energy production was banned on federal lands and … · bernie sanders former presidential...

......................................................................................................

energy accountability series

“No future extraction [on federal lands]. I agree with that.”

“We will phase down extraction of fossil fuels from our public lands.”

“In the future, federal land – the land that is owned by all of us – will not be used for the extraction of fossil fuel: Coal, oil or gas.”

Hillary ClintonPresidential candidate

2016 Democratic Party Platform

Bernie SandersFormer presidential candidate

Energy production on federal lands – both onshore and offshore – is vitally important to the American people. It boosts our economy, supports good jobs and provides almost one-quarter of the nation’s oil, natural gas and coal. Energy production is also an important source of government revenue. So why would we ever want to shut it down?

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what some leading political figures and special interest groups have called for this election season. In a new report, we take them at their word, and quantify the impacts of their “keep it in the ground” approach to oil, natural gas and coal production on federal lands.

THEY BELIEVE THE NATION WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT ENERGY FROM FEDERAL LANDS.

BUT THEY’RE WRONG.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE: WWW.ENERGYXXI.ORG

A BAN ON FEDERAL ENERGY PRODUCTION COULD COST AMERICA:

380,000

JOBS IN ANNUAL GDP

$70 BILLION $11.3 BILLION

IN FEDERAL & STATE REVENUE

Energy Production Was Banned on Federal Lands and Waters?

“Wyoming in particular would be forced to confront a di�cult economic situation if energy production were to come to a halt on federal acreage.”


Report: What If Energy Production Was Banned on Federal Lands and Waters? p. 30


Energy production on federal lands is vitally important to Wyoming and the nation as a whole. Forty percent of America’s coal comes from

Wyoming. The state is number one for federal onshore natural gas production and number two in federal onshore oil production. So why would we

ever want to shut it down?

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what some leading political figures and special interest groups have called for this election season. In a new report,

we take them at their word, and quantify the impacts of their “keep it in the ground” approach to energy production on federal lands in Wyoming.

......................................................................................................

......................................................................................................



IN WYOMING ALONE, A BAN ON FEDERAL ENERGY PRODUCTION COULD COST:

ACCORDING TO OUR ANALYSIS:


32,500

JOBS IN ANNUAL GDP

$9.3 BILLION

IN STATE ROYALTIES

$886 MILLION

“�e ability of the state to deliver on its public-education related priorities would be negatively and disproportionately a�ected by any decrease in federal royalty revenues.”




Connie WilbertDirector of Sierra Club Wyoming Chapter

THEY BELIEVE WYOMING WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT ENERGY FROM FEDERAL LANDS.

“President Obama needs to halt all new fossil fuel leasing on federal public lands.”

Energy Production Was Banned on Federal Lands in Wyoming?

SIERRA CLUB


Energy production on federal lands is critically important to Colorado. More than 1.5 million acres of federal land in Colorado currently produces

oil, natural gas and coal, and this energy development is particularly important to the rural economies of the Western Slope. So why would we

ever want to shut it down?

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what some leading political figures and special interest groups have called for this election season. In a new

report, we take them at their word, and quantify the impacts of their “keep it in the ground” approach to energy production on federal lands.

......................................................................................................



Energy Production Was Banned on Federal Lands in Colorado?


BUT THEY’RE WRONG.IN COLORADO ALONE, A BAN ON FEDERAL ENERGY PRODUCTION COULD COST:


50,000

JOBS IN ANNUAL GDP

$8.3 BILLION

IN STATE ROYALTIES

$124 MILLION

“Roughly half [of federal royalties to the state], or about $62 million in 2015, was earmarked by the state to be spent on education programs. Approximately 40 percent, or $50 million last year, was distributed to local governments. Education systems and local governments would need to quickly identify alternative funding sources to be made whole.”



Micah Parkin350 Colorado

THEY BELIEVE COLORADO WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT ENERGY FROM FEDERAL LANDS.

“We must keep fossil fuels in the ground — starting with public lands.”350.org


......................................................................................................


Energy Production Was Banned on Federal Lands in New Mexico?

Energy production on federal lands is vitally important to New Mexico. As the nation’s 10th largest energy producing state, New Mexico has more than

3.7 million acres of federal land currently producing oil, natural gas and coal, boosting the economy and providing revenue for essential public services.

So why would we ever want to shut it down?

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what some leading political figures and special interest groups have called for this election season. In a new report, we

take them at their word, and quantify the impacts of their “keep it in the ground” approach to energy production on federal lands in New Mexico.


“New Mexico … would be devastated under a scenario in which energy production was curtailed or halted entirely on federal lands.”


BUT THEY’RE WRONG.IN NEW MEXICO ALONE, A BAN ON FEDERAL ENERGY PRODUCTION COULD COST:


24,300

JOBS IN ANNUAL GDP

$4 BILLION

IN STATE ROYALTIES

$496 MILLION

“�ose who support instituting bans on federal-lands energy development have o�ered no economic alternatives.”



Jeremy NicholsWildEarth Guardians

THEY BELIEVE NEW MEXICO WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT ENERGY FROM FEDERAL LANDS.

“[I]t’s time to rein in oil and gas drilling and keep our fossil fuels in the ground.”

......................................................................................................Report: What If Energy Production Was Banned on Federal Lands and Waters? p. 29


WILDEARTH GUARDIANS


......................................................................................................

......................................................................................................

THEY BELIEVE THE GULF COAST WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITHOUT FEDERAL OFFSHORE ENERGY PRODUCTION.



IN GULF COAST STATES ALONE, A BAN ON FEDERAL ENERGY PRODUCTION COULD COST:


“[T]hese states would experience signi�cant economic harm if measures were adopted that would limit or prevent energy extraction from taking place in adjacent federal waters.”

“[S]tates along the Gulf Coast have a lot at stake as part of the debate over federal-lands energy development.”


Energy Production Was Banned in Federal Waters Near Gulf Coast States?

Federal offshore energy production is vitally important to the Gulf Coast States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama –

and to the nation as a whole. Roughly one-fifth of U.S. oil production comes from the Gulf. So why would we ever want to shut

it down?

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what some leading political figures and special interest groups have called for this election season.

In a new report, we take them at their word, and quantify the impacts of their “keep it in the ground” approach to federal

offshore energy production in the Gulf Coast States.

110,200

JOBS IN ANNUAL GDP

$24.2 BILLION

IN STATE ROYALTIES

$28 MILLION




Anne RolfesFounding director, Louisiana Bucket Brigade

“We are telling Big Oil to take their rigs and go home.”



L O U I S I A N A

BUCKET BRIGADE


energy production was banned on federal lands and … · bernie sanders former presidential...

Documents