Vikram Saxena

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

alpha24seven:

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

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

alpha24seven:

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.

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

alpha24seven:

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.

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

continued....

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?

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

alpha24seven:

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

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

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.

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

alpha24seven:

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.

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

alpha24seven:

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.

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

fireball:

I agree with you that the government tends to screw things up and they are not the best investor of capital.

However, a knee-jerk opposition to any proposal which involves the government is not healthy. When it comes to driving truly radical transformations, it is only the government who has the power to lock horns with an industry with hundreds of billions in revenue and tens of billions in profits. Especially in the case of oil, which gets immense political patronage because energy security in America has become a synonym for cheap oil.

Big Oil wants to be in a heads I win, tails you loose situation; they want the patronage enjoyed by nationalized oil companies but in return would rather not think about our national interest. Think about oil at $140 and Big Oil, every time Chavez tries to spread his socialism in latin America or Ahmednijad threatens to send the Mid-East into deep turmoil.

All Big Oil has to do is to stop thinking in terms of oil and start thinking broadly in terms of energy. If a 25% tax on massive profits is what it takes, let it be done. Remember, the tax is on excess profits which are not reinvested in alternative energy or new refineries.

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

User 73257:
0. The first thing to worry about is why Chevron which sells oil, wants to acquire ownership over a key component of a competing technology.

1.Till recently (at least) Cobasys has refused to license large-format NiMH batteries destined for the US and Chinese transportation markets. The current agreement restricts the largest size of the battery which can be sold to the transportation sector. The goal is to kill plug in cars, while continue to tout their green credentials for much less effective hybrids with a gas engine.

2. Capacity: NiMH does not require any thing which needs to be mined and shipped from the moon. The capacity to supply batteries does not exist simply because Big Oil has created IP and political restrictions which clearly were designed to limit plug in cars. Even Matushita knows that there is no point going into a duel with BigOil; they will not invest in new capacity till they know that Washington has given the green light.

3. Over the past decade where GM and Cobasys sat on the NiMH patents, alternative technologies have emerged which migh be better than NiMH. However we lost a decade in the process. Further we lost the chance to become a leader in the EV technology and use EV technology as the primary driver of the growth in Asia. Asia is starting pretty much from a scratch and if EV had been successful here, they would have likely adopted that instead of being captive of the world oil market.

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

Mmark:

In the article I have mentioned clearly that our current policies regarding drilling have to be reviewed. However it does not absolve the BigOil from their behavior over the past decade where the successfully blocked new transportation technologies, while they continued to cut down on their own exploration efforts.

There is an article published by McKinsey Quarterly which is available at
www.mckinseyquarterly.... (you will have to register)

The striking fact which stuck out was that while Big Oil reduced spending on exploration and continued to harp about the lack of drilling access in the US, nationalized oil companies across the world, significantly increased their reserves on foreign lands. Between 1998 to 2004, the percentage of reserves from foreign lands went to (from):
Petronas (Malaysia): 27% (13%)
Statoil (Norway): 21% (16%)
Petrobras (Brazil): 11% (4%)
CNOOC (China): 29% (0%)
ONGC (India): 21% (0%).

Note how Indian and Chinese nationalized companies who did not have any presence outside their borders significantly increased their exposure outside their borders, while BigOil fiddled.

sharksm:
It will really help if you could focus specifically on the issue at hand instead of the problems associated with the welfare state. Right now we are in a situation where 60% our oil expenditure goes to countries like Iran and Venezuela. The economy is in a tailspin; clearly such a situation is not in our interest; we need reduce dependency on oil. Why shouldn't BigOil which enjoys patronage similar to nationalized companies, but in return has stymied efforts to strengthen our nations energy security, share a part of the burden? Note that they will not have to pay the new tax if the start investing in new refineries, alternative energy, or simply boost their capital expenditure (hence reduce profits which can be taxed).

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

NRGee:

The smaller oil companies operate under the umbrella of policies strongly influenced by Big Oil; hence the focus on Big Oil since they determine the industry environment.

sharksm and paulk8756:
Oil is the largest industry in the world and that kind of money brings in immense amount of political power. Big Oil has shaped our energy, and specifically transportation policy; they have successfully killed alternatives which challenge the internal combustion engine. Our dependence on foreign oil also meant that oil plays a key role in determining our foreign policy; whether it is engineering successful coups (Iran in 1953) or failed coups (Venezuela in 2002) or permanent military bases in the Middle East, oil industry is backed by the full diplomatic, and military muscle of the United States.

Big Oil in the US works with many of the benefits of nationalized oil company, with few of the responsibilities that comes with it. Over the past decade oil companies from other parts from the world went out to seek new oil fields; on the other hand, Big Oil has seen its reserves deplete as it refrained from making investments in new exploration. While oil prices jumped up 4x in the past few years, Big Oil keeps on returning capital to shareholders.

Big Oil has put us between a rock and a hard place: one hand they have tried their best to kill any threat to internal combustion engine, on the other hand they have reduced their investments in finding new oil. Big Oil has essentially dumped the American people at the altar, while they wait and watch how energy markets develop.

Can Big Oil Balance Shareholder Interest Against National Interest?

jebo:
I have another article on SA which goes deeper into Big Oil and their profit margins.
seekingalpha.com/artic...