Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): December 21, 2022
Background and Current Issues
Laura B. Comay
Almost all offshore oil and natural gas production on the U.S. outer continental shelf
Specialist in Natural
(OCS) occurs in the Gulf of Mexico. Federal oil and gas leasing in the Gulf is governed
Resources Policy
primarily by two laws—the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA; 43 U.S.C.

§§1331-1356b), which broadly controls federal energy leasing throughout the OCS; and
the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA; 43 U.S.C. §1331 note),

which pertains specifically to leasing in the Gulf region.
GOMESA, enacted in December 2006, addressed where oil and gas leasing can take place in the Gulf and how
federal revenues from Gulf oil and gas development are to be distributed. Concerning revenues, GOMESA
established a framework for sharing revenues from certain qualified oil and gas leases with the “Gulf producing
states” of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, as well as with a nationwide outdoor recreation program—
the state assistance program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF; 54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.). The
law provides for 37.5% of revenues from certain leases to be shared with the four states collectively and for
12.5% to be shared with the LWCF state assistance program. A cap of $500 million for the states and LWCF
combined applies in most years. The 117th Congress has considered changes to GOMESA’s revenue-sharing
provisions. S. 2130 and H.R. 9049 would remove the cap on revenues shared with the four Gulf coast states and
the LWCF, and other proposals have sought to increase the state-shared percentage, to expand the set of leases
from which revenues can be shared, or to add Florida as a revenue-sharing state. Some bills have proposed new
uses of Gulf oil and gas revenues for federal conservation programs not currently funded under the law. Also at
issue are questions about whether future oil and gas revenues will be sufficient to fulfill existing and proposed
purposes, including considerations about the optimal extent of federal offshore oil and gas leasing in the Gulf and
how various policy choices would affect revenue amounts. Proposed changes to oil and gas revenue sharing under
GOMESA may continue to be of interest in the 118th Congress.
With respect to areas of the Gulf of Mexico available for leasing, GOMESA imposed an oil and gas leasing
moratorium through June 30, 2022, in most of the Eastern Gulf (off the Florida coast). Although the GOMESA
moratorium has expired, this area was additionally withdrawn from leasing through June 30, 2032, by President
Trump, using his authority under Section 12(a) of the OCSLA (43 U.S.C. §1341(a)). Some Members of Congress
and other stakeholders seek to reinstate the leasing moratorium in legislation for a specified time or permanently
(e.g., H.R. 5707 and H.R. 8980 in the 117th Congress); others, including some industry groups, support an end to
leasing prohibitions so that leasing could take place in the area. Debate over the future disposition of the
moratorium area has addressed the potential for hydrocarbon development in conjunction with current uses of the
area for military testing and training, commercial fishing, and recreation. The Department of Defense (DOD)
generally has supported a leasing moratorium based on its testing and training in the area and has indicated that,
from a defense standpoint, stipulations and restrictions on oil and gas activities would be necessary if the area
were to be opened to leasing. Another question concerns whether the moratorium area also should be restricted
from offshore wind leasing in addition to oil and gas, as BOEM moves toward opening parts of the Gulf to wind
development. P.L. 117-169, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, authorized offshore wind
leasing in the moratorium area in August 2022. Some subsequently introduced legislation (H.R. 8980 and S. 4943
in the 117th Congress) would prohibit wind leasing in this area.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 17 link to page 8 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 18 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Distribution of Gulf Oil and Gas Revenues Prior to GOMESA ............................................... 3
Eastern Gulf Leasing Prohibitions Prior to GOMESA ............................................................. 3
GOMESA’s Provisions ............................................................................................................. 4
Offshore Revenue Sharing Under GOMESA .................................................................................. 4
Legislative Proposals ................................................................................................................ 8
Selected Issues for Congress ..................................................................................................... 8
GOMESA Moratorium ................................................................................................................... 11
Legislative Proposals .............................................................................................................. 12
Selected Issues for Congress ................................................................................................... 12
Looking Ahead .............................................................................................................................. 14

Figures
Figure 1. GOMESA Revenue-Sharing and Moratorium Areas ....................................................... 5

Tables
Table 1. Annual Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Revenues: Gulf of Mexico
Share of Total, FY2013-FY2022 .................................................................................................. 2
Table 2. GOMESA Disbursements to States/CPSs and the LWCF State Grant Program,
FY2009-FY2022 .......................................................................................................................... 6

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 15

Congressional Research Service

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

he Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA) altered federal offshore oil
and gas leasing policy in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.1 The law imposed an oil and gas leasing
T moratorium through June 30, 2022, throughout most of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico (off
the Florida coast).2 In other parts of the Gulf, the law established a framework for sharing
revenues from certain qualified oil and gas leases with the “Gulf producing states” of Alabama,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, as well as with a nationwide outdoor recreation program—the
Land and Water Conservation Fund’s (LWCF’s) state assistance program.3
Several aspects of GOMESA have been debated in the 117th Congress and may continue to be of
interest to the 118th Congress. In particular, GOMESA’s revenue-sharing provisions have been
the subject of legislative proposals. The law provides for 37.5% of revenues from specified leases
to be shared with the four Gulf producing states collectively, and for 12.5% to be shared with the
LWCF state assistance program, up to a cap of $500 million in most years for the states and
LWCF combined.4 Some bills in the 117th Congress have sought to eliminate this cap. Some also
would increase the percentage of revenues shared with the Gulf coast states and increase the set
of qualified leases from which revenues can be shared. Debate has centered on whether additional
revenues should be shared with Gulf coast states or used for broader federal purposes, such as
deficit reduction or other nationwide federal conservation programs in addition to the LWCF. At
issue, too, is the optimal amount of future oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, and the long-
term revenue effects for states and federal programs under various policy options.
The 118th Congress also may consider the future disposition of GOMESA’s moratorium area.
Although the GOMESA moratorium expired on June 30, 2022, the area was withdrawn from
leasing for an additional decade (through June 30, 2032) by President Trump, using his authority
under Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).5 Some Members of
Congress and other stakeholders seek to reinstate a legislative moratorium for a specified time or
permanently; others, including some industry groups, support an end to leasing prohibitions in the
area. Congress may weigh the potential for hydrocarbon development in the Eastern Gulf against
competing uses of the area for military testing and training, commercial fishing, and recreation,
and may consider potential environmental impacts of various activities. Another debate concerns
whether the moratorium area should be restricted from offshore wind leasing in addition to oil
and gas, as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) moves to open parts of the Gulf to
offshore wind development. In August 2022, P.L. 117-169, commonly known as the Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), authorized offshore wind leasing in the moratorium area. Some
subsequently introduced legislation would prohibit wind leasing in this area.

