THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XIII, Issue # 129, May 21, 2011
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
OIL "SUBSIDY" & "TAX BREAKS NONSENSE:
Think Repealing Oil Industry Tax Incentives
Will Increase Federal Revenues? Think Again!
By Paul K. Driessen
THE POLITICS OF U.S. TAX & ENERGY POLICY: THE DEMAGOGIC POLITICAL ATTACKS BY THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, & ENVIRONMENTALISTS ON SOCALLED BIG OIL SUBSIDIES & SPECIAL TAX
BREAKS -- THE CONCERTED DRIVE TO OBTAIN FROM CONGRESS THE REPEAL OF OIL INDUSTRY TAX INCENTIVES &, AT THE
SAME TIME, LEAVE IN PLACE THE REAL SUBSIDIES THAT ARE ROUTINELY HANDED OUT TO KEEP IMPRACTICAL &
OTHERWISE BANKRUPT RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS ON LIFE SUPPORT, EVEN THOUGH THEY PROVIDE BARELY THREE
PERCENT OF AMERICA'S TOTAL ENERGY NEEDS -- INCREASING CONCERN OF AMERICAN VOTERS & LEGISLATORS ABOUT
THE FATE OF THE NATION'S ENERGY SYSTEM & THE CONTINUED HEMORRHAGING OF RED INK FROM THE U.S. TREASURY
(& FROM EUROPEAN TREASURIES)
FULL STORY:
President Obama frequently says Americans “need to end our $4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to oil companies.”
The latest bill supported by Democrats would have repealed some $2 billion of what Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat
- New York) and others call “subsidies” and “special tax breaks” for Big Oil.
That’s baloney – shameless demagoguery that will inflict further damage on our struggling economy.
Subsidies are cash payments from government to the private sector. Money is taken from the 51% of Americans who
still pay income taxes – and transferred by legislators and bureaucrats to companies and activities that “deserve” or
“require” these wealth transfers, because the recipients perform an important service and/or could not remain in business
unless subsidized with other people’s money (OPM).
The petroleum industry does not receive “subsidies” to produce oil and natural gas. It doesn’t even get “special tax
breaks” or outright tax credits. What are falsely described in these terms are actually tax deductions for costs incurred by
companies in the process of exploring, drilling, producing, and refining the oil and natural gas that energize this nation’s
economy and living standards.
These tax deductions are equivalent or similar to deductions claimed by every U.S. business, large and small, for things
like facilities depreciation, equipment, utilities, payroll, and research and development. They are intended to ensure that
businesses, like individuals, recover their costs and get taxed only on their net incomes. For oil companies, those
deductions include:
Geological and geophysical costs, for exploration
to assess prospects prior to drilling;
Intangible drilling costs – equipment, labor, fuel,
and supplies associated with drilling expensive
wells;
Expensing “tertiary injectants,” water and chemicals
injected into older wells to keep them producing;
Domestic manufacturer’s deductions of up to 6% of
income earned from extracting oil and gas (farmers,
manufacturers, and other producers can deduct up
to 9% of earned income);
Percentage depletion allowance, allowing for gradual
recovery of up-front investments in a petroleum (or
iron, gold, limestone, et cetera) deposit that is
gradually extracted and depleted. The allowance is
not available to “integrated” companies that produce,
refine, and market oil.
White House, congressional and eco-activist claims that repealing these deductions will generate “billions in new
revenues” reflect an abysmal lack of grasp of basic business, economic, and behavioral principles.
Thankfully, more Americans are beginning to understand that repealing any or all of these deductions will increase oil
companies’ individual project and overall operating costs. That means future bonus bids will decline, wells won’t be
drilled, fewer deposits will be profitable enough to develop, and wells and fields will be abandoned prematurely. Oil
and gas will be left in the ground, crews will lose jobs, tax and royalty payments will dwindle, and the U.S.A. will send
billions more overseas for imported oil.
Informed Americans also recognize that, in 2008, oil and natural gas provided 61% of the energy that powers America.
Natural gas generates almost a quarter of our electricity. These fuels provided affordable energy 24/7/365, supported
9.2 million jobs, kept millions off welfare and food stamp rolls, and generated billions in revenue for federal, state and
local governments.
Wind and solar combined accounted for barely 0.6% of total U.S. energy, and 1.9% of electricity generation, in 2008 –
providing expensive, intermittent, heavily subsidized energy 8/6/312 or less.
