Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest? 53 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Earlier this week I had written an article reviewing the proposal to increase the tax Big Oil companies pay on their profits, if they do not invest in alternative and cleaner energy resources. This article dwells further into that issue, especially with regards to the role of Big Oil companies and their ability to balance their shareholder’s interest against our national interest.
Government's Role in the Free Market
Free market advocates (I am one), believe the government should have a minimal role in managing how any market operates. The winners and losers in any market should be determined purely by market forces, with the government not taking any sides. However, in the real-world, there are very few markets which are truly free of the influence of the government.
The world’s financial markets provide a striking example. Even though the restrictions on the movement of capital across the globe are perhaps at the lowest level ever, the sentiment in the financial markets is heavily influenced by the decisions of central bankers. Bonds issues by the United States Treasury continue to be safe-havens of last resort with the 10 year bond yielding around 4% even when inflation threatens to explode. The Federal Reserve continues to play a vital role as a lender of last resort, trying its best to prevent a collapse of the financial system.
All over the world, industries deemed to be vital to national interest are under some form of government control. In the United States companies providing basic utilities like electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, public transportation etc. are regulated by Public Utility Commissions [PUC] of individual states to provide ensure a reliable supply and stability in prices. These industries are deemed to be essential to the basic functioning of a modern economy and protecting them from the extremes free-markets can take is considered essential. Reducing the uncertainty associated with their availability and pricing, allow other segments of the economy to function better, and increase our overall prosperity.
Oil and Government Regulations
Though oil plays a critical role in our national economy, and shaping our foreign policy, the oil industry is not heavily regulated and does not come under the purview of the PUCs. Since we import a bulk of the oil we consume, our energy security is closely tied to maintaining access to the sources of foreign oil. As a result oil companies are the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to our energy policies and thanks to national interest our foreign policy. Our energy policies are designed to help our oil companies in providing us with reliable supply at stable prices. The United States offers a variety of incentives and subsidies to oil companies to achieve their goal.
Federal Assistance
Oil companies get leases to Federal lands for the purpose of exploration and development of new fields at a minimal cost. A report published in 1999 (.pdf) (when oil was near a long term bottom), by the International Center for Technology Assessment, a non-profit, bipartisan organization with the goal to provide the public with full assessments and analyses of technological impacts on society concluded that:
“…Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline, results in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14…”
Some of the subsidies mentioned include:
· The Percentage Depletion Allowance
· The Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit
· Immediate expensing of exploration and development costs
· The Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit.
Since 1999 the Congress and the Bush Administration has added more programs to help oil companies maintain our energy security, while some of the credits have become inapplicable as the price of oil soared in recent years.
The Cost of See-Saw Oil Prices
Though the US Government provides incentives to ensure reliable supply at stable pricing, the price of crude-oil has gone through significant gyration over the past few decades. On an inflation adjusted basis the price of oil has varied from the $20s/gallon in much of the 50s and the 60s, with a spike up in the 1970s which peaked in 1980 with an average price of $98/gallon, followed by the Saudi led glut in the 1980s with oil falling as low as $16/gallon in 1998 and the current super spike with average oil prices not projected to be well above $100/gallon in 2008 (EIA estimates $122/gallon in 2008 and $126/gallon in 2009).
The massive swings in the cost of oil have a huge impact on the economic well-being of our country. Any long-term project with a significant energy component becomes much riskier: Do the planners use oil at $20/gallon or $130/gallon in their planning? A study sponsored (.pdf) by the US Department of Energy (published December 2000) and conducted by the Tennessee based Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s National Transportation Research Center, tried to measure the impact of the gyration in oil prices on the US economy. The study came up to the following conclusions:
“Estimates of the total economic costs to the United States of such oil market upheavals during the last 30 years are in the vicinity of $7 trillion, present value 1998 dollars, about as large as the sum total of payments on the national debt over the same period. Transportation is at the center of the oil dependence issue. More than 25 years after the first world oil crisis in 1973-74, the U.S. transportation system comprises 67% of U.S. petroleum demand (25% of world oil demand) and relies on oil for more than 95% of its energy needs.”
Energy Policy: Expediency Wins
The decline and fall of the former Soviet Union and the military stability provided by the US presence in the Middle East in the 1990s resulted in two decades of low oil prices from the mid 1980s to the early 2000s. During this period the United States dependence on foreign oil increased significantly. The availability of inexpensive foreign oil resulted in pressures from environmentalists to limit exploration and drilling in the United States.
Why Drill in the US When The World Is Awash?
The low price of oil meant that Big Oil companies had very little incentive to explore newer oil fields. For a long time Big Oil used oil price value at $20/barrel to determine the viability of any new project. As shown in the chart below (taken from this link) a result the replacement rate for Big Oil’s has been in a free-fall since the 1990s.
Missed Opportunities
While Big Oil’s proven reserves where falling faster than they were being consumed, the economies of emerging markets in Asia were cranking up. It did not take much to figure out that the energy demand from these economies would increase as more than 2.5 Billion people emerge from a subsistence lifestyle to the consumption focused lifestyle we export to the rest of the world.
It was in this period of lull that the United States missed a great opportunity to wean itself off foreign oil and establish itself as the leader in more sustainable energy technologies which are not completely dependent on discovery of relatively scarce natural resources.
It was not for the lack of trying; California passed an initiative to encourage the use of Electric Vehicles in 1990. However, the initiative failed due to strong opposition, primarily from the US automobile and oil industries, which feared an erosion of the dominance of internal combustion engine in the US’ transport system.
Big Oil’s off-course did not want our reliance on the gasoline to end and tried their best to kill electric vehicles. The big automakers were afraid of the electric vehicle since they have much lower wear and tear and hence last for a longer time, while requiring much lower maintenance during their life-time. The brakes in electric cars use regeneration technology to convert the kinetic energy of the car into electricity which recharges the battery, instead of expending the energy as heat in the brakes. There is no high-temperature engine where gas is exploded in a controlled environment.
The NiMH battery patent lock-up was an egregious example of how the Big Oil and GM colluded to push back the development of electric cars by at least a decade.
Electric-Only Cars, NiMH Batteries and Big Oil
During the 1990s Nickel Metal Hydride batteries were considered the ideal candidate for plug-in electric cars. Their reliability and ability to store a lot amount of energy make them especially valuable for vehicles which do not have a gas-powered engine to supplement the battery power. These batteries powered the first generation of electric cars launched in the US, including the EV1 (GM) and RAV4-EV (Toyota).
In 1994, GM acquired controlling rights of the company, Ovonics, which invented and patented NiMH batteries. It sat on the patent for a few years, while the first generation of electric cars met their pre-destined end. In 2001 it sold that stake to Texaco which was then acquired by Chevron. The battery venture was spun off as a 50-50 venture, Cobasys, between Chevron and the original owners, Ovonics-Energy Conversion Devices.
Cobasys has been following a policy which prevents the use of large-format NiMH batteries in transport applications in the US. It sued Panasonic EV Energy (PEVE), a joint venture between Panasonic and Toyota, which supplied large format NiMH batteries used in RAV4-EV for patent violations, which resulted in a sealed settlement.
The terms of the settlement involved a compensatory payment to Cobasys, licensing of some patents, and above all some unspecified restrictions on the size of NiMH batteries which could be sold to the transportation industry. Right after the agreement, PEVE stopped selling large-format NiMH batteries targeted towards the transportation market in the US.
