Serious questions re oil

[NOTTHOR]

Every time I flip through the channels and see the dems ranting and raving about energy prices, they inevitiably complain about the windfall profits for oil companies and say things along the lines of "When we get the oilmen out of the White House, prices will come down and these special tax breaks for the oil companies will go away. We're going to tax these windfall profits."

Last year, Exxon Mobil had about $70 billion in pre tax earnings. They paid about $30 billion in income taxes (and $105 billion in total taxes - some of which are passed through directly to consumers) and had post tax earnings of about $40 billion. Their income tax rate was over 42%.

So my questions are: How much higher do the Dems want these taxes to go? Isn't $30 billion in income taxes and $105 billion in aggregate taxes transferred to government coffers enough or do we need to raise that tax on oil companies just to be "fair?" Don't most middle class Americans probably own indirectly some interest in big mean oil companies like Exxon Mobil in mutual funds held in their 401(k)'s? Won't the taxes just diminish the value of Joe Six Pack's 401(k) and make him even more dependent on government down the road? And finally, the Dems always connect these higher taxes to lower gas prices, so how exactly will these taxes lower the cost of gas?

Sources from XOM 10-K: www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000119312508041781/d10k.htm#fin91974_19

www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000119312508041781/d10k.htm#fin91974_12

[Dr. Doofenshmirtz (Heywood)]

Apr 29, 2008 16:24:17 GMT -6 NOTTHOR said:

And finally, the Dems always connect these higher taxes to lower gas prices, so how exactly will these taxes lower the cost of gas?

This may be a hunch but I think those of us who use the gas will be the people who will be taxed. Like I said, it's just a hunch.

[mattahawk]

My brother said he heard on Fox news radio yesterday some big oil guy talking about the future of oil. He said $200 a barrel is not out of the question and 7-9$ gas isn't either. My problem isn't with the taxes on the oil companies so much as it is what they are doing with their profits.

I don't know if I said this in a previous argument on here but there was a lot of pissed off people a few years ago when gas first hit 3 bucks a gallon. Everyone was blaming Saudi Arabia and them not putting out enough oil. This big prince or sheik or whatever the hell he is said it's not a lack of oil it's the ability to refine it that is driving the price up. He said the big oil companies build refineries over in the Middle East but it's been 25 years since they built a refinery here in the US. He goes on to say, why do you think that is? I also heard on the radio a couple weeks ago that oil supplies are near record highs in the US yet the price continues to go up. Why? I think the lack of ability to refine it is a large part of it. I think the govt' should force them to build/update their refineries every few years. Say every 5 years each company has to build a new one. JMO.

[101]

I've thought about this a great deal and here is where I see a flaw in your argument.

For lawyers, doctors and other "non-poors" who earn a high income and can afford to sock away money in a 401K, you're right, those people are earning some $$$ on their mutual funds or other investments that are in the oil sector.

Do some research for me why don't you and let me know how many people or an approximate percentage where a household earns the median annual income, has 2 adults and 2 kids in the house and is able to put money into their 401K or other type of savings plan. For those people (and I think there are many) who derive no benefit from big oil's profits.

Unfortunately, the oil companies have us by the balls and there isn't much anyone can do about it as they have an oligopoly in that market. Until there are some other alternate energy sources developed, it's going to get worse, not better for most people.

[iammrhawkeyes]

101, there are plenty of poors invested in the market via PERS or other vehicles. These holdings include oil companies. Not to be negative, but alternative energy sources won't have any financial impact for generations.

matta, supplies might be at an all-time high but so is demand. As BTR knows, India and China are emerging as major oil consumers and until we develop our own known and untapped oil supplies, prices won't come down much (if at all). We do need more refineries but this isn't the reason for the high prices. The stinking commie-enviromentalists deserve most of the blame as they've kept us from our own oil deposits.

[Iowafan1]

If our elected leaders, regardless of party affiliation, are truly serious about the environment, saving energy, Americans cutting back on driving and the use of gasoline and diesel, they will start implementing a NATIONAL mass transportation system that will entice Americans to leave their vehicles at home. Don't hold your breath though.......because NONE of our elected leaders could really care less about any of that shit. It is, and always has been, all talk. Politicians go the direction money takes them.

