See below report from the Center for American Progress.  Reaction statement from Jeremy Funk, Comm. Director, Americans United for Change: "It's not surprising Big Oil insists they can't live without billions in taxpayer subsidies despite reporting $93 billion in profits. It's not even surprising that Big Oil turns around and uses those taxpayer dollars/profits to inflate their own stock and their CEOs bonuses. With greed this out of control, the only thing that could surprise anymore is if BP or Exxon tried to declare themselves tax-exempt religious organizations.  Big Oil's greedy behavior is so predictable that if they are successful in convincing Washington to gut the Renewable Fuel Standard and hobble their cheaper, cleaner competition  (like the ethanol industry that unlike Big Oil, don't take subsidies), it will come as no surprise when prices go north at the pump and the nation relapses on its addiction to oil from unstable overseas regions."

Report excerpt: Of course, when it comes to spending their money, the priorities of oil companies are fairly obvious. All of the companies, except for ConocoPhillips, spent a combined total of $32 billion, or nearly 40 percent of their total profits, to repurchase their own stock. (see Table 1) This increases the value of the remaining shares, providing a bounty to senior executives, boards of directors, and other large shareholders. The CEOs of these five companies had a combined compensation of $96 million in 2012, the last year for which data are available, or nearly $20 million per CEO. This is nearly 400 times greater than the $51,107 median income for a family of four during that same year. These five major oil corporations also spent $45 million on lobbying in 2013; every $1 spent on lobbying helped the companies protect $53 of their tax breaks?an outstanding rate of return.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2014/02/10/83879/with-only-93-billion-in-profits-the-big-five-oil-companies-demand-to-keep-tax-breaks/

With Only $93 Billion in Profits, the Big Five Oil Companies Demand to Keep Tax Breaks

By Daniel J. Weiss and Miranda Peterson | February 10, 2014

The 2013 profit totals are in for the big five oil companies?BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Shell. Their financial reports indicate that they earned a combined total of $93 billion last year, or $177,000 per minute. (see Table 1) After years of oil production declines, the big five oil companies actually increased their total production by 34 percent in 2013, predominately due to BP and ConocoPhillips almost doubling their total production. The companies' higher oil production yet lower profits indicate that it is becoming more expensive to produce oil as the number of newer, easier, and cheaper fields shrink. This is why, despite their outsized earnings, the oil companies are not only fighting to keep their tax breaks but also lobbying to lift the crude oil export ban. But doing so could hurt working families, our economy, and our energy security. Instead, we need to invest in cleaner transportation alternatives.

As mindboggling as it sounds, Big Oil's $93 billion in profits in 2013?impressive by any standard?were nonetheless a 27 percent reduction in profits compared to 2012, primarily because gasoline averaged 16 cents per gallon?or 4 percent?less. Despite the decreases, Exxon Mobil, Shell, and Chevron still had the first, seventh, and eighth, respectively, highest profits of any global public company on the 2013 Fortune 500 list. BP finished 30th, while ConocoPhillips ranked 50th, mostly because it spun off its refining business partway through 2012.

It would not be surprising if the big five oil companies use their 2013 decline in profits as another excuse to pressure Congress to retain their $2.4 billion-per-year tax breaks. The largest of these special provisions allows these companies to qualify for the "limitation on section 199 deduction attributable to oil, natural gas, or primary products," which will cost taxpayers $14.4 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. This tax break was enacted in 2004 and was designed to encourage manufacturing to remain in the United States rather than move overseas. It ought not apply to oil and natural gas production since the oil and gas fields cannot be moved to another nation.

The Joint Committee on Taxation found that the second-largest deduction was for "modifications of foreign tax credit rules applicable to major integrated oil companies which are dual capacity taxpayers." This provision is worth $7.5 billion over 10 years. Seth Hanlon, former Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress, best describes why this tax break is unwarranted:

Our tax system allows companies that do business abroad to reduce from their tax bill any income taxes paid to other governments. The rules are supposed to prevent oil companies from claiming credit for royalty payments to foreign governments. Royalties are not taxes; they are fees for the privilege of extracting natural resources.