In subsidies per unit of energy actually produced, gas-fired electricity generation got 25 cents per megawatt-hour in
2007 subsidies; coal received 44 cents (mostly for clean technology research). By comparison, wind turbines got 23.4
dollars and photovoltaic solar received 24.3 dollars per MWh.
One project alone – the $2-billion Shepherds Flat wind farm in north-central Oregon will transfer $500 million in hard
cash subsidies, plus a subsidized loan guarantee of $1.1 billion to White House friend Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric
and their partners. These OPM subsidies equal 80% of the $2-billion in tax breaks that Democratic Senators Harry
Reid and Charles Schumer are so exercised about. The contract was GE’s largest in FY 2009. (Ethanol subsidies totaled
nearly $5 billion in 2010, more than double the Senators’ target.)
Shepherds Flat will be the world’s largest wind farm: 338 gigantic 2.5 MW turbines, 97 miles of new roads and 167 miles
of high voltage transmission lines sprawling across 32,000 to 83,000 acres (up to twice the size of Washington, D.C.) of
the scenic Columbia River Gorge area. At best, the turbines may average one-third of the 2.5 MW stamped on their
nameplates. At the whim of the winds, the farm will generate electricity at wild swings between zero and the turbines’
combined rated capacity of 845 MW.
That’s about one-quarter to one-half of what a single modern coal, gas, or nuclear power plant generates 90-95% of the
time, day after day, all year long -- from a tiny fraction of the wind farm’s land area.
As is the case with Pacific Northwest hydroelectric, Four Corners coal and Arizona nuclear power, Shepherds Flat will
supply electricity for Southern California, so that state can maintain its lifestyle, meet its lofty renewable energy goals
and be “green,” by using energy generated in someone else’s backyard.
Building and installing the turbines will require some 1.5 million pounds of rare earth metals (from Mongolian areas
devastated by mining and smelting the metals), plus at least 700,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, copper and
fiberglass -- accompanied by the fossil fuel energy, pollution, and CO2 associated with mining, smelting, and
manufacturing these materials. The turbines will impact scenery and wildlife habitats, and kill numerous bats, falcons,
hawks, eagles, owls, egrets, herons, ducks, and curlews.
However, environmentalists, legislators, and regulators treat those impacts – as well as noise, human health, airspace,
Defense Department, and other concerns – very differently from the way they handle hydrocarbon projects. In their
quest for “green” energy at any cost, they simply brush these issues aside.
Our taxpayer subsidies are financing all of this, and generating impressive profits for their recipients. GE, for instance,
generated over $5 billion in U.S. profits in 2010 – but paid no U.S. income taxes.
Compare this to Big Oil companies, which likewise made big profits last year, but also paid big taxes. ExxonMobil, for
example, earned $30.5 billion in profits in 2010, on revenues of $383 billion, and paid $1.6 billion in U.S. income taxes.
Its combined lease bonuses, rents, royalties, taxes, and other payments to the U.S. Treasury totaled almost $10 billion
last year. The company also paid state and local levies.
Overall, a Tax Foundation analysis of Energy Information Agency data shows, the largest integrated oil companies
paid $1.95 trillion in corporate income, severance, property, excise and sales taxes, between 1981 and 2008. During that
time, those companies’ total combined profits (net of taxes and expenses, and after adjusting for inflation) were $1.4
trillion – or 40% less than they paid in total taxes.
The “green” agenda – to use mandates, subsidies, regulations, and taxes to coerce a shift to “renewable” energy and
“fundamentally transform” our energy, economic, and social structure – is rationalized largely by fears of “dangerous
manmade global warming.” It is deceptive, costly, environmentally harmful, and devoid of genuine scientific evidence
to support its alarmist claims.
Europe’s catchy “20-20-20” climate action plan (20% renewable energy, 20% reduction in overall energy consumption,
20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions, by 2020) carries a minimum price tag of OPM $300 billion. It may reduce average
global temperatures by 0.1 degree Fahrenheit (0.05 Celsius) by 2100, assuming climate change is actually driven by
carbon dioxide, rather than by multiple, complex natural forces.
Only mad dogs, environmentalists, Liberal Democrats, and RINOs would buy into such nonsense.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Political Environmentalism Versus Human Progress & Prosperity:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Fiscal Policy: Taxation & Government Spending
Political Economy -- Philosophies, Systems, & Public Policies:
Government, the Economy, & Economic Prosperity
Paul K. Driessen is Senior Policy Advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial
Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XIII, 2011
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity