1 hour ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

When a product that is produced for $10 is sold for $300 because of royalty tax, windfall tax, green taxes, CO2 taxes, punitive taxes, we are a little beyond your average VAT tax rate.

Cheap fossil fuel is paying for a lot of the benefits we take for granted, whether we like it or not.

It's entirely irrelevant what a barrel of oil costs to produce. Were the issue different, it might be relevant what it sells for. And even what it sells for. And even what the refined products such as gasoline sell for. (

The only taxes that are relevant are those paid out of the income of oil companies.  The fact is it's consumers paying most of those taxes, not the oil companies. They just collect the money and pass it along to various governments.  The massive amount of damage caused by oil companies is not paid for by them.

2 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

When a product that is produced for $10 is sold for $300 because of royalty tax, windfall tax, green taxes, CO2 taxes, punitive taxes, we are a little beyond your average VAT tax rate.

Cheap fossil fuel is paying for a lot of the benefits we take for granted, whether we like it or not.

And just for the record, in most locales it costs a lot more than 10$ to produce a barrel of oil. And where in the world is a barrel of oil sold for $300. And since when are royaltes taxes? It's true that major oil companies have perpetrated big txx dodges by persuading verious governments to classify royalties as taxes. But when a company pays royalties to a private land owner, is that a tax? Royalties are not taxes.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The massive amount of damage caused by oil companies is not paid for by them.

What damage?

10 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

What damage?

For one thing, the effects of pollution on health. Oil companies don't pay for that:

https://theicct.org/new-study-quantifies-the-global-health-impacts-of-vehicle-exhaust/

On 12/13/2022 at 7:55 AM, internationalism said:

I do suspect it will be first used in military technology

Fusion has been used by the military for exactly 70 years.

 

First H bomb

34 minutes ago, placeholder said:

For one thing, the effects of pollution on health. Oil companies don't pay for that:

https://theicct.org/new-study-quantifies-the-global-health-impacts-of-vehicle-exhaust/

But, but....that pollution is caused by the tax paying consumers and not the oil companies  ???? ????. 

7 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

But, but....that pollution is caused by the tax paying consumers and not the oil companies  ????????. 

If you sell a harmful product, that means you're liable. A well established principle in law.

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If you sell a harmful product, that means you're liable. A well established principle in law.

Lots of products are harmful, cars, a knife, sugar, steaks, eggs, alcohol....

The consumers, many of them shallow and just green on the outside, can just avoid using oil if they don't like it. Still they continue using it, because it is a great and cost effective product.

23 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Lots of products are harmful, cars, a knife, sugar, steaks, eggs, alcohol....

The consumers, many of them shallow and just green on the outside, can just avoid using oil if they don't like it. Still they continue using it, because it is a great and cost effective product.

If fossil fuels are so cost effective, why are they massively subsidized?

 

Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of fuel consumption in emerging markets (where price gaps are generally larger) continues to climb. Just 8 percent of the 2020 subsidy reflects undercharging for supply costs (explicit subsidies) and 92 percent for undercharging for environmental costs and foregone consumption taxes (implicit subsidies).

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If fossil fuels are so cost effective, why are they massively subsidized?

 

Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025 as the share of fuel consumption in emerging markets (where price gaps are generally larger) continues to climb. Just 8 percent of the 2020 subsidy reflects undercharging for supply costs (explicit subsidies) and 92 percent for undercharging for environmental costs and foregone consumption taxes (implicit subsidies).

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies

Did you read the last part, if not here it is: "but these are relatively small."

 

Subsidies are decomposed into explicit and implicit subsidies. Explicit subsidies occur when the retail price is below a fuel’s supply cost. For a non-tradable product (e.g., coal), the supply cost is the domestic production cost, inclusive of any costs to deliver the energy to the consumer, such as distribution costs and margins. In contrast, for an internationally tradable product (e.g., oil), the supply cost is the opportunity cost of consuming the product domestically rather than selling it abroad plus any costs to deliver the energy to the consumer. Explicit subsidies also include direct support to producers, such as accelerated depreciation, but these are relatively small.

4 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Did you read the last part, if not here it is: "but these are relatively small."

 

Subsidies are decomposed into explicit and implicit subsidies. Explicit subsidies occur when the retail price is below a fuel’s supply cost. For a non-tradable product (e.g., coal), the supply cost is the domestic production cost, inclusive of any costs to deliver the energy to the consumer, such as distribution costs and margins. In contrast, for an internationally tradable product (e.g., oil), the supply cost is the opportunity cost of consuming the product domestically rather than selling it abroad plus any costs to deliver the energy to the consumer. Explicit subsidies also include direct support to producers, such as accelerated depreciation, but these are relatively small.

So what? 1 fraction of explicit subsidies are small. Why focus on that?

1 hour ago, Boomer6969 said:

Fusion has been used by the military for exactly 70 years.

 

First H bomb

yes, rather as a source of power for military installations, remote bases, large bunkers/shelters, large ships and countless other potential use

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

So what? 1 fraction of explicit subsidies are small. Why focus on that?

Because it is important.

For some reason IMF have decided to call tax rebates for implicit subsidies, but in reality we all know it is just a price adjustment because oil it so heavily taxed.

https://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/data_graphs/333.htm