... oil companies have been permitted to claim credits for certain payments to foreign governments, even in countries that generally impose low or no business tax (suggesting that these payments, or levies, are in fact a form of royalty). Dual capacity taxpayer rules, therefore, are a subsidy for foreign production by U.S. oil companies.

The decline in profits is also why the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies are lobbying to lift the crude oil export ban, which would enable them to sell their domestic oil at the world, or Brent, price that fetched nearly $10 per barrel more than the domestic, or West Texas Intermediate, price on February 7. Lifting the ban would force the United States to import more expensive foreign oil to replace the exported domestic oil, which could raise gasoline prices. Banking giant Barclays Plc predicts that lifting the current ban could add $10 billion annually to gasoline prices paid at the pump.

If there is any good news here for American families and businesses, it is that gasoline prices, which hit a record high in 2012, were lower in 2013. This cut at the pump reduced the average household's annual gasoline expenditures.

The fact that profits decreased in 2013 despite production increasing by 34 percent calls into question the big five companies' reliance on finding and developing more difficult, dangerous oil fields?such as those in the Arctic Ocean. It is fairly clear that such a business model is not economically sustainable. Instead, they?and we?could benefit from greater investment in cleaner, alternative transportation technologies.

Of course, when it comes to spending their money, the priorities of oil companies are fairly obvious. All of the companies, except for ConocoPhillips, spent a combined total of $32 billion, or nearly 40 percent of their total profits, to repurchase their own stock. (see Table 1) This increases the value of the remaining shares, providing a bounty to senior executives, boards of directors, and other large shareholders. The CEOs of these five companies had a combined compensation of $96 million in 2012, the last year for which data are available, or nearly $20 million per CEO. This is nearly 400 times greater than the $51,107 median income for a family of four during that same year. These five major oil corporations also spent $45 million on lobbying in 2013; every $1 spent on lobbying helped the companies protect $53 of their tax breaks?an outstanding rate of return.

In addition to receiving unjustified tax breaks, the big five oil companies also benefit from the lack of federal limits on carbon pollution generated by oil and gas production, transportation, and refining. The Environmental Protection Agency reported that "petroleum and natural gas systems" and refiners were the second- and third-largest sources of carbon and other climate pollution among the major industrial sectors that must report their emissions. Since there are no federal limits on this pollution, American families and businesses must bear the costs of more climate pollution, such as damages from extreme weather events, heightened smog, and tropical diseases. These?and other?oil companies can dump their carbon and other climate pollution in the sky for free. And at our expense.

Despite the decline in profits in 2013, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Shell are some of the richest, most profitable companies in the world. They produce a valuable commodity that is essential to our economy. However, their proposal to eliminate the crude oil export ban, their battle to keep some unnecessary federal tax breaks, and their uncontrolled climate pollution all could or do impose real costs on American families. It's up to President Barack Obama and Congress to retain and adopt policies that benefit all Americans, not just Big Oil's bottom line.

Click Here to Watch "Why Mess With Success"

www.SavetheRFS.com

Washington DC - With the open comment period on the proposed EPA rule to roll back the Renewable Fuel Standard coming to a close January 28, Americans United for Change is launching its next in a series of TV ads asking rural Americans to join the final push to overwhelm Washington with comments in support of the RFS, family farmers, and rural economies - and against another Big Oil giveaway.  The ad called "Why Mess With Success" - which begins airingThursday in Washington DC, Cedar Rapids, IA, and the Quad Cities - makes the closing argument that the Renewable Fuel Standard has been invaluable for rural economies the last decade, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in new wealth while saving consumers millions at the pump. Which is why it makes no sense to change course so drastically by gutting the RFS.  See script below and watch it here: http://youtu.be/9pqMi4xBMDY

The ad comes the same day as the bipartisan "Hearing in the Heartland" is held in Des Moines, led by Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, billed as a "public hearing allowing citizens outside of Washington, D.C. the opportunity to testify about the importance of the Renewable Fuel Standard."    

