Benefits of Ending Alaska Oil Ban Disputed : Energy: Opponents of lifting the federal restraints say such a move would not lead to job gains in California.

Opponents of ending the federal ban on Alaskan crude oil exports released a study Friday that questions whether lifting the prohibition would create jobs in California, as the state’s independent producers and U.S. Department of Energy research predict.

The new study disputes the argument that West Coast oil prices are artificially depressed by the export ban, as the Energy Department and producers claim. And it contends that freeing Alaskan crude to be sold on Asian markets, instead of forcing it south into California and the Gulf Coast region, would not create more demand for California crude.

If so, lifting the ban would not prompt a spurt of new investment, production and jobs in California and Alaska, as proponents maintain.

“There’s no way that we’ll pay one dime more for (that) oil,” said Peter A. Sutton, senior vice president for supply and marketing at Tosco Refining Co. in Concord, Calif., one of the backers of the study.

“They’re not going to see an increase in jobs, because they’re not going to see an increase in production,” Sutton said, echoing the study’s findings.

Sutton said California’s refineries cannot handle more heavy California crude even if some of the lighter Alaska crude does go overseas. He predicted that refiners would either bring in lighter crudes from the Persian Gulf, the Far East and Ecuador or simply pay a premium to keep receiving Alaskan crude.

But Thomas G. Burns, manager of economics at Chevron Corp.--which supports lifting the ban--believes it would raise West Coast crude prices a modest $1 to $2 a barrel, encouraging investment in production. He also said California’s refineries could handle more heavy oil.

The Clinton Administration is expected to endorse lifting the ban before its meeting Thursday in Washington to discuss problems in the domestic petroleum industry with Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.) and other key lawmakers from oil-producing states.

The study was backed by the Coalition to Keep Alaska Oil. Members include Tosco; the consumer advocacy group Citizen Action; the Port of Portland, Ore., which has the major maintenance facility for Alaskan crude tankers, and other refiners and industry groups.

Environmentalists are generally opposed to lifting the ban as well, fearing that higher crude prices could put pressure on Congress to allow oil exploration in wilderness areas.