Toyota’s RAV4-EVs are running great, but may have to be moth-balled since there is no legal way for Toyota to provide new batteries to replace the 10 year old NiMH battery packs, if and when they need replacement. RAV4-EVs owners have to contact Cobasys for replacement batteries; Cobasys has refused to deal with anyone in non-OEM quantities. Under the terms of the settlement, Toyota can use small-format NiMH batteries in hybrid vehicles like the Prius which have an Internal Combustion Engine to burn gasoline and supplement the electric power.
To complete the picture: Cobasys, the firm which refuses to sell large-format NiMH batteries to RAV4-EV customers, or license its technology to other manufacturers, is on GM’s list of distressed suppliers in poor financial condition. I wonder why a firm in financial distress is unwilling to generate extra revenues by addressing the needs of an existing market.
Detroit should be thankful that the horse and carriage industry of the 19th century did not have the protection of the US Patent Office to prevent the Internal Combustion Engine from being used in cars.
Opportunity Cost of the EV Failure
The opportunity cost of the failure of electric cars is not only in terms of what we lost in the US (less pollution, reduced dependence on foreign oil) but also the message we sent to the emerging markets. When China and India develop their transportation system, they do not have a working model based on electric vehicles to look at. Distances travelled in those countries are typically much less than the average American commute, and our ideal for electric vehicles.
Further, we lost the chance to be the leader in a technology of the future. America’s prosperity is built upon being innovators; in the future we will have to work much harder to maintain the edge as the rest of the world catches-up. By missing the boat on the next wave of transportation systems, the American economy has lost billions in economic benefits.
Towards a Cogent Energy Policy
It is clear that our energy policy needs a radical overhaul to wean us of foreign oil. Our new policy should be multi-pronged; while in the short term we continue to seek more oil, especially domestic oil, in the medium to long term, we have to focus on weaning our self off oil, and fossil fuels in general. Our nation will pay a high strategic cost for the enormous amount of wealth we are transferring to oil exporting nations, which more often than not, are not amicable to our national interest.
Restrictions on domestic drilling and refinery capacity have to be reviewed to come to terms with reality. Similarly the NIMBYs of Cape Cod, who are afraid of wind-farms spoiling the view from their vacation homes, need a reality check. More significantly, we need to take charge in becoming the leader in developing alternative energy resources.
Big Oil’s Financial Strategy: Wait and Watch
In 2007 Exxon-Mobil spent $31.8B in stock buybacks and another $7.6B in dividends. Big Oil in total increased their share buy-back programs from $10B in 2003 to $60B in 2006. The return of capital though laudable, also indicates that Big Oil companies are unable to find better alternatives for investing capital to drive future growth.
The irony of the situation is mind-boggling: In the past five years, the price of crude oil has gone up 4x, the replacement rate of Big Oil companies has plummeted to below 100%, but Big Oil companies are unable to find better alternatives for investing their capital?
Purely from a financial point of view this seems like a prudent move: if the importance of oil declines and prices fall, not making investments in new fields will turn out to be a wise decision. On the other hand, if oil continues to be important, the rising crude oil prices will ensure huge amount of profits from the existing resources Big Oil has. It is a win-win for the investors in Big Oil. But what about the interest of a nation, which has hitched its wagon behind oil?
Big Oil, National Interest and Renewable Energy
Big Oil’s decision to limit the growth of capital invested in discovering new oil fields puts the United States in a precarious position. Our transportation system, economy, and way of life, depend on oil. While Big Oil fiddles with its wait and watch approach, the global economy is on the cusp of falling into a major recession. Big Oil has wielded tremendous power in shaping our energy policy and now they seem content to watch while our economy unravels, and we ship our wealth to countries amicable to our national interest.
The best way of unshackling ourselves from the vagaries of the international oil market, and gaining technological leadership in the energy market, is to focus on renewable sources which are not dependent on fossil fuels. This is where Big Oil companies can pay a leadership role.
If history is any guide, initiatives to drive the adoption of renewable energy sources, will face a big political challenge by Big Oil. As long as the interests of Big Oil companies’ are completely opposite to those of renewable energy companies, the growth of renewable energy companies will be stinted. However, if the Big Oil companies develop a stake in the progress of alternative energy projects, they are likely to show less opposition.
One is tempted to argue that Big Oil companies have no business dabbling in alternative energy and by returning capital they allow their existing shareholders to determine where to invest. If they feel that alternative energy has as future, let them invest in that sector. Though this sounds good in principle, the dynamics are quite a bit different in real life. The percentage of investors who will sell their Big Oil holdings and then invest them in alternative energy resources is going to be small. Since many alternative energy companies are private, most investors can not invest in them. Since the total market capitalization of alternative energy companies pales in significance with Big Oil, a rush of capital into those companies results in speculative equity valuations, which will deter the buy and hold big-cap buyer who invested in Big Oil.
Any potential capital reallocation of investment from shareholders of Big Oil companies to alternative energy companies cannot be as effective as direct investments by companies which are already major players in the energy industry. With the precarious situation we are in, we do not have the luxury to see whether the capital reallocation will occur in a timely fashion.
Last but not the least, Big Oil has benefited immensely from the patronage of the United States foreign and military policy. At a time when the industry is making mind-boggling profits, it behooves it to help the United States and her residents, and not just the short-term interests of her share-holders.
Government Spending and Big Projects
While no one likes to pay taxes, it is easy to forget that the government has a big role to play in spurring major innovation and increasing the adoption of newer technologies. The Manhattan Project, the Apollo moon-landings were all government funded projects which have transformed the world as we know it. The technological superiority of our armed forces is a result of massive government spending.
Right now ensuring our future energy security is of vital national importance. Due to our extreme dependence on foreign oil, we have put our self in a situation where traditional free market mechanics will be unable to fix the situation quickly enough; the fact that Big Oil is not keen on spending capital to find new oil does not help the situation either. To set things in perspective, the head of the state-owned Russian oil company Gazprom, greeted us on our Independence Day with a restatement of his view that oil is likely to hit $250/barrel and natural gas will trade at $1000 per 1000 cubic meters.
Encouraging Big Oil to Invest in Renewable Energy
The next question which arises is that where we will find the money to fund initiatives to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy. I feel that ensuring that Big Oil companies participate in that project is a key to its success. If Big Oil does not have a skin in the game, they are unlikely to change their ways and will use their financial and political muscle to defend oil’s share in the US energy markets.
This is where the current proposal to force Big Oil companies to invest in alternative energy resources comes into play. The crux of the proposal is that unless Big Oil invests in alternative energy resources, they will have to pay 25% windfall profit on excess profits; the level of excess will be determined by looking at the current oil price versus the oil price in the recent past.
Comparison with the Carter-Reagan Era Bill
The knee-jerk reaction to any windfall profit on oil is to compare with the failed windfall profit tax imposed by President Carter’s administration. A comprehensive analysis of that tax is available from the House Republican whip’s Office. The Carter era tax was passed as a quid-pro-quo for deregulation of the energy markets in an era of high oil prices, to pass on some of the resulting profits back to the people of the United States who are the eventual owner of its national wealth.
