More big money for big oil

Can everyone agree that this is just plain stupid?

[quote=“NYT”]Big Oil’s Big Windfall
Published: March 28, 2006

A public already groaning under huge deficits does not need more red ink. An oil industry already rolling in record profits does not need more tax breaks. But both are sure to happen unless some way can be found to claw back from a decade’s worth of Congressional and administrative blunders, aggressive lobbying and industry greed.

According to a detailed account in Monday’s Times by Edmund L. Andrews, oil companies stand to gain a minimum of $7 billion and as much as $28 billion over the next five years under an obscure provision in last year’s giant energy bill that allows companies to avoid paying royalties on oil and gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico.

The provision received almost no Congressional debate, in part because Congress was lazy and in part because the provision was misleadingly advertised as cost-free. The giveaway also seemed a natural sequel to a measure passed in 1995 to provide royalty relief. But that measure came at a time when oil prices, and new investment in oil and gas exploration, had declined. It also included an important safety valve: in any year when oil prices exceeded a threshold, about $34 a barrel, companies would have to resume paying royalties.

However, in what appears to have been a bureaucratic blunder, the Clinton administration omitted that crucial escape clause in all offshore leases signed between the government and the oil companies in 1998 and 1999. It seemed a harmless mistake at a time when oil prices were still below $20 a barrel. But times changed. Prices have been above the cutoff point since 2002, and an estimated one-sixth of the production in the Gulf of Mexico is still exempt from royalties for no good reason whatsoever.

That blunder was compounded, again and again. First, a court decision in 2003 effectively doubled the amount of oil and gas exempted from royalties. Then the Bush administration offered special exemptions for “deep gas” producers, drilling more than 15,000 feet below the sea bottom. Then came the 2005 energy bill, which essentially locked in the old incentives for five more years.

At least one oil company has the grace to be embarrassed by all this. “Under the current environment,” one Shell official told Mr. Andrews, “we don’t need royalty relief.”

But some companies seem to want more. A lawsuit filed by Kerr-McGee Exploration and Production would greatly expand the royalty relief. If the suit succeeds, the lost revenue may rise to as much as $28 billion.[/quote]

YES YES YES YES YES YES yes YES yes YES yes YES :fume:

Especially when gasoline prices are expected to top $3 per gallon this summer. That hurts me economically 'cause I commute 50 miles one way each day.

Bodo

I can.

I feel you there. I used to drive 82 miles round trip, and I wasn’t making much money either. It sucked hard. I can’t imagine having to drive even farther…

[quote=“Bodo”]YES YES YES YES YES YES yes YES yes YES yes YES :fume:

Especially when gasoline prices are expected to top $3 per gallon this summer. That hurts me economically 'cause I commute 50 miles one way each day.

Bodo[/quote]
This crazy suburban/commuter lifestyle can’t go on in North America for that much longer. Can it? I mean, commuting 50 miles/80 kilometers one way? That’s 160 kms a day! And I’ll bet there’s no train for you to take even if you wanted to, right?

Our urban densities (specifically, lack thereof) are killing us. And all for the sake of a front and back yard.

I love oil profits…means more development for my home town. Here is an excellent article on Calgary’s boom :bravo: :bravo:

theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ … 25/TPStory

And right now, the timing seems good: Clearly, Calgary is having its moment. Its economy is on fire. Help Wanted signs are everywhere. It’s the Prime Minister’s home riding. Some are calling it the new capital of Canada. The population has swelled to nearly a million, and more than 2,000 newcomers arrive every month.

Heading south on the Deerfoot Trail, our tiny rental car is a herring in a school of pickup trucks that command the road like Great Whites. They seem to be divided into two categories: mud-spattered working pickups and macho play trucks with oversized wheels and cannon-sized exhaust pipes.

On the western horizon are the Rocky Mountains, etched against the skyline like a vision of Switzerland, and we head toward them.

Perhaps the best example of an outsider made good is Steve Sugianto, CEO of Galleon Energy, an upstart firm that has just made a massive discovery near Peace River. He greets me in his office and relates a story that sounds like something straight from Dallas, the 1970s soap opera: Since Mr. Sugianto started the company three years ago with $10-million, the share price has risen to $32 from $2, and the market cap is now closing on $1-billion.