1 P.L. 109-432, 120 Stat. 3000, 43 U.S.C. §1331 note.
2 P.L. 109-432, §104. This report generally refers to the GOMESA moratorium area as the “Eastern Gulf moratorium
area,” although the area is not precisely coextensive with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM’s)
administrative boundary for its Eastern Gulf planning area and includes a small part of BOEM’s Central Gulf planning
area. For more information, see BOEM, “Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) Areas,” at
https://www.boem.gov/GOMESA-Map/.
3 P.L. 109-432, §105. For information on the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), see CRS Report RL33531,
Land and Water Conservation Fund: Overview, Funding History, and Issues, by Carol Hardy Vincent. The GOMESA
funding for the state assistance program is separate from and in addition to monies deposited in the LWCF under the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (54 U.S.C. §§200301 et seq.).
4 The cap applies to revenues shared from qualified leases added under “Phase II” of GOMESA (see discussion below).
5 43 U.S.C. §1341(a). President Donald Trump, “Memorandum on the Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United
States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition,” September 8, 2020, at https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/
presidential-actions/memorandum-withdrawal-certain-areas-united-states-outer-continental-shelf-leasing-disposition/,
hereinafter referred to as “President Trump, September 2020 withdrawal memorandum.”
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 5 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

Background
The Gulf of Mexico has the most mature oil and gas development infrastructure on the U.S. outer
continental shelf (OCS), and almost all OCS oil and natural gas production (approximately 99%)
takes place in this region.6 Additionally, the Gulf contains some of the highest levels of
undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources of any U.S. OCS region, according to
BOEM.7 The Department of the Interior’s (DOI’s) Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR)
estimated federal revenues from Gulf oil and gas leases at $6.49 billion for FY2022, out of a total
of $6.54 billion for oil and gas revenues from all OCS areas (Table 1).8 From FY2013 to
FY2022, annual revenues from federal leases in the Gulf ranged from a high of $8.74 billion in
FY2013 (out of $9.07 billion total OCS oil and gas revenues for that year) to a low of $2.76
billion in FY2016 (out of $2.79 billion total OCS oil and gas revenues for that year). Changing
prices for oil and natural gas are the most significant factors in these revenue swings.
Table 1. Annual Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Revenues:
Gulf of Mexico Share of Total, FY2013-FY2022
($ in billions)

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022
Gulf
8.74
7.10
4.93
2.76
3.50
4.65
5.51
3.67
4.01
6.49
Total
9.07
7.39
5.08
2.79
3.53
4.70
5.57
3.71
4.05
6.54
Gulf share (%)
96%
96%
97%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
Source: Department of the Interior, Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), “Natural Resources
Revenue Data: Data Query Tool,” at https://revenuedata.doi.gov/query-data/?dataType=Revenue.
Notes: Dol ar amounts are nominal (not adjusted for inflation). Table includes revenues from the ONRR
commodity categories Oil, Oil & Gas, Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids.
BOEM divides the Gulf into three planning areas: Eastern, Central, and Western. Most of the oil
and gas development has taken place in the Central and Western Gulf planning areas. This is due
to stronger oil and gas resources in those areas (as compared with the Eastern Gulf) and to leasing
restrictions in the Eastern Gulf imposed by GOMESA and by statutes and executive orders before
and since GOMESA’s enactment.

6 BOEM, 2023-2028 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing: Proposed Program, Section 4.6, July
2022, at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gas-energy/national-program/
2023-2028_Proposed%20Program_July2022.pdf. For a discussion of jurisdiction on the U.S. outer
continental shelf (OCS), see CRS Report RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Legal Framework, by Adam
Vann.
7 BOEM, “Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer
Continental Shelf, 2016,” at https://www.boem.gov/National-Assessment-2016/. BOEM defines undiscovered
technically recoverable resources as “oil and gas that may be produced as a consequence of natural pressure, artificial
lift, pressure maintenance, or other secondary recovery methods, but without any consideration of economic viability”
(BOEM, Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer
Continental Shelf, 2016a, fact sheet, at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/oil-gas-energy/resource-
evaluation/resource-assessment/2016a.pdf).
8 The balance of OCS oil and gas revenues (outside the Gulf) comes from Southern California and the Alaska region.
Congressional Research Service

2

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

Distribution of Gulf Oil and Gas Revenues Prior to GOMESA
Before GOMESA’s enactment, federal revenues from oil and gas leasing in most parts of the Gulf
were not shared with coastal states. The exception was revenue from leases in certain nearshore
federal waters: under Section 8(g) of the OCSLA (as amended), states receive 27% of OCS
receipts from leases lying wholly or partly within 3 nautical miles of state waters.9 As increasing
amounts of oil and gas production shifted to deeper waters outside this revenue-sharing zone,
Gulf Coast states argued for a greater share of OCS revenues, based on the effects of oil and gas
development on their coastal infrastructure and environment.
Eastern Gulf Leasing Prohibitions Prior to GOMESA
Congressional leasing restrictions in some parts of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico date from the
1980s. Prompted by concerns of some coastal states, fishing groups, and environmentalists,
Congress mandated a series of leasing moratoria in certain parts of the OCS, including the
Eastern Gulf. The FY1984 Interior Appropriations Act prohibited oil and gas leasing in any
federal waters in the Eastern Gulf within 30 nautical miles of the coastline and in other specified
Eastern Gulf blocks.10 From FY1989 through FY2008, the annual Interior appropriations laws
consistently included moratoria in portions of the Eastern Gulf.11
Separately, President George H. W. Bush issued a presidential directive in 1990 ordering DOI not
to conduct offshore leasing or preleasing activity in multiple parts of the OCS—including
portions of the Eastern Gulf—until after 2000.12 In 1998, President Bill Clinton used his authority
under Section 12(a) of the OCSLA to extend the presidential offshore leasing prohibitions until
2012.13 President Clinton’s order expanded the portion of the Eastern Gulf withdrawn from
leasing consideration.14 The withdrawals designated during the Clinton Administration lasted
until President George W. Bush modified them in 2008 to open multiple withdrawn areas to
leasing.15 By that time, GOMESA had been enacted, so President Bush’s action did not open the
Eastern Gulf moratorium area to leasing.