Critics of the Carter-era windfall profit bill say that the bill succeeded in reducing domestic oil production since it reduced the incentive for Big Oil to explore domestic oil fields when they could import foreign oil which was exempt from the tax. The critics ignore the fact that domestic oil production had already been declining since reaching a peak in 1970 of 3,517,450,000 barrels. It had dropped to 3,146,365,000 by 1980 when the windfall profit tax was initiated. In fact, Oil production actually rose to 3,274,553,000 barrels in 1985 before starting another downward trend which has continued till today.
Further the critics discount the fact that the 80s and the 90s was the era of cheap Saudi oil flooding the world market reducing the incentive for domestic oil exploration. President Reagan replaced President Carter in 1982, but he did not see any need to repeal the act which continued till extremely low oil prices made the tax meaningless in 1988.
The current bill is dramatically different from the Carter-Reagan era bill both in its structure and goals. Specifically:
1. Oil companies can avoid paying these taxes by investing in renewable energy and refinery expansions.
2. The tax rate on excess profit is 25%, and not as high as 70% as it was on the Carter Era Bill.
3. The money collected from the new tax will go to a fund focused on expanding renewable energy sources and reduce our dependency on foreign oil
4. Any profits gathered by Big Oil from investments in renewable energy will be exempt from the tax
Further, the world energy situation is dramatically different today. Saudi Arabia no longer has the capacity to flood the world with cheap oil, while demand for energy is sky-rocketing as billions in Asia integrate with the world economy. The price of oil has gone up so much that even if companies pay a 25% excess tax, they will still reap huge profits on every barrel they are able to extract.
Boarding the Alternative Energy Train
With the dramatic growth in world energy demand, it is almost a foregone conclusion that fossil fuels cannot continue to be the primary source of the world’s energy needs. However, on June 11, 2008 when sponsors of the bill which would tax windfall profits could not get enough support to bypass a Republican filibuster, another bill which would have extend expiring tax breaks in support of wind, solar and other alternative energy projects, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation also failed to progress. If nothing else, the failure to extend existing credits on alternative energy and conservation points to the immense power wielded by Big Oil (and of course partisan politics), highlighting the need to co-opt the oil industry in our pursuit of alternative energy.
Four decades ago, the area now famous as the Silicon Valley, was full of fruit orchards. Now it is home to the highest median home prices in the nation, which continue to rise even in the current housing downturn. There is nothing which prevents the current centers of the oil industry in becoming the Energy Alley to the world, if Big Oil is willing to take a longer term view.
Right now Google with its RE<C and RechargeIt initiatives has pledged tens of millions of dollars per year to support the development of renewable energy; ExxonMobil has pledged to spend $10M/year over the next decade on alternative energy. Clearly something is wrong with this picture.
Disclosures: The author holds both long and short positions in futures, equities and options in the oil industry. He does not have any positions in alternative energy sector except those in general (non-sector specific) mutual funds.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
Top
StockTalkers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
Cliff Wachtel
-
3
Mike Havrilla
-
4
David White
-
5
Hedged In
Top StockTalkers » -
1
We don't need to tax the or force the oilers into renewable energy anything!
Have you seen the amount of money and the wall of brilliant people the venture capital community is throwing at this? Staggering.
Vinod Khosla tried this route and got pounded. He wanted a wind fall profit on oil to fund renewables. Then somebody pointed out how it would make him another billion.
It works like this.
1) Venture capital is funded by limited partners. These are the organizations that put up the money for the venture deals.
2) The VC then choose which idea gets money.
3) They then push the company to a liquidity event. IPO, acquisition etc.
4) The VCs return 80%* of the proceeds of the sale back to the limited partners. The VCs keep 20% *approx.
Now if this windfall profit tax was taking the place of the limited partners, when the company funded by this tax on big oil were to have it's liquidity event, then the VCs didn't have any limited partners to repay! They (VCs) would keep 100% of the proceeds from the venture funded by this tax. This is why Khosla sheepishly backed away when the gig was up. They wanted to use billions in oil tax to fund renewable companies and keep the proceeds! There never was any plan to repatriate any of the proceeds to taxpayers or oil etc. They thought people didn't understand the venture model (which is true) and nearly got away with it.
I think your ideas are best taken on a warm breezy day with a glass of lemonade because they are a disconnect from the full contact of everyday business life.
You allegation about Khosla are another spin on the tactics used by the Oil Industry agains Prop 87, which would have taxed oil companies operating in California in the same manner they are taxed in Alaska, Texas, Lousiana etc., but at a significantly lower rate. You can read the official structure of the proposition at:
www.sos.ca.gov/electio...
Out of the total funds collected ($4B over 10 years), less than 10% would have gone to fund what is called Commercial Acceleration which would have funded venture activities; the bulk was in direct help to consumers moving to alternative energy (57.50%) or univesrity research (26.75%). So the total amount available to ALL VCs would have been less than $40M/year; peanuts in the big scheme (and less than ExxonMobil's CEO's annual compensation).
Further there is absolutely nothing which prevents the government to become the limited partner (investor) while partnering with private VCs to help channel the investments. In fact many states have funds which take equity stakes along with VCs to fund promising startups; the VCs do the due dilligence and put up some portion of the capital, and the state chips in with another portion at the same terms as the VCs. California itself created a $3B fund (approved by tax-payers 60-40 via Prop 71) funded by the state's GO bonds to help stem-cell research via the tax-payer funded CIRM (cirm.ca.gov).
And in response to those allegation, this is what Mr. Khosla had to say:
venturebeat.com/2006/0.../
"Mr. Khosla, in an interview, says he wouldn’t accept the seat on the proposed California Energy Alternatives Program Authority if it were offered to him. He also says that if any energy companies he backs receive money through the initiative, he will donate his profit on those investments to charity."
Big Oil uses its political and economic muscle to prevent the growth of alternative technologies especially in the transportation sector. A lot of their campaigns use half-truths (like the one you referred to above). On other hand, if they have some skin in the game, their outlook might be a bit different. Currently BigOil is busy returning billions in capital to its shareholders, while the percentage they spend in exploring new fields is dropping along with their reserves. Even though energy is on the front burner right now, the alternative energy industry is struggling to get the senate to agree to extend existing subsidies and credits. I am afraid that once and if oil falls to $100, it will be business as usual.
As I mentioned Khosla sheepishly backed away from the windfall profit tax -- after -- people peaked under the sheets. Yes he said he would donate the profits to charity but not until after he was called on this. Furthermore, he said he wouldn't accept a seat on the board of this new entity created. How very nice of him considering he wouldn't be asked because it is clearly stated he can't be considered for a board seat because of conflict of interest.
Where does it say only $40mm would be used? The Commercialization Acceleration Account was 9.75% of the total funding. 9.75% of $4bn is $390mm. A far cry from $40mm which is a lot of money on its own. for sake of argument. Consider 40 separate bets on start ups each seeded with $1mm. The venture model is 90% failure so that means 4 start ups with profitable exits at say $100mm = $400mm to the venture guys without any limited partners to payback. But anyways your numbers are off. 10% of $4bn is $400mm and not $40mm. Look at in totality and not annualized which makes it seem benign.
The other part your missing is not just on the capital inflow on the venture side but use of funds by the companies already funded. In other words, this money would be used as guaranteed revenue for companies already funded which would again, make for some very valuable exits. 57.5% of the funding would be used for "Gasoline and Diesel Use Reduction Account". EXACTLY what Khosla is funding -- ethanol. How convenient that a touch over $200bn would be used for buying ethanol or other diesel replacements -- from companies Khosla had already funded...
