Cars shutterstock_251592481

Published on February 6th, 2016 | by Kyle Field


Obama Expected To Propose $10/Barrel Tax On Oil

February 6th, 2016 by  

In a bold move in the final months of his presidency, US President Barack Obama is believed to be plotting a move against big oil in the form of a $10 per barrel tax that would be paid by oil companies. With 2016 being an election year and US politics as polarized as they are, the tax is not likely to make it past the podium, but the move sends a powerful message to the world that the current administration is serious about attacking one of the cruxes of the climate change issue — oil.

This news comes to us via Politico, which talked with Obama aides about the plan, which would use the oil-funded income — estimated to be $300 billion — to build a “21st century clean transportation system.” Stepping back and looking at Obama’s presidency, he has really pushed on all the issues he built both campaigns on.

Since taking office just over 7 years ago, he has turned the economy around with over 13 million new jobs, achieved bi-partisan support of the budget, established a baseline of healthcare in the US, and perhaps most importantly, stepped up to the challenge of climate change with aggressive action to combat it.


Image Credit: Shutterstock

With climate change being one of the key focal points of this administration, and the political climate all but deadlocked with the polarized election on the horizon, one possible reason for the tax proposal seems probable to me — to send a message.

Dropping an extra tax on oil or gasoline is nothing new. Proposals are tossed around by journalists, politicians from both parties, and environmentalists almost every time the price of oil drops. Whether the resulting funds are used to make up the gap to pay for roads, to fund EVs, to discourage oil consumption… it is nothing new.


Image Credit: Shutterstock

Having said that, there are a few things that make this proposal
unique. First off, there’s almost no way that it would pass in any form. It’s not because it’s too expensive… in fact, that may be the great irony of the proposal. With oil having fallen from the high of over $110 per barrel to around $30 per barrel today, a $10 addition would hardly phase markets, adding around $0.25 to $0.30 per gallon of gasoline at the pump. With oil prices riding a perpetual roller coaster, an increase at these levels would hardly be noticed.

While that’s easy enough to say, the real issue a $10 per barrel tax on oil would run into would be in the sticky politics of oil. Oil prices are extremely partisan and attempting to levy a new tax like this in an election year presents a huge target for candidates from either side to toss flaming arrows at — and boy would they.

This might normally seem like a huge problem but for the fact that Obama is still pushing his agenda. The fact that a proposal like this would quickly come front and center for any and all debates is perfect. It puts the 800-pound gorilla right on the table and forces candidates to talk about it, to pick sides, and to present a case for their decision. In short, it would force the hands of candidates and get the public talking about climate change.


Image Credit: Shutterstock

Beyond the discussion, getting people talking about the tax hits on two key discussion points — increasing the price of oil provides additional incentive for consumers to conserve oil and, at the same time, funds the clean transportation systems of the future in a big way.

With the current transportation network in the US representing 30% of emissions in the US, this plan aims straight at the heart of the issue from both sides. Whether the plan sees the light of day as a flat $10 tax on oil or surfaces some other way, it is great to see Obama continuing the push for solutions to the climate change crisis all the way up to the finish line.

It is evident from what little we know about this new tax on oil that Obama is not intent on riding out his last year as president as just another lame duck president but is making a strategic push to enact a critical new tax and get the nation talking about climate change.

Editor’s Note: Also, let’s remember that oil is actually massively subsidized in the US (and elsewhere). It is only logical to cut these subsidies and/or tax oil a great deal. Alas, society isn’t often logical….

$5.3 Trillion A Year In Fossil Fuel Subsidies Is Idiotic

Oil Subsidies & Natural Gas Subsidies — Subsidies For The Big Boys (Not For Society)

Oil & Gas — Over 13 Times More in Historical Subsidies than Clean Energy

Fossil Fuels Subsidies Cost World $5.3 Trillion A Year – $10 Million A Minute

Big Oil Spends Millions Lobbying For Its Subsidies

Drive an electric car? Complete one of our short surveys for our next electric car report.
Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: ,

About the Author

I'm a tech geek passionately in search of actionable ways to reduce the negative impact my life has on the planet, save money and reduce stress. Live intentionally, make conscious decisions, love more, act responsibly, play. The more you know, the less you need.

  • Joachim Mårtensson

    This tax increase will go nowhere. If Obama had had any forethought, he would have made it a 1% percent increase back in 2008 when he was elected. Then increased it by another 1% in 2009 and so on. This is just political posturing aiming to establish the post-president Obama’s legacy as an environmentalist among the youth crowd.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Putting a tax in place in the middle of a severe recession would have been a mega-stupid action. The last thing one would want to do is anything that would further lower economic activity.

      • milliamp

        For the sake of future generations who will have enough of their own expenses without needing to pay for ours I think a budget deficit should be against the law.