As in Americans United's previous TV ad in support of the RFS "Simple Choice", the latest ad encourages viewers to visit www.SavetheRFS.com operated by Americans United ally VoteVets.org, the 360,000+ supporter veterans group, and co-sign a comment that will be delivered to the EPA about the importance of renewable fuels, along with thousands of other Americans who are concerned that undermining the Renewable Fuel Standard will undermine our national security by increasing our reliance on overseas oil from unstable regions and regimes that hate us.  VoteVets.org aired two recent TV ads in support of the RFS, which can be seen HERE and HERE.

Brad Woodhouse, President, Americans United for Change: "It's an open secret that Big Oil has spent millions of dollars trying to put out of business their 70 cent cheaper and cleaner renewable fuels competition. If Washington does what Big Oil wants and strips apart the Renewable Fuel Standard, it'll be a case study in fixing what isn't broke that would make the inventors of New Coke blush. While the U.S. economy has been on a wild ride the last decade, rural communities that seized opportunities in the renewable fuels industry have seen nothing but growth, new jobs, new wealth, and more reasons for their children to stay.  That's why the choice before the EPA should be an easy one: either continue to go forward creating thousands of jobs that can't be outsourced and revitalizing rural economies, or backward.  Either continue going forward weaning the nation off its addiction to overseas oil, or backwards.  Continue making innovations in next generation renewable fuel sources that will build on its success of meeting 10 percent of the nation's fuel needs, or discourage it. Continue going forward in cutting down carbon emissions harmful to the environment, or backwards and watch as already common oil-industry related disasters become even more routine. Continue giving consumers cheaper alternatives at the pump, or take them away.   At this 11th hour, it is critical that the millions of Americans who have benefited from the RFS -- from farmers to businesses that serve ethanol industry workers, to consumers - to tell the EPA what's at stake for them if Big Oil's bottom line is put ahead of rural America. If you ask the taxpayers, Big Oil gets enough special treatment from Washington already - they don't need another giveaway." 

###

Posted on January 16, 2014 by Joanna Schroeder

According to a new study, that compared the greenhouse gas emission reductions of corn ethanol and those of crude oil production and fracking, corn ethanol's carbon intensity is declining while the carbon intensity of petroleum is increasing. The study was conducted by Life Cycle Associates and found that the carbon impacts associated with crude oil production continue to worsen as more marginal sources of fuel are introduced into the fuel supply.

According to the report, "As the average carbon intensity of petroleum is gradually increasing, the carbon intensity of corn ethanol is declining. Corn ethanol producers are motivated by economics to reduce the energy inputs and improve product yields."

The study, commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), found that average corn ethanol reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 32 percent compared to average petroleum in 2012. This estimate includes prospective emissions from indirect land use change (ILUC) for corn ethanol. When compared to marginal petroleum sources like tight oil from fracking and oil sands, average corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 37-40 percent.

As more unconventional crude oil sources enter the U.S. oil supply, and as corn ethanol production processes become even more efficient, the carbon impacts of ethanol and crude oil will continue to diverge. The study predicts that by 2022, average corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions by 43-60 percent compared to petroleum.

"The majority of unconventional fuel sources emit significantly more GHG emissions than both biofuels and conventional fossil fuel sources," according to the study. "The biggest future impacts on the U.S. oil slate are expected to come from oil sands and fracking production." In the absence of biofuels, "...significant quantities of marginal oil would be fed into U.S. refineries, generating corresponding emissions penalties that would be further aggravated in the absence of renewable fuel alternatives."

The study also reveals several fundamental flaws with the GHG analysis conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) regulations. Just one example: corn ethanol was already determined to reduce GHG emissions by 21 percent compared to gasoline in 2005, according to the analysis. Yet, the EPA's analysis for the RFS2 assumes corn ethanol GHG reductions won't reach 21 percent until 2022.

