Contribute
Connect:

research

Clinton’s Energy Extraction Ban Would Cost Colorado 50,000 Jobs And $8.3 Billion

- August 25, 2016

CLINTON's support for a ban on energy extraction on federal lands lead to a u.s. chamber study on what the economic impact of such a ban would be

Clinton's Support For Banning Extraction On Federal Lands Led The U.S. Chamber To Run A 'What If' Scenario In A Report Released Yesterday. "Bernie Sanders made a ban on extraction on federal lands and waters a part of his platform in his presidential campaign, and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has also voiced support, leading the U.S. Chamber to run a 'what if' scenario." (Aldo Svaldi, "Colorado Vulnerable In Federal Extraction Ban, U.S. Chamber Says," The Denver Post, 8/24/16)

Clinton's Support For A Ban On Extraction On Federal Lands Is "A Done Deal"

When Asked If She Would Ban Extraction On Public Lands, Clinton Responded "Yeah. That's A Done Deal." 350 ACTION'S GRIFFIN SINCLAIR-WINGATE: "With so much of the environmental community opposing fracking, how do you expect to win over young people's vote if you are still supporting fracking?" HILLARY CLINTON: "You know, I have said repeatedly that we are going to move from fossil fuels to clean energy, and we're gonna have to do it in a quick, but * way. […] The states have a lot of authority over fracking. I don't think the federal government has that ability to just sign an agreement…" SINCLAIR-WINGATE: "To ban fracking…" CLINTON: "No, I don't think that, I don't think the president does, but what the government does have the ability to do is to impose very strict regulations on the chemicals that are used. Closing the Haliburton.* On the methane releases. There's a lot we can do…" SINCLAIR-WINGATE: "But that doesn't stop the CO2 from going into the atmosphere if we burn it. CLINTON: "Well, we will get there, we will get there, but I think, I don't want to mislead you and say 'oh, I can ban *,' that's just not accurate…I don't want to mislead you." SINCLAIR-WINGATE: Would you ban extraction on public lands?" CLINTON: "Yeah. That's a done deal." ("Clinton Calls Ban on Future Extraction on Public Lands a "Done Deal,'" Youtube, 2/5/16)

Click To Watch

COLORADO IS ONE OF STATES MOST AT RISK FOR JOB LOSS AND DECREASED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IF A BAN ON ENERGY EXTRACTION ON FEDERAL LANDS IS IMPOSED

Colorado Would Lose 50,000 Jobs, $124 Million In State Royalties, And $8.3 Billion In Economic Activity If A Ban Were Imposed, And Would Be Unable To Extract From The Mancos Shale Formation

Colorado Was One Of The States "Most At Risk Economically If A Ban On Extracting Coal, Natural Gas, And Oil From Federal Lands Ever Takes Hold." "Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico are the states most at risk economically if a ban on extracting coal, natural gas and oil from federal lands ever takes hold, according to an analysis from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." (Aldo Svaldi, "Colorado Vulnerable In Federal Extraction Ban, U.S. Chamber Says," The Denver Post, 8/24/16)

  • "Colorado Stands To Lose 50,000 Jobs, $124 Million In State Royalties, And $8.3 Billion In Economic Activity Following A Ban." "Colorado stands to lose 50,000 jobs, $124 million in state royalties and $8.3 billion in economic activity following a ban, the U.S. Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy said in a report Wednesday." (Aldo Svaldi, "Colorado Vulnerable In Federal Extraction Ban, U.S. Chamber Says," The Denver Post, 8/24/16)

The Piceance Basin's Mancos Shale Fomation Holds 66.3 Trillion Cubic Feet Of Natural Gas, But "Much Of That Land Is Under The Purview Of The U.S. Bureau Of Land Management." "In June, the U.S. Geological Survey said the Piceance Basin's Mancos Shale formation in western Colorado held 66.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, about 40 times what it had estimated back in 2003. Much of that land is under the purview of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management." (Aldo Svaldi, "Colorado Vulnerable In Federal Extraction Ban, U.S. Chamber Says," The Denver Post, 8/24/16)

Oil And Gas Production On Federal Lands Contributed $8.3 Billion To Colorado's GDP In 2015

Oil And Gas Contributed $8.3 Billion In Overall GDP To Colorado's Economy In 2015. " The overall GDP impact to the state's economy is $8.3 billion." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

Oil And Gas Production On Federal Lands Accounted For 50,000 Jobs In Colorado In 2015, With The Most Direct Employment Of Any State

There Were 50,000 Oil And Gas Production Related To Energy Extraction On Federal Lands In Colorado In 2015. ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

