Tax on big oil profits is sound policy

May 01, 2006|By MICHAEL KINSLEY

SEATTLE -- In, I guess, the early 1990s, when I worked for CNN, I found myself one evening at a Washington reception, chatting with an oil company executive and one from a defense contractor.

The oil man said, "How's business?" Delighted and emboldened by the discovery that businessmen actually say this to one another, I arched a conspiratorial eyebrow and said, "Well, we could use another war."

The defense contractor said, "So could we."

The oil man said, "So could we - as long as it's in the Middle East."

I was joking, and I'm pretty sure the other two were as well.

These days even President Bush is dissing the oil companies. He doesn't accuse them of starting the Iraq war, of course, but he does now favor looking into other possible misdeeds, such as antitrust violations. For Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and a chorus of Democrats, oil company misdeeds are enough to justify a tax on their "excess profits."

This hunt for a smoking gun misses the point. Taxes are not a form of punishment. And you don't need to find wrongdoing in order to justify a special tax on their profits. You only need a pocket calculator - to figure out how much they owe.

The math is not complicated. About a third of the oil consumed in the United States comes from wells in the United States. That's about 150 million barrels a month. The oil industry refers to this as "production," but a more accurate term would be "extraction." Nature produced the oil, and charges nothing for it.

Oil is oil, no matter where it comes from, so the price of those 150 million barrels will go up and down with the price of the 300 million or so barrels we import every month. A year ago, that price was about $46 a barrel. Now it's over $70 a barrel. The cost of extracting those 150 million American barrels depends a lot on how you figure, and varies well by well.

But we can make a few reasonable simplifying assumptions. First, no one was forced to pump oil at gunpoint a year ago. So however you figure, in April 2005 it must have been possible to extract 150 million barrels of oil out of American ground for less than $46 a barrel, including a reasonable profit.

Costs change: Wells have to be pumped harder, or they run dry. Gradually, we are running out and need to import more and more. But these changes are nothing like the fluctuations in the price that oil can be sold for. If 150 million barrels could be extracted a year ago for $46 a barrel, it shouldn't cost much more than that to extract another 150 million barrels in 2006.

Let's round a bit and say that American oil extractors are getting an extra $25 a barrel. For 150 million barrels a month, that's $45 billion a year. And that's just for the oil that's extracted. The oil that remains in the ground also is about $25 a barrel more valuable. And other energy resources, used and unused, are more valuable by a similar amount.

If you own oil anywhere in the world, you didn't have to do a damned thing. Just close your eyes, make a wish, open them and - surprise - you're getting an extra $25 a barrel.

Ordinarily, we shouldn't want the government to decide when profits become "excess." But the case of huge profits from the run-up in oil prices is different, for two reasons. First, it is unusually clear that these profits have nothing to do with productivity. Diverting them to the Treasury would have no effect on the incentive to extract more oil from American ground. Second, some or all of these profits are directly related to a situation that is imposing huge sacrifices - financial and otherwise - from others: that is, the Iraq war.

Because of the war, the government is adding hundreds of billions to the burden of debt that all taxpayers, including other businesses, will have to pay off. Because of the war, American soldiers by the hundreds, and Iraqis by the thousands, are paying the ultimate tax of death by government policy. And because of the war, American oil companies are raking in extra billions of profits.

The oil companies, like other big corporations, are mostly owned by ordinary citizens, either directly or through mutual and retirement funds. Presumably some of them support the war and others don't. Do any of these shareholders, pro-war or anti-war, want to pocket $45 billion (or whatever number you choose) from a war that is costing others so much?

Michael Kinsley is a social commentator and columnist.

Columnist Cynthia Tucker is on vacation.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.