Offshore oil would bring 1,000 jobs to Oregon

What Can 23 States Gain from Offshore Drilling?
Increased energy exploration will create jobs and increase state economic output.
By Americans For Tax Reform

With many states facing soaring deficits and double digit unemployment, Americans for Tax Reform continues to urge President Obama, Congress, and state elected officials to look toward energy exploration and production to create jobs, decrease the cost of energy and increase our domestic supply. Oregon would generate $174,912,788 in increased state output 1,444 jobs created
The below chart illustrates how 23 optimally situated states would benefit from full
development of offshore energy reserves.

State Increased Output (GSP) ,Jobs Created2

Alabama $20,873,419 80
Alaska $3,287,291,886 11,242
California $11,589,928,285 37,312
Connecticut $213,207,691 812
Delaware $79,451,918 245
Florida $2,522,030,426 20,454
Georgia $79,429,171 375
Illinois $2,612,085,664 7,251
Louisiana $9,858,045,031 29,332
Maine $522,869,535 2,467
Maryland $94,456,274 751
Massachusetts $412,991,091 1,296
Mississippi $17,621,395 65
New Hampshire $29,812,737 141
New Jersey $2,008,269,450 5,098
New York $265,892,918 691
North Carolina $872,999,845 3,214
Oregon $174,912,788 1,444
Pennsylvania $2,209,429,182 6,248
Rhode Island $91,731,497 433
South Carolina $138,596,073 1,259
Texas $16,300,728,058 49,152
Virginia $334,674,003 1,582
Washington $1,725,347,789 4,596
Total $55,462,676,125 185,320

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 29 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • dartagnan

    I’m skeptical when I see such precise numbers (exactly 1,444 jobs for Oregon? Not 1,443 or 1,445, but 1,444?) when (a) nobody really knows how much offshore oil is out there and (b) we’re told nothing about the method by which the numbers were arrived at.

    • Duh?

      So if they had said 1443 or 1445 you’d have no problem with it? 1444 you have some sort of issue with?

      • dartagnan

        No, it’s just that, in view of the uncertainties involved in oil exploration and development, it looks fishy when they come up with such a precise number.

  • paul

    If this is true, watch for more stringent bans on off shore drilling. Never waste an opportunity for the Dems to stifle business and stick it to the taxpayers.

  • valley p

    So companies would hire all these people to drill for energy that is not even there? Off shore Oregon has no proven reserves, and near zero suspected oil. Who in the world came up with these numbers? Americans for tax reform? They are energy experts?

    • snkbyt

      It doesn’t really matter about Oregon having oil…The Feds alsy have Alaska locked up and most of our reserves in the name of a Wildlife refuge or a Park 500 miles from nowhere. If they drill off shore anywhere around the US it will mean jobs and possibly cheaper fuels prices. When the Trans Alaska pipeline was built most of the builders and employees were from out of the state..working 3 weeks on and 2 off and flying back home to the lwoer 48. Same thing will happen here….if there are jobs they will go there. That’s what Oregon will loose by not having private sector jobs.

  • Scatcatpdx

    Go to Hell all of you, again I say to the devil with you. A pox on both your houses to the 5th generation.

    I am tired of both conservative and liberals taking about jobs. I loath the word.
    Why you ask, it is a false hoe and vicious boom and bust cycle. High Tech , Bio Tech and Green jobs. It is all the same crap. Like a gambling addict, the state put an all in bet on the finically unproven hot jobs of the moment. There rest is screwed. The bet is lost and good people like me are laid off; the state repeats the same bad bet.

    If I was Governor, it would different.

    I promise not to bring job in Oregon because I will only concentrate on the macro issue develop a stable economic environment creating a business climate that attract a wide range of entrepreneurs from the corner dry cleaner to the billion dollar CEO. They will create the employment. Knowing some business will succeed and some will fail, I want environment that if a sector fails the other economic sectors can take up the slack. I will not be like the current repubacrate economic philosophy that invests in a single company or sector like High Tech assembly job that had a boom but followed by a bust leaving empty buildings, empty plots of land of land and crushed dreams.

    Any wonk in my administration sagest we invest in a sing company because it will bring 300 or 1000 jobs will be fired because it is impractical for me to have a pool of piranhas, trap door incinerators or sharks with lasers attach to their head. Oh yes, I do have a Persian cant.

    • Anonymous

      Couldn’t have said it better.

  • Bob Clark

    Shouldn’t limited it to offshore drilling. The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is known to hold a large wealth of oil, with the potential of 1 million barrels of oil of new oil production. Now that would be a real energy policy, and not just dreams of reliable and significantly material renewable energy.