Another thing. 26.75% of the funding would have gone to "The Research and Innovation Acceleration Account". Basically academia producing RE solutions. Fine. But notice in the fine print that the State of CA wants in on the intellectual property on this funding/results? As it should be. But notice again on the venture side the VCs and their portfolio companies keep the IP. Nice one...
The stem cell thing is apples to oranges. It was a proper partnership and this is a one way street. A giveaway basically. The way it should be done is what just happened. Khosla made the State of CA a proper LP by taking a $640mm investment from the CALPERS. A proper limited partner opportunity for the State.
Look, I'm from the SF Bay Area and I know plenty of venture guys, plenty of RE guys and everybody was scratching their heads how he was going to get this done. EVERYBODY knew he was relying on everybodys hate for the oil companies and would do anything to strike out at them. But we are smarter than that. When the deal points came through and then this legislation "promised" to shield us from rate increases at the pump everybody knew it was BS. I'm sorry but you are just off base on this one. I'm just like everybody else wanting a new eneergy frontier, but if it is based off of intellectual dishonesty from the get go we will NEVER get there.
Let the existing venture model work and everything will be just fine. No damned handouts based on peoples hatred for big oil.
SB $2bn and not $200bn.
This is an article about BigOil and not VCs. However, you continue to make insinuations which are based on half-truths.
1. There is a time value of money. You do realize that the $100M lottery all winner gets much less when they take the amount lump-sum (about 30-35%). What is the current discounted value of the future cash, especially if interest rates go up? Prop 87 would have allocated less than $400M over 10 years, which works out to $40M/year without discounting.
2. Where was it written that it was Khosla Ventures who would get a bulk of the $40M/year available for new investments? That is your presumption. The valley is full of VCs who want to get into alternative energy.
3. Where does it state that state of California would not take any equity stake and will simply donate the money to VCs who can then invest it any way they want? You stated that this would have worked differently then the stem-cell initiative. Could you point to a definitive source which says so?
4. You need to better understand how gas prices work. The price of oil is determined by the marginal barrel; what the last buyer is willing to pay. It has little to do with the cost of production of oil except that the cost of oil production is the floor on oil prices. The marginal cost of producing oil varies but is rarely higher than the teens; that is how oil companies could make a profit when oil was selling in the $30s/40s. Since oil is traded all over the world, a slight increase in the marginal cost of oil (due to a new tax of a few dollars) at one source will not change the price of oil, since the pricing is not based on the cost of production at all. Thing about it: has the cost of production of oil has not gone up so much to justify the $140/gallon prices we see today. The price of gas typically follows the price of crude though there are variations based on short-term supply/demand adjustments.
5. Big Oil companies outspent the supporters of Prop 87 by 2-3x. They got teachers and fire-fighters to support them since the tax collected would have gone to a separate fund and not to the general state fund. As a result the revenues from the tax could not be used to increase the compensation of unionized state employees (teachers, fire-fighters etc.). The higher gas price story was a bunch of baloney too. Do you think that oil companies currently pumping in California would stop pumping because of a few dollars of taxes when the sale price of the pumped oil was at least 2-3x times their marginal extraction cost? They pay similar taxes in TX, AK and LA at a higher rate but they continue to pump there.
6. You original argument was about VCs getting free money. In the next post you point to the incentives to move away from oil will help VC funded companies. What is your point you are trying to make?
-Should VCs not fund alternative energy companies?
-Should the state not encourage the usage of alternative energy?
-Should lobbying for friendly government policies by limited to Big Oil and VCs not be permitted to further the interest of companies they are funding?
-Or should we continue to rely on oil and ship our wealth to Iran, Venezuela and Russia?
BTW, I too spent more than a decade in the valley and have worked with multiple VCs. I have also raised capital from state sponsored funds who take an equity stake at the same terms as the VCs.
I think in the end when big oil makes money off clean energy we will go green!
Let's go over this one at a time
1) Time value of money? Who cares because you are missing the point. The point is that the venture community at large would be getting funding of nearly $400mm without any limited partners to pay back. Your obfuscating simple truths by talking about lotteries and time value of money. It is completely inconsequential or germane to the conversation at hand.
2) I never said Khosla would get the bulk. I said the VCs at large would get the money but of course Khosla was front and center considering he put this thing together and was the main proponent.
3) Read the wording on the legislation. You have it. It clearly states the distribution of IP when the money goes to a research grant. The start-up/seed funding which the VCs would facilitate is conspicuously absent regarding the distribution of the IP. Interesting don't you think. Why don't you go find out otherwise or fill everybody in with some other info you obtain elsewhere. I'm just reading the text and wording of the legislation.
4) I need to understand how the price of gas works? Actually you've done a good job of distorting what I'm trying to say into something completely different -- again. The FACT is this legislation would have purchased purchase approx $2bn worth of "gasoline and diesel" replacement. What are you even talking about with this "need to know how the price of gas works" nonsense. Khosla ventures has 11 different portfolio companies classified (per Khosla) as cellulosic ethanol, corn/sugar fuels and future fuels. The sole reason these companies exist is to -- wait for it -- replace gasoline and diesel. How many gallons would this funding go into the pockets of Khoslas portfolio companies? Who knows, but he's got 11 different companies and there sits $2bn to buy their goods. Is it just me or does this seem like a monumental conflict of interest? Actually a lot of people thought so...
Anyways, if you were inferring that this legislation would have directly caused the price at the pump to go up or down then you are off your branch. I fully understand the fungible oil market from origination through the chain. That still doesn't mean I have any idea why the price REALLY moves. And neither do you for that matter. Every industry expert and pundit are all completely clueless to why oil and gas are actually priced where they are. We all know the mechanics but the "magic numbers" can never be explained other than theory. I use real money at the pump and not theory. So if this legislation passed and over the course of six months the price at the pump went up .45 to $1.00 HOW WOULD YOU KNOW AND WHAT COULD BE DONE ABOUT IT? A big fat no and nothing. So when these guys came out and said that we will protect you at the pump if you vote for this, every single person I know laughed out loud. If we (the citizens) could be protected at the pumps from pricing shenanigans then why is it $4.75-5 today? C'mon lets get real...
My point is that the venture model is fantastic. It should invest in renewable companies of all sorts and is doing so very aggressively. The other point is that it was completely disingenuous and completely dishonest to put forth this legislation on the back of the hatred of big oil. I'm not an apologist for big oil (I have a car) but for f**K sake, the way they put this together and the millions and billions that would be windfall to the venture guys was just outrageous. Anyways it is all water under the bridge now. Done deal but I think that more than few people look at Khosla now with a certain sleaze. I'm out here and maybe you were at another time but when this all went down locally it was quite the talk.
The real shame is that we don't even need this money for solar. Solar is profitable and the solar guys are simply gaming the system for rebates. Take a look at the 10k/q for SPWR and explain why there is a subsidy. If we got rid of all the solar subsidies these companies would be forced compete and the price per watt drop like a rock. The REALITY is that solar is not more entrenched because the solar industry can't get off of the subsidy crack. The other sad part is how it's paid for. Here in CA the current subsidy is paid for ALL rate and taxpayers like renters and the disadvantaged yet the solar assets end up on a rich guys house. He gets his PG&E bill zeroed because of net metering, he gets an increase in home value and everybody else pays for it. It all makes me sick actually. I'm hoping they all get slammed under a price fixing investigation. Solar 2.0 will be the answer anyways and we are between 3-5 years off. I mention this all because it is just another part of the deceit and dishonesty that is being paraded around by the new "green saviors" that are actually out to make big money -- before -- or in lieu of actually helping anyone or the energy crisis...
Terrible.
Saying these companies have an expertise in "Energy" is just a small variation of the argument that drives companies to build conglomerates because their expertise in "Management". A company does well, and is innovative, when it knows its market, maintains its focus, and performs. Energy is to broad a category. (The old SNL routine about the product that was both a floor wax and a desert topping comes to mind...)
If you really believe that Big Oil is blocking the development of Alternative Energy because it interferes with rent seeking in their current markets, why on earth would you urge them to get more involved in that business? If COBASYS is the answer, then taking it private would be the best route for COBASYS, and the best economic alternative for Exxon would be to divest, not invest.
I will never understand arguments that begin..."The Fox is in the hen coop. Lets create legislation that all Foxes must keep at least 10 chickens at all times...." And the shareholders of Exxon should be up in arms that they are not receiving tradeable interests in the spun-off company...
TobyConsidine
This article is about persuading oil companies to get some skin in the game when it comes to the development of alternative energy sources; otherwise they will continue to block progress. If they are unwilling or unable, let them pay slightly more tax while they enjoy huge profits thanks to the difference between the cost of production and the market price of oil.
It is not just government subsidies or taxes, the Cobasys case illustrates how BigOil can use their financial power to kill promising technologies. Another illustration of their political power is the Bureau of Land Management recent decision (later reversed) to put a freeze on applications for new solar projects on public land in six Western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah), while it conducts a 22 month long study looking at the environmental, social and economic impacts of solar energy development. The desert areas of these states are ideally suited for solar power; there are 80 million acres of US land leased to the oil and gas industry and zero acres to the solar industry. The decision was reversed after a massive public uproar, but shows the amount of political support enjoyed by the anti-renewable lobby.
www.nytimes.com/2008/0...
Alpha24seven:
1. Prop 87: Though I do not find it particularly productive to talk about a vote which happened two years ago, I find the misinformation you are propagating worth dispelling.
(a) If you go through the entire text of the proposition (www.sos.ca.gov/electio...), you will find that the term VC is not even mentioned and the term Venture is mentioned only when listing the qualification for Board Membership (use the Search function in Acrobat reader). Though I have repeatedly asked you to post any link which states that the state would not have a stake in the venture investments from the taxes, you have refused to do so. You continue to focus on the absence of language regarding equity stake for an investment via VCs, when there is no explicit statement that the funds will be disbursed via VCs either.
(b) You to fail to take into account is past precedence of state funding of startups and the state agency taking an equity stake. We are not taking about some gullible investors who could be hoodwinked but the state of California which prides itself in nurturing the venture environment and is a veteran in this space. Your conclusions are based on the absence of an explicit statement about an disbursement style which is also not even explicitly mentioned, while you ignore past-precedence. I find them untenable and an egregious example of the distortion of facts to support a particular agenda.
(c) You also fail to see the difference between university research grants and venture investments when it comes to ownership stakes. Typically university research grants do not give significant ownership rights to the industry sponsoring the project; the rights primarily stay with the researcher and the university. This is because the university infrastructure is supported by funding from a variety of sources (public, private etc.). Further there might be multiple companies with grants supporting a particular researcher. Hence the claim of a single company sponsoring a particular project are weak since there are a lot of other players supporting the university and the researcher. If a company really like the results of a project, their typical modus-operandi would be to take an equity stake in a start-up which licenses the technology from the IP holders (the university and the researcher). If Prop 87 explicitly wanted to get the state a stake in these projects, it was because it was going against past precedence regarding external funding of university research. It makes sense for the state to have a stake in the IP too, since in a lot of cases, the university infrastructure is supported by the state.
(d) In your first comment you have explicitly mentioned that Prop 87 would have increased the price at the pump. Though oil pricing is an hard to fathom, the process by which the price at the oil trading pits propagate through the system is not that hard to understand. When the marginal cost of production of oil is significantly less (by almost an order of magnitude) than the price at which oil trades, a few dollars in taxes on locally pumped oil would have little to no impact on the street price of gasoline.
2. VCs: You continue to have a very anti-VC tone in your article. A few things to ponder about:
(a) There is nothing which forces Big Oil has to invest via VCs to avoid the new taxes. They have the resources to hire top experts and set up their own units to invest in alternative energy if they so desire.
(b) Vinod Khosla : The latest issue of Fast Company has a fairly balanced article about his investments. A few takeaways:
a. He formed Khosla Ventures because he did not feel comfortable investing limited partners’ wealth in highly speculative investments; he is putting his own money at risk.
b. He is investing in a lot of pie in the sky research ideas, and not just promising startups with a proven technology. The focus is in on renewable energy, and lower carbon emissions. He favors ethanol because he believes that it is the path of least resistance when it comes to reducing the dependency on oil while allowing time the national infrastructure to transition without massive disruptions.
3. Solar Companies/Subsidies: Electricity from a domestic solar PV installation still costs more than what we currently pay for our electricity via the grid. The tax incentives for individual home owners are meager compared to what industries get and thanks to AMT some of those credits do not even apply. Home owners who pay for solar installations do so primarily to help the environment and encourage the growth of solar industry; not because they are going to get rich. Further if lower usage of oil based resources slows down the growth in the price of oil, it is the less affluent section of the society who will benefit the most; they spend a much larger percentage of their income on gas than the more affluent members.
Well... the future is nanotechnology and only a few companies can afford to pour money into it's research. Think of the big picture...down the road.
This is what is so misunderstood.... Exxonmobil has diversified. They are heavy into nanotechnology. They are teaming up with auto manf. to develop new cars. They developed cleaner refinery technology to sell to others.
"... The ExxonMobil Baytown refinery announced Wednesday the start-up of new facilities that are expected to reduce sulfur content of motor gasoline it produces by 90 percent.
The three-year project included construction of the world's largest SCANfining unit, which uses ExxonMobil's proprietary SCANfining process to selectively remove sulfur from cracked naphtha while minimizing the loss of octane in the resulting gasoline...."
www.bizjournals.com/ho...
and here is a site you will enjoy checking out...
www.exxonmobil.com/Cor...
On Jul 12 02:32 PM TobyConsidin e wrote:
> I would far far rather see big energy companies restricted from investing
> in alternative energy that I would anything like what is suggested
> in this article. Why would a geological exploration and organic chemical
> manufacturer have anything to bring to the table in batter design,
> or in wind generation?
>
> Saying these companies have an expertise in "Energy" is just a small
> variation of the argument that drives companies to build conglomerates
> because their expertise in "Management"... A company does well, and
> is innovative, when it knows its market, maintains its focus, and
> performs. Energy is to broad a category. (The old SNL routine about
> the product that was both a floor wax and a desert topping comes
> to mind...)
>
> If you really believe that Big Oil is blocking the development of
> Alternative Energy because it interferes with rent seeking in their
> current markets, why on earth would you urge them to get more involved
> in that business? If COBASYS is the answer, then taking it private
> would be the best route for COBASYS, and the best economic alternative
> for Exxon would be to divest, not invest.
>
> I will never understand arguments that begin..."The Fox is in the
> hen coop. Lets create legislation that all Foxes must keep at least
> 10 chickens at all times...." And the shareholders of Exxon should
> be up in arms that they are not receiving tradeable interests in
> the spun-off company...
You are simply trying to hard to come off as this really "smart guy". To the point of being of obnoxious. You are now engaging in straw man and syntax arguments which is quite unfortunate. This is not high school debate.
Look, if you post a thesis here then you must accept that people with real connections and ties to this industry will counter your positions. The reason we are discussing past proposed legislation is because it was full vetted and defeated. You are basically rehashing what we already defeated with the notion of "tax big oil to pay for renewables". I'm not sure why you wouldn't understand why are discussing this as it is extremely relevant.
I'm not anti VC at all. Reread my posts. I'm anti charlatan which are two completely different things.
You completely missed the point about solar subsidies. I was talking about the solar industry gaming the system to insure that they were able to have a subsidy. This subsidy is paid for by the poor and disadvantaged to the benefit of the upwardly mobile. The entire "subsidy scheme" was prepared by the solar industry on their behalf. I'm sorry but it is an undeniable fact and many in the solar industry consider it to be their own Sword of Damocles. But of course that still doesn't stop them from pushing for money which is the shame in it all. Can you explain how this industry is printing million and billionaires and has extraordinary profit yet still screams that would die immediately if the subsidies ended? I'm guessing this where you will fly into the "well what about the oil subsidies" which is a completely unintelligent correlation considering they are akin to bowling balls and cotton balls...
I think you are a pretty book smart guy, but street smarts, not so much...
Let's adds some comedy to this. I'll be Thornton Melon (Rodney Dangerfield) and you will be Dr. Barbay from that classic lecture hall scene where the Dr. is lecturing the students on how business "works" not realizing that Thornton (who is a very succesful real businessman) actually schools him on the way things REALLY work. The Back to School movie starring Dangerfield is hilarious movie. I'd really recommend you see it.
This about sums it all up.
Thornton Melon: Oh, you left out a bunch of stuff.
Dr. Phillip Barbay: Oh really? Like what for instance?
Thornton Melon: First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boyscouts.
Dr. Phillip Barbay: That will be quite enough, Mr. Melon! Maybe bribes, kickbacks and Mafia payoffs are how YOU do business! But they are NOT part of the legitimate business world! And they are certainly not part of anything I am doing in this class. Do I make myself clear, Mr. Melon!
0. My arguments are supported by facts and links to documents which confirm them. Your arguments are based on unverified assumptions, which more often are wrong. There is nothing 'smart guy' about my posts; they contain arguments built on top of verifiable facts.
1. You asked me to read the drafts for Prop 87 and I read it to prove that there is no mention of money even going to VCs; any claim you make beyond that is a strawman proposal, based on an unverified assumption followed by an argument which defies past precedent. Half-truths at the best, deceptive propaganda at the worst.
2. You claim that the solar industry is making extraordinary profits. Till recently (2-3 years ago), most solar companies, even the high-flyers of today were start-ups with a long history of struggle. It is only in the past 2-3 years that the solar industry has taken off, along with the price of oil. Sunpower was not profitable till 2006
finance.aol.com/earnin...
FirstSolar was not profitable till 2007
finance.aol.com/earnin...
3. Government Subsidies are designed as a policy tool to encourage the use of new products early in their adoption cycle. The subsidies help reduce the pricing gap between an established product with economies of scale and a new product with a small market, to make them more attractive to early adopters. The early adopters of any expensive technology are likely to be more affluent apart from being socially conscious. Your class warfare argument ignores the fact remains that it is the affluent who pay a bulk of the taxes in the USA. There is nothing wrong in them getting some of the tax back to help nurture an industry which will help the less affluent in the long term.
4. You wrote "You are basically rehashing what we already defeated ..". During my discussion with you, I have learned a lot about the campaign used to defeat Prop 87, and have realized that most of the arguments used do not stand up to any detailed scrutiny. The oil industry used its wealth to outspend the proponents by a factor of 2-3x, to spread a message of fear (gas prices will go up, when TX, LA, AK charge a much higher tax), false arguments (how government employees will suffer because they get no dibs), and outright defamation (VCs getting free money). Californians are progressive in nature; they passed the stem cell proposal even though it was coming out of their own pocket. However Prop 87 failed even though it would have bought more money into the state, thanks to the half-truths. Just another illustration of the power of Big Oil and their ability to hinder the growth of renewable energy while their own reserves are depleting
5. It seems in your eyes, the rules should be different for oil and other industries when it comes to running a business. It is OK for oil companies to:
- have a vise like grip on our energy policy
- use their political and monetary muscle to oppose new technologies
- get the political and military support available to nationalized industries with little recognition of their responsibilities in return, -continue to get new subsidies while their reserves dwindle due to reduced investments
However, if the investors in competing technologies, which will:
- help our nation's economy by reducing energy costs
- restore our position as a technology leader
- strengthen our nation's strategic position
- and also help the environment
try for some government support, they are charlatans?
I'm beginning to see this pattern whereby you try and discredit others opinion because they differ from yours. You keep saying I'm using half truths and propaganda but that is coming from someone that doesn't understand the industry from an inside perspective as I do. Where you an invited guest to the last Vote Solar party in San Francisco? I don't remember meeting you there. The fact is you have a naive view and I will dare say myopic view of how the solar industry works. Being an insider, I do not . What really burns me is that if this industry were to shed the subsidies then the solar revolution would really begin because everybody would compete on price and the cost per installed watt would plummet. You just go around yelling "we need more subsidies to make this work" when in FACT it is just the opposite.
1) The syntax argument is in full effect. Why do you over intellectualize the whole wording regarding "VC". You and everybody else knows damned well that the VC community was the front end to the start up funding. Why do you even question that? Do you just want to be argumentative? For goodness sake, look at the main funding and the architects of the legislation -- VCs.
2) Who gives a damned what happened in the past regarding profitability for the solars. The FACT is today that most are wildly succesful and profitable and still getting their product subsidized by approx 50% from rate and taxpayers. Are you suggesting that there should be a several year overlap of subsidy just because the solars had a rough beginning? What the hell is that?
3) You accurately describe what subsidies and incentives are for. In a word, they are used to achieve scale. They worked. We have scale. We have a very robust industry that no longer needs subsidies by your own description. As far as class warfare and the wealthy paying the majority of the taxes and they should be able to get some back is utter rubbish. Why don't you tell the struggling family that they should kick in their monthly PG&E bill to help some rich guy zero his utility bill. Please...
4) You are stuck on this whole "big oil crushed the renewable incentive scheme on lies and deceit". You act like a good foot soldier in the "Inconvenient Truth" army. Another example of your using straw man arguments. The FACT is that the VCs would have received hundreds of million in free money and everybody knows it -- except for some reason you. You say that isn't true and then go on to base the rest of your position on big oil outspending the opponents and this spending is what caused people to believe the VCs would get a windfall. The problem is they -- would -- have got a windfall and there is no lie, half truth, proganda to that at all. It is a 100% fact.
