Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Big Oil gains from higher prices while families pay the price

By Climate Guest Contributor  

"Big Oil gains from higher prices while families pay the price"

Share:

google plus icon

Daniel J. Weiss and Valeri Vasquez in a CAP cross-post.

Political instability in the Middle East over the past month has driven parallel unrest in world oil prices. The drive for political freedom in the Middle East has rightfully captured the world’s attention but it has also roiled oil markets.  Governments across the globe are worried that sustained unrest will escalate oil prices past $100 per barrel on their way to $120 or more, choking the struggling economic recovery in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. One entity, however, is almost certain to benefit from this volatility: Big Oil companies.

On Friday, January 28, oil closed at $89 a barrel“”$4 or 5 percent higher than the previous day. This leap reflected concerns that the Egyptian revolution would interfere with Persian Gulf oil transportation and deliveries. Prices returned to $85 a barrel when President Hosni Mubarak resigned on February 11, reflecting some stability.

While Egypt generates relatively little oil, Libya is an important producer, yielding 1.8 million barrels daily, or 2.1 percent of worldwide production. It is a vital oil supplier of sweet, light crude to Europe. Although the United States imports almost no Libyan oil, prices are set on a world market. So it affected the U.S. gasoline prices when the more violent unrest in Libya boosted oil prices to $98 per barrel“”a $12 or 14 percent leap””in a week. As foreign oil workers flee and unrest continues, a Libyan supply disruption””and further price hikes””could follow. Simmering unrest in Bahrain, which produces 48,000 barrels per day, could increase prices further.

The lingering effects of the recent global recession amplify the impact of rising oil prices, since higher fuel prices affect the bottom line for families and businesses. In the past year, families have experienced a 13 percent and 17 percent increase in gasoline and fuel heating oil prices, respectively. Meanwhile, family incomes have stagnated.

High Frequency Economics notes that, “Higher crude oil prices affect the economies of oil-importing nations like a tax increase … transferring purchasing power from consumers of energy to producers.” This could exacerbate economic problems in struggling nations such as Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain.

The New York Times warned that in the United States:

A sustained $10 increase in oil prices would shave about two-tenths of a percentage point off economic growth, according to Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays Capital. [He] estimates [the] increase would offset nearly a quarter of the $120 billion payroll tax cut that Congress had intended to stimulate the economy this year.

The Times also notes that higher oil prices would lead to lower consumer spending. This could smother the nascent economic recovery. Higher oil prices could also hike food prices.

A cutback in consumer spending reverberates through the economy by crimping businesses, making it less likely that employers will commit to the additional hiring needed to lower the 9 percent unemployment rate.

The rise in oil prices could also create a vicious cycle, as higher energy costs propel already rising food prices, which in turn can lead to more political unrest and more global uncertainty.

Americans sent nearly $1 billion a day overseas to pay for oil in 2010. These purchases make up nearly half of our trade deficit. And every dollar that leaves the country to buy a barrel of oil leaves the domestic economy never to return as investment to create jobs or growth.

While higher oil prices are bad news for the economy and families, oil price increases over the past decade have helped grow profits for the big five oil companies: BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell. It’s not a coincidence that these five oil companies set profit records in 2008, the same year that oil reached its all-time high of $147 per barrel. When oil prices crashed in 2009, so did profits. There is an exception. Even though prices rose last year, the costs of BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster spilled red ink over its otherwise healthy balance sheet, lowering the big five companies’ total profits by $17 billion. Rising oil prices may be bad news for families but they are generally excellent news for Big Oil.

big oil profits vs. prices

Turmoil in the Middle East does not impact the intrinsic value of crude oil. It has no effect on extraction technologies or labor intensiveness of oil production or refinement. These costs are relatively fixed. So as prices are driven higher by fears of future supply disruptions or shortages, the oil the companies have is worth more, and profits rise too. This tandem price-profit rise is characteristic of the oil industry, as the chart above demonstrates.

Given the large profits for Big Oil, retaining tax loopholes for these companies while cutting vital federal investments makes no fiscal sense. The unnecessary loopholes provide nearly $4 billion annually to the oil industry, funds that President Obama now proposes to invest in clean energy programs.

For instance, oil companies can exploit the tax break designed to keep domestic manufacturers on shore. Former CAP Senior Policy Analyst Sima Gandhi described the absurdity of extending this special tax break to Big Oil and gas companies since they cannot move an onshore or offshore oil field to another nation.

Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil [in the United States], the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions.

Big Oil companies could also benefit from as much as $53 billion in unpaid royalties from their production of oil from federal waters””oil owned by American taxpayers. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, attempted to halt this huge taxpayer rip-off by offering an amendment to the House Republicans’ fiscal year 2011 budget.

The amendment to the Republicans’ spending bill would have fixed a flaw put in place by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1995 and seek to recover funds from faulty drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico that allow oil companies to drill without paying any royalties. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has estimated that taxpayers could lose up to an additional $53 billion over the next 25 years as a result of royalty-free drilling when oil prices are high. The Interior Department also informed Rep. Markey that American taxpayers will lose $1.5 billion just this year from this free drilling.

Unfortunately, his amendment lost on a vote of 174-251. Only 11 Republican House members (5 percent of the caucus) voted to end this costly practice while 25 Democrats (13 percent of the caucus) voted to maintain these handouts.

