The CORE Act of 2025 mandates comprehensive assessments and comparative analyses of offshore energy resources, production practices, and international collaborations to enhance U.S. energy security and resource management.
Wesley Hunt
Representative
TX-38
The Comprehensive Offshore Resource Enhancement (CORE) Act of 2025 aims to enhance U.S. offshore energy resource assessment and development. It mandates reports on transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs, legal frameworks, and cooperation with neighboring countries, while also requiring comparative analyses of offshore oil and gas practices in other major producing countries. The Act further directs the Secretary of Interior to periodically assess the costs, benefits, and accuracy of models used by the Department of Interior. Finally, the CORE Act seeks to improve data collection, analysis, and international collaboration to strengthen U.S. energy security and economic interests.
CORE Act Orders Deep Dive on Offshore Energy, Shared Resources, and Global Drilling Practices
The Comprehensive Offshore Resource Enhancement Act of 2025, or CORE Act, basically tasks the government with doing a whole lot of homework on energy resources under the sea. It directs the Departments of Energy, Interior, and State to team up and deliver a major report within 18 months. Their job? To map out oil and gas reservoirs that cross international borders, figure out the rules for tapping into them fairly with neighbors like Canada and Mexico, and weigh the economic, environmental, and geopolitical consequences (Sec. 2).
Mapping Under the Waves: What's Really Out There?
Think of this as a high-stakes inventory check. The bill requires updated assessments every five years of all potential U.S. offshore resources – oil, gas, sand, gravel, and even critical minerals needed for tech – across the Atlantic, Pacific, Alaska, and the Gulf (Sec. 2 amendment to Energy Policy Act of 2005). It specifically asks for an analysis of how much energy production, jobs, and government revenue are potentially left on the table by keeping certain areas, like National Marine Sanctuaries or other withdrawn zones, off-limits to drilling (Sec. 2 amendment). While framed as information gathering, requiring this specific analysis could pave the way for future arguments to open currently protected waters to exploration.
Drawing Lines and Drilling Down: The Shared Resource Puzzle
A big piece of the required 18-month report focuses on those tricky "transboundary" resources – think of an oil field sitting right under the maritime border with Canada or Mexico. The CORE Act wants a clear picture of these shared assets, the existing treaties governing them, and recommendations for better cooperation, data sharing, and maybe even joint projects with neighbors (Sec. 2). It also wants an update on what countries like Cuba, Russia, and the Bahamas are doing near U.S. waters. This is about understanding the geopolitical energy map and ensuring the U.S. isn't caught off guard.
Global Offshore Playbook: How Does the U.S. Stack Up?
Beyond our own shores, the bill mandates a reality check. Within a year, and then every decade after, the Interior Department has to publish a detailed comparison of U.S. offshore oil and gas practices against other major players worldwide (Sec. 3). This includes looking at how leases are sold, how much oil and gas is actually produced, and the technology being used. It’s like comparing stats sheets to see if the U.S. system is competitive or falling behind in the global energy game.
Sharpening the Crystal Ball: Are the Forecasts Accurate?
The Act also takes aim at the government's own tools. It requires the Interior Department to assess the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of the models it uses to estimate resources and impacts, starting within a year and then repeating the check every ten years (Sec. 2 amendment). The Department then has a year to update the models or explain why they didn't. While reviewing the models is sensible, a ten-year gap between checks raises questions about whether crucial policy decisions could be based on outdated information in a rapidly evolving energy landscape.