9 43 U.S.C. §1337(g)(2). Under the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. §§1301 et seq.), state waters in most cases extend
seaward 3 nautical miles from the coast; for Texas and a portion of Florida, they extend farther, to 3 marine leagues or
approximately 9 nautical miles (for more information, see CRS Report RL33404, Offshore Oil and Gas Development:
Legal Framework, by Adam Vann). The OCSLA Section 8(g) zone covers the first 3 nautical miles of federal waters,
adjacent to and beyond the state waters. Section 8(g) continues to apply in the Gulf, and revenues from leases in this
zone are excluded from GOMESA revenue sharing (P.L. 109-432, §102(9)(B)(ii)).
10 P.L. 98-146.
11 These moratoria applied to Eastern Gulf areas south of 26° N latitude and east of 86° W longitude.
12 U.S. President (George H. W. Bush), “Statement on Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development,” Public
Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George Bush, 1990, Book I (Washington, DC: GPO, 1991), pp. 869-871.
President Bush’s prohibitions largely coincided with areas covered by the annual appropriations moratoria.
13 43 U.S.C. §1341(a). See White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United
States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition,” presidential memorandum, June 12, 1998.
14 See White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “President Clinton’s OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Withdrawal:
Questions and Answers,” June 1998. President Clinton’s directive defined the withdrawn areas as all those OCS areas
placed under moratorium in P.L. 105-83, the FY1998 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
15 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Memorandum on Modification of the Withdrawal of Areas of the
United States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition,” presidential memorandum, July 14, 2008.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 7 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

GOMESA’s Provisions
GOMESA was signed into law on December 20, 2006.16 The law addressed several aspects of oil
and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. It directed that two areas in the Central and
Eastern Gulf be offered for oil and gas leasing shortly after enactment.17 These mandated lease
sales took place in 2007-2009, and this provision of GOMESA has not been a focus of current
congressional interest. Current interest has focused on two other parts of the law, concerning
revenue sharing and the Eastern Gulf moratorium.18
Offshore Revenue Sharing Under GOMESA
Section 105 of GOMESA provides for federal revenues from certain qualified leases in the Gulf
of Mexico to be shared under specified terms with four “Gulf producing states”—Alabama,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas—and their “coastal political subdivisions” or CPSs (coastal
counties or parishes), as well as with the LWCF state assistance program.19 Specifically, each year
the Secretary of the Treasury is to deposit 50% of qualified revenues in a special account (the
remaining 50% are deposited in the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous receipts).
From this special account, the Secretary disburses 75% of the funds to the Gulf producing states
and their CPSs, and 25% to the LWCF state assistance program.20 Accordingly, of the total
qualified revenues in a given year, the states and CPSs receive 37.5% (i.e., 75% of the 50% in the
special account), and the LWCF receives 12.5% (25% of the 50%), with conditions as described
below.
The law defines “qualified” OCS revenues differently for the first decade after GOMESA’s
enactment (FY2007-FY2016) versus for subsequent years. While the kinds of revenue eligible for
sharing remain consistent over time (all bonus bids, rents, royalties, and other sums due and
payable to the United States from leases entered into on or after the date of GOMESA’s 2006
enactment), the qualified geographic area for revenue sharing changes.21 For FY2007-FY2016—
often referred to as GOMESA’s Phase I—the qualified OCS revenues come from the “181 Area”
of the Eastern Gulf and the “181 South Area” of the Central Gulf.22 These are the relatively small
areas shown as areas A and B in Figure 1. For FY2017 and beyond (Phase II), the geographic
area of qualified revenues expands to also include area C of Figure 1, along with the “2002-2007

16 P.L. 109-432, Division C, Title I, 43 U.S.C. §1331 note.
17 P.L. 109-432, Section 103. These areas are defined in the law as the “181 Area” and the “181 South Area,” based on
proposed Lease Sale 181 in the Minerals Management Service’s Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas
Leasing Program, 1997 to 2002: Decision Document, August 1996. (The Minerals Management Service predated
BOEM as the federal agency administering offshore oil and gas leasing.) According to BOEM, the two lease sale areas
together spanned 8.3 million acres in the Central and Eastern Gulf planning areas. BOEM, “Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act (GOMESA),” at https://www.boem.gov/Revenue-Sharing/.
18 P.L. 109-432, Sections 104 and 105.
19 On the LWCF state assistance program, see CRS In Focus IF12256, Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF):
Frequently Asked Questions, by Carol Hardy Vincent. The program assists states through matching grants for specified
purposes related to outdoor recreation. The GOMESA revenue share is only for the LWCF’s formula state grant
program, rather than for other activities funded under the LWCF.
20 P.L. 109-432, §105(a).
21 A bonus bid is the amount a winning bidder pays above the minimum bid at auction to secure the exclusive right to
drill wells and produce hydrocarbons in the lease area. Rents are fixed annual payments due in each year of the lease
until production starts. Royalties are fixed percentages of the gross sales value of oil and gas volumes produced.
22 P.L. 109-432, §102(9)(a)(i). The terms 181 Area and 181 South Area refer to areas identified in the 1997-2002 DOI
five-year oil and gas leasing program; see footnote 17.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 8 link to page 9
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

planning area”—the large area shown in yellow in Figure 1, encompassing most of the Western
and Central Gulf, where the bulk of production takes place.23 Accordingly, revenues qualified for
sharing in Phase II have been notably higher than in Phase I (Table 2).
Figure 1. GOMESA Revenue-Sharing and Moratorium Areas

Source: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), GOMESA area map, at https://www.boem.gov/sites/
default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/GOMESA-Map.pdf. The areas shown as “under moratoria” were
subject to GOMESA’s leasing moratorium through June 30, 2022, and remain withdrawn from leasing disposition
through June 30, 2032, by President Trump’s “Memorandum on the Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United
States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition,” September 8, 2020.
For the added Phase II areas, GOMESA stipulates that the total amount of qualified revenues
made available each year to the states, their CPSs, and the LWCF (collectively) may not exceed
$500 million for each of FY2016-FY2055.24 A later law, P.L. 115-97, raised the cap to $650