    Drill Baby, Drill. Not just study and blow smoke like the Obamanation.

    • surefoot

      Hey I like or philosophy; my mother is good looking I’ll sell her to you for a hundred dollar an hour.

  • Kirk Benson

    We must not depend on other countries for our energy.

    * Old coal plants should be replaced with clean burning plants.
    * New technology should be explored to build clean, safe, reduced waste, green power facilities.
    * Support green power sources where possible via tax incentives.
    * Continue tax incentives for home owners to become energy independent through alternative technology such as solar, wind or any new viable technology.
    * Tap into geothermal energy where possible.
    * Continue to fund research and encourage zero-emission automobile technology.

    Doug Keller, who is running for congress in the 1st Congressional District supports the above policies. Don’t they make sense? Check him out: https://keller4congress.com/

    • ScatcatPdx

      Sounds like this person is Democrat light. A government subsidized energy policy is anathema to a free market system at worst it allows for subsidizing inefficient and expensive power generation like solar and wind. I thought we learned from the corn / bio fuels debacle.

      • valley p

        You would not have oil but for our military, nor nuclear without government R&D and waste handling, nor coal without mountaintop removal and mega pollution allowed, not natural gas without eminent domain for pipelines. All energy sources are subsidized to one extent or another.

  • Steve Plunk

    The history of oil production is always get the cheap, easy oil first. If off shore is opened up in Oregon we can certainly bet it will be in California as well. Jobs would go first to the proven reserves in California before ever making it to Oregon.

    But opening up those reserves would lower energy costs and give the economy a shot in the arm. We will continue to rely on oil for many decades and then transition to natural gas. Energy experts see natural gas as the cleaner, more bountiful fuel of the future.

    Oregon’s resource base was timber and we turned our back on it as we went “green”. The reality is timber is growing faster than we harvest and good forest management is dead. The new hippie generation at the BLM and Forest Service will make sure we never see it as a resource for wood products. They expect us to live on seasonal tourism jobs and unemployment.

    In both cases of natural resource management we see government as the obstacle to our success and well being.

  • Tim McCafferty

    Oil Platforms off the coast of Oregon? Sunami freaked, perilous seas that are legendary for their disasters, and it would be a good idea to persue oil exploration, instead of renewable research, and implementation? That’s just crazy, and gives no deferance to our coming generations.

    We have many opportunities in the Northwest for natural thermal, solar, hydro, tidal sources of energy. We have an enormous agriculture capacity, and a steady source of water. We have all we need to set the example for the world in renewable, sustainable energy. We could be at the tip of the spear of the coming economic boom in energy transformation.

    We have known since Jimmy Carter put a sweater on, turned the thermostat down, put solar panels ont the roof, and looked America in the eyes and told the truth. Deal with it, we need to start the real mission to change our energy sourses away from oil, coal, and nuclear power which pose exstreme risks to our enviroment, national security, and health.

    • Steve Plunk

      Tim, The renewable energy you speak of can never approach the levels needed for our society. We have fooled for years that a some solar panels (which haven’t increased in efficiency for years) and windmills will solve our problem. They can’t and won’t.

      Those platforms you worry about so quite well in the Gulf when hurricanes come so I wouldn’t worry about them. The steady stream of water is not there, ask the Klamath farmers. And why might oil platforms be any more a coastal eyesore than the huge tidal and wave generation plants?

      Green energy has proven to be another form of snake oil, sold as a cure but nothing much more than a criminal enterprise enriching a few at the expense of many.

      One last thing. Did you know proven reserves are increasing rather than decreasing. Peak oil is another scam.

  • Anonymous

    Tim,
    You give no deference to reality.

    Your entire case is a fabrication.

    Any oil rigs would be a dot or entirely out of sight.
    Oil Platforms are extraordinarily stable and resistant to even hurricanes as big as Katrina.

    Increased domestic oil [and Natural gas] production in NOT an “Instead of ” renewable research, and implementation proposition.

    This isn’t the either/or scenario your confusion suggests.

    It’s the common sense use of our own natural resources while alterative energy develops in the coming decades.

    Take away the fraud of AGW and the Oil/Gas industry and option is entirely viable and out best shot at less energy dependence n the short, transitional term.

    Especially our enormous under utilized, domestic natural gas potential which the left wing continues to encumber and obstruct at every turn.

