Windfall Profits: A Lesson from the U.K.
Regardless of your position on windfall profits taxes on oil companies, one thing has been demonstrated again and again. Governments consistently fail to accurately anticipate the consequences. As oil prices have increased, governments have seen tax revenues from oil and gas grow significantly. But they apparently believe they know how to deal with a goose that lays golden eggs: Take some food away from that corpulent goose, but expect it to keep laying golden eggs.
The purpose for imposing windfall profits taxes is generally two-fold. First, a government can tell the citizens that despite their inability to control oil and gas prices, they are doing something by “punishing” the oil companies that benefit from these rising prices. Second, they genuinely see it as a rich source of revenue that they can squeeze without consequence. They think the only real people who will be affected are those who are directly involved with oil and gas companies.
History has shown again and again that this viewpoint is inaccurate. That hasn’t stopped recent attempts in California, with Proposition 87, and current attempts in Wisconsin to again try dipping into this “consequence-free” pot of money. While I favor the direct approach – tax oil and gas on the consumption side – recent attempts have focused on taxing it on the production side, while writing into the legislation provisions to prevent costs from trickling down to consumers. I have previously noted the stunning naivety of this approach, and that these attempts are destined for failure.
It turns out that we now have another example to add to the list in which politicians inaccurately gauged the consequences. The story more or less starts right after Hurricane Katrina. U.K. Chancellor and soon-to-be Prime Minister Gordon Brown detailed what he believed needed to be done to bring down gas prices:
Chancellor Gordon Brown has called for a “concerted effort” by oil-producing countries to bring down prices – but is not offering to cut taxes on petrol.
Ahead of expected fuel duty protests, Mr Brown told the TUC Opec countries to produce more oil and refine more.
Mr Brown called for more worldwide investment in refineries and alternative energies.
So, he told OPEC to produce more oil. I bet they got right on that. The last statement is the most interesting, in light of the move that Brown made just a few months later:
Chancellor Gordon Brown has announced a rise in the tax levied on North Sea oil producers in the wake of record crude prices. Under the measure, the government’s supplementary charge on energy companies will rise to 20% from 10%.
Mr Brown also said there would be no further rises in the North Sea oil tax during this parliament.
Meanwhile, the extra revenue raised would be used to “help consumers most affected by the significant increases in global oil and energy prices” such as pensioner households, the government said.
“Governments levy taxes and we will do what we have to,” said a BP spokesman. “But any extra tax that we pay is money that is no longer available for investment in North Sea oil and gas fields.”
So, Brown called for more investment, and then doubled the surcharge (bringing the total corporate tax rate for oil companies to 50%). I guess he thought he would sit back and watch the revenues come rolling in, and then use those revenues to help consumers affected by higher energy prices. But not only do you discourage investment with these sorts of moves, rising oil prices also increase the costs of everything associated with the oil business. I could have told him that while his strategy might work in the very short term, it would certainly be akin to cutting a research budget: Short term gain, with often longer term consequences.
Brown’s reality checks have started to arrive. In a prescient article written in February 2007, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne got to the crux of the matter:
By squeezing the maximum amount of tax revenue from Britain’s oil and gas assets, Gordon Brown is putting further offshore investment at risk, George Osborne has warned.
Accusing the Treasury of failing to understand that the UK Continental Shelf is a mature resource competing for investment in a fiercely competitive global market, he went on: “They don’t recognise that investment in the North Sea cannot be taken for granted when there are potentially more profitable opportunities in West Africa, Mexico or Brazil.
In short, Gordon Brown risks denying future generations the benefits our generation has enjoyed from the North Sea. He’s more interested in cash today than investment tomorrow. The result is that Britain’s North Sea inheritance is in danger of being squandered.”
Last week, the treasury announced that things weren’t working out as forecast:
Source: Daily Mail; London (UK)
Publication date: 2007-03-22
The Treasury is nursing a Pounds 5bn shortfall in North Sea oil and gas revenues after a sharp rise in tax rates failed to bring in the targeted result. North Sea revenues for 2006/7 were only Pounds 8bn, against a projected Pounds 13bn. Though North Sea production is declining, the fall cannot be explained by this alone. The UK Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA) says the Treasury did not foresee that a rise in crude oil prices would be followed by a sharp rise in costs as the industry scrambled for drilling rigs, skilled workers and specialist equipment.
Surprise! Thus is the short-sightedness of our political leaders.
Brown has admitted that things didn’t work out as planned, but blamed “factors outside the government’s control”:
Falling North Sea oil revenues will force the government to borrow more than expected, it emerged today, drawing accusations of “panic” from opposition politicians.
Gordon Brown argued in an interview that borrowing remained on a downward trend but added: “What has changed our forecast is what happened to North Sea revenues.”
Mr Brown said North Sea oil revenues would be £5.5bn lower than expected for 2007/08 but argued that the reduction was due to factors outside the government’s control. “That’s no fault of the government. It’s lower production from the North Sea. We have to take that into account,” Mr Brown told the BBC’s Today programme.
No fault of the government? Again, read George Osbourne’s words above. Investment in the North Sea is affected by the tax rates. You have taken money away that could have gone into new investments and diverted it. So, even though North Sea production is in decline, these policies will accelerate that decline by discouraging new investments.
As I said, I support higher gas taxes. That is not my issue at all. My issue is that these politicians have an incredibly naive view and believe they can increase these taxes with no fallout on anyone but the oil companies. Time and time again they see this as a quick fix to budgetary issues, while pandering to a constituency outraged at higher energy prices. It’s just that it never works out they way they thought it would. But I’m sure that won’t stop them from trying again.