John Whitehead, at Environmental Economics, points to a New York Times op-ed by Robert Hahn and Peter Passell: A benefit-cost analysis of full-speed-ahead drilling. While Hahn and Passell find that drilling in ANWR and in offshore areas that are currently closed has a small impact on oil prices, they still find that it has net economic benefits.
Here is a link to a discussion paper by Hahn and Passell that provides more information about their analysis: The Economics of Allowing More Domestic Oil Drilling. The abstract:
The
recent sharp increase in the price of oil has generated renewed
interest in U.S. oil exploration and development. This paper examines
the likely impact of developing new energy resources on oil and
gasoline prices. In addition, we use a benefit-cost framework to
analyze the impact of allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge and the portions of the Outer Continental Shelf that
are currently closed to development.
We find that development of ANWR
and off-limits OCS is likely to have only a modest impact on future
world (and thus domestic) oil prices, on the order of one percent.
Therefore, we believe that the impact of opening the new resource areas
on current prices would be modest as well.
Our benefit-cost analysis of
developing off-limits OCS suggests that the benefits are very likely to
exceed the costs. We are less confident in the case of ANWR, but still
believe that the expected benefits of development are likely to exceed
the costs. We suggest an alternative way of framing the issue of
resource development that may give both policy makers and the public a
better sense of the tradeoffs involved.
For information about related studies: Does it make sense to drill for oil in ANWR; Drill, drill, drill?: the economics of drilling; Hail Giacomo Ponzetto!; ANWR's impact on oil prices.
Comments