[Norm "racerhawk" Parker]

Apr 29, 2008 22:51:40 GMT -6 @iammrhawkeyes said:

101, there are plenty of poors invested in the market via PERS or other vehicles. These holdings include oil companies. Not to be negative, but alternative energy sources won't have any financial impact for generations.

matta, supplies might be at an all-time high but so is demand. As BTR knows, India and China are emerging as major oil consumers and until we develop our own known and untapped oil supplies, prices won't come down much (if at all). We do need more refineries but this isn't the reason for the high prices. The stinking commie-enviromentalists deserve most of the blame as they've kept us from our own oil deposits.

I'm wondering if the investment that is gleaned is equal to the money that is taken by the oil companies??? You guys are making the assumption that if we own a mutual fund with ExxonMobil as one of the consituents, then heck, that practically erases the $4 gas. This may be true for people who have a fair amount in this type of fund, and for people who don't have to drive a lot. Sometimes, it is the poorer people who really get socked with this, as they may drive for a living.

Also, Iammr, you noted (probably accurately) that it will take many years to reap the benefits of alternative energy. That's why it should've been done years ago. People without vision are abundant in this country, and are completely reactionary. If we would've worked hard to develop a few viable sources years ago, we'd be in a better position today. So, you're both right and wrong, I think

Avoiding the problem another 20 years because we don't get an immediate return will further exacerbate the problem. It won't get better with China and India's demands on oil.

However, I'm probably speaking to a brick wall here, so I'll just be told I'm wrong.

Global warming and the scarcity of oil. Two of your favorite "myths," huh?

[101]

I think there are still a huge number of people who have zero investments and get nothing out of the situation but to pay higher fuel prices.

It's also interesting that outside of inflation, most companies must innovate and provide consumers "more" if they are to charge more. Cars have "more" features and benefits for consumers now than they did historically. TVs have "more" features (HD, etc.) which supports a higher price.

Gas on the other hand....nope. Exxon Mobile and their friends don't provide anything today that they didn't provide 50 years ago. Plain old gas. Nothing new, nothing better. They can just charge 10X more for the same old product.

I just recently ran across the one piece of memorabilia I saved from High School. A college prep writing class paper I wrote back in 1978. Interesting title. "Solar - The energy of the future". Guess I was far too progressive back then.

[NOTTHOR]

Matta - my father-in-law used to be president of the Japanese subsidiary of a huge American oil company. From my discussions of oil with him, it seems like the companies we think of as Big Oil aren't heavily involved in downstream production, their skill is upstream in locating oil, negotiating with foreign governments, getting the oil out of the ground and getting it to port in the US. Downstream companies like Valero are the ones who handle most of the refining.

The refiners seek to increase production every year at existing refineries, but if I had a few billion dollars, I sure as shit would not invest it in a refinery. The fact of the matter is that with environmental laws as restrictive as they are (CERCLA liability NEVER goes away), tax uncertainty, antitrust uncertainty, and the mandates with respect to ethanol and fuel efficiency likely to erode demand, at least marginally, any rational capitalist will realize that building a new refinery is riskier than going to Vegas and putting a billion on black at the roulette wheel.

[Dr. Doofenshmirtz (Heywood)]

Doesn't it take 15-20 years to get a refinery built and fully operational? It would be nice to get some more refining capacity but it would take way too long to do so. Also, what is the status of the refineries that were damaged in the hurricanes of 2005? Are they up to 100% yet? I'm sure that is causing the price of gas to go up in the US as well.

[NOTTHOR]

101 and hippieracerhawk - I get it, gloom and doom. The economy is terrible and only the top 1% has anything saved. Whatever, if someone earns median income in this country and doesn't save anything, they have a spending problem, not a saving problem.

Regardless, I think the number of middle class American families with at least $100k in a 401k is pretty high, and energy is 6% of the S&P. If some tax cuts the value of oil companies in half, responsible Americans who have saved money in a diversified index fund will be down 3% of their retirement. The companies are already paying 42% in income tax, 7% higher than the general corporate tax rate, so how much higher do you want to go?

