Energy Tomorrow Blog
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.
Posted April 7, 2015
BloombergView: It's a pernicious bit of American mythology that is used to justify the law against domestic oil producers selling their crude overseas: The U.S. needs "energy independence." Never mind that the law actually undermines this goal, or that the goal itself is practically impossible to achieve. It's the wrong goal. What the U.S. should be striving for is not independence, but energy security.
The story behind the myth goes something like this: If the U.S. doesn't hoard all its oil, then it can't hope to attain energy independence. And until it does that, it has to keep buying oil from politically unstable or unfriendly regimes. Therefore U.S. consumers must tolerate volatile prices for gasoline and heating oil.
The tale is false, but it brushes against one truth: When instability in other countries affects the price of oil, the U.S. economy can suffer. Just last month, the price jumped almost 5 percent when Saudi bombs began to fall on rebel targets in Yemen. Such unpredictable spikes make it difficult for many U.S. businesses to plan ahead, and this means less investment and less hiring.
Posted March 26, 2015
A welcome development in the larger effort to see the U.S. become a major player in the global energy marketplace: groundbreaking ceremonies this week at Maryland’s Cove Point liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility.
Gov. Larry Hogan joined other golden shovel-wielding dignitaries at Cove Point, built as an LNG import terminal but which is undergoing a $3.8 billion expansion to allow LNG export capability.
Cove Point and other proposed LNG export terminals are the key needed infrastructure for the world’s leading producer of natural gas to get its LNG to market.
Posted March 20, 2015
The case for lifting the 1970s-era ban on U.S. crude oil exports, in a nutshell:
The ban is a relic of the past, of an era when the U.S. was producing less and less of its own oil and importing more and more of oil produced by others. Crude exports would add to global crude supplies, putting downward pressure on the cost of crude. A number of studies project that lifting the export ban would lower domestic gasoline prices. Exports would stimulate domestic production, protecting U.S. jobs and creating more in the future. Exports would strengthen U.S. economic power that underlies American global influence.
There are more reasons, more details to the affirmative export case, a number of which were aired at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing this week. In its totality, it’s a strong, strong case.