Since we are talking misrepresentation and distortion, let's look at what you said in your original piece regarding the tax credit extensions and how you alluded to it being part of a concerted effort to hold back renewable energy by big oil/Republicans (I'll presume) The FACT is that those tax extensions were removed by Reed and Pelosi originally. The industry screamed bloody murder and then they have been trying to get the tax credits extended by a series of legislative additions doomed to fail at the hands of the Republicans. It was a power play led by the Dems! They threw solar under the bus so they could extract maximum political gain. They knew that the extensions would fail but they wanted to be able to say "we took on the Repubs and big oil for renewable energy but we were voted down again by the people trying to hold it down" What a crock. EVERYBODY in the solar industry knows exactly what happened and I'll just say that the Democratic leadership isn't thought highly of right now. But you posit that it was as the Dems said, a big plot to pull renewables down which is a complete distortion on your part. Then you go on to mention that all your positions can be proven through links. Right. You can link to the subsidy strucutre and see that it is paid for by renters and the disadvantaged with no chance of getting solar or a zeroed utility bill -- check. You can link to the proof these companies are now profitable -- check. You can link to articles from inside the solar industry in disgust of Congress for using solar as a political tool -- check. So you go on to allude and distort that somehow what I'm saying isn't verifiable so again as you've said several times, I'm telling half truths and propagating misinformation. Pure crap.
I guess at the highest level I'm not taking your incessant drone of how I am telling half truths and propagating misinformation because in FACT I'm not and actually you are becasue quite simply I don't really think you understand how this actually works. The nitty gritty details and not some fanciful "concept" of the tired old big oil out to get everybody. Simply and utterly false and a misconception that keeps being passed around as some sort of urban legend truth.
Here's a test. If you know so much about this, tell us the two things that keep solar execs up at night and the new fear striking the heart of the wind industry. All the insiders whisper these things so lets see what you really know other than your glammed up version of the tired old "If only America could be proud and take the reigns back from the profiteers" blah blah blah. It's all so very tired and boring to keep hearing the sound byte intellectuals constantly pass it around like cheap booze at a camp fire. Answer the questions and we will see what you really know.
0. This article is about oil companies, and their potential role beyond oil. For some reason you believe that persuading Oil companies to support renewable energy is because of some reflexive hatred of Oil Companies. As an individual who loves driving, let me assure you I have nothing against oil per se; I do however feel that Big Oil can do a lot more to further our national interests. Also it is not just about solar energy but alternative and renewable energy sources.
1. To set the record clear, I haven't even watched the Inconvenient Truth. This article is also not about partisan politics (I am an independent). It is about getting oil companies to get some skin in the renewable energy train which will help end the partisan gridlock and move our country forward towards a more balanced energy policy.
2. You say "The FACT is that the VCs would have received hundreds of million in free money and everybody knows it "; However you have been unable to dig even a SINGLE official document supporting that. Unfortunately I do not believe in 'facts which everyone knows' if they are not supported by verifiable proof.
3. Further you continue to take aim in investors in renewable energy and any benefits which investors in these companies will get because of government sponsored incentives. Should incentives and subsidies only help investors in oil companies? You call VCs charlatans, when at least one of them is putting millions of his own money at stake in supporting new research, some in projects which even he believes are just pie in the sky. BTW, this was the same guy who had the integrity of going to a Goldman Sachs conference and state that many of the high flyers of the tech bubble will crash, six months before the crash began when he and his firm were big investors in the same firms.
4. Historically the support of more forward looking research (or promising pie in the sky ideas) was driven by government funding or by the research budgets of large corporations. It is indeed a sad day for our country when VCs are putting their own money in pursuing this research. This does not bode well for our nation's technological leadership.
5. PG&E changed its rate structure in 2006 so that the power bought back by it no longer was at an attractive rate; as a result a majority of home with solar installation, even those which do not use power at the peak hours, will not get a net zero bill.
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
6. If you believe that the current policies to support the solar industry needs to catch up with the ground reality, then please do educate the rest of us by writing an article focussing on the problem areas. More importantly, please support your claims by appropriate links instead of unverifiable claims of FACTs which everyone knows.
1) The oil industry has big skin in the renewable energy business. Maybe not to your liking or the unwashed masses that fall victim to the never ending innuendo that big oil is out to get them. I've toured the BP solar plant in Linthicum. Shell is a huge player in PV. I think you've fixated on Exxon and are painting the entire oil industry (aka "Big Oil" in your parlance) with the same brush. This is my point exactly. The oil industry IS doing much in renewables but commentary from you and many others make it sound as if they are not only -- not -- involved but on a constant Jihad to kill renewables which is completely false.
2) Re the VC input on the CA legislation. So tell us then who would be funding the start ups (commercial non-academic) Tell us who would be choosing the winning ideas for funding and tell us who would then be administrating the start ups to the liquidity event. Now we all know it is the VC community except again for maybe you. Apparently there is some phantom government committee/apparatus never mentioned in any of the legislation that would suddenly show up and fund the commercial start ups. It's the VCs and you know it. VCs make money on the exit. Bada boom. What is so hard for you to understand about this?
3) I take no aim at investors in RE. Again reread my posts. You are distorting what I've said to make dissociative point. I never assailed any investors in RE. I assailed subsidies that are not needed that are actually taken directly from the poor and disadvantaged every single month in their utility bill to help a rich homeowner get a shiny new PV system on his roof. AND I'm against any subsidy that would accomplish this while zeroing the monthly utility bill of the rich guy while the disadvantaged ratepayer has no relief on their monthly utility bill. It is wrong and not in the spirit of fair play nor in good taste. MANY in the solar industry wince knowing this is the case but as I've said getting off the gravy train ain't easy...
4) I NEVER said VCs were charlatans! Again you misrepresent and distort. My posts are right there for the reading. I said that this legislation was a charlatan enterprise. I've consistently said the VC system is fantastic and that we don't need new taxes/legislation for renewables because the VC system works so well. ANYBODY with a good RE idea can get venture funded today. It isn't lack of investment money! It is lack of good solid ideas! More money isn't the answer. More money would just end up creating a super RE bubble like "green" Webvans and dogfood.com. C'mon everyone knows there is tons of money in and going into cleantech. Are you somehow suggesting that VCs will give up their carry on these deals because they are great guys out to save the environment. It is about green -- green as in money green. Laughable...
5) Haven't you heard of NREL? How about the great & fantastic work done at Argonne National Labs? You continue to objectify Khosla as some sort of knight. You then go on to distort again this whole "halo" angle for him saying that "he only uses his own money on these pie in the sky ideas" which is completely false. As I mentioned (and either you do know or are purposely misleading by not including) that he took $640mm from CALPERS public retirement fund to invest in cleantech. So not only he is raising capital but he is from public entities and their retirement funds. Why are you not mentioning and purposely sailing past this? This is what he should have done in the first place instead of tarnishing his reputation with the failed legislation. A proper venture/limited partner relationship whereby everybody knows where everybody stands instead of some poorly constructed attempt to patronize the public into bilking hundreds of millions out of the oil industry as synthetic limited partner investors. Scandalous and shameful.
6) I live in California and for you to say that people aren't zeroing their bills with net metering is ridiculous. I would say it is indicative of your body of knowledge in the entire area. Don't you realize that it is one of the largest selling point on the residential side. Seriously if you really think that people aren't taking advantage of net metering and driving their bills to zero (Appropriately sized pv array) then why are you making all this high minded fuss about "Americas energy shame". Understand the basics first. You can zero your bill. You will not get paid for more than you produce put back on the grid.