And the gas you're buying today is significantly improved over the gas you bought 50 years ago. First, it ain't leaded. Second, it burns a helluva lot cleaner. Third, it probably moved 10,000 miles over the course of its life to get to your gas tank. Fourth, it was probably more difficult to get out of the ground. And big oil doesn't set that price, the global market does.

[NOTTHOR]

Iowafan - I agree 100%. If the windbag politicians gave a shit about cutting gas usage, their schtick would be a higher gas tax, higher use tax for roads (tolls) and an industrial policy geared toward moving everyone into mass transit. Things like more and better commuter trains in cities and a nationwide bullet train system would be good starts, but the Chinese have surpassed us in train technology and would probably want an arm and a leg to license the patent on that badass levitation train they invented that goes over 400 mph.

[101]

BTR....you're funny. OK, I'll give you this...yes, fuel is now unleaded, burns cleaner, etc. It's true that they have made some progress in providing a better product.

Fuel prices have been up significantly in the past 4-5 years with the most significant upward trend in the past 24 months. Please enlighten me as to which of those inventions came during that period? That's right, none of them.

It's also interesting that the oil companies have been posting outrageous, record profits hand in hand with the massive spike in fuel prices. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Where to you think Exxon-Mobil got their 90 billion profits? It came out of your paycheck and mine.

For you and me (and many of the others here) aren't put in the "poor house" because of it, for many Americans, it's a significant strain.

[socal]

While the big picture on oil is filled with many details that conservatives are prone to ignoring, I'll lay out my thoughts...

1. We are at the point where oil, as a relatively cheap commodity, is over. Within the next dozen generations, oil will still be available, but at an increasing cost of acquisition.
2. Either because of this knowledge, or varyingly combined with reasons in points 3 & 4, the oil companies see no need to build new refineries - as the won't be needed.
3. Armed with the knowledge that they can keep their margins steady & see the ROI increase dramatically for doing nothing on the price / barrel... 3% of $25 = $0.75, 3% of $125 = $3.75... the oil companies are obviously not eager to initiate their own demise.
4. Market manipulation... having lived through the Enron choreographed rolling blackouts & increased prices, manipulation like this is easily done - especially with an extremely fidgety/paranoid market as we have. Additionally, any and every point of potentially bad news is parroted over & over, snowballing the paranoia for investors / cowing those that will inevitably pay the prices. --- To finish the point... In a market where the majority of people with positions, profit when the prices/profits go up, the threshold of justification for call buying is lessened.
4a. It has been cited by more knowledgeable people than myself - that our "foray" in the middle east has justified the / increased the wholesale price of oil by $10 - $30/barrel.
(On a side note, methinks I never want to play chess/poker with Osama - as his predictions are being played out exactly as he intended. He too saw the childish idiocy of Bush, and initiated the confrontation that may yet bring about our "victory over Rome that will become our undoing".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
5. Every species populating the Earth, cannot sustain uncapped population increases without dying off for lack of resources
- except one, so far.
When that resource is embedded into almost every facet of daily life, changes need to happen in order for the species to continue. When one local population has the power to set the course for the population as a whole, it should be incumbent on them to do so.


To Ralph's original question... A bulk of the "Taxes" being talked about by Dems - relate to the lowered/non-existent taxes the oil companies are "paying" for drilling on federal lands. They are being charged a fraction of the price for mineral rights than they would be if they found oil in your backyard.
Why do you think they/Bush want ANWR rights so bad? So they can be uber benefactors?

I agree that a $1 - $2.00 / gallon gas tax - directly used for hydrogen/electric/mass transit, etc. research and deployment would make the most sense. It would put us on about an even gas tax rate with Europe... plus it would add the incentive to actually change to those alternatives. --- Unfortunately this tax won't happen.

[iammrhawkeyes]

[quote author=superracerhawk board=talk thread=710 post=8195 time=1209557846


I'm wondering if the investment that is gleaned is equal to the money that is taken by the oil companies??? You guys are making the assumption that if we own a mutual fund with ExxonMobil as one of the consituents, then heck, that practically erases the $4 gas. This may be true for people who have a fair amount in this type of fund, and for people who don't have to drive a lot. Sometimes, it is the poorer people who really get socked with this, as they may drive for a living.

