No, thanks

 No, thanks

The following paragraph is extracted verbatim from the UK Energy Report 1999, published by the Department of Trade and Industry of England.

“The retail price of products is largely determined by taxes, especially for fuel. The attached figures ... illustrate the increasing proportion of the price of gasoline attributable to taxes. The incidence of taxes, ...explains around 85 percent of the final price of unleaded gasoline..." Prices are expected to continue growing, given the commitment of the English Government to increase taxes on petroleum by an average of 6 % annual, above inflation.

The report's figures indicate that the price of petrol before tax fell from 15 to 10 pence per liter between 1980 and 1999, a decrease of 33%. However, for the same period in England, the consumer price went from 26 to 68 pence per liter, increasing 162%. The explanation for this phenomenon is found in the various taxes on gasoline, which rose from 11 pence in 1980 to 58 pence per liter in 1999, an increase of 427%.

Taxes, applied in a discriminatory manner to oil, which favor coal, for example, affect both the volume and the sales price of our main export product and therefore directly harm our country. All of Europe applies taxes of the same order and the other consuming economies, except the United States, are evolving in the same direction.

It was only a few months ago that the magnitude of these taxes was understood and the consequences, at least in Europe, were serious protests by consumers. It will be necessary to observe whether in 2001, countries like England and Germany, even when stripped, continue with their pre-programmed increases.

The relative silence of Venezuela and other oil-producing countries, the truly aggrieved ones, is surprising. Sometimes I wonder if such passivity has its origin in the fact that in this globalized world, everyone is still dying for the possibility that one day The Queen will invite them to have tea in her palace.

In November 2000, the president of the European Energy Foundation of the European Union, with great cynicism, announced that in the dialogue between oil consumers and producers, everything could be discussed, except taxes, since these did not significantly affect consumption.

In December 2000, the European Union announced a donation of 55 million euros for the reconstruction of Vargas, to be disbursed over two years.

In a world that preaches free trade, oil taxes are hypocrisy. I, being a Venezuelan of European descent, may react in particular, but I am convinced that we have to place our protest in its correct dimension. In this sense, and even if I had never rejected the help offered by the United States during the tragedy in Vargas, today I would not hesitate to respond to Europe: No thanks, we do not want your donation, that amount is equivalent to what Venezuela would obtain each week if You, on the basis of false environmentalism and real fiscal voracity, do not apply taxes that discriminate against oil. We will not help calm their institutional conscience by accepting some insolent barter with begging mirrors.

(Translated by Google from an Op-Ed published in Venezuela February 1, 2001)

The Oil Curse

An e-mail to our accusers

We were recently surprised by a lawsuit brought against Venezuela by an organization of independent oil producers in the State of Oklahoma in the United States. The suit was based on the charge of dumping oil. 

In simple terms, 'dumping' occurs when one country exports products at a price lower than their real cost of production or at a price lower than the sales price in its domestic market. In order to calculate the real cost, one must consider the effects of all state subsidies. Dumping is considered to be unfair competition and is therefore prohibited. If proven in this case, it will also give rise to serious retaliatory commercial measures. 

As an outside observer, I feel that this suit is a real threat to Venezuela, but I also think that if may be an opportunity as well. To understand this, it is important to analyze who is really behind this lawsuit. 

There is an incredible amount of oil wells in the United States, hundreds of thousands. In Texas alone, it is said that there are at least sixty thousand wells that produce less than one barrel per day. Due to low oil prices, the number of wells that have reportedly been shut down is equally as incredible. An organization known as IPAA estimates that more than 136,000 wells were shut down between November 1997 and February 1999.

Behind these wells are not only large oil companies, but also hundreds of thousand people, small businessmen, workers, widows who receive royalties, suppliers of goods and services, all of them voters at one time or another. It should, therefore, not surprise us that this sector possesses great political clout. 

To Venezuela, this means that, even though the lawsuit may not be based on solid ground, it may be more successful than we at first thought. We just have to remember that a small interest group in the State of Florida managed to block the usage of Venezuela Orimulsion. Can you imagine what a large group can do? Since I have always thought that Venezuela was lax in protecting its interests in the case of Orimulsion. I honestly hope that in this more recent case, authorities will be more careful, and will take the necessary measures. 

However, as I mentioned above, this lawsuit may not just be a threat, but may present an opportunity for Venezuela as well. For months now, I have been promoting a movement I have named Petropolitan. The purpose of this group is to protest and make known the fact that oil producing countries are subjected to commercial discrimination when the consuming nations apply taxes or duties so that producers receive only a fraction of the real value of their oil. 

For example, according to the Retail Motor Industry Federation of the United Kingdom, the price of premium unleaded gasoline on June 4th, 1999 (one month ago) at the pump was US$ 4.17 per gallon. Out of this elevated value, evidently real since the English motorist is willing to pay it, only US$ 0.43, that is 10%, ends up in the producer’s pocket. The distributor receives US$ 0.26 and the English tax authority, the only real rentist in this chain, stays with US$ 3.48, representing 83.5% of the retail sales price. 

When we compare the US$ 3.48 levied by the [UK] taxman to the US$ 0.43 received by the oil producers in lieu of a non-renewable asset, it is evident that the duty is more than 800%. This duty is unquestionably a main reason for the low oil income, not only ours, but of those in Oklahoma as well. 

The situation gets worse with every day that passes. Based on laws already passed,we can foresee that the price per gallon of gasoline in Europe will be US$ 10 by the year 2006, of which the producer will receive only US$ 0.50, that is, 5%. Germany, for example, has recently approved a “shift from personal income tax to an energy users tax”. These taxes will be used by the German government to “finance the lowering of old age security premiums”. 

By the way, it is not only Europe to which I refer since most of the world is currently levying taxes and duties on oil. One of the few exceptions is the United States where there has been more moderation. Because of the above, and were the decision mine, I would be on the next plane to Oklahoma in an attempt to educate our accusers as to who our real enemies are. I would tell them that the latter are laughing while we fight over the crumbs, and I would try to convert them into powerful allies. 

Executives at PDVSA are either not seeing the forest for the trees or have been lulled to sleep by their own internal realities. In any case, they do not seem prepared to take radical steps. Likewise, the common citizen is too far away from the industry to react with strength in the short term. 

Who knows? Maybe the small Oklahoma producer, the one that suffers and personally feels the current injustices of this situation, the one that most likely has the will to go out and avidly defend his interests, the one that belongs to a country that can defend bananas it does not produce, the one that today is our accuser, may ultimately be the ally that Venezuela really needs. Just in case, I have already sent them an e-Mail.

https://petropolitan.blogspot.com/1999/07/an-e-mail-to-our-accusers.html