There Were 15,300 Direct Oil And Gas Production Employees And Contractors Working On Federal Lands In Colorado In 2015. "In 2015. Colorado has the highest number of direct oil and gas employees and contractors working on federal lands, registering 15,300 in 2015." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

  • This Is The Highest Number Of Direct Oil And Gas Employees And Contractors Working On Federal Lands. "In 2015. Colorado has the highest number of direct oil and gas employees and contractors working on federal lands, registering 15,300 in 2015." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

Colorado Uses The Majority Of The Royalties It Collects On Extraction From Federal Lands On Education And Local Government Spending, And A Ban Would Take Away This Revenue Stream

Colorado Collected $124 Million In Federal Royalties In 2015, The Third Largest Disbursement Of Any State. "In addition, Colorado received the third largest disbursement of federal royalties of any state in 2015, collecting $124 million." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

  • $62 Million Of This Sum Was Earmarked By Colorado To Be Spent On Education Programs. "Roughly half, or about $62 million in 2015, was earmarked by the state to be spent on education programs." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)
  • $50 Million Of This Sum Was Distributed To Local Governments. "Approximately 40 percent, or $50 million last year, was distributed to local governments." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)
  • "Education Systems And Local Governments Would Need To Quickly Identify Alternative Funding Sources To Be Made Whole." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)
  • 10 Percent Of The Federal Royalties Were Distributed To The Colorado Water Conservation Board. "The remaining 10 percent was distributed to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which is an agency that provides policy direction on the state's water issues" ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

A Ban On Future Leases Of Federal Lands Would Deplete These Funds By $64 Million Over The Next 10 Years, Leaving Only $40 Million In Federal Royalties For Colorado. " As Figure 12 shows, a ban on future leases would deplete these funds, reducing them by $64 million over the next 10 years." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

  • The Cumulative Royalty Loss Would Be $792 Million Between 2016 And 2030 For Colorado. ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)
  • Colorado Collected An Average Of $153 Million In Federal Royalties Between 2010 And 2014. "That's down from an average of $153 million in the previous four years." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 20160

tHE NATIONWIDE IMPACT OF A BAN ON FEDERAL LANDS EXTRACTION WOULD BE DEVASTATING

"Nationally, The Study Estimates A Federal Extraction Ban Would Eliminate A Quarter Of The Nation's Coal And Petroleum Production." "Nationally, the study estimates a federal extraction ban would eliminate a quarter of the nation's coal and petroleum production, claim 380,000 jobs - including 100,000 direct jobs - remove $11.3 billion in federal and state revenue and shave $70 billion off annual GDP." (Aldo Svaldi, "Colorado Vulnerable In Federal Extraction Ban, U.S. Chamber Says," The Denver Post, 8/24/16)

Energy Production On Federal Lands Accounts For 380,300 Jobs Across The Country And $72.3 Billion In GDP That Would Disappear If A Ban On Federal Land Energy Extraction Were Imposed

"Energy Production On Federal Lands Is Currently Responsible For 380,300 Jobs Across The United States." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

Fossil Fuel Production On Federal Lands Generated $72.3 Billion In GDP For The United States In 2015. ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

Oil And Gas Extraction On Federal Lands Accounts For 336,500 Jobs Across The Country That Have Wages "Much Higher Than The National Average"

There Were 336,500 Oil And Gas Extraction Jobs On Federal Lands In The United States In 2015. ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

Oil, Natural Gas, And Coal Production "Offers Both Direct And Indirect Employee Wages That Are Much Higher Than The National Average." "Oil, natural gas, and coal production is not only responsible for supporting hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, but it also offers both direct and indirect employee wages that are much higher than the national average." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

"Labor Income In The Oil And Gas Industry Is 199 Percent Higher Than The National Average." "As Table 4 shows, labor income in the oil and gas industry is 199 percent higher than the national average, and labor income in the coal industry is 83 percent higher." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)

Indirect Jobs Created For Suppliers To These Industries "Have An Income Level That Is 48 Percent Higher Than The National Average." "The indirect jobs, or jobs created for suppliers to these industries, have an income level that is 48 percent higher than the national average." ("What If… Energy Production Was Banned On Federal Lands And Waters?" U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, 2016)


Previous post

Clinton’s Unprecedented Lack Of Press Access By The Numbers

Next post

If Denial Were A Town In Nevada, Team Clinton Would Have Taken Up Residency
Republican National Committee

Connect With Us

Republican National Committee

Follow GOP

Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel

News & Videos
  • 310 First Street SE, Washington, DC 20003
  • 202-863-8500

Paid for by the Republican National Committee. Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee. www.gop.com

Paid for by the Republican National Committee.
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee. www.gop.com

Please check your email to claim your FREE sticker