What you should understand in this business is that the model has already shifted. The investment community doesn't want to engage big oil on development. I will repeat this revelation. NO -- the RE industry and the investment community doesn't want oil involved now. Why? Because investors need an exit and who better than the oil industry sitting on record cash. Consider a disruptive technology that could threaten top line revenue to a major oil company. What will happen? The VCs will shop this company to the oil company for a 1,000 exit! We need the oil industry to horde cash because they are going to be the buyers of all this new technology eventually. Don't think for a single minute Exxon is going to sit idly by and go out of business when some new technology hits the street. These are once oil companies and now they are energy companies. Look at BPs "beyond petroleum" See, everybody in the RE space knows this is the strategy now after the last prop 87 debacle but it doesn't quiet down the chorus of guys like you that still push for something not needed, not wanted and completely non beneficial to grow the industry. I know of one very succesful solar that pulled working their S-1 because the IPO market is weak and they can hold out for a much better (and easy) deal shopping the co to a big energy conglomerate. Consolidation is right around the corner.
You and I want the same thing. I want solar to kick ass and take names (believe me) but we aren't going to get there messing about with all these subsidies. They are drag on the future development. Can you imagine if Dell and HP were subsidized approx 50% for pc's? You're wrist watch would have more processing power and they'd cost $30k and be the size of a Volkswagen. Solar is part of the semi industry yet it DOES-NOT-COMPETE on price or specs because it is propped up by subsidies. Don't you realize that if solar dropped like a stone that it would take the fight directly to your nemesis big oil (and coal, and nuclear, natgas). Plug in hybrids would be common place charged by inexpensive rooftop arrays but that is NOT the case because of -- price. Look at atypical PV system. Decidedly low tech. Absolutely no way it should be priced at $9-10 kWh installed (before rebate) This all may be academic anyways if the promise of Nanosolar is real. They are shipping at .99 per watt but lets see if it holds up in the field. If so the energy revolution is upon us.
I will address you here but I will not write any articles because I'm well known in the solar industry and I'm not going on the record by name with all this -- yet.
I am not going to respond further to your posts UNLESS you provide links. Your claims of FACTS are have little credibility especially when in some cases (like Prop 87) they were essentially half-truths designed to instill fear among the voters, who have approved much more costly initiatives. To me 'everyone knows' is not good enough; if it is truly the case it should not take more than 30 seconds to find a link to a credible source.
1. Net Zero and Solar System Costs:
I am not sure I follow your arguments about the cost of the solar systems. On one hand you say net-zero systems are abundant and on the other hand you say that solar is too expensive because of incorrectly applied subsidies. Sure if you are willing to pay 3-4x the cost of PG&E electricity in financing your net-zero system, you can get there, but for anything reasonable (cost < 1.5x PG&E electricity), net-zero is not feasible. I had tried three different vendors in Fall of 2006, but could not get to less than 1.5x PG&E costs after all the rebates/credits. Today with HE loans are much harder and expensive to get, the costs are even higher. Do everyone a favor and get a quote today instead of spreading misinformation under an anonymous alias.
2. Your audacity in spreading misinformation about VCs is indeed an eye-opener to me.
(a)
The first news about Calpers potentially investing in Khosla Ventures emerged about a month ago. Until now then *ALL* the money and the investments were from his or his families/friends' wealth. Further Calpers will be a limited partner. But you make it seem that the guy has been looting pension funds and blowing their money in pie in the sky idea.
72.14.205.104/search?q...
(b)
You continue to claim, in spite of being called out, that the ventures financed from Prop 87s investment fund would not have given the state an equity state. You also say that it was VCs primarily who pushed Prop 87, when the biggest donor for Prop 87 was file producer/real estate developer Steve Bing who has donated to similar causes before. Further you believe that the funds to help state residents to replace existing systems with newer technology would have helped companies funded by VCs via Prop 87 funds. Do you have *ANY* idea of how long a VC funded company would take to commercialize a new technology and make it mass-market? Prop 87 had a ten year horizon and most of the money for consumer assistance would have gone to existing technologies in the market or which were ready to come to the market. It would not have gone to products based on pie in the sky technologies which are still in the lab, or in the mind of VCs and a long time away from commercial use.
(c) Investments: Do everyone a favor and find the percentage of GDP being invested in path-breaking research today when compared to the 1960s-1970s. Over the past few decades, the pay-back horizon on most investments has shrunk to a point, where our ability to be a pioneer fundamental research is under serious threat. If Khosla puts his own money in pie in the sky idea, I laud him. The proof is in the pudding: Do you wonder why researchers are contacting him, an individual, rather than rely on traditional sources?
(3) Big Oil and Renewable Energy:
Under the broad principles of the current proposal, firms who invest in renewable energy (like BP as you claim) will get a credit for that investment and not be taxed on that portion. It is not just renewable energy; firms who invest in new refineries will not be taxed. So if BP is indeed investing, the purpose of the initiative is already achieved and BP's tax bill will be proportionally reduced.
And regarding green BP: The money spent in the BP's Green Image ad campaign is in the similar range as the money actually invested in renewable energy! Taking a page out of your book, ' and that is a FACT which everyone but you know'
(4) And finally, this is not about solar energy; it is about getting Big Oil to put their immense financial and political muscle to work in helping the nation get out of the mess we are in. Even if alternative energy picks up big time, it will take a LONG time for the role of oil in the world economy to become insignificant; a century of investment in an oil based infrastructure ensures that. A few billion in investments in new technologies, will not alter their current balance sheets in any significant manner; nor will it destroy demand for oil when billions in Asia integrate with the modern economy. And it is very likely their new investments in renewables are going to be in *LONG TERM* share-holder interest of Big Oil companies too.
Big Oil has benefited a lot from the current system; it is time they put their profits to work in national interest instead of playing spoil-sport, while the transfer of wealth to countries amicable to our interests spirals upwards.
BP And Oil Links:
business.timesonline.c...
money.cnn.com/2008/03/...
www.shell.com/home/con...
www.shell.com/home/con...
Khosla 87:
venturebeat.com/2006/1.../
venturebeat.com/2006/0.../
If you want to contact me offline we can discuss further.
alpha24seven (at) gmail.com
Thank you for the links. It is great to know that BP and Shell are doing their part now. They really do not need to worry about the new tax since they should be able to get enough credits to offset that. The purpose has already been achieved.
Prop 87:
The first rebuttal from the oil industry insider makes some claims without much analysis behind them. Further they might have been relevant when oil was trading in the $30s-$40s. When oil trades well above $100, any increase in the marginal cost of production of oil because of a few dollars of taxes per barrel is irrelevant. Oil is currently priced based on value plus model, not the cost plus model. It will definitely affect the profitability of the producer but when the gap between the cost of pumping and market price is almost three figures, the tax does not matter when it comes to the decision to pump or not. The corporate tax issue affects any firm doing business in CA; nothing unique to oil.
Oil Drum: The debate between RR (Rapier) and Khosla was not much about Prop 87 but between Khosla's focus on ethanol and RR's opposition to ethanol as an alternative. RR has done an excellent roundup article which clarified both the sides here
www.theoildrum.com/sto...
Khosla believes in ethanol since it is the least disruptive way of reducing gasoline usage without turning our world upside down.
RR has another recent article (2008) where he has started to agree with one of Khosla's sponsored venture:
www.theoildrum.com/nod...
BTW, since you know so much about the solar industry who not right a position paper describing what is wrong with the solar subsidies out there. Just because the subsidies (capital) are not being deployed in the most efficient manner does not mean that the objective is not worthwhile.
fixedincomequant gmail