  • Tim McCafferty

    I was 10 years old visiting my mom during the summer of the oil spill in Santa Barbara, the beaches were disgusting, and the jelly fish I stepped on was no fun either. I remember the oil rigs floating into the peers in New Orleans after Katrina. I’ve been at sea while storm’s after effects were spread all over the open sea. I’ve seen oil rigs up close off the Santa Barbara coast and Channel Islands. I’ve worked on the shelf in Nome, and seen the North Atlantic shelf. Anybody whom believes these rigs are storm proof is denying their history.

    The technologies that will end our slavery to oil and coal are held in prisoned by an self serving lobby through government, media, and mis-information that has held us from our independance since Carter’s efforts at the end of the 70’s.

    We have only to watch “Who Killed the Electric Car” to see how a oil company that has benefited in the hundreds of billions in profit since 2001 would buy an batterie technology from a car company, and put it on the shelf.

    Denying the urgency is to condemn your prodigy to a perilous future whether you believe the globe is warming because of us or not. I remember the last time the nation cared about energy, and conservation, and independance, it was when OPEC choked the supply and raised prices, and the Vietnam War expenditures came home to rooste. Remember the double digit unemployment, the insane interest rates??

    Funny, how when time comes to make real sacrifice for your country, and the future of our children, the same voices seem to make the loudest noice against doing anything but what got us here.

  • Tim McCafferty

    By the way, where are all these numbers coming from? I checked the Dept of Labor studies and projections they have posted, and I saw nothing that would equate to the job numbers being touted here? What study, or data source does this come from?

    Am I to understand these are projections made by the Americans for Tax Reform? Really. I would think that a sincere policy statement would not rely on self serving estimates from a anti-tax group.

    Tell me you guys have more integrity than that!

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Am I to understand these are projections made by the Americans for Tax Reform? …..Tell me you guys have more integrity than that!

      Well, you could always simply just read.

      Generally studies cite their sources.

      Those sources are generally cited at the end of the study.

      This study is no different. Go to study – look at study – There, right at the bottom, the study is from the American Energy Alliance. Its printed right there at the bottom.

      Go the American Energy Alliance, look up the study.

      They cite as a US Energy Information Administration memorandum showing 400bbl of oil off of OR and WA.

      Who is the American Energy Alliance? Well, they are a trade lobbying group. So this study is probably about as impartial as the CRU of East Anglea or the UN when it comes to a report on Global Warming. In other words they have a vested interest in the outcome.

      Does that mean we should ignore the report? No. But it probably means would should treat such a report with the same skepticism as we would treat anything coming out of the UN or the CRU on global warming.

      The purpose of drilling for oil is to get oil. It is not to create jobs, that is a side effect.

      Is the US fettering of oil exploration off of our coats counter productive?

      Of course. It results in additional environmental devastation (there is more environmental damage caused by drilling for oil elsewhere and shipping it vast distances than there is from drilling closer and shipping short distances).

      Basically the environmental argument for not drilling is a fallacious one, because to drill or not to drill is not the question. The drilling will happen regardless. The only difference is do we ship long distances or short distances from where the drilling occurs.

      • valley p

        “But it probably means would should treat such a report with the same skepticism as we would treat anything coming out of the UN or the CRU on global warming.”

        A trade group report with a vested economic interest in drilling should be treated the same as a report from actual scientists working within public institutions? If you say so. But then you might as well rely on TV commercials or Glenn Beck, since all information sources are equal.Others of us are a bit more discerning.

        “Basically the environmental argument for not drilling is a fallacious one, because to drill or not to drill is not the question. The drilling will happen regardless.”

        A few problems with your logic. First, while there is no question drilling for oil will happen somewhere as long as we use oil, that doesn’t mean it could or should happen everywhere. There are places where it is not worth the environmental risk.

        Second, we could make a point of using less oil, which would mean less total drilling and production would be needed, thus reducing both risk and harm.

        Thus, to drill or not to drill (here or there or how much) is the question. (Apologies to Shakespeare, whomever he really was.)

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Others of us are a bit more discerning.

          Not if you maintain that the CRU or the UN doesn’t have a vested interest.

          Since the UN has pushed for global taxation of CO2 and the like, it is particularly idiotic in that instance to insist they have less vested interest than an oil lobbying group.

          The UN is after money, albeit in vastly larger sums, just like the oil industry.

          >There are places where it is not worth the environmental risk.

          Wow – How nativist of you. True, you do tend to be incredibly nativist in a lot of your comments, but this is a little appalling.

          Fine – your outlook is it is not worth the environmental risk to our shores, from which it logically follows that it is worth the risk to others. That attitude doesn’t mean I have a fault in my it is simply you having kind of an ugly trend in your thinking.