Also, Iammr, you noted (probably accurately) that it will take many years to reap the benefits of alternative energy. That's why it should've been done years ago. People without vision are abundant in this country, and are completely reactionary. If we would've worked hard to develop a few viable sources years ago, we'd be in a better position today. So, you're both right and wrong, I think

Avoiding the problem another 20 years because we don't get an immediate return will further exacerbate the problem. It won't get better with China and India's demands on oil.

However, I'm probably speaking to a brick wall here, so I'll just be told I'm wrong.

Global warming and the scarcity of oil. Two of your favorite "myths," huh?[/quote][/i]

The return on poors money has to equal money taken by the oil companies? That doesn't make any sense. I agree with you that alternative energy sources should have researched in depth and implemented (if possible) years ago but it is what it is. We need to tap our own oil deposits immediately for short term benefits while developing other energy sources for the long term. The question I have about the "new" source(s) is(assuming capitalism is still around): Will the price per energy unit stay constant or will it fluctuate with the market? If the latter, people will then eventually be pissed off with Big Alternative Energy gouging joe sixpack rather than Big Oil and we'll be having the same discussion as now. Oil and other fossil fuels are finite resources but will be the major provider for our energy needs for the next few hundred years. Scarcity of oil isn't a myth. Anthropogenic climate change douchebaggery is!

The Wall

[NOTTHOR]

Fuel prices have gone up, but inflation adjusted, I would say they aren't that bad and given the totality of the circumstances of getting the gas to your car, they are damn cheap. Think about it, the gas in your car prolly started under a mile of water and another mile of rock, 30 miles off the shore of some place you've never heard of. Some smart engineer figures out how to pump it out of the ground, they put it on an enormous tanker where it takes weeks to get to the US, then it goes to a refinery, gets turned into gas, put on a truck and shipped to your gas station. There's a lot of work involved in that.

And as you can see above, XOM's pre-tax profits were $70B, no $90B, and after tax they were only $40B. In whole numbers, it looks enormous, but I don't find it anywhere near outrageous. The return on investment in the oil business is very low compared to many other businesses. The number for big oil is so high because they have so much capital. If three or four other huge Dow components merged to build a company with as much invested capital as XOM or BP, they would have 2 or 3 times the earnings.

The upstream companies take a huge amount of risk, too. When my father-in-law's company was sold out in 1998, some egghead from McKinsey told the company that the days of $20 a barrel crude were behind us and the investments they had made in the prior years locating and drilling crude that were based on a $20 a barrel model were worthless and the only way to realize shareholder value was to sell the business. That guy looks like a fucking genius right now.

Big oil busted its collective ass to find reserves when prices were low (they could get a better contract from the landowner) and now they are realizing the fruits of their efforts. If oil stays high for a few years and the oil guys start building a model based on $100-$120 a barrel oil, they'll take bigger risks and if oil sinks down to $80 (it was under $12 just 10 years ago), they'll lose money on every barrel they produce.

So given the amount of capital involved and the risk, I think oil company profits are very reasonable. I know it's not a great political soundbite, but it's the truth. Which leads me back to the question, how much higher should we see that tax go? 42+% isn't high enough for some, so what's the magic number? The strain on Joe Six Pack doesn't go away when the government tells big oil that they will have to pay higher taxes.

[NOTTHOR]

Apr 30, 2008 8:49:14 GMT -6 @iammrhawkeyes said:

[quote author=superracerhawk board=talk thread=710 post=8195 time=1209557846

If the latter, people will then eventually be pissed off with Big Alternative Energy gouging joe sixpack rather than Big Oil and we'll be having the same discussion as now. Oil and other fossil fuels are finite resources but will be the major provider for our energy needs for the next few hundred years. Scarcity of oil isn't a myth. Anthropogenic climate change douchebaggery is!

The Wall

Cosign. When the new new thing comes out in alternative energy land, you can bet your ass it will be patented, and the holder of that patent will make Bill Gates and John Rockefeller look like unwashed poors. And the libs will still piss and moan.

[NOTTHOR]

Apr 30, 2008 8:48:09 GMT -6 socal said:

While the big picture on oil is filled with many details that conservatives are prone to ignoring, I'll lay out my thoughts...