I had pictured a stereotypical figure: a back-slapping J.R. Ewing type with a booming voice and a sexpot secretary. But Mr. Sugianto, a soft-spoken man of 42, is from Jakarta, and his brand of capitalism seems different than the type you encounter in Dallas – or on Bay Street. There’s no whiff of Old Boy establishment in his Calgary – his children go to public school, and he doesn’t belong to either of Calgary’s old-boy clubs, Ranchmen’s and the Petroleum Club.

Then the talk turns to Toronto. Someone has just visited, and is clearly unimpressed. I can’t catch all of it, but I do hear “Fuck 'em.” Toronto-hating is a Calgary tradition that has been raised to the state of high art through decades of practice. I even hear it on the radio. I listen as a DJ interviews the operator of a website called Smokinghotwaitress.com, which features photographs of scantily clad female food servers. The entrepreneur says he gets a lot more photos from Calgary than from Toronto.

“Doesn’t surprise me,” the DJ says. “They’re not that into girls.”

Calgary’s top supplier to Smokinghotwaitress seems to be a downtown bar called Cowboys, where a waitress can supposedly make enough in tips during Stampede Week to pay a year’s university tuition. We visit one night and find something between a barn dance and a strip club: Country music blasts through giant speakers, hundreds of people are dancing, and waitresses in jeans and halter tops swagger through the room wearing holstered tequila bottles on their hips like six-guns.

I don’t doubt that profits, per se, (particularly “oil profits”) are an anathema to some of our fellow posters, Chewy.

Nevertheless, I suspect that the more significant point for many here is that this seems to be a case of a specific industry (the fact that it is profitable probably matters to them, but not to me) benefiting from a tax loophole.

Special tax benefits for certain politically well-connected industries tend to be abhorent to anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of basic economics. (That is, as a general policy matter – there is no doubt that if you are in a region that is a net beneficiary they can be in your rational self-interest.)

Personally, I would rather see a FAR more simplified tax code that, to the greatest extent practical, removed all references to specific industries, or locations, or levels of campaign contributions. (Okay, that last one isn’t technically enshrined in law. It’s just a matter of accepted practice. :wink: )

In any event… For me, the fact that one can often read misguided, feeble, anachronistic temper tantrums (usually from the left) related to “oil profits” does not change the fact that tax loopholes (whether accidental or intentional) for certain industries are bad policy. They (1) misallocate resources, and (2) encourage private interests to invest in the corruption of government.

Yep, was there working in the oil patch in 1979…and was also there in 1986, when the price hit $9 a barrel, and a lot of my friends lost their jobs, investments and home equity.

It’s a roller-coaster of an industry- enjoy it while it lasts.

Yep, was there working in the oil patch in 1979…and was also there in 1986, when the price hit $9 a barrel, and a lot of my friends lost their jobs, investments and home equity.

It’s a roller-coaster of an industry- enjoy it while it lasts.[/quote]

Is that why you ended up in Taiwan in 1987?

Nope, that’s why I ended up in Beijing in 1986.

I came to Taiwan in '88 to spend six months brushing up on language skills and earning a few bucks.

Eighteen years later, a wife, three kids, no skills, no bucks…

[quote]Just about a year ago, I set out on the road,
Seekin

[quote=“porcelainprincess”][quote=“Bodo”]YES YES YES YES YES YES yes YES yes YES yes YES :fume:

Especially when gasoline prices are expected to top $3 per gallon this summer. That hurts me economically 'cause I commute 50 miles one way each day.

Bodo[/quote]
This crazy suburban/commuter lifestyle can’t go on in North America for that much longer. Can it? I mean, commuting 50 miles/80 kilometers one way? That’s 160 kms a day! And I’ll bet there’s no train for you to take even if you wanted to, right?

Our urban densities (specifically, lack thereof) are killing us. And all for the sake of a front and back yard.[/quote]
Yes, you’re right. I have no alternative, but to drive - no bus, no train, no subway. I could have bought a one room condo for the price I paid for my 4 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath home that sits on a small 1/3 acre lot in the country, but it wasn’t worth the investment to do so. :loco:

Bodo