        We should either cut spending, raise taxes, or both so that we have a balanced budget every single year.

        We can argue all day long about if the taxes should be high and we should have a big government or if they should be low with a small government but unless we are in the middle of a world war not one single year should go buy with a budget deficit.

        I think future generations will have too many problems of their own to be able to afford to pay the bill for ours too.

        • Bob_Wallace

          I understand the desire, but it isn’t realistic.

          When the economy crashes about the only way to get it rolling again is for the government to spend. And since taxes are low in an economic downturn that means borrowing and debt.

          We do have too much federal debt. But until we decide that the people who have the most help out more then we’re going to have problems bringing it down.

      • Joachim Mårtensson

        A severe recession that had already cut the oilprice in half at the time Obama became president.

        • Bob_Wallace

          So what? Presidents have to deal with the problems handed to them.

          The US was not going to transition to renewable energy and EVs if we fell into another depression like what we experienced in the first half of last century.

          During a financial crisis like what we have recently experienced it’s pretty much up to the government to create as much “work and business” as possible so that individuals and businesses get over their panic and start participating.

          ” This is just political posturing aiming to establish the post-president Obama’s legacy as an environmentalist among the youth crowd.”

          Perhaps, but I doubt it. Presidents don’t get much credit for what they say they want to do, but for what they actually do or don’t do.

          I don’t know why PBO suggested this but I’ve got a possible reason. I think the odds of a Democrat winning the White House in November is pretty good at this point. But that person will not get much done if they have to fight a hostile Congress.

          Perhaps PBO is setting up some talking points that can be used to help change the Congress. Perhaps he intends to work to for Democratic candidates who have a chance of winning a seat away from Republicans and he’s starting the conversation about why we need to make changes.

          Perhaps he’s starting to work on getting the youth vote out in states that can be won. Get young voters thinking about how they can vote themselves a better future.

  • Steven F

    The problem with any tax on CO2 and oil is that the money collected will go to the government general fund. There is no guaranty that the money will be used to fund renewables, or energy efficiency. Even if the law is written so that the money must be spent on renewable or efficiency politicians will find a way of borrowing the money for other important uses.

    I would feel a lot better about the tax if the money collected didn’t go to the government. If the oil companies are required to refund to US citizens the $10 dollar tax in the form of rebates on EV, plug in cars, PV, or home efficiency improvements. That way the oil tax would directly finance oil demand destruction and reduce or eliminate the burden of the oil tax on the poor and low income families. It would also directly creat jobs for products that qualify for the rebates. If the oil companies fail to return all the tax money they would put the rest of the money on the social security trust fund.

  • thinkmorebelieveless

    Why another tax ? Why not just reduce the government oil subsidy by an amount equivalent to this tax revenue and direct that money toward renewables, transportation, etc ? Keep it simple !

  • Lynne Whelden

    Reads like a Democratic speech! Don’t mention the 95 million who have dropped out of the labor force. Or the 19 Trillion dollar debt we’ve racked up. Gotta luv it, we’re all (D and R) living in a bubble about to burst.

  • jojo

    Well ,why not 20 cents per gallon on refined fuel ,and 2 dollars a barrel on all oil .
    Ring fence this money 10% on solar, 20% electric ‘public transport’ ,30% improving
    roads and bridges,15% to improve rundown suburbs ( including giving back/ or paying part of house bonds for poorish people that banks hold in there books as loses(empty houses,run down).10% to clean fracking sites ,rivers,ect . 5% to get rid of heavy dirty
    drugs like heroin ,meths,that keep wars going .
    Fill in the rest (10% ) ( 300bn will create million jobs to the good of the people)
    Please send this Pres Obama or Joe Biden . ( Fan )

  • Matt

    To help the domestics it could be $x/bbl on domestic production and $1.5x/bbl on imported oil. See helping our home industry. But the best we are likely to get is it talked about during campaign.

  • sandidad

    Obama doing what he does best, screwing Americans and rewarding our enemies. The Saudi’s are trying their best to ruin America’s new oil independence by running small fracking oil companies out of business. Why not put a tariff on imported oil?

    • Bob_Wallace

      “screwing Americans and rewarding our enemies”?

      Put down the stupid pipe. You’ve toked way too much for your own good.
      Now, put a price on imported oil? What do you not understand about trade agreements and trade wars?

    • Ross

      For the most part the savings Americans are getting from cheaper oil are being spent on other things. The pain is on the Saudi and other oil export dependent states. Now is an ideal time to raise taxes on oil. That will hurt oil companies and help the new renewable energy industry. There’s a stack of economic papers saying it will help not destroy the economy.

  • sjc_1

    18 cents per gallon is not enough for roads, that tax has not been raised in more than 20 years. Congress uses tricks and patches to come up with what they call a Highway Bill. Now that oil is below $50 per barrel let’s DO this.

