Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
OK, how much do they pay?
So you don't actually know? I thought you must when you commented on it. You can look at the annual report of any major oil company, and it will list all of their (audited) cash flows. If I recall correctly, XOM made $37 billion last year, but income taxes alone were over $100 billion.
i can tell you that i have a contact within the irs and guess what when an oil co disputes a tax law or tax ruling the irs in most cases just rolls over and accepts the companies interpretation you see the majors have much better tax attornys than the irs they wrote most of the tax laws
My second cousin has this friend, who knows a guy, who overheard his stepmother tell someone that your contact is just making things up.
exxon's latest annual report (2005) lists revenue of $ $ 371 billion and income taxes of $ 23 billion or about 6 % add that to 12.5 % royalty on federal leases and you get less than 19% (or 23% at 16 % royalty) now before you get all huffy yes i KNOW that exxon is a multinational and this may not reflect the situation in the gom but tell me robert what % of royalty and taxes does exxon pay ?
Wow, it didn't take you long to deplete your intellectual arsenal and go for the ad homs. Let's review. A story says oil companies pay 40% of revenue in taxes and royalties. You dispute this, with a "yeah right." Me, thinking you may have some special knowledge of this, ask how much they do pay. You indicate that you don't really know (and cite secret sources), demonstrating that you in fact were blowing hot air.
but tell me robert what % of royalty and taxes does exxon pay ?
You tell me, since you were the one that disputed the number. If I have time later (I have a 4-year old crying for me to play with him) I will try to find out what the $100 billion represented. That may have been taxes plus royalties, and I have it around here somewhere. But typically, the person making a claim or insinuation is expected to support it when called upon. That would be you in this case.
Happy Holidays.
the holiday(s) has(have) already passed (winter solstice) but you have a happy whatever
Oh, I have that. Would you like to point out the section that refers to royalties?
Bottom line? Your comment "the claim that oil companies pay 40% of revenue in royalties and taxes..........yeah right" was nothing but hot air. You don't actually know, so you have no basis for your "yeah right." And the reason I take exception to comments like that is that my industry has enough of a public relations problem without unwarranted assertions being made. Those unwarranted assertions merely help direct more hate at the industry. So, when you make comments like that, I will often ask for support. If you don't offer the support, and instead resort to name-calling, then that really tells us all we need to know about the assertion.
I don't see that the 40% claim is out of the question. Again, if you have information to dispute the claim, please present it.
excise taxes on gom oil leases.............. another BIG yeah right
and yes some of the excise taxes can be "attributed" to production from oil and gas on federal leases but some, probably most, of these "flow through" taxes are from refined products are derived from foreign sources and other oil and gas refined by exxon
are you claiming that all the excise taxes are "attributed to" production from federal owned leases ?
and where did you get the $359 billion revenue figure? my $ 371 billion came from the annual report filed with the sec
ok are you claiming that property taxes are paid to the federal government?
No, but you didn't say the federal government. I was responding to your claim, which was "the claim that oil companies pay 40% of revenue in royalties and taxes..........yeah right". To be specific, the article said:
In fact, it would be hard to pin down exactly how much of the revenue from federal lands they pay in royalties and taxes. However, the corporate tax rate is 35%. For the oil they extract and sell, they are going to pay 1). Royalties, and 2). Corporate income tax of 35% on the actual income from the sales. Again, it doesn't appear to me that 40% warrants any skepticism.
and where did you get the $359 billion revenue figure?
http://ccbn.mobular.net/ccbn/7/1532/1692/xls/data.xls
That is total operating revenue. But it's apples and oranges anyway. What is needed is the revenue from federal property, if that is the claim you take exception to.
Now, since you have never presented any numbers that would dispute the claim of 40%, I am done here.
And yet you used not revenues from federal lands, but total global revenues (which include collected excise taxes!) to make your point. Go figure.
Since I hate to waste time, here is how a productive exchange could have gone.
You: 40%? Yeah right.
Me: How high do you think it is?
You: I don't know, but 40% seems high.
Me: Why do you think this, given that U.S. corporate taxes of 35% plus royalties must be paid?
You: OK, so maybe 40% is in the ballpark.