          Frankly this is about as bad as a few weeks ago, when you could judge what a person did for a living by his looks.

          >Second, we could make a point of using less oil, which would mean less total drilling and production would be needed, thus reducing both risk and harm.

          Big fault in your logic.

          Reducing our oil use does not affect the fact that we still must get it from somewhere.

          That means either shipping it over here or drilling for it here. It gets drilled regardless, whether there is more or less drilling overall doesn’t alter the fact that it is more environmentally harmful to pipe from a platform then ship across an ocean than it is to just pipe from a platform.

          There is simply no way to avoid the fact that shipping oil involves more environmental damage the further you must travel.

          Geenies probably cause more environmental damage than anyone on the planet when the prevent offshore drilling. The drilling still happens, but because of the greenies, now we have to ship by tanker from the middle east or South America. Basically if you oppose offshore oil drilling, all you really are doing is shifting the environmental damage to another country, and causing more of it with the tanker transport.

          >Thus, to drill or not to drill (here or there or how much) is the question.

          Um, this is the point of the entire article.

          I’m not sure what you think you have logically distilled here, but restating the central point in question isn’t exactly feat of reasoning.

          It is good you could stay on topic though. that’s an improvement.

          • valley p

            “Not if you maintain that the CRU or the UN doesn’t have a vested interest.”

            The vested interest CRU has is finding reality, and the UN has an interest in helping nations cooperate in addressing planetary problems. In other words, their interest is to explore these problems and find solutions. I’m ok with that, imperfect thought they may be.

            “Fine – your outlook is it is not worth the environmental risk to our shores, from which it logically follows that it is worth the risk to others.”

            That is your logic, not mine. Mine is that as a sovereign nation we get to choose what risks we want to bear for our ecosystems, and other nations get to choose what risks they want to bear. When risks cross national boundaries, then international institutions like the UN referee.

            “Frankly this is about as bad as a few weeks ago, when you could judge what a person did for a living by his looks. ”

            Huh? Have you drifted off into one of the Rupert imaginary lands again? Well not much I can do about that.

            “Reducing our oil use does not affect the fact that we still must get it from somewhere.”

            No, but it means we would need less of it from fewer somewheres. Thus less risk. You really don’t get that?

            “I’m not sure what you think you have logically distilled here, but restating the central point in question isn’t exactly feat of reasoning.”

            Thanks for sharing. But my point was to counter your point that, and I quote again: “to drill or not to drill is not the question.” My point was, yes it is.

          • Steve Plunk

            It has proven time and again that governmental, nonprofit, and multinational organization all have interests that can clash with their purpose. To say the UN, the IPCC, or the CRC are merely looking for reality is extremely naive. First and foremost they are looking to maintain their own existence by creating and exagerating problems.

            As for environmental spillovers from drilling you forget transport of oil is more likely to create problems than drilling and producing. Our history as a nation is one of the top environmentally sound user and developer of natural resources. Compare us to the rest of the world.

            Ignoring oil or treating it as a secondary energy source is nonsense. It has been and will be necessary for decades to come.

          • valley p

            To clarify, I did not say the UN was looking for reality. The UN is a political body. They are looking for political solutions to world problems. The CRU is a scientific body. They are looking for reality. The IPCC, which I did not mention, is a political and science hybrid. Their job is to synthesize the science AND come up with policy options that governments can adopt or ignore.

            You assume their first job is looking after their own existence. Maybe and maybe not. My own experience with organizations is that while this is a factor, the way organizations maintain their own existence is by making themselves useful, not by just making things up.

            Our history as a nation is quite mixed with respect to protecting ecology. We are better than some and worse than others. I did not say anything about oil being a primary or secondary resource. I said if we use less, then the need to drill or transport becomes less as well. We could double our personal transport efficiency and drop our oil use by 25% or more by simply driving the same sorts of cars most of the rest of the world already drives.

          • David Appell

            > Not if you maintain that the CRU or the UN doesn’t have a vested interest.

            The CRU has not vested interest.

            They are interested in doing the best science they can.

            I’ve talked or corresponded with dozens of climate scientists, including CRU scientists. Never once — once — have I ever gotten a whiff of a political agenda. ‘

            You, Rupert?

      • Tim McCafferty

        I don’t see any resources sited, the study looks to be in the form of an article, and the assertions don’t appear to have any sources?

        Please give me the link, or source?

  • Uber number

    Please use decimals when using numbers. Makes it easier to read. Also, please place commas in their rightful place.

  • Jack

    Drill baby Drill

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)