1. We are at the point where oil, as a relatively cheap commodity, is over. Within the next dozen generations, oil will still be available, but at an increasing cost of acquisition.
2. Either because of this knowledge, or varyingly combined with reasons in points 3 & 4, the oil companies see no need to build new refineries - as the won't be needed.
3. Armed with the knowledge that they can keep their margins steady & see the ROI increase dramatically for doing nothing on the price / barrel... 3% of $25 = $0.75, 3% of $125 = $3.75... the oil companies are obviously not eager to initiate their own demise.
4. Market manipulation... having lived through the Enron choreographed rolling blackouts & increased prices, manipulation like this is easily done - especially with an extremely fidgety/paranoid market as we have. Additionally, any and every point of potentially bad news is parroted over & over, snowballing the paranoia for investors / cowing those that will inevitably pay the prices. --- To finish the point... In a market where the majority of people with positions, profit when the prices/profits go up, the threshold of justification for call buying is lessened.
4a. It has been cited by more knowledgeable people than myself - that our "foray" in the middle east has justified the / increased the wholesale price of oil by $10 - $30/barrel.
(On a side note, methinks I never want to play chess/poker with Osama - as his predictions are being played out exactly as he intended. He too saw the childish idiocy of Bush, and initiated the confrontation that may yet bring about our "victory over Rome that will become our undoing".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
5. Every species populating the Earth, cannot sustain uncapped population increases without dying off for lack of resources
- except one, so far.
When that resource is embedded into almost every facet of daily life, changes need to happen in order for the species to continue. When one local population has the power to set the course for the population as a whole, it should be incumbent on them to do so.


To Ralph's original question... A bulk of the "Taxes" being talked about by Dems - relate to the lowered/non-existent taxes the oil companies are "paying" for drilling on federal lands. They are being charged a fraction of the price for mineral rights than they would be if they found oil in your backyard.
Why do you think they/Bush want ANWR rights so bad? So they can be uber benefactors?

I agree that a $1 - $2.00 / gallon gas tax - directly used for hydrogen/electric/ etc. research and deployment would make the most sense. It would put us on about an even gas tax rate with Europe... plus it would add the incentive to actually change to those alternatives. --- Unfortunately this tax won't happen.

Good points socal. The taxes I was referring to are "windfall profits" taxes that they keep talking about. The use fees should bear some semblance of being market based, but I would be lying if I said I knew anything about how the feds operated the land leases, but it wouldn't surprise if the government was selling leases at way below market value.

I don't like the idea of a tax going into funding R&D though, other than destructive weapon creation, the government isn't the most efficient way to allocate R&D funds. It'd be right out of the liberal fascist playbook for a gas tax to be transferred to GE for hydrogen research. It wouldn't sit well with me - it would just be corporate welfare, and who would own the patents?

[101]

Fuel prices have gone up, but inflation adjusted, I would say they aren't that bad and given the totality of the circumstances of getting the gas to your car, they are damn cheap. Think about it, the gas in your car prolly started under a mile of water and another mile of rock, 30 miles off the shore of some place you've never heard of. Some smart engineer figures out how to pump it out of the ground, they put it on an enormous tanker where it takes weeks to get to the US, then it goes to a refinery, gets turned into gas, put on a truck and shipped to your gas station. There's a lot of work involved in that.

BTR....help me understand where the oil was 2 years ago when gas was $2.10 per gallon. Wasn't it in the same place as it is now? What has changed geographically or physically that is causing the price increase? I don't think that has anything to do with it.

BTR....

[The Flying Spaghetti Monster]

How do you feel about the Rebups support of Hillary's suspension of the federal gas tax?

Do you really think gas will be 18.5 cents/gallon cheaper?

Chances are pretty high that we wouldn't see near that big of drop at the pump.

In addition, all it would do is raise damand for more gas, which would increase gas prices and in turn would lead to even bigger profits for the "bad oil companies".

In in fair disclosure, I think a windfall tax is a very bad idea and sets a terrible precedent.

On the other hand, I'm all about revisiting the mineral rights leases and other tax breaks these companies have, both decreasing those related to fossil fuels and increasing those related to renewable energy research (excepting the fruad that is ethanol).