Instead, we were treated to a bit of burden-shifting, tapdancing, handwaving, and needless insults, when the bottom line was that you really had no basis at all for your skepticism.
p.s. and your whining about the bad press (your) industry gets is ........................ well it's not very becoming for a big shot oil executive like you
See my numbers above taken directly from their financial statements. 27% of their 2005 revenues were paid as taxes of one form or another. This doesn't include any royalties. Your disbelief is entirely unjustified.
p.s. and your whining about the bad press (your) industry gets...
Nobody is whining. I am addressing your misrepresentation. As I said, we have enough bad press without needing you to start making stuff up.
I don't understand why you despise the hand that feeds you so virulently that you feel such a need be so viciously ad hominem.
You surprised me. Usually by now those who started out as you did and had their hides nailed to the barn door would have fled for easier pickings elsewhere.
You stayed.
I don't believe I have had my 'hide nailed to the barn' so to speak. People are vocal about their dislike of my opinions, but it doesn't bother me. I think TOD would be a worse off place if I wasn't as vocal as I am. The 'overwhelming consensus' on every issue is ridiculous. No one seems to want to challenge the status quo so I guess I'm nailing myself to the proverbial cross, all in the name of playing the Devils Advocate :P
You are correct in assuming you play a role in questioning various perspectives - but to the extent those perspectives are based on things like geological science or chemistry, they aren't really open to dispute.
This is a place where it comes down to what comes out of the pipeline, and for the last, oh 12 months and counting, there isn't noticeably more coming out of it than before. Of course, like Godot, maybe tomorrow.
Why the amount hasn't increased is the pivot of this discussion, which naturally leads to what that means.
Living in Germany, I tend to the Kunstler perspective - don't live in spread out suburbs without any local agriculture, but that solution is not available in North America, in my eyes. Which is why so many of the non-doomers are so big on finding some method of mobility that allows suburbia to continue - without generally even dealing with the fact that any plug in vehicle will only work by improving on the incredible waste in personal transport - but when tranporting 40 tons of food 50 miles to a big box store, a plug in solution isn't likely to work very well.
Nothing wrong in having a viewpoint, but I don't think there is the broad consensus you assume, even in terms of the correct term to apply to your posting - most people have learned to live with you, after all, because at times, you have added something useful to a discussion. That is what makes TOD useful, till now.
"My second cousin has this friend, who knows a guy, who overheard his stepmother tell someone that your contact is just making things up."
In fact, I think he took your little quote above as an ad hominem attack, so he fired back. Seriously, I understand that anecdotes aren't evidence, but you weren't exactly cordial in your response ;) But obviously you have a superior intellect, and are pure as an angel's semen.
I responded to an anonymous "cite" with my own. Just pointing out the value of using this kind of "evidence" to support your point.
In fact, I think he took your little quote above as an ad hominem attack, so he fired back.
In my experience, many people don't really understand what constitutes an ad hominem attack.
... and maybe they do not know what it means.
"... marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made."
This is ad personam not ad hominem, ad hominem is questionning the logical consistency of the opponent, not being offensive which is ad personam.
Actually I have no idea what they pay but I would wage a lot of money that it is more than 40%. And then they still must pay taxes on top of that. I would think an estimate of 40% for both taxes and royalties would be way too low.
Ron Patterson
Elwoodelmore, this sentence, if you can call it a sentence, makes no sense whatsoever. What on earth does this have to do with what Shell or Exxon pays Nigeria or Russia, or what BP pays the US in royalties?
Really, I do not think you have a clue about anything. You just try to make someone else look silly but only succeed in making yourself look ridiculous. No, absolutely not, you do not have a clue! Why do you pay the federal government royalties? Do you think that Shell could get away with paying Nigeria 12% of the price of a barrel of oil for their oil?
And apparently English is not your first language because this broken English of yours simply cannot be understood. You need to get a good tutor to help you with English composition.
Ron Patterson
Personally, I think any profit driven business will do its best to maximize its profits - then the question comes down to the morality of those responsible for the company - Enron comes to mind, those poor innocent executives being pursued by a vindictive government - or at least that is what Lay et al seemed to tirelessly repeat.