Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Make Big Oil Pay Back Its Profits

By Nomi Prins, AlterNet. Posted May 26, 2006.


It's time to get some of those billions back from the oil companies -- let's establish a windfall profits tax and put an end to sweeheart tax breaks.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Nomi Prins

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

There's a reason that, even though Prius sales are up and sport utility vehicles are being given away with Caribbean cruise packages, gas prices remain high. Consumers don't control prices; gas companies and traders do. Which makes their chief executives quite happy.

We need a real windfall tax -- not as some knee-jerk reaction to a whiny public full of parents with multiple SUVs but because, without taxing the growing chasm between the cost of buying and refining crude oil, we won't divert enough money into alternative sources that will ultimately reduce demand and thus prices. And the fact that the House voted to revoke part of a windfall tax break, a $7 billion reduction in a previous tax break, doesn't cut it.

As drivers struggle at the pumps, Lee Raymond, former ExxonMobil chief executive, was just inducted into the Texas Business Hall of Fame after leaving the firm with a huge exit package. According to consumer advocate Ralph Nader, "A company that spends $400 million on its outgoing CEO clearly has no idea what to do with its money."

I don't buy that he's worth that much, or ExxonMobil's company line: that it is a passive participant in the global market and is racking up record profits by pure chance (which calls into question why it paid its former chief so much).

The other Big Five oil company refrain is that prices are cyclical; that companies need to hoard profit during good days to use on rainy ones. That they're investing it in a way that will ultimately reduce gas prices and help ease public pain at the cost of their future profits. If you believe that, there's some empty land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge waiting for you.

Despite a tiny decline in pump prices this week, industry analysts say the price of crude oil (a barrel of which produces 42 gallons of gas once refined) will probably increase based on a range of factors: civil unrest in Nigeria, threats of production stoppages in Iran and anything going on in Iraq.

The other reason analysts cite is supply and demand; people want more gas than there is excess capacity (crude in the ground waiting to be tapped), which jacks up the price.

Meanwhile, oil company chief executives keep making public relations rounds in the unlikely dual roles of conservationist ("don't waste it") and victim ("we just pass on our costs") as if saying: Don't shoot the messenger. Considering the messenger's costs haven't increased by as much as gas prices - the companies' effective federal tax rate (at an average 13.5 percent) is lower than our individual rates (of 35 percent) and they can produce more gas than we can in our living rooms -- a little shooting is in order.

In Las Vegas, the house always wins because the house sets the rules. In Washington, oil companies and their lobbyists pay plenty to stack the deck ($58 million, 81 percent to the GOP since 2001). As one cabbie told me, "I wish I had my own lobbyist." Free-market alarmists bristle that last time we had a windfall tax (the 1970s and late 1980s), it spelled recession. They warn the cost will get passed to consumers. Last time, more than five companies controlled 60 percent of our oil refineries, chief executives weren't awarded platinum parachutes (just golden), and hedge funds and traders didn't command half of crude oil futures trading volume - causing speculation that exaggerates price moves.

If we really don't want to repeat the past, we should break up the oil and gas industry to increase competition and get the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate oil speculation. The Securities and Exchange Commission could put an additional tax on margins required to trade oil futures. Congress could require oil companies to keep higher actual reserves, rather than doing it artificially through trading in the markets.

Yes, Congress threw out some dumb ideas, like the GOP special of handing drivers $100 gift certificates. Even the suggestion about fining gas gouging turned out to be an expensive witch-hunt compared with the legal methods by which Big Oil extracts Big Profit.

There are some good ideas though, too. Sen. Bryan Dorgan's (D-N.D.) windfall tax is one. It calls for a tax on excess profit unless it's diverted to exploration and development. This gives ExxonMobil and the other companies the option: pay up or use that money for investments that reduce the pump pinch. They don't want to do either.

Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program, says, "A meaningful shift in U.S. energy policy would send a signal to the commodities markets that could ease prices." Likewise, a tax on speculative trading would help dampen sudden price spikes.

Also helpful would be repealing all the tax breaks that have translated to shareholder value, but left consumers cold. Yes, we can and should conserve gas. But, if we do our part, so should corporate America; if not by will, then by congressional force.

This article first appeared in Newsday. It is reprinted with permission of the author.

Digg!

Nomi Prins is a senior fellow at the public policy center Demos and author of "Other People's Money" and the forthcoming book "Jacked."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Catch-22
Posted by: ahmlco on May 26, 2006 12:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
High prices are due in part to refineries being at maximum capacity, dispite oil supplies being at an eight year high. So part of the solution would be to build additional capacity, which would also even out disruptions triggered by events like Katrina.

But unfortunately, there we have a catch-22 situation: oil companies would have to spend money to build additional capacity, and in doing so would remove one of their prime rationalizations for high prices.

What intelligent person would spend money so he could charge less and make less? We could offer them incentives, but companies making record profits do not need incentives.

