these territories fund critical infrastructure, environmental mitigation, and fiscal stabilization, while robust bonding requirements ensure accountability for potential environmental damage and cleanup costs.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the bill's provisions, particularly the prohibition on royalty relief and the mandatory bonding requirements, could deter investment in seabed mining in U.S. waters, potentially hindering the development of strategic mineral resources. They might also raise concerns about the complexity of the revenue allocation formula or the administrative burden on the Secretary.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)(2), amending OCSLA Section 8(k)(2)
Prohibition on Royalty Relief
This provision prevents the Secretary from reducing, suspending, waiving, or eliminating any cash bonus, rental, royalty, or other payment due for leases issued for seabed mining in covered areas of the Outer Continental Shelf. This ensures that all revenues generated from these leases are collected in full, without any financial breaks or exemptions for mining companies.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this ensures fair compensation for the extraction of public resources and prevents potential giveaways to corporations, maximizing revenue for the federal government and, subsequently, the territories.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that prohibiting royalty relief removes a crucial tool for incentivizing investment in a nascent and high-risk industry, potentially making U.S. waters less attractive for seabed mining development.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to maximize public revenue from resource extraction against the need to attract and support the development of a new industry that may require financial flexibility.
Section 2(a)(2), amending OCSLA Section 8(k)(3)
Initial and Supplemental Surety Bonds
This provision mandates that prospective lessees provide an initial surety bond of at least $100,000 before a lease is issued. A supplemental bond, with an amount determined by the Secretary based on the lessee's financial health, decommissioning costs, and environmental restoration, is required before production activities can begin. The Secretary can also adjust the supplemental bond amount if the cumulative obligations and liabilities of a lease change.
Section 2(a)(2), amending OCSLA Section 8(k)(4)
Study on Environmental Impact Mitigation
This provision requires the Secretary to conduct a study within one year on potential environmental impact mitigation methods for different types of seabed mining in waters adjacent to covered territories. The study must include potential activities and their costs, and the Secretary is mandated to consult with Northern Marianas College, the University of Guam, and American Samoa Community College during its development. The completed study is to be submitted to relevant Congressional committees.
Section 2(a)(2), amending OCSLA Section 8(k)(5)
Revenue Sharing with Pacific Territories
Beginning in fiscal year 2027, 50% of all covered leasing revenues (cash bonuses, rentals, royalties) from seabed mining in covered areas will go to the general fund of the Treasury, and the other 50% will be disbursed to adjacent covered territories. The allocation to territories is based on a formula inversely proportional to their distance from the leased tract, with a minimum 10% allocation per qualifying territory. Funds must be used for coastal restoration, infrastructure development/maintenance (including energy), environmental mitigation, or fiscal stabilization/debt reduction.
Section 2(b)
Governor Notification and Review for Plans
This section requires the Secretary of the Interior to immediately notify the Governor of each adjacent covered territory upon submission of any prospecting, testing, delineation, or production plan that requires a consistency review under the Coastal Zone Management Act. If an environmental assessment is required for such a plan, the Secretary must invite the Governors to review and provide comments on the proposed activities within a specified timeframe.
The definition of 'covered leasing revenues' explicitly excludes any cash bonus, rental, royalty, or other amount generated from a lease subject to section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Section 2(a)(3), amending OCSLA Section 8(k)(7)(B)(ii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define terms and avoid conflicts with existing law. Section 8(g) of OCSLA deals with revenue sharing with coastal states for leases within 3 miles of their boundaries, so this exclusion clarifies that the new territorial revenue-sharing mechanism does not overlap with existing state revenue-sharing provisions.
Case for: This exclusion ensures legal clarity and prevents potential double-counting or conflicting revenue distribution mechanisms, thereby streamlining administrative processes and avoiding disputes between states and territories.
Case against: No direct case against this technical clarification, as it serves to prevent legal ambiguity. However, it means that if any leases were to fall under 8(g) (which is less likely for deep seabed mining), those revenues would not be shared with the territories under this bill.
Estimated impact: This provision clarifies the scope of revenues subject to the new sharing mechanism, potentially reducing the total amount shared with territories if any leases were to fall under 8(g) (though this is unlikely for the deep seabed mining context this bill addresses).