Laserfiche WebLink
<br />N <br />W <br />'"""' <br />en <br /> <br />in exports of coal and electricity, amon~ other commodities, su~~est that <br />the compound annual rate of growth in personal income for the Upper Basin <br />from 1975 through 2000 would be 3.9 percent. At the subregional level, <br />growth is projected at an even more rapid pace, equaling about 4.7 per- <br />cent per year (compounded) in one area. <br /> <br />In general, EET developments would add a substantial increment to <br />these already large compound growth rates in personal income. For example, <br />a 1.5 million bbl/day EET industry would add anywhere from 1.5 to 3 per- <br />centage points (depending on the particular type of oil shale technologies <br />employed) to the 3.9 percent compound annual growth rate projected to occur <br />without EET development. A 3 million bbl/day EET industry would add even <br />more to this 3.9 percent rate of ~rowth--from 2 to 4 percentage points. <br /> <br />Since these rates represent averages over the period 1975-2000, it <br />could be expected that considerably higher rates would occur over some <br />shorter time intervals. One must also realize that the projected growth, <br />although depicted as being applicable to the entire Upper Basin, would <br />actually be concentrated in only a half a'dozen Upper Basin counties. In <br />short, the economic activity and structure of the Upper Basin, and espe- <br />cially of a few counties therein, would be massively affected by the <br />development of the postulated EETs. <br /> <br />Future social conditions in the Upper Basin would, in the first <br />instance, be directly influenced by population growth. To gain a notion <br />of the possible magnitude of these populaCion increas'es, one can assume <br />as a first approximation that the rates discussed in the above paragraph <br />for the growth of personal income are equal to the rates of population <br />growth. For example, population growth without EET development would occur <br />at a compound rate of 3.9 percent per year. This translates into a year <br />2000 population that would be about two-and-a-half times larger than that <br />which existed in 1975. The two postulated levels of EET development would <br />add anywhere from 1.5 to 4 percentage points to this 3.9 percent annual <br />compound growth rate. Year 2000 population levels would, under these <br />circumstances, be'about 550 to 700 percent larger than the 1975 populatio~. <br /> <br />Rates of population growth this large clearly imply that most of the <br />increase in population (perhaps as much as 70 to 80 percent) would be <br />attributable to in-migration to the Upper Basin. As with economic impacts, <br />the consequences of population growth would not be evenly distributed <br />across the Upper Basin. Growth would undoubtedly be concentrated in five <br />or six counties and probably within only a dozen or so towns in those <br />counties. <br /> <br />The rapid rates of population growth implied by the two postulated <br />levels of EET development would change community and social conditions <br />in a number of areas in the Upper Basin. The characteristics of small <br /> <br />1-11 <br />