23 P.L. 109-432, §102(9)(a). The parts of areas A and C shown with hash marks are under the GOMESA moratorium.
They differ from the general moratorium area (shown in grey) in that they—unlike the grey area—would potentially be
eligible for revenue sharing under GOMESA if leasing took place after prohibitions end. All GOMESA areas exclude
nearshore federal waters where revenue sharing under OCSLA Section 8(g) (43 U.S.C. §1337(g)) already applies.
24 P.L. 109-432, §105(f). After FY2055, the cap no longer applies.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 10 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

million for two of these years, FY2020 and FY2021.25 Given the percentage distributions
specified in the law for each recipient, the amounts that can be shared with states and their CPSs
from the Phase II areas are capped at $375.0 million in most years (and $487.5 million in FY2020
and FY2021). The amounts that can be shared with the LWCF are capped at $125.0 million in
most years (and $162.5 million in FY2020 and FY2021).
Phase II began with FY2017 revenues, but GOMESA specifies that revenues shall be shared with
recipients in the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which they are received.26 Thus, in terms
of payments, the first fiscal year reflecting Phase II revenue sharing was FY2018. The shared
revenues rose notably in that year compared with previous years. Table 2 shows GOMESA
revenue disbursements since the law’s enactment, with the transition from Phase I disbursements
to Phase II disbursements occurring between FY2017 and FY2018.
Table 2. GOMESA Disbursements to States/CPSs and the
LWCF State Grant Program, FY2009-FY2022
($ millions)
Year of
Subtotal State LWCF State Total Revenue
Disbursementa Alabamab
Louisianab
Mississippib
Texasb
Revenue
Programc
Shared
FY2009
7.7
7.9
6.9
2.7
25.2
8.4
33.7
FY2010
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.3
2.7
0.9
3.6
FY2011
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.9
0.3
1.2
FY2012
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
FY2013
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
FY2014
1.3
1.4
1.2
0.5
4.3
1.4
5.8
FY2015
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.3
2.4
0.8
3.3
FY2016
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
FY2017
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
1.0
0.3
1.3
FY2018
26.8
82.8
27.8
50.6
188.0
62.6
250.6
FY2019
30.6
94.7
31.7
57.9
214.9
71.6
286.6
FY2020
50.0
155.7
51.9
95.3
353.0
117.6
470.6
FY2021
35.1
109.9
36.5
67.4
248.9
82.9
331.8
FY2022
34.8
111.8
36.8
68.8
252.3
84.1 (est.)
336.4 (est.)
Total
188.4
567.0
194.9
344.1
1,294.5
431.2 (est.)
1,725.8 (est.)
Sources: Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), “Natural Resources Revenue Data: Data Query Tool,”
at https://revenuedata.doi.gov/query-data/?dataType=Disbursements; and National Park Service (NPS) budget
justifications for FY2011-FY2023, available at https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/budget.htm.
Notes: CPSs = coastal political subdivisions; LWCF = Land and Water Conservation Fund; GOMESA = Gulf of
Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. §1331 note). Dol ar amounts are nominal (not adjusted for
inflation). GOMESA Phase II revenues are first reflected in FY2018 payments. The figures reflect budget
sequestration. Totals may not sum precisely due to rounding.

25 P.L. 115-97, Title II, §20002.
26 P.L. 109-432, §105(c). DOI’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) disburses funds to the states and coastal
political subdivisions (CPSs) in the year following their receipt. For the LWCF state assistance program, the National
Park Service (NPS) makes the funds available to states in the year following their receipt, as shown in annual NPS
budget justifications.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 9 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

a. The first payments of GOMESA revenues occurred in 2009. Under GOMESA Section 105(c), revenues are
disbursed to the states and the LWCF state grant program in the fiscal year fol owing their receipt.
b. Revenue disbursements for each state include disbursements to the coastal political subdivisions (CPSs) of
each state.
c. Amounts correspond with the year revenues were shown in the NPS budget.
For the revenues shared directly with the Gulf producing states and their CPSs, GOMESA directs
the Secretary of the Interior to establish a formula to allocate each year’s qualified revenues.27
The allocations to each state primarily depend on its distance from leased tracts, with states closer
to the leased tracts receiving a higher share.28 The law additionally provides that each state must
receive an annual minimum of at least 10% of the total amount available to all the Gulf producing
states for that year.29 Further, GOMESA directs that the Secretary shall pay 20% of the allocable
share of each Gulf producing state to the state’s CPSs.30
The payments derived from GOMESA revenues are subject to budget sequestration established
under the Budget Control Act of 2011.31 The amounts shown in Table 2 are net of sequestered
percentages.
GOMESA authorizes the states and CPSs to use revenues for the following purposes:32
 projects and activities for the purposes of coastal protection, including
conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, and infrastructure directly
affected by coastal wetland losses;
 mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resources;
 implementation of a federally approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive
conservation management plan;
 mitigation of the impact of OCS activities through the funding of onshore
infrastructure projects; and
 planning assistance and the administrative costs of complying with GOMESA
(no more than 3% of a state or CPS’s revenues may be used for this purpose).

27 P.L. 109-432, §105(b). BOEM and ONRR published implementing regulations containing the formula for Phase I
revenues in 2008 (73 Federal Register 78622, December 23, 2008) and for Phase II in 2015 (80 Federal Register
81454, December 30, 2015).
28 For the Phase II areas, rather than just counting each state’s distance from the tracts leased that year (as done for the
Phase I areas), the annual calculations also take into account a state’s distance from “historical lease sites,” defined as
all leases entered into in the Phase II area (the 2002-2007 planning area) from October 1, 1982, through December 31,
2015 (P.L. 109-432, §105(b)(2)(c)(i)). The ending date is to be adjusted every five years to accommodate an additional
five calendar years (P.L. 109-432, §105(b)(2)(c)(ii)). The historical lease sites are used only for purposes of calculating
each state’s allocation (the law does not provide for any revenue sharing from leases awarded prior to GOMESA’s
2006 enactment).
29 P.L. 109-432, §105(b).
30 P.L. 109-432, §105(b)(3). The payments are to be allocated among each state’s CPSs in the manner provided under
the Coastal Impact Assistance Program, established under the OCSLA, as amended (43 U.S.C. §1356a).
31 The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA, P.L. 112-25) amended the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (BBEDCA, Title II of P.L. 99-177). In every year since FY2013, BBEDCA, as amended by the BCA, has
required an automatic annual sequestration of (nonexempt) mandatory spending. Revenue sharing under GOMESA is
subject to the annual mandatory sequester. The mandatory sequesters have consisted of uniform percentage reductions
ranging from 5.1% to 7.3%. Under current law, the sequesters will continue through FY2031. For more information,
see CRS Video WVB00307, Budget Control Act: The Mandatory Spending Sequester, by Megan S. Lynch and Grant
A. Driessen. According to ONRR, sequestered GOMESA revenues have not become available for disbursement in
subsequent years (CRS communication with ONRR, November 3, 2022).
32 P.L. 109-432, §105(d).
Congressional Research Service

7

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

Legislative Proposals
In the 117th Congress, several bills have sought to amend GOMESA’s revenue-sharing
provisions. One bill—S. 2130, the Reinvesting in Shoreline Economies and Ecosystems (RISEE)
Act of 2022—was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. 2130
as reported, and its House companion H.R. 9049, would make several changes to GOMESA.
They would (1) raise the cap on shared Phase II revenues (for the states/CPSs and LWCF
combined) from $500 million to $650 million for FY2022 (i.e., revenues disbursed in FY2023);
(2) eliminate the cap thereafter; (3) modify the allowed uses of the state revenue share for onshore
infrastructure projects by specifying that any such projects must not be “primarily for
entertainment purposes”; and (4) require states to submit annual reports to DOI on their uses of
their revenue shares.33
Other 117th Congress bills—H.R. 8437 and H.R. 4334—have proposed additional changes to
GOMESA’s revenue-sharing provisions. In addition to eliminating the revenue-sharing cap, these
bills would raise the percentage of revenues shared with states/CPSs from 37.5% to 50%, and
would exempt GOMESA revenue-sharing from budget sequestration. Some bills in previous
Congresses would have further increased revenue sharing by expanding the set of leases qualified
for sharing (i.e., including certain leases entered into prior to GOMESA’s enactment).34
In contrast with bills that would increase the state revenue share, some legislative proposals in
earlier Congresses would have ended state revenue sharing under GOMESA. For example, in the
114th Congress, S. 2089 would have amended GOMESA to provide that 87.5% of qualified
revenues under the law would be deposited in the Treasury’s General Fund, while 12.5% would
continue to be provided for LWCF financial assistance to states.
Other proposals have sought to expand the federal programs receiving GOMESA revenues to
include programs beyond the LWCF. For instance, the introduced version of S. 2130 in the 117th
Congress would have shared a portion of the revenues with the National Oceans and Coastal
Security Fund in addition to the LWCF.35
Selected Issues for Congress
Congress may consider several issues concerning GOMESA’s revenue-sharing provisions.
 State percentage share and cap. Gulf state officials and some Members of
Congress have contended that GOMESA’s current cap on state-shared revenues
should be removed and also that the Gulf producing states should receive an
increased percentage share of GOMESA revenues, given the costs they incur to
support offshore extraction activities.36 Advocates contend that Gulf states need

33 If a state failed to submit a report, the following year’s funding would be withheld until the report was submitted.
DOI would be directed to make the reports publicly available. DOI would not have an approval or review role
regarding the state projects selected for funding.
34 See, for example, S. 2418 and S. 3353 in the 116th Congress. This provision was also in the introduced version of S.
2130 in the 117th Congress, but was not included in the bill as reported.
35 S. 2130 as introduced, available on Congress.gov at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2130/
text/is. The National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund (16 U.S.C. §§7501 et seq.) is administered by the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation as the National Coastal Resilience Fund. It supports the implementation of nature-based
solutions to enhance coastal community and ecosystem resilience.
36 As examples of such costs, former Senator Mary Landrieu noted “the contributions that states and localities make to
facilitate the extraction and production of these resources, including the provision of infrastructure to enable the federal
Congressional Research Service

8

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

additional funding to address environmental challenges—such as coastal wetland
loss—that are exacerbated by offshore hydrocarbon development.37 They point to
a disparity between the 37.5% offshore state share provided under GOMESA and
the 50% share of revenues that most states receive from onshore federal leases
under the Mineral Leasing Act.38 Some opponents of such changes argue that,
since the OCS is a federal resource, the benefits from offshore revenues should
accrue to the nation as a whole, rather than to specific coastal states.39
 Set of leases qualified for revenue sharing. GOMESA revenue sharing applies
only to leases that were entered into on or after the date of the law’s enactment
(December 20, 2006). This limits the amounts that would be shared with
GOMESA recipients even if the current cap were removed and the revenue-
sharing percentages increased. It appears from BOEM leasing data that
approximately 66% of currently active leases in the Gulf of Mexico were entered
into on or after GOMESA’s enactment date.40 However, most of these leases are
not producing oil and gas; and leases awarded before GOMESA’s enactment—
which do not qualify—continue to contribute a substantial portion of production
royalties.41 As a result, the portion of overall revenue shared with recipients
under GOMESA is lower than might be suggested by the number of GOMESA-
qualified leases. (For example, in FY2021, the GOMESA payments to the
states/CPSs constituted 7% of total offshore energy revenue disbursements.42)

activity: transportation, hospitals, schools and other necessary governmental services.” Testimony of the Honorable
Mary L. Landrieu, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources,
Examining the Critical Importance of Offshore Energy Revenue Sharing for Gulf Producing States, oversight
hearings,115th Cong., 2nd sess., April 26, 2018, at https://republicans-naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
testimony_landrieu.pdf.
37 Ibid.; and House Committee on Natural Resources, markup memorandum for H.R. 6771, 115th Cong., 2nd sess.,
September 12, 2018. For more information on Gulf Coast environmental issues, see CRS Report R43380, Gulf Coast
Restoration: RESTORE Act and Related Efforts, by Charles V. Stern, Pervaze A. Sheikh, and Jonathan L. Ramseur;
and CRS Report RL33483, Wetlands: An Overview of Issues, by Laura Gatz and Megan Stubbs.
38 30 U.S.C. §191. Under the Mineral Leasing Act, states other than Alaska receive 50% (less administrative costs) of
rents, bonuses, and royalties collected from onshore public domain leases. For further discussion of onshore revenues,
see CRS Report R46537, Revenues and Disbursements from Oil and Natural Gas Production on Federal Lands, by
Brandon S. Tracy.
39 For example, DOI budget requests for FY2016 and FY2017 recommended that Congress repeal GOMESA state
revenue-sharing payments and direct a portion of the savings to nationwide programs such as a proposed new Coastal
Climate Resilience Program for at-risk coastal states. For FY2018, DOI’s Budget in Brief proposed that Congress
repeal GOMESA’s state revenue-sharing provisions, in order to “ensure [that] the sale of public resources from Federal
waters owned by all Americans, benefit all Americans.” DOI, FY2018 Interior Budget in Brief, p. DH-19, at
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/fy2018_bib_dh019.pdf.
40 CRS calculations from BOEM Data Center, “Lease Area Block Online Query,” at https://www.data.boem.gov/
Leasing/LeaseAreaBlock/Default.aspx. Data as of November 23, 2022. This percentage represents a snapshot, because
the numbers of active leases on either side of the qualifying date will change over time as existing leases terminate and
new leases are entered into. Data include leases with status codes “Primary” (a lease within the initial 5-, 8-, or 10-year
contract), “Prod” (a lease held by production of a mineral), and “Unit” (a lease, or portion thereof, included in an
approved unit agreement). The data include some leases that lie in the nearshore 8(g) zone, from which revenues would
be shared under the OCSLA (at a 27% rate) rather than under GOMESA.
41 In general, the older leases would remain active only if they were still producing oil and gas, whereas the set of post-
2006 leases also includes many nonproducing leases that are still in their primary lease term.
42 GOMESA payments to the states/CPSs in FY2021 were $248.9 million, and total FY2021 offshore revenue
disbursements were $3.697 billion, most of which went to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. (ONRR does not
break out disbursements by location, so the total includes some revenue derived outside the Gulf of Mexico; offshore
revenues from outside the Gulf were 2% in both FY2020 and FY2021. Also, the total includes some revenue from
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 5 link to page 12 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

Some bills in the 117th and previous Congresses have proposed expanding the set
of qualified leases to include those entered into on or after October 1, 2000.43
This could increase revenues shared with both the states/CPSs and the LWCF,
especially if combined with a cap removal. According to BOEM data as of
November 2022, this change to the qualifying date would nearly double the
number of producing leases eligible for GOMESA revenue sharing (although the
addition in total leases would be relatively small).44
 Potential for revenue shortfalls. Offshore oil and gas revenues support a variety
of federal and state activities. Through GOMESA and other laws, amounts are
deposited annually in the LWCF and the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) and
also contribute to a federal land management agency deferred maintenance fund,
as well as being shared with states.45 Revenue totals have fluctuated from year to
year (Table 1), raising questions about whether future revenues will be adequate
to support these various activities and whether changes to offshore revenue
distribution—such as increased GOMESA revenue sharing with states—would
strain available amounts.46 Such questions have arisen especially in the context of
proposals by some Members of Congress and other stakeholders to significantly
curtail Gulf oil and gas leasing in response to climate change concerns.47 These
curtailment proposals generally have addressed only new leasing (while allowing
for continued production on current leases), which would attenuate immediate
revenue effects. Some contend that over time, support for the federal and state
programs currently funded by offshore oil and gas revenues should be shifted to
other funding sources, such as renewable energy leasing revenues. Others
advocate for continued or increased investment in Gulf oil and gas development
to bolster revenues to support future programmatic needs.
 Budgetary considerations. Bills that would increase the state and LWCF share
of GOMESA revenues have been identified by the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) as increasing direct spending. For example, CBO’s cost estimate for S.
2130 as reported in the 117th Congress estimated that the GOMESA-related

energy sources other than oil and gas, such as offshore wind; offshore revenue from non-oil and gas sources was less
than 1% in both FY2020 and FY2021.) Disbursement data are from ONRR’s data query website at https://revenuedata.
doi.gov/query-data. Database searched on Data Type: Disbursements; Recipient: All; Source: Offshore, 8(g) Offshore,
and GOMESA Offshore; Fiscal Year: 2021.
43 See, for example, S. 2418 in the 116th Congress, and the introduced version of S. 2130 in the 117th Congress.
44 Calculations exclude leases in Unit status (see footnote 40 for more information).
45 Statutory distributions of offshore oil and gas revenues include (1) the deposit of up to $900 million annually in the
LWCF under the LWCF Act (54 U.S.C. §200302); (2) the deposit of $150 million annually in the Historic Preservation
Fund (HPF) under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. §303102); (3) GOMESA revenue sharing with the
Gulf producing states and the LWCF state program (as discussed in this report); (4) revenue sharing with coastal states
from leases within 3 nautical miles of state waters at a rate of 27% under Section 8(g) of the OCSLA (43 U.S.C.
§1337(g)(2)); and (5) deposit of remaining revenues (not accounted for by other statutory provisions) as miscellaneous
receipts in the Treasury General Fund (43 U.S.C. §1338), which partly form the basis for deposits to the National Parks
and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF; P.L. 116-152) for land management agency deferred maintenance. On
the HPF, see CRS Report R45800, The Federal Role in Historic Preservation: An Overview, by Mark K. DeSantis. On
the LRF, see CRS In Focus IF11636, The Great American Outdoors Act (P.L. 116-152), by Carol Hardy Vincent,
Laura B. Comay, and Bill Heniff Jr.
46 This discussion does not address how funding would be prioritized if statutory requirements of multiple laws
exceeded available funding. For discussion of this question, please contact CRS’s American Law Division.
47 See, for example, H.R. 2519 in the 117th Congress and similar bills in previous Congresses. Also see CRS In Focus
IF11909, Offshore Oil and Gas: Leasing “Pause,” Federal Leasing Review, and Current Issues, by Laura B. Comay.
Congressional Research Service

10

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

changes (primarily removal of the revenue-sharing cap) would increase direct
spending of OCS receipts by $6.6 billion over a 10-year period.48 As a result,
such legislation may be subject to certain budget points of order unless offset or
waived.49
 Florida and revenue sharing. GOMESA does not provide for revenue sharing
with Florida, although some qualified revenue-sharing areas—such as parts of
the 181 Area—are closer to Florida than to the other Gulf producing states. Some
bills, including S. 28 in the 117th Congress, have proposed adding Florida to the
group of states receiving a revenue share.50 Florida’s share of GOMESA
revenues if such legislation were enacted would likely be lower than those of the
other Gulf Coast states, especially Louisiana and Texas, given the location of
most Gulf production. Nonetheless, GOMESA provides that every Gulf
producing state must receive at least 10% of the annual state revenue share, so
absent further modification, Florida would receive at least that portion, with
corresponding reductions to the total available for the other Gulf producing
states. Some Florida stakeholders have opposed legislation to add Florida to
GOMESA revenue sharing on the basis that doing so could incentivize eventual
oil and gas development off Florida.51 Others contend that Florida bears risks
from oil and gas leasing elsewhere in the Gulf (particularly related to potential oil
spills) and so should also see benefits.52
GOMESA Moratorium
Section 104 of GOMESA provided that, from the date of the law’s enactment through June 30,
2022, the Secretary of the Interior was prohibited from offering certain areas, primarily in the
Eastern Gulf, for “leasing, preleasing, or any related activity.”53 The moratorium encompassed
(1) areas east of a designated Military Mission Line, defined in the law as the north-south line at
86°41ʹ W longitude;54 (2) all parts of the Eastern Gulf planning area lying within 125 miles of the
Florida coast; and (3) certain portions of the Central Gulf planning area, including any parts