  • Roger Lambert

    a 10% gas tax will come right out of the pockets of consumers. (And not just 10%, I’d bet 10.5% – 11% -> big oil would game such a tax to increase, not decrease profits)

    There is a much better way to lower fossil fuel usage – make fossil fuels irrelevant through the deployment of green electricity at a much lower cost than FF’s.

    Isn’t the whole idea to stimulate the construction and deployment of the new energy system we all agree we need? Just build it already.

    • Dan

      A CO2 tax which fed the money directly into clean energy and transportation incentives makes sense to me. An oil tax does too. Consumers may foot the bill at first, but over time they would save from the transition to a clean energy economy. Anyways, a signal to the market of what the public demands from them, through our elected representatives goes a long way. They would speed up their transition plans or begin making them if they haven’t started already because that is what we are demanding. A tax like this sends a strong message.

      • Matt

        Yes a CO2 fee/dividend system, but all money should be returned to citizens equally. That would make the largest FF user want to move away from it. I would think a easier sell would be to remove FF subsidizes, but that is a lot of lines hidden the the tax code so would be harder make clear.

      • Jens Stubbe

        A CO2 tax does not have to feed money directly to anything particular because it would help the transition in its own right.

        In fact you could benefit the entire globe by putting CO2 taxation in place and use the proceeds to balance your national budgets.

        In fact you could even consider to put the CO2 taxation in place and skip the subsidies for renewables as well. At the moment you subsidize both fossil, nuclear and renewables. Why not save the costs.

        • Dan

          I prefer the net zero approach Matt above mentions but I prefer incentives for clean energy and transport even more. The gov should balance their books through doing their jobs. Perhaps waging endless war has consequences and we should reevaluate where any of our tax dollars go. Who knows, but the financial game of shells is a time bomb imo. We should race to building the infrastructure for a clean energy economy while we have the industry momentum and perhaps we’ll avoid the cliff the oil backed dollar is headed towards.

    • Shane 2

      Big oil will not like the tax because a tax on oil will flow to consumers who will reduce consumption. This will be by driving less, using public transport more, using smaller vehicles, buying EVs etc. Pollution should be taxed. The taxes can then be used for the benefit of the public. How about better education in poor areas, and better public health for poor people?

  • Ross

    If he can find a way of imposing this by executive order he should do it.

  • JamesWimberley

    The analysis is correct. This is not a feasible policy proposal but a use of the bully pulpit to set the agenda for the 2016 elections. There is no significant distance between Sanders’ and Clinton’s climate and energy platforms, so Obama is not taking sides between them. Polls consistently show a majority of Americans wanting to see action against climate change and towards an energy transition, so a gasoline tax may be a good wedge issue to split ideological Republican candidates from their voters. It won’t play well in the West though: Harry Reid won’t be a fan.

    • Dan

      I actually think Sanders insistence on a tax on market speculation and his steadfast support for campaign finance reform would make a large dent in the fossil fuel glut that destabilizes proper politics and functioning markets. Helping lower income people directly helps clean energy by enabling consumers and voters to participate in their energy choices and the democratic process. Hillary would have my vote if Sanders doesn’t win the primary, but she doesn’t have an ounce of integrity in my opinion, she has a pragmatic approach which will fail to achieve what is possible with Bernie. The Republicans are doomsday bringers so anything but that is worth voting for.

      Bernie Sanders means what he says and he says the right things. Simply sending a message to the fossil fuel and banking industries, who are very intertwined, that we won’t bow to their approved politics, that they do not own the political process, that democracy can function and the people do have a voice, that is what Bernie Sander means to me.

      An oil tax, ending fossil fuel subsides, incentives for clean energy… that is the right thing to do.

      • Bob_Wallace

        Both Clinton and Sanders have the same end goals. Both are pragmatists, both have worked within the system to accomplish their goals throughout their careers.

        I don’t see anything gained by driving artificial wedges between two very good candidates.

        Look at their skill sets. Pick the candidate who is 1) most likely to get elected and if both are very electable then 2) who is like to accomplish the most.

        At this point in time I have no opinion on either 1) or 2). What I think I see is Sanders talking about end goals which are only achievable through a series of steps and Clinton talking about the next steps that need to be taken to get to those same end goals.

        • Dan

          I guess i don’t see hillary talking about campaign finance reform in the same way, but because of Bernie I think the public will not be forgetting that issue. I have enough confidence in our broader mainstream culture and the direction renewables and evs are headed in that I would trust her to not sink in the ship in the way I am terrified any of the Republicans would… i.e. another war, blatant fossil fuel favoritism or global warming denial…

          • Bob_Wallace

            Again, I see Bernie talking end game and Hilary talking next year achievable. For the most part.

            I think both would attempt to achieve the same things. The thing to look at, IMO, is who might have more ability to move us along.