Even the Rockerfeller family, which has made a killing the past few years from ExxonMobile, is pushing for the company to start looking past fossil fuels (see today's WSJ).

[socal]

Apr 30, 2008 9:06:47 GMT -6 NOTTHOR said:

Good points socal. The taxes I was referring to are "windfall profits" taxes that they keep talking about. The use fees should bear some semblance of being market based, but I would be lying if I said I knew anything about how the feds operated the land leases, but it wouldn't surprise if the government was selling leases at way below market value.

I don't like the idea of a tax going into funding R&D though, other than destructive weapon creation, the government isn't the most efficient way to allocate R&D funds. It'd be right out of the liberal fascist playbook for a gas tax to be transferred to GE for hydrogen research. It wouldn't sit well with me - it would just be corporate welfare, and who would own the patents?

From what I know about mineral rights, it's best I don't go off on that tangent... especially with non-oil minerals.

FWIW, I don't see the "Windfall Taxes" rhetoric as much more than... well, rhetoric. Any taxes and fines levied wouldn't be retroactive - and then, would be squandered away in years of litigation (ala the Valdez oil spill fines still being litigated... fucking lawyers).

That dog doesn't hunt for people that think and not react.


As long as the profit margin %'s aren't being unnecessarily jacked up, I see no issue with the profit margin $ increasing as the market dictates... as long as the companies are being forthright in their "news", capacities, etc.

Unfortunately... core human nature (mainly greed), lobbyists, PR firms, pre-DC positions, post-DC promises, etc., make the likelihood of the truth mildly suspect.


To your other point, while the government ROI on R&D would likely be (immediately) less than in the private sector, the lack of royalties paid would eventually even things out... think of the taxes & fees you currently pay for using the DARPAnet.
But, allocating most of those funds towards research grants would be huge. (as long the bulk weren't simply thrown at Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup, etc.)

[NOTTHOR]

101 - a quick econ lesson for you - the big runup in the past 2 years is more a result of the Fed's weak dollar policy than some nefarious action on the part of the oil companies. In case you missed it, some dumbass Clinton appointee hippie central banker was printing money like it was going out of style in 2002 and 2003 and an unprecedented housing boom started and a bunch of dipshits lent too much or borrowed too much and now they're effed in the A, so the fed is giving away all kinds of money and has devalued the piss out of the dollar, which has caused commodities prices to skyrocket. That's where your very recent runup comes from.

When you account for increased global demand from India and China and think about the capital sunk, I still contend that $3 or $4 for a gallon of gas ain't that bad. I know you would like the big mean oil companies to sell oil below it's market price, but query whether selling oil at below market would be a faithful discharge of the Directors' and Officers' fiduciary duties. I don't think it would be.

[Solar Stud]

I have to chuckle a bit when I read about "outrageous" U.S. gas prices.


I had the opportunity to live in Sicily from 93-96.


Gas "on the economy" (out in town...off base) was $1.25 per litre = $5.00 per gallon in 1993 dollars.


It is now $7.50 - $8.00/gallon at AJIP stations.


One can argue and surmise all day why U.S. gas prices have escalated, and who's making out and where the profit investment should go to, but you simply cannot argue U.S. prices are out of control.

It's a perception thing IMO. Americans were so spoiled for so long with 50cent, dollar, 2 dollar per gallon gas, a bit of inflation makes them think we drivers are going broke.

U.S. still has the best gas prices in the entire world. Along with the highest standard of living, we americans have ZERO room to bitch about gas prices.

Tired of filling up so often? Learn to drive less!

[101]

BTR....Believe it or not, I actually do understand the economics. I was just playing out your argument that costs are high due to the exploration, drilling, transportation, etc. All arguments that you pointed out.

[socal]

Apr 30, 2008 9:42:28 GMT -6 Solar Stud said:

Tired of filling up so often? Learn to drive less!

Or... buy a motorcycle (or scooter) that only needs fuel enough to propel a 200 - 800 lb mass forward*, instead of a 2 to 6 ton mass*.

Or a bike / mass transit system... or god given feet**.


*-Not including bodyweight
**-Typed while thinking about driving to Starbucks.