No wives means more disposable income so the guys would just spend their money on hookers, drugs and ATVs. It's what guys are already doing in Perth and Edmonton. I think you all underestimate how expensive children and *especially* wives can be.
The lack of family can result in an upswing in the crime rates, and complete breakdown of the social fabric. Also, in future, that will mean that there are less and less tax payers to combat the increase in the population of the elderly.
I'm not familiar with any of those studies, at least on a global basis. I think the studies you refer to were conducted in impoverished neighborhoods in the US where single mothers and/or divorce is prevalent and a lack of family is being blamed for being the cause in crime and social upheaval (chicken before the egg hypothesis).
In Japan's case - you have a huge generation of "Grass Eaters" now, men not in relationships, not married and without kids and there's no explosion in crime.
At least with the oil towns that I know about - while the stories of crime and cocaine are exaggerated, on a per capita basis (percentage) they're generally no different (if not slightly safer) than normal cities. There's many cities in the United States like Chicago which are "no go zones" for normal humans, how could oil towns be worse?
Though you are correct about the tax base. The biggest economic spenders tend to be women and thus they're overrepresented in consumer tax and real estate tax revenue and those two would plummet in a hypothetical bachelor society (hence why some countries in the past had "bachelor taxes" to make up for the loss). As well, without women and children, men can also retire earlier and thus that's a loss in overall income tax base.
Eating out, shoes and purses adds up.. 