In other words, we need a stick, not a carrot, and here I agree with the article: big oil can either invest their record profits, or give them up in taxes. And incentives need to be cut, not increased.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Catch-22 Posted by: MountainMike
» RE: Catch-22 Posted by: billfaster
Oil Depletion
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 26, 2006 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Making oil companies pay their fair share of income tax is only logical and just. But this is America and from what I have experienced in the last few decades we are far beyond logical and just when it comes to corporations, government and taxes. It will change only when the anger, frustration and burden regarding high gas costs increases to the point of intolerable pain and suffering. This may happen sooner than later. What is important is to begin reducing the amount of gas used. As it is our demand is continuing to grow and that gives the oil companies even more reason to continue their exploitive path. Every individual should begin their own long term plan of driving less, owning fuel efficient vehicles, be prudent about heating and cooling houses and ride a bike whenever possible (my personal advice). It will not only stiffle the oil companies but put us ahead in a world that will eventually have to confront the same realities: Oil Depletion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big oil bought out the little guys.
Posted by: jreinhart1 on May 26, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What competition these companies had is now gone. After the purchase, the independent's refineries were dismanteled and their oil assets were capped. Goodbye competition, hello to high prices. I expect nothing but the status quo rather than engineering our way out of oil into renewables. The technology has been available for years, but the advancement has been hindered so completely by our government and corporations that we are no more willing to fight wars started by lies than intelligently create ways out of this dead end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

High oil profit rebaate
Posted by: chseitz on May 26, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take all taxes off of gasoline and make oil companys such as ExxonMobile sell their gas below market value untill all the billions in profit are returned to the people
Charles H Seitz
chseitz@voicenet.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Going beyond revenge
Posted by: MountainMike on May 26, 2006 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the most fundamental problem here? Five huge corporations have monopolized the gas supply in America, with ExxonMobile being number one by a wide margin and Chevron in second place. They are on pace this quarter to out do their record breaking profits posted previously. The best quarter of any US corporation in history should be a wake up call. And is it any random accident that the different companies formed out of the anti trust division of Standard Oil have merged back together in the same direction of monopoly?

Eliminating all corporate welfare and tax loopholes needs to be done immediately. This should include restoring lease payments for drilling on public lands.

But let's go farther. The corporate welfare for ethanol also needs to be reviewed, as a main contributor to the current gas prices has been ethanol being established as a replacement for MTBE and mandated. All corporate welfare to huge agricorps needs to be conditional that they change over to ethanol from cellulose (crop and lumber waste) technology. The Canadian corporation IOGEN has been sucessful and is building a new plant in the US, and this represents the real direction we need to follow on ethanol instead of continuing in the same direction of welfare for huge corporations that create monopolies and near monopolies. Tax incentives are also needed for flexible fuel vehicles and gas stations retrofitting for E85 and E95 pumps..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you really cannot do anything about this. This is supply and demand
Posted by: cry0fan on May 26, 2006 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not the same as electric company monopolies or telco monopolies, where govt action was and could be useful. This oil business is more speculation. Not much about we can or should do about it when it comes to putting force on the oil companies.
Instead deal with supply and demand issues like this:

-Get to the rich shareholders instead by taxing rich people more.

-Promote nuclear power

-promote public transportation

-allow more drilling!

Let supply and demand do its magic....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is not the 19th century. Posted by: jreinhart1
Oil company profits
Posted by: mdf1960 on May 26, 2006 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The average oil company makes about 10 cents profit on a gallon of gasoline while the government collects about 59 cents in taxes.

I'm not sure why the state is entitled to make a lot of money on the oil business, but it's some horrid crime if the owners of the oil companies do.

Does the left realize that this gas tax money helps support the military industrial complex?

And it's pure sophistry to say that 5 major oil companies constitute a "monopoly." Hugo Chavez's oil company is a monopoly, but that's alright, true government monopolies are OK if run by leftists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oil company profits Posted by: jonwilson
» RE: Oil company profits Posted by: MountainMike
» RE: Oil company profits Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Oil company profits Posted by: ShoShenQ
Great Idea!
Posted by: davcrock on May 26, 2006 4:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a great idea! Let's buy less petrol, and then magically, exxon-mobile's profits will not be nearly as large.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great Idea! Posted by: daniel1982
Complete Obsfucation of Facts
Posted by: mtnclimber on May 30, 2006 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the worst articles I have ever read. The author obviously doesn't understand the issues or purposefully distorted them. I won't take the time to list them all only a few representive ones.

1. The price of oil we see quoted in the newspapers everyday is not set by the oil companies nor the producers. It is set by Wall Street traders. This is 'hedge' funds, speculators, etc. The first paragraph of the story mixes the oil companies with the traders - partial truth but inaccurate.

2. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons of oil - not 42 gallons of gas! Gas is a gas and is not gasoline. A barrel of oil may yield only 15-20 gallons of oil and the rest of the barrel is fuels oils, LPG's, tars, asphalts, resid, etc.

3. Since we only get some gasoline from oil, the economics are much more complicated becasue all the rpoducts and their prices have to be considered.

4. So Exxon only paid 13.5% tax instead of 35%. They are paying what the IRS and government rules require and are not bound by personal income tax percentages.

5. Exxon makes the majority of their sales and profits overseas. Therefore, there tax liablity is limited to USA profits. Note that they paid $95,000,000,000 in taxes and duties in 2005.

6. Profits from gasoline and other downstream products were only about 1% of the total sales which were $360,000,000,000.

7. The Chairman got a nice package to retire - no argument but what ws the form of it. Much was in stock options that are restricted and some cannot be exercised for 9 to 10 years. This means that he doesn't get his hands on it until then. The implication is if he did a great job running the company, it will still exist in the future. This is an incentive for an executive to thing in the long term and not line his pockets today - THINK ENRON, WORLDCOM, TYCO, etc.

8. The price of gasoline today 'corrected for inflation' is something most people don't look at or calculate. The fact is the price today is about the average for gasoline for the past 50 years! The price we paid in the 1990's was the lowest gasoline has ever been in history.

I'm sorry I've one on in detail, but this article does not gives misleading information. If you really want the facts, you'll have to examine the economics, technical information, annual reports, etc. Please don't bombard me with emotional reactions without facts.

I am a PHD chemical engineer with 30+ years experience in the industry - chemical weapon demilitarization, oil, chemical, gov't consulting, etc. businesses. I am environmentally active and a member of several nationally recognized environmental organizations - think Sierra, etc. If we are going to do anything for the future energy needs of our contry, we need to have credible facts and to do our homework first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]