In the Washington Post, Energy guru Daniel Yergin writes on the effects of lower oil prices:
But, as things are now, the gains from lower prices outweigh the losses to the economy. The drop from $112 per barrel last June to $80 a barrel now means that Americans would save more than a $160 billion on gasoline and other crude oil products each year. That adds up to some significant extra money that ends up in the pockets of American motorists. And that is money that they will spend all across the U.S. economy.
Thank the shale boom for putting us in this situation.
American free enterprise can achieve almost anything. But, only if we allow it to work properly (this requires a nimble regulatory environment and a streamlined permitting process). One stark example of this gone wrong is the increasingly evergreen example of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that is projected to create 42,000 new jobs and generate $3.4 billion in economic activity. So far, we've waited 6 years for a response on the permit request.
Studies have been conducted. Talking heads and scientists have hashed out all the pros and cons. And despite broad affirmation and support, the American people are stuck waiting for Washington to act. Six years is a disgrace; bigger things can be done in far less time. Here are just a few great examples:
6 Massive Projects Completed Faster than the Keystone Pipeline's 6 Year Permitting Process from U.S. Chamber of Commerce
EPA’s proposed carbon regulations aren’t winning a popularity contest.
A poll for the Partnership for a Better Energy Future, a coalition that includes the U.S. Chamber, found that almost half said they aren’t willing to spend even one dollar more to pay for EPA’s radical restructuring of America’s electricity grid.Almost half said they aren’t willing to spend even one penny to pay for EPA’s proposed carbon reductions.
Almost half of those surveyed (49%) believe that proposed carbon regulations will result in higher energy costs.Almost half (49%) believe that EPA's proposed carbon regulations will result in higher energy costs.
More than half (54%) do not think the United States can afford those higher energy costs and job losses that will come with them.More than half (54%) do not think the United States can afford higher energy costs and job losses that will come with EPA’s proposed carbon regulations.
While the administration pays lip service to it, a vast majority of the public—71%--supports an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that includes oil, natural gas, renewable energy, and coal--the chief target of the proposed carbon regulations.71% supports an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that includes oil, natural gas, renewable energy, and coal.
70% oppose carbon regulations if they increase energy costs but don’t make a difference globally.70% oppose EPA's proposed carbon regulations if they increase energy costs but don’t alter global carbon levels.
As for the proposed carbon regulations themselves, the poll found that more people oppose (47%) than support (44%) them. What’s more, nearly one-third strongly oppose them, while only one-fifth strongly support them.More people oppose (47%) than support (44%) EPA’s proposed carbon regulations.
Karen Harbert, President and CEO of U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy commented on the poll’s findings:
EPA’s push to implement one of the most complicated and costliest rules in history is creating real concerns across the country that should not be ignored.
This poll affirms what we’re hearing from states, businesses and families that will be forced to comply. EPA should heed these concerns and abandon their current approach, which will bring negative consequences for our entire economy with very little environment benefit in return.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that lifting the oil export ban will mean lower fuel prices for families, truck drivers, airlines, and other fuel consumers:
[A]llowing crude oil exports would increase world supplies of crude oil, which is expected to reduce international prices and, subsequently, lower consumer fuel prices.
The GAO finds that consumer fuel prices—like gasoline—are determined on world markets:
A decrease in consumer fuel prices could occur because they tend to follow international crude oil prices rather than domestic crude oil prices, according to the studies and most of the stakeholders. If domestic crude oil exports caused international crude oil prices to decrease, consumer fuel prices could decrease as well.
Adam Sieminsk, administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, came to a similar conclusion when he told Platts Energy Week TV, “Preliminary evidence suggests that gasoline prices get set in the global markets."
In addition, GAO finds that lifting the ban will help the economy:
Removing export restrictions is expected to increase the size of the economy, with implications for employment, investment, public revenue, and trade. For example, removing restrictions is expected to contribute to further declines in net crude oil imports, reducing the U.S. trade deficit.
Other studies that have come out recently also show that ending the oil export ban will be an economic plus:An Aspen Institute study found that lifting the ban would put “modest” downward pressure on gasoline prices. An IHS study found that opening export markets to U.S. crude will mean $746 billion in new investment, additional 1.2 million barrels per day of oil would be produced annually, and 394,000 additional jobs per year from 2016-2030.
[H/t The Hill]
Last week, I linked to a study from the University of Illinois at Chicago that found that 45,000 construction jobs were created by the natural gas boom in the Marcellus Shale region of the Northeast. The report states [emphasis mine]:
From 2008 to the first half of 2014, over 72 million hours of direct and indirect construction labor has been worked on natural gas and oil projects related to the Marcellus Shale. These hours translate to 36,321 actual construction workers (based on a standard 2,000 hours of work) and engaged in oil and gas work that would not have occurred “but for” natural gas exploration in the Marcellus Shale geological footprint.
On a call with reporters on the release of the study, President of North America’s Building Trades Unions, AFL-CIO Sean McGarvey explained that the timing of the shale boom in the region couldn’t have been better for construction workers in the region:
At a time when the U.S. construction industry was in the midst of what was arguably a depression, … one of the few, if not only, bright spots, were the jobs that were created by virtue of domestic oil and gas development.
Here’s a chart from the study that illustrates how critical natural gas development has been for employing construction workers since the Great Recession hit. Shale energy construction employment increased as the non-shale energy construction employment decreased.Marcellus Shale gas construction employment unaffected by recession.
Other union leaders have praised the Marcellus Shale as a job-creator. Earlier this year, Laborers' International Union (LIUNA) mid-Atlantic regional manager Dennis Martire, called shale “a lifesaver and a lifeline for a lot of working families.” LIUNA members logged 400,000 hours on energy-related jobs in 2008, but that increased to 5.7 million hours in 2012.
From drilling rigs to pipelines and other energy infrastructure, record-levels of natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale is fueling construction job growth. Barring federal regulators needlessly piling duplicative regulations on hydraulic fracturing, the region should continue seeing job growth.