48 CBO Cost Estimate, S. 2130 (Reinvesting in Shoreline Economies and Ecosystems Act of 2022), as reported,
November 7, 2022, at https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-11/s2130.pdf.
49 For information on budget points of order, see CRS Report 97-865, Points of Order in the Congressional Budget
Process, by James V. Saturno.
50 S. 28 would extend GOMESA’s Eastern Gulf moratorium through 2032 and add Florida as a revenue-sharing state.
51 See, for example, statements by Representative Kathy Castor and former Senator Bill Nelson in Alex Leary, “Sen.
Marco Rubio Throws Wrench into Florida Oil Drilling Debate,” Tampa Bay Times, May 10, 2017, at
https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/sen-marco-rubio-throws-wrench-into-florida-oil-drilling-
debate/2323318/; and comments by former Senator Bill Nelson on S. 1276, 114th Congress (press release, May 21,
2015, at https://web.archive.org/web/20160529153748/https://www.billnelson.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/
nelson-florida-under-siege).
52 See, for example, Senator Marco Rubio, “Florida Faces Risks of Drilling,” Pensacola News Journal, May 4, 2017, at
https://www.pnj.com/story/opinion/2017/05/04/sen-rubio-florida-faces-risks-drilling/101284566/.
53 Section 104 allowed for holders of existing oil and gas leases in some parts of the moratorium area to exchange the
leases for a bonus or royalty credit (BOEM, “Credit Exchange for Eligible Leases,” at https://www.boem.gov/Revenue-
Sharing/).
54 The Department of Defense (DOD) identified this line as demarcating an area critical to the military for testing and
training activities. See “Offshore Drilling,” November 30, 2005, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155 (June
11, 2009), pp. S6489-S6491.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 8 link to page 8 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

within 100 miles of the Florida coast, as well as other specified areas. The resulting total
moratorium formed by these overlapping areas is shown primarily in grey in Figure 1.55
The moratorium imposed by GOMESA Section 104 expired on June 30, 2022. In January 2018,
BOEM released a draft five-year oil and gas leasing program that would have scheduled new
lease sales in the Eastern Gulf starting in 2023, after the expiration.56 However, in September
2020, President Trump withdrew the moratorium area from leasing disposition for an additional
decade (through June 30, 2032).57 Although GOMESA’s moratorium had specifically referred to
“oil and gas leasing,”58 President Trump’s memorandum withdrew the moratorium area from
leasing disposition broadly and was interpreted to apply to offshore wind leasing as well as oil
and gas leasing.59 In August 2022, P.L. 117-169, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act
of 2022 (IRA), authorized offshore wind leasing in the moratorium area.60
Legislative Proposals
Some bills in the 117th Congress have sought to extend GOMESA’s moratorium legislatively, and
in some cases to permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing in the moratorium area. These bills
include H.R. 2836, H.R. 5707, H.R. 8980, S. 28, and S. 4943 (in addition to legislation such as S.
1115 that would prohibit new oil and gas leasing throughout the OCS). By contrast, other 117th
Congress legislation—H.R. 4334—would mandate oil and gas lease sales in the GOMESA
moratorium area. None of the proposals has advanced beyond the hearing stage in the 117th
Congress. In the 116th Congress, H.R. 205, the Protecting and Securing Florida’s Coastline Act of
2019, passed the House of Representatives. It would have amended GOMESA to extend the
Eastern Gulf moratorium indefinitely, thus precluding future oil and gas leasing in the area.
As discussed, the IRA authorized offshore wind leasing in the GOMESA moratorium area in
August 2022. Some subsequently introduced bills—H.R. 8980 and S. 4943—would prohibit wind
leasing east of the Military Mission Line through June 30, 2032.61
Selected Issues for Congress
Congress may consider a number of issues related to the leasing prohibitions in the Eastern Gulf.
In general, Members have debated the economic benefits or drawbacks of hydrocarbon
development in the area, with some oil and gas industry advocates contending that Eastern Gulf
development could contribute billions of dollars annually to the nation’s gross domestic product,
mainly through contributions to Gulf state economies.62 By contrast, some other stakeholders

55 The moratorium area also includes the areas shown with hash marks in Figure 1.
56 For information on BOEM’s oil and gas leasing program, see CRS Report R44692, Five-Year Offshore Oil and Gas
Leasing Program: Status and Issues in Brief, by Laura B. Comay.
57 President Trump, September 2020 withdrawal memorandum. The President’s withdrawal authority is at 43 U.S.C.
§1341(a).
58 P.L. 109-432, §104, is titled “Moratorium on Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas of the Gulf of Mexico.”
59 For further discussion, see CRS Report R46970, Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment,
and Revenues, by Laura B. Comay and Corrie E. Clark.
60 P.L. 117-169, §50251.
61 The bills also would prohibit wind leasing (and other types of energy development) west of the Military Mission
Line and in Atlantic Ocean areas off the east coast of Florida if DOD reported anticipated adverse impacts related to
national security, military readiness, or testing capabilities from oil, gas, wind, or other types of energy development in
those areas.
62 American Petroleum Institute and Calash LLC, The Economic Impacts of Allowing Access to the Eastern Gulf of
Congressional Research Service

12

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

have focused on potential adverse economic consequences, such as costs of potential oil spills to
the commercial fishing, tourism, and recreation sectors.63 Also under consideration are the climate
impacts of Gulf oil and gas leasing, including through BOEM’s analysis of potential energy
substitutes for Gulf oil and gas.64 Two issues specific to the Eastern Gulf are as follows.
 Military readiness concerns. The area east of the Military Mission Line in the
Eastern Gulf provides the largest overwater DOD test and training facility in the
continental United States.65 DOD historically has expressed the need for an
ongoing oil and gas leasing moratorium in the Eastern Gulf to accommodate
military testing and training.66 In 2018, DOD stated that “sufficient surface
limiting stipulations and/or oil and gas activity restrictions” would be required if
oil and gas leasing were to resume in the moratorium area, which some
stakeholders interpreted as signaling a greater DOD openness to future oil and
gas activities than had previously been expressed.67 The 2018 report did not
clarify what types of oil and gas lease stipulations and restrictions might be
necessary to accommodate testing and training activities in the Eastern Gulf.
 Offshore wind leasing in the Eastern Gulf. BOEM has begun to formally
consider offshore wind leasing in the Gulf of Mexico.68 The agency has identified
two wind energy areas (WEAs) for potential leasing in the Gulf of Mexico,
neither of which is in the GOMESA moratorium area.69 The IRA authorized
offshore wind leasing in the moratorium area, as well as in previously withdrawn

Mexico for Oil and Natural Gas Exploration and Development, 2018, at http://www.noia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/
04/180309-Calash-Eastern-Gulf-Development-Economic-Impacts-Report-Final.pdf.
63 Studies documenting costs to these industries from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill include BOEM, An Analysis
of the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on the Gulf of Mexico Seafood Industry, 2016, at
https://www.boem.gov/ESPIS/5/5518.pdf; and BOEM, Assessing the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on
Tourism in the Gulf of Mexico Region, 2014, at https://www.boem.gov/ESPIS/5/5451.pdf.
64 See BOEM, 2023-2028 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing: Proposed Program, July 2022,
Section 5.3, at https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/national-program/2023-2028-proposed-program. For estimates of
greenhouse gas emissions related to oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters, see U.S. Geological Survey,
Federal Lands Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sequestration in the United States: Estimates for 2005-14, Report 2018-
5131, November 2018, at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20185131.
65 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Preserving Military Readiness in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, May 2018, at
http://www.iadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/DOD-Offshore-Report.pdf (hereinafter cited as DOD 2018 Report).
66 In 2017, DOD wrote that the agency “cannot overstate the vital importance of maintaining this moratorium....
Emerging technologies such as hypersonics, autonomous systems, and advanced sub-surface systems will require
enlarged testing and training footprints, and increased DoD reliance on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act’s
moratorium beyond 2022” (letter from A. M. Kurta, Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness, to Representative Matt Gaetz, April 26, 2017). Also see letter from Donald R. Schregardus,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, to Minerals Management Service, April 10, 2006.
67 DOD 2018 Report. For one interpretation, see the dissenting views in H.Rept. 116-156, referring to the wording in
the DOD report: “This conditional statement conveys that, with DoI and industry cooperation, multiple uses of the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico are possible, including energy development.”
68 For more information, see CRS Report R46970, Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing, Permitting, Deployment,
and Revenues, by Laura B. Comay and Corrie E. Clark.
69 BOEM, “Gulf of Mexico Activities,” at https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/gulf-mexico-
activities. One identified wind energy area is off the coast of Galveston, TX, and the other is off the coast of Lake
Charles, LA. A 2020 study by BOEM and the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
generally identified areas farther west in the Gulf of Mexico as having higher potential for offshore wind to “compete
... without additional subsidies,” while still noting some opportunities for development in the Eastern Gulf. BOEM and
NREL, Offshore Wind in the US Gulf of Mexico: Regional Economic Modeling and Site-Specific Analyses, February
2020, p. xii, at https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/BOEM_2020-018.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

13

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

areas of the southern Atlantic.70 Some Members of Congress have opposed wind
leasing in the GOMESA moratorium area, stating that it would jeopardize
military activities in the Gulf test range and adversely influence U.S. security.71
Some other Members have contended that the IRA’s wind leasing authorizations
will have nationwide benefits in promoting offshore wind jobs and investment.72
Looking Ahead
The 118th Congress may consider whether GOMESA’s current provisions will best meet federal
priorities going forward, or whether changes are desirable to achieve various goals. Regarding the
Eastern Gulf, GOMESA’s moratorium on oil and gas leasing in the area has ended, but oil and
gas leasing is prohibited for another decade by President Trump’s executive withdrawal under the
OCSLA. A question for Congress is whether future decisions about oil, gas, and renewable
energy leasing in the Eastern Gulf should be legislatively mandated or left to the executive branch
to control under the OCSLA’s criteria for energy leasing decisions. Absent additional legislative
intervention, DOI would continue to assess whether wind leasing is appropriate for the area, and
after June 2032 would decide whether to lease for oil and gas, following OCSLA procedures.73
Congress may consider regional economic priorities, environmental impacts, U.S. energy
security, and military security, among other factors, in assessing the future disposition of the
GOMESA moratorium area.
With respect to Gulf oil and gas revenues, GOMESA’s current revenue-sharing provisions take
into account multiple priorities: mitigating the impacts of human activities and natural processes
on the Gulf Coast (through state revenue shares directed to this purpose); supporting conservation
and outdoor recreation nationwide (through the LWCF state assistance program); and
contributing to the Treasury. For the most part, legislative proposals to change the terms of
GOMESA revenue distribution have supported some or all of these priorities but have sought to
change the proportion of revenues devoted to each purpose. Also at issue are proposals to use the
revenues for new (typically conservation-related) programs outside the GOMESA framework, as
well as proposals to substantially reduce or eliminate Gulf oil and gas production—with
corresponding long-term revenue implications—in the context of addressing climate change. The
118th Congress may weigh some of these revenue issues in considering whether to amend
GOMESA.

70 P.L. 117-169, §50251.
71 See, e.g., letter from Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Rick Scott, and Representative Mike Waltz to Senate and House
leaders, October 17, 2022, at https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c5281d77-e58d-49a0-8b21-
1d43989ac1e9/6A5DEA0F9F9EF7E896D431FED94D15EF.10.17.22-rubio-waltz-et-al-letter-to-leadership-re-
mml.pdf.
72 See, e.g., Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, “Standing At The Port Of Albany, Gillibrand And Tonko Fight to Bring Clean
Energy and Renewable Offshore Wind Jobs to New York,” May 6, 2022, at https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/
press/release/standing-at-the-port-of-albany-gillibrand-and-tonko-fight-to-bring-clean-energy-and-renewable-offshore-
wind-jobs-to-new-york.
73 For more information, see CRS Report R44504, Five-Year Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program: History and
Background, by Laura B. Comay and Adam Vann; and CRS Report R46970, Offshore Wind Energy: Federal Leasing,
Permitting, Deployment, and Revenues, by Laura B. Comay and Corrie E. Clark.
Congressional Research Service

14

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA): Background and Current Issues

Author Information

Laura B. Comay

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46195 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED
15