            And I am not saying at this time that one might be better than the other. We’ve got the opportunity to pick the best, let’s try to stay objective and not put ourselves in the position where we tear down a potentially good person in order to support “our side”.

          • Dan

            I gotta respect that. Fair point

        • Dan

          Bernie qualifies for both of those points too in my opinion. He is electable and can get things done. The facts are in on renewables and his “new deal” politics would without a doubt focus on the green economy that is seeing growth amid fossil fuel instability… people on both sides of the fence will be able to see eye to eye on issues that create jobs. Many new republicans who came into congress through tea party movements understand the value of clean energy.

          I really appreciate his embrace of the Democratic Socialist title after Obama faced such media blasting for his policies. Removing the deragatory connotation of a well-known part of american and world politics, i.e. the use of tax dollars for public programs like education and medical care, is a huge victory for his campaign.

          Bernie has my heartfelt respect.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Electing Bernie would change the meaning of a word. Electing Hilary would crash through the ultimate glass ceiling for women. Two good things.

            I’m going to be looking for some signs that one could do a better job of being president.

          • Brooks Bridges

            If HRC is the nominee I will certainly vote for her. But there are the facts of her original support of the Iraq war, XL pipeline and the TPP.

            I think Obama will go down as a great President. Yet one of his weaknesses is shown in that not one financial person has been even indicted, much less brought to trial for the 2008 crash. Check out what happened after Savings and Loan disaster – many indictments and prosecutions. Hilliary is unlikely to make significant changes in this area

            Sanders has exhibited a consistency on important positions throughout his career that few politicians can match.

            Finally, there is his statement in the first debate when asked what the most important problem facing the US was. He hung his head ( my interpretation: knowing his answer was not going to be one that would help get him elected) and said: Climate Change.

            He is authentic and a lot of people are responding strongly to that.

          • Bob_Wallace

            I think we need to be fair about the Iraq vote. The Bush administration told the Senate that they wanted permission to send our troops to Iraq as a way to strengthen their hand and force Saddam out. Then they simply sent in the troops.

          • Brooks Bridges

            It is also fair to note that there was sufficient information for 21 Democratic Senators and Sanders (Independent) to vote against it.

            In the House, 126 Dems voted against.

            Obama, as a member of the state senate in Illinois, expressed his vocal opposition, calling it a foolish decision by President Bush.


    • Brooks Bridges

      Clinton was head of state dept when it farmed out the environmental impact determination for XL pipeline to a company with very close ties to TransCananda.

      She was, until very recently, a proponent of the TPP – which, in its 30,000 pages mentions climate change exactly 0 times – and contains much language allowing corporations to sue countries for environmental and other regulations which hurt their profits.

      TransCanada is even now bringing a $12 billion suit against US for cancelling XL, based on previous “trade” agreements.

      Sanders has been against both from the get go.

      • Jens Stubbe

        TPP is a big scare for Europeans and there is absolutely no democratic control or debate at all. It is forced upon us in a very scary way with no solid press coverage and no information. Trade negotiations should be simple and straight forward and should only involve minor details at a time instead of this monster project. Europe has been going backwards for decades now in the global competition and a major reason behind our failures are the ever tighter political and economic union that enforces central solutions and abandon proven successful policies in member countries. The wind power industry in the world would be ten years behind at least without the initiatives in Denmark. I think TPP will put progressive states like California in a straight jacket and that TPP will benefit multinational companies that can afford the lobbyist needed to get their legislation passed.

  • jburt56

    Will Kochs become feral if they have to pay $10 a barrel?

    • eveee

      Nice rhyme.

  • Jenny Sommer

    I never understood why there is no real fueltax in the US?

    • Kyle Field

      In California, we have a pretty hefty tax on gasoline. That’s why gas here is still up around $2.50/gallon vs the rest of the country. Granted, it’s been awhile since I’ve paid any attention to the price of gas 🙂

      • Jenny Sommer

        At the moment fuel is rather cheap here…1.04€/l
        Just looked it up, payed 1,45€/l Summer 2012…
        Tax alone is 0,5€/l.

      • Mike333

        And California buys 50% of all EV’s and hybrids. Creating Local Jobs.
        -Less Money to Saudi Terrorists.
        -Move Solar and wind jobs.
        -EV’s naturally help a solar roof make a homeowner more money.
        -More local electrical jobs.
        -A Stronger Local Economy.

        California leads in innovation.
        California is the HERO State.

    • Bob_Wallace

      There are both federal and state fuel taxes. They just are not as low as what one finds in Europe.

      That may be due to most of the US’s oil coming from in-country earlier. Europe may have (I’m guessing) set high fuel taxes in order to lower consumption and reduce cash outflow.

      • Karl the brewer

        Uk fuel duty is 57.95 pence per litre (84 cents). Price of