Thursday, June 12, 2008

Lower Oil Prices, More Jobs, More Tax Revenues, and Union Support: What's Not to Like?

In all of the recent discussion about opening up America's vast energy resources, what has received the most attention is the potential effect on oil and gas prices. But there are two other important issues that have not received much attention - the effect of domestic oil development on: a) jobs and b) taxes.

From ANWR.org: The U.S. economy benefits from domestic production when new construction, service, manufacturing, and engineering jobs are created. These jobs occur in all 50 states. A national impact study by Wharton Econometrics estimates total employment at full production in ANWR to be 735,000 jobs. Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes.

And these jobs would be created across the country, not just in Alaska. To see the number of jobs created by state, go here. And that's just for ANWR, and doesn't count the new jobs from oil production in the OCS.

Aside from possible environmental concerns about devleoping America's 140 billion barrels of domestic oil reserves, what's not to like? We'd get lower oil and gas prices, more jobs and increased tax revenues. Seems like those outcomes should be welcomed by politicians of any party. And they'd even likely get the support of union members.

9 Comments:

At 6/12/2008 12:53 PM, Blogger rufus said...

A little oil from ANWR 10 years from now Might lower oil prices by $0.50 - $2.00 EIA

We've got This, Now.

Merril Lynch Study: Ethanol lowers gasoline expenditures by $526.00.

You do, however, give up $15.00 at the grocery store.

Lessee $526.00 - $15.00 Hmmm.

 
At 6/12/2008 1:36 PM, Blogger Diego Baldusco said...

I took a look at the ANWR website and at first sight I saw:

anwr.org JOBS AND ENERGY FOR AMERICA

Why more job creation is not desirable?

 
At 6/12/2008 2:02 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

"A little oil from ANWR ten years from now..."

Oh, right. That's the old "It's going to take ten years so we may as well do nothing now" argument. The Democrats in congress have used that for, let's see: Right, the last ten years. Funny how that works. Funny enough to make it to a Jay Leno monologue.

More than price, being a secure oil supply makes ANWR a desirable additon to our oil sources. ANWR makes the use of oil as a weapon less effective and therefore less likely.

Your numbers from a "Merrill Lynch study" are really the spin from the Renewable Fuels Association. Those numbers don't match anything I have seen from other sources that I can actually get my hands on and verify.

One issue with fuel cost is that we buy gasoline by the gsllon, but we use it by the mile. Cost per mile is the real cost. My own state of Wisconsin mandates ten per cent ethanol in regular gas. They don't require ethanol in other grades.

My mileage with ethanol contaminated regular is ten per cent less than when I use the ethanol free mid grade gas. I drive about 16,000 miles a year. Using ethanol blend at $3.93 (which is today's price) my annual fuel cost would be $3493. Using the mid grade ethanol free gas at $3.96 my annual fuel cost would be $3168. I save $325 right now just by saying no to ethanol.

I trust my own math.

 
At 6/12/2008 3:23 PM, Blogger spencer said...

Fred -- yes Clinton made the decision not to drill ANWR.

But Bush had a Republican congress for six years and could have reversed that decision.

i wonder why he didn't. Maybe because he though he could get more political mileage by continuing to blame the democrats. It certainly seemed to have worked for you.

 
At 6/12/2008 3:32 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Hey rufus, interesting posting regarding the Merrill - Lynch sales pitch (and no! there's nothing wrong with a sales pitch) but I am just a tad skeptical regarding this part: "Blanch also calculates that U.S. ethanol production has increased corn prices by just 21% since 2004"...

Looking at local prices here in the St. Louis, Mo area and in the Laredo, Tx area, the price of grain fed animals as purchased at the grocery store is a little more inflated than 21%, more like about 26 or 27%...

Now I'm NOT quibbling about a nickle or so but with the advent of the ethanol market in a big way tracking the cost increases in non-food items using various extracts of corn has gotten a bit more difficult...

Do you know how they are say tracking the costs of tires for instance since some of them use some extracts of corn in the process?

Ethanol from Sugar
What are the prospects for U.S. sugar co-ops?


Making Ethanol from Wood Chips
One startup is scaling up experimental techniques to demonstrate the commercial potential of cellulosic ethanol

 
At 6/12/2008 4:55 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"But Bush had a Republican congress for six years and could have reversed that decision"...

Good point spencer...

Bush and the Republicans could've done something about these inane decisions by the party of the Seditious & Sleazy but didn't see fit to do anything either...

There must be more here than meets the eye...

 
At 6/12/2008 5:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But Bush had a Republican congress for six years and could have reversed that decision."

Ever heard of a filibuster, moron. Without 60 votes in the Senate it wasn't possible.

 
At 6/12/2008 10:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the past, we have had various examples of price manipulations ie. the Hunt brothers driving up the price of silver.

This is an election year and the outcome is very much in contention. Is it possible that the "speculators" are attempting to influence the outcome of the election in favor of the Democrats?

I have been reading about the Cold War recently, so hopefully you will forgive me if this sounds like just another conspiracy theory. Just wanted to get an independent opinion.

 
At 6/12/2008 11:21 PM, Anonymous Fred said...

Oh, well. Bush and the Republicans spent a lot of effort trying tp accomopdate the Democrats. There was never any reciprocity.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home