Instability in nations with oil reserves threatens the production, transportation, and deliveries of oil. Since oil prices are set on the world market, such events affect the world oil price. Therefore, it matters very little that the United States imports minimal amounts of crude from Libya and Algeria and none at all from Iran. Unrest in these nations will raise prices and slacken our economic recovery. Meanwhile, higher prices will mean pain at the pump for families and higher profits for Big Oil companies.

Long-term measures are essential to dramatically reduce our dependence on oil. But some immediate steps would help reduce the pain at the pump. Given that Big Oil will likely profit from Americans’ misery at the pump, we should first end the tax loopholes and royalty relief granted to Big Oil companies to recoup some of these lost tax dollars. To minimize price shocks, President Obama should sell 30 million barrels of oil from our full emergency reserves and invest the $3 billion from sales into public transit such as buses and subways. These steps would cut federal spending, reduce prices, and reduce demand while Big Oil companies continue to make big profits.

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress. Valeri Vasquez is the Special Assistant for Energy Policy at the Center. And thanks to Adam Hersh, Economist at the Center.

‹ Is Time’s Eben Harrell serious in his EcoCentric post, “Why Nukes are the Most Urgent Environmental Threat”

Groucho Marxist Bill McKibben takes on Glenn Beck ›

15 Responses to Big Oil gains from higher prices while families pay the price

  1. Prokaryotes says:

    Call to drop fossil subsidies nwo!

  2. Leif says:

    “Mother Jones” has a few things to say about the inequity of it all.

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

    And the rich still want more…

  3. Prokaryotes says:

    What would happen in the perfect world?

    What do you want your name associated with in the future history?

    Ultimately, how do you think to do your part in preventing the growing climate crisis from escalating.

    How fast things could develop we see today in the MENA region. Why not use the change to develop DESERTEC in the MENA region now? Why is the oil industry allowed to develop LNG? Why not force them to go green, if the boss is apparently not fitted to prepare for a developing situation?

    There is really no single argument to go not green anymore. Actually it means everything.

  4. john jansen says:

    When the price of crude plummeted in late 2008 and early 2009 did you express sympathy for the oil companies? I dont think so.

  5. So far, human civilization seems to require both governments and institutions of commerce (corporations)- and they each nurture and direct armies.

    It is pretty dangerous for people to lose trust in both governments and corporations. What is left?

  6. PurpleOzone says:

    The oil companies are revving up to campaign for increased drilling. They’ll be pushing the implicit message that the U.S. has enough oil if only it weren’t for those nasty regulations.

    The last time the price of oil went so high, I was randomly phone surveyed; the questions were talking points being tested for traction. 2 or 3 weeks later I heard them being mouthed by Republican congressmen.

    I bet this time they remove the survey question: “Since Hurricane Katrina caused no oil leaks in the Gulf [sic], don’t agree that drilling in the Gulf is safe?”

  7. Barry says:

    John #4, are you really asking if Joe expressed sympathy that five oil companies “only” made $65 billion dollars in PROFIT during the biggest recession in recent history? Really? Did you look at that profit chart?

    It never ceases to amaze me how so many Americans can defend the right of the hyper-wealthy to amass any level of wealth no matter what its costs other Americans.

    Apparently $65 billion in corporate profits is now considered hardship by some.

  8. Leah says:

    This is a HUGE step back from any type of economic recovery that was made as of late. Take a look at this video that explores the price we pay for urbanization http://ecomobility.tv/2011/02/28/reducin-impact-urbanization-biodiversity/

  9. Cinnamon Girl says:

    Now, now Barry #7, we all know Big Oil and Little China needed that oil price recession so they could acquire more properties from those pesky smaller operators. A similar thing is being whispered now about PetroChina and the low natural gas prices here. Man, we have to feed the whales or else they won’t be…here when we…need…them. Oops. I seriously wonder if the Big Oilers and their congressional pets fret at all about China’s buying up production. May be time for a windfall profits tax, and fewer subsidies (as someone mentioned already) after all.

  10. Robert says:

    “A sustained $10 increase in oil prices would shave about two-tenths of a percentage point off economic growth, according to Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays Capital.”

    So just how high would a carbon tax need to be to reduce emissions significantly?

    This article demonstrates just how excited people get about slightly expensive oil and simultaneously lose all sight of the fact that it turns into CO2 when burnt.

  11. johne says:

    Here is an paper that should be compulsary reading for all-it focusses on getting off oil for security reasons, but that’s a good thing to do as well as reduce our carbon footprint!http://www.secureenergy.org/policy/transportation-policies-america-s-future

  12. Hal (GT) says:

    Couple this move in oil with the move in gold and silver that started once oil took off and it becomes that all the uncertainty and lack of trust in our gov is starting to affect folk.

  13. michael says:

    Propaganda is what this is. FACT is clean energy like wind, solar are JUNK. They don’t work unless you force oil up to hundreds of dollars per barrel. The lies about subsidies; omg, the worthless solar, wind etc. receive many multiples of subsidies and still FAIL. Just like big oil, there is big money in phony green energy, just ask Al Gore or General Electric.
    The U.S. has hundreds of years of oil and gas. We just have toooo many nuts who will believe just about anything stupid that comes at them.