The EPA's analysis also assumes the carbon intensity of crude oil will be the same in 2022 as it was in 2005, a presumption that has already been disproven by the real-world increase in the carbon intensity of crude oil. "As unconventional sources of crude oil have grown in recent years, the carbon intensity of petroleum fuels has increased above the baseline levels initially identified in the Renewable Fuel Standard..." according to the authors, who call on EPA to address several shortcomings with its analysis.

RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen made the following comments on the results of the new study. "When it comes to ethanol's carbon footprint, biofuel critics and some regulatory agencies are unfortunately stuck in the past. We don't need to wait until 2022 for corn ethanol to deliver on its promise to reduce GHG emissions. This study uses the latest data and modeling tools to show that corn ethanol has significantly reduced GHG emissions from the transportation sector since enactment of the original RFS in 2005."

"Further," said Dinneen, "the report highlights that ethanol's GHG performance will continue to improve and diverge with crude oil sources that will only get dirtier as time goes on. When ethanol is appropriately compared to the unconventional petroleum sources it is replacing at the margin, the GHG benefits are even more obvious. We urge EPA officials to closely examine this new information and make good on their commitment to ensure the RFS regulations are based on the latest data and best available science."

Other key findings and recommendations from the study can be found here.

See below; and response from Jeremy Funk, Communications Director, Americans United for Change: "We're sure API President Jack Gerard just made an honest math error and forgot to carry nine zeroes somewhere in his calculations.  Seriously, if big oil can lie so shamelessly about the taxpayer subsidies everyone knows they reap, why should the EPA believe a word of their trash talk about the renewable fuels industry?  Big oil wants nothing more than to be rid of their cheaper, cleaner competition, so whatever they say about ethanol during this critical comment period on the proposed RFS rule must be taken with a grain of tar sand.   Big oil may get a lot more than zero in tax payer subsidies, but there is exactly zero chance that big oil will ever come close to producing enough domestically to meet U.S. oil consumption.  That's why it makes no sense to abandon the renewable fuels industry now at a time it's fulfilling 10% of our nation's fuel needs and at a time it's making incredible innovations that will fulfill more and more demand down the road."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/09/1423351/oil-zero-subsidies/

Big Oil Lobby Claims The Industry 'Gets No Subsidies, Zero, Nothing' 

BY REBECCA LEBER  ON JANUARY 9, 2013 AT 2:23 PM

Despite ranking among the most profitable corporations in the world, Big Oil benefits from $4 billion in annual tax breaks. It fights to maintain them through aggressive political donations, lobbying, and heavy ad spending, but also employs another tactic: Pretending these tax breaks don't exist.

"The oil and gas industry gets no subsidies, zero, nothing," API President Jack Gerard said on Tuesday. "We get cost-recovery benefits, much like other industries. You can go down the road of allowing economic activity, generating hundreds of billions to the government, or you can take the alternative route by trying to extract new revenue from industry by increasing their cost to do business."

Tax deductions are indeed subsidies, as API admitted in a document that labeled "subsidies for alternative fuels" as "preferential tax treatment." And the oil industry's $4 billion preferential treatment is written permanently into the tax code. These include :

Percentage depletion allowance: lets companies deduct the costs of an oil or gas well, about 15 percent, from its taxes.

Domestic manufacturing tax deduction: Allows oil companies to collect $1.8 billion each year, even though there are vast differences between oil and traditional U.S. manufacturing. It is a benefit that was never intended for them, according to Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, who said Congress included oil producers "almost inadvertently."

The foreign tax credit: Oil companies overwhelmingly fall into the category of companies that can claim credits for payments to foreign governments.

Expensing intangible drilling costs: For over a century, oil companies have written off wages, fuel, repairs, and hauling costs.

ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have paid federal tax rates well below the 35 percent top corporate rate, a far cry from paying "more than our fair share". ExxonMobil, for instance, paid a 13 percent tax rate in 2011, after drilling deductions and benefits, and 14 percent on average between 2008 and 2010.