Monday, February 15, 2010

Domestic Drilling Bans to Cost us $2.36 Trillion

New estimates indicate that the ban on drilling domestically will cost the United States about $2.36 trillion over the next 20 years. I am not sure how much stock to put in the number, as attempts to gauge fossil fuel prices over even a few years is notoriously difficult. I am comfortable with the notion that we are losing out on a lot of money as we are forced to import ever increasing percentages of our fossil fuels and the economic hardship that higher energy prices that go along with it.

"Restrictions on oil and gas drilling will cost the U.S. economy $2.36 trillion through 2029, according to a study requested by state utility regulators and paid for in part by industry-sponsored groups.
Annual average natural-gas prices will increase by 17 percent by 2030 and electricity prices will rise by 5 percent if U.S. policy makers don’t open access to off-limit areas, the report forecast. That would cut the gross domestic product by $2.36 trillion cumulatively through 2029, or 0.52 percent annually on average, according to the report.

Dave Harbour, a retired commissioner of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, who helped oversee the study, said the calculation of lost GDP was based on the contribution the untapped oil and gas revenues would make to the economy, including employment, taxes and royalties.

Harbour said the industry didn’t influence the outcome of the study, which was performed by McLean, Virginia-based SAIC Corp.


  1. your need to parrot "propaganda", sorry "research" designed to influence public policy for the benefit of energy interests is endlessly a source of amusement to me.

    What do you think the people who stand the most to benefit from no bans would have to say? "uhh yeah if you ban domestic drilling and actually incentivise energy interests to put the pedal to the medal on finding an alternative energy sources, then were just gonna stick it to everyone else by passing the cost onto the consumer"? no they would probably comission "research" on something you admittedly say is near impossible to predict.

  2. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - did you read the post; "I am not sure how much stock to put in the number, as attempts to gauge fossil fuel prices over even a few years is notoriously difficult".

    Lets play your game then. It is econ 101, but what happens when you artificially reduce supply? The answer is price goes up. I did not make any money from saying that; no oil exec is sending me a check.

  3. no your not being paid your just an right-wing ideologue. I debunk this myth about oil in response to a previous post to yours i responded to earlier. specifically the elasticity of energy demand.

  4. Ian fails grammar forever. You don't know what "your" talking about.

  5. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - I debunk your debunk with my comment in that thread hoping you do not seriously believe that changing the supply of oil really has no effect on the price.

  6. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - you check it, 'sucka'


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow