Record Oil Company Profits and High Gas Prices: A Connection?
Posted by Super G on April 26, 2006 - 11:50am
Topic: Economics/Finance
Tags: gas prices, price gouging, windfall profits tax [list all tags]
There's been some grumbling in the media about how Big Oil is gouging the public by charging record prices for gas while they reap record profits. For example, this article from The Nation says
There is no evidence of a willingness on the part of these highly profitable corporations to sacrifice in a time of national emergency.No one can dispute that oil companies are doing really well. And certainly no one can dispute that gas prices are high. But is the connection as straightforward as the article suggests? If the oil companies were less greedy, would we see lower prices as the pump?Make no mistake: These corporations should be able to absorb a hit. Over the past year and a half, the four largest oil companies—ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Royal Dutch/Shell Group and BP Group PLC—have pocketed close to $100 billion in profits. During the first quarter of 2005 alone, those firms pulled in a cool $23 billion.
But instead of sharing the pain, they appear to be moving to squeeze every cent they can out of the crisis.
Find out below the fold...
Oil companies sell to refineries
Not all oil companies own refining companies. In fact, a very few actually own their refineries. They just find, drill and produce crude which they sell on the NYMEX or other markets, to refiners. A refiner can take crude from anybody—Exxon from Shell, Chevron from BP, etc.
Refineries sell to distributors
This means that an Exxon refinery can sell gasoline to a Shell distributor. The distributor chooses where to buy his products from. Naturally, Shell Oil Refining would offer a Shell Distributor a pretty discounted price, but not necessarily the lowest he might find. Thus distributors can buy from anybody and sell to anybody, regardless of their "affiliation" with a given oil company. A distributor may be an "Authorized Chevron Distributor", and thus he can sell Techron type gasoline. But that doesn't mean he is restricted to just selling Chevron products. Independent distributors (more of them than any other type) are listed in the Yellow Pages under Fuel Companies or Fuel Distributors. These are the middlemen.
Distributors sell to retailers
These independents actually buy gas from whoever they get the best deal from, then sell it to their customers. If you have ever wondered why there is an Exxon tanker filling up a Fina gas station tank, it is because the distributor is an Exxon affiliate, but the Fina station owner got a better deal from Exxon than from Fina. This happens all the time. Distributors also sell grease and transmission fluid and hydraulic fluid and motor oil to industry. You can often see distributors trucks servicing construction sites or businesses operating a fleet of vehicles.Summing up...Retailers can buy whatever they want from whoever they can get the best price! These corporations are usually very divorced from the nuts and bolts of oil companies, that focus on retailing gasoline and convenience store operation. The retail chain may be a Shell-owned convenience store, supplied by a Shell affiliated distributor, but he (distributor) may buy his oil from Murphy Oil Refining. So while the buyer thinks he is getting Shell gasoline, what he is getting is gasoline from a Shell Distributor, but produced by Murphy Oil Refining.
I have loosely used Big Oil Company names here to make a point. However, many of the big guys keep a close reign on their distributors. But that does not preclude them selling whatever they want to independent retailers, like Samir's Quicky Mart.
Thus unless a gasoline has a patented ingredient (like Techron) or other additive, it will not necessarily wind up being sold by the affiliate retailer. And we haven't even gotten to supply contracts yet, which further complicate things.
At every level of these distribution chains, people are trying to buy low and sell high. This is extremely confusing for everybody, but it is the way it works. But if you keep this in mind—oil companies sell to refiners—you can quickly see why oil companies get pissed when the finger pointing starts.So, if there is gouging, where is it happening?
My opinion is that the gouging, if any, is going on at a very local level, no higher up than the local gasoline distributors. The most opportunistic way to maximize your cash would be to buy this week's gasoline for $2.50 a gallon, and then if something (like high oil prices) allows you to, mark this shipment of $2.50 gas up to $3.00. [Keep in mind that some states regulate the maximum profit on a gallon of gas.] Normally gas markup is about a nickel a gallon or such. The convenience store makes much more on food—the gasoline is the draw to get them into the store to buy cigarettes or candy or a coke, which have much higher profit margins.Why are oil companies making record profits?The people who control the final price at the pump are the retailing companies or independent store owners. And these guys are more than happy to put it off on the oil companies, as they are very removed from them!
I know—as clear as mud. But it is the "free economy" at work...
Because the wells they are producing from today were drilled in past years, where they used $15-25 per barrel as their estimated selling price for the oil. Thus when the market got tight, they have cheap oil going at a higher price. Why? Simple—demand is high.So, it is not the case that oil companies are incurring high exploration costs and passing these costs onto the consumer?Now this higher priced oil is filtering back to them in the form of higher priced goods, so the profits decline slowly over time as higher priced energy enters the economic mill. But right now, they are making a lot of money.
No. Oil companies are not setting the retail price except via the NYMEX, where they sell to refiners.So, let's say, very hypothetically, that Exxon Mobil wanted to make a gesture of good faith. Could they sell the crude for cheaper in hopes of lower prices at the pump, or does the nature of the futures market and all of the middlemen make that impossible?When the traders run the price up, oil companies naturally win. But the crude price is set by market demand i.e., what will they pay today?
It would not work for exactly the reasons you think.But...
ExxonMobil, owning their own up and down stream divisions, could sell at a loss or reduced profit on the retail end, provided they compensated their convenience store owners for their lost gasoline revenues (these stores are franchises). But that would make whatever cut they did offer twice as financially painful—they would take the announced cut and associated reduction in profit, and then have to pay the store owners their traditional profit to keep them happy.
So you are not asking them to just fall on their own sword, but to get back up and hurl their bloodied body on it again...ouch!
So—if ExxonMobil did do this, it would be a huge gesture! But only those in the same business would understand the magnitude of what they had done. And whoever did it would shortly be replaced by the Board of Directors as the principal shareholders all called for his head on a pike! Remember, outside of the energy sector, the stock market is a total losing proposition.



On the other hand, I don't see why it would do Mr. Raymond himself any harm to give away $200-300 million of it. What sort of material deprivations, exactly, would he incur by doing this?
While your compassion is admirable, I would prefer to live in a place where everybody can decide how much all the fatcats get taxed, rather than dragging the scapegoat-of-the-day-CEO through the mud.
This campaign against Lee Raymond is being orchestrated by two rather strange bedfellows, Bill O'Reilly and Charles Schumer. Raymond has been retired since January for God's sake. Nobody knew his name before last week. But now his $400 million is the solution to our energy problems? Ridiculous.
I myself think there is something truly shameful and disgusting about the way ALL of the very rich hoard wealth, and use it to appropriate a morally unseemly share of the planet's finite resources to themselves, and away from billions of others that need it. It may not be obvious that this is shameful and disgusting in a society as saturated with wealth-worshipping free market ideology as American society is, but for that very reason, what I just said sometimes just needs to be said. To a lesser extent, I think what I said is true also of all lesser degrees of affluence also.
There was an illuminating article just recently about what the very rich actually DO with their wealth: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/rich-a19.shtml
When a company dominates a national industry for decades, and the population and GNP grow over that time, they get to see very big numbers on their balance sheets. There are more people, making more money, and (with current prices) Exxon is pulling down a higher portion of family income.
The numbers are driving a greater concentration of wealth and power for Exxon, and the way they are using that wealth and power is ... simply evil.
I think it is an unanticipated consequence of the stock market boom/bubble, and the well known connection between available shares and an aging baby boom population. Money flows into the stock market, supporting the bubble, and giving companies huge capitalizations. Management compensation, as a fraction of capitalization, is nothing ... while at the same time it is huge from a 'real world' perspective.
I was actually in a small company, and saw a couple guys turn into billionares on the day of public offering. It was actually freakier that a couple guys who knew me, who would say hi to me (a working engineer) in the elevator, were suddenly billionares.
Why did they get that rich? Well, they were certainly smart and hard workers ... but not even they expected that much. It was the dot com boom, and the market just threw money at them/us.
It's a strange world.
There are probably 100 million Exxon customers in the U.S., so that would come to 20 cents per customer per year, or about a penny and a half per month.
But why only the U.S. customers ? Exxon probably has a billion customers worldwide for its various products. So that would make 2 cents per year per customer.
And what if his pay were distributed among all of the poor in the world ? How many poor are there ... perhaps 4 billion ? They would each get a half-penny per year.
There are about 6 billion outstanding shares, so each of those shares would get three tenths of a penny per year, or a roughly 0.005% annual dividend. Before taxes.
The question should really go to shareholders though. It could be that 400 million to a environmental program or etc. would stand them in better stead 10 years from now ... when people figure out Exxon's social responsibility has really been.
And I personally think Lee should be able to have a pretty happy retirement on 30 or 40 million. If he can't he has other problems.
Much of Lee's $400 million is actually in stocks and stock options -- meaning that he has wealth, but not cash, and the company has given up shares of its stock (shares that were already outstanding), or options on shares, but not in the same way as $400 million in cash would have.
I don't know enough about the accounting behind it all, but they didn't give 1/1000 of the market cap away -- the market cap remained the same (unless investors decided they didn't like the $400 million, and, thus, started selling/not buying, driving the price and, thus market cap down), their profits barely took a hit, and they retained value in the company.
And the company is perfectly within its rights to provide absolutely ridiculous amounts of compensation to people. And, if I was offered $400 million, I'd take it.
As for taxes on the wealthiest, I concur -- taxes at the high end need to be raised. With the one caveat that the taxes need to be consumption-based, not wealth-increase based. If Lee keeps all his $400 million in stocks, etc., or gives it all to charity (while driving an '83 Honda Civic and living in a trailer), then I don't want him taxed -- let him build businesses, support charities, etc. If, on the other hand, he throws a $15 million birthday party for his dog (as far as I know he hasn't, but it's a hypothetical), then that whole $15 million gets taxed -- and I really don't give a hoot in a holler about whether it was made as salary or as capital gains.
$400 million doesn't bother me (don't invest in ExxonMobil, don't buy their gas). Reducing incentives to invest and save bothers me.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/9/154053.shtml
Let's see how Lee distributes that 400 million to charities, but at this point it doesn't look like he's going to shape up as my paragon of virtue.
There will be calls for windfall profit taxes, but they tend to drag on after the windfall has blown through. If I were the COB of XOM, I'd be seriously thinking about cutting off the call for taxes by making a jaw-dropping donation to Katrina relief/NOLA rebuilding, like a billion dollars or so. They need NOLA rebuilt so they can have plenty of staff for their Louisiana infrastructure, and they get a tax deduction instead of tax increases that don't go away.
Does anybody think that, if shareholders were polled, there would be a consensus to donate, say, 10% of profits to some worthy cause? And, if so, do you think a majority of these could agree on what is worthy? Why not simply ask the shareholders themselves to donate? Some of these think they already have, through the taxes the oil company already paid plus the taxes the shareholder him or herself is about to pay - it might be worth noting that, without any new tax, the sum of taxation - federal plus state plus royalties, is clearly more than 50% of total net revenues.
Oh, wait -- we have those. They're called Gazprom, Transneft, Rosneft, etc.
Governments act in the interests of their constituencies, based on the entire array of government services. Therefore, they become instruments not only of "social good" but also of foreign policy, economic policy, etc. And when was the last time you saw a non-rigged election where more than, say, 70% of the people agreed on the direction of a company?
Thought experiment: Put the oil countries (the American ones, at least -- so take out Fina, Shell, BP, etc.) under the control of the Bush Administration (has to be executive branch; legislative branch was designed not to produce rapid consensus). They now materially support (not sell to, support) the Iraq War, the response to Katrina, ANWR, etc. Happy? I'm sure not.
That's why taxes are the way to go. Companies keep doing the company things, governments do the governmental things, and the two understand the relationships (yes, yes, to a point, to a point). Government can regulate, but not completely control. And, if there's a party in power that you don't agree with, you can still be pretty sure that you're not going to see the "Republican Discount Day" at ExxonMobil.
The current system may not always produce what I want, but that's better than the alternative.
We'll just have to reduce our dependence on their products. That'll get their attention.
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=12519
With exceptional profits sometimes come expectional losses.
The scandal here (still in April 2006) is that we gave those Energy Bill handouts, and now are surprised at the money they have.
See the most recent post Hurricanes and Global Warming - Is There a Connection?. And also, melting permafrost in Western Siberia is indeed an irreversible (but little appreciated) change.
Capital is also a limited resource. I worry that if we throw too much capital into arctic oil and tar sands to slow the post-peak decline, we won't have enough capital to still make the transition to whatever comes next. Whether you believe in Bush's cellulosic ethanol or Lovins' hyperefficiency or the Engineer-Poet's wind and zinc fuel cycle, there's a lot of capital that has to be spent (especially if you believe it will take all of those). It certainly seems possible that misallocation early on could preclude us from reaching a reasonable end state...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
db