Energy Tomorrow Blog
Posted November 7, 2019
Safe and responsible energy development drives economic growth and environmental progress, and by expanding exploration on federal lands and along the Outer Continental Shelf, the U.S. stands to generate billions of dollars in funding for infrastructure, education and conservation.
Posted October 28, 2019
America’s natural gas and oil industry continues to work for Americans – with revenues from production on federal and Native American-owned lands and offshore areas driving $11.69 billion in federal disbursements back to the states, counties, tribes and reclamation and conservation programs. That’s $2.76 billion more than the previous fiscal year and nearly double the disbursements in FY2016, the Interior Department said.
Recipients included: $2.44 billion to states and counties, $1.76 billion to the reclamation fund, $1.14 billion to Native American tribes and individual mineral owners, $1 billion to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and $4.9 billion to the U.S. treasury.
Posted October 16, 2019
Hydraulic fracturing – the technological breakthrough that launched the U.S. energy revolution – has taken a beating during the Democratic presidential derby.
The Washington Post ran a graphic recently, showing that the entire field would ban fracking altogether or restrict it in some capacity. Here’s the portion of the graphic showing the candidates who would ban fracking completely. The group includes some top-tier candidates, U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris. Sen. Warren tweeted last month that she would ban fracking everywhere, while Sen. Sanders told the Post that safe fracking is a “pure fiction.”
Not fiction are the negative impacts throughout our society that could result from banning hydraulic fracturing: millions of job losses, trillions lost to the economy, significant increases in household spending on energy.
Posted May 2, 2019
Offshore energy development has delivered yet another economic and conservation boost to states – this time to the tune of $215 million.
The U.S. Department of the Interior disbursed the funds last week to the four Gulf natural gas and oil producing states – Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, and their coastal political subdivisions – for use toward coastal conservation and hurricane protection projects. And the best part? Not a single dollar came from taxpayers.
Posted November 19, 2018
As we wait for the Trump administration to unveil the next federal offshore leasing program, which will guide offshore natural gas and oil development the next five years, new studies affirm what we’ve been saying about the economic boost outer continental shelf (OCS) leasing could give to coastal states – in the form of cumulative tax revenues over a 20-year forecast period. …
Individually, each state is looking the potential for big numbers and big benefits across the entire state. They follow studies earlier this year finding that through offshore leasing these states together could see billions in projected industry spending and the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Posted July 10, 2018
Offshore energy development works for the states – all of them.
The U.S. Interior Department recently announced that $61.6 million in revenues from offshore oil and natural gas will be distributed to all 50 states, U.S. territories and the District of Columbia – via grants that support state conservation and outdoor recreation projects.Ponder that: You don’t have to be a coastal state; you don’t have to be a producing state. Under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA), everyone benefits from offshore natural gas and oil revenues that are earmarked for Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grants.
Posted October 27, 2015
Reports by Bloomberg and others say that White House and congressional budget negotiators would sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to partially pay for their new budget agreement. Sales would total 58 million barrels from 2018 to 2025, according to a draft House bill (see Section 403-a).
How much money would be raised from the sales would depend on prices at the time of the sales. But, if the goal is generating revenue for government to fund worthy projects, rather than a series of one-time sales, why not lift the ban on U.S. crude oil exports and create an annual revenue stream?
According to a study by ICF International (Page 86), ending the 1970s-era oil exports ban would lift the U.S. economy, create jobs – and generate significant additional revenue for government. A number of other studies mirror ICF’s findings on the economic benefits from lifting the export ban. We highlight ICF here because its estimate of additional oil production from lifting the ban (up 500,000 barrels per day) is almost identical to the output increase estimated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (470,000 barrels per day). ICF:Federal, state, and local governments benefit from crude oil exports both in terms of the generation of GDP, which is then taxed at these levels, but also through royalties on federal lands where drilling takes place. Total government revenues, including U.S. federal, state, and local tax receipts attributable to GDP increases from expanding crude oil exports, could increase up to $13.5 billion in 2020.
Posted August 19, 2015
Our series highlighting the economic and jobs impact of energy in each of the 50 states continues today with Vermont. We started the series with Virginia on June 29 and reviewed Hawaii and Idaho to begin this week. All information covered in this series can be found online here, arranged on an interactive map of the United States. State-specific information across the country will be populated on this map as the series continues.
As we can see with Vermont, the energy impacts of the states individually combine to form energy’s national economic and jobs picture: 9.8 million jobs supported and $1.2 trillion in value added.
Posted June 30, 2015
Wood Mackenzie’s study comparing the effects of pro-development energy policies with those of regulatory-constrained energy policies is really not much of a comparison at all. Pro-development policies would boost U.S. domestic energy supplies and job creation while benefiting American households, the study found. Pro-development policies also would add to economic growth and generate increased revenues for government. Let’s look at those today.
Posted May 7, 2015
The oil and natural gas industry’s recent tax revenue and economic contributions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania look like this: more than $630 million through the state’s existing local impact fee since 2012, including $224 million in 2014 alone; more than $2.1 billion in state and local taxes; annual contributions to the state economy of $34.7 billion, boosting the bottom lines of more than 1,300 businesses in the energy supply chain.
Gov. Tom Wolf, who has proposed new industry taxes, says the state is “getting a bad deal.” We suspect a lot of states would like to have things so rough.
Nevertheless, the governor is pushing for an additional natural gas severance tax of 5 percent on the gross market value of production, plus a fixed fee of 4.7 cents per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) produced. The governor also wants an artificial floor of $2.97 per Mcf regardless of the actual price of natural gas. All suggest unfamiliarity with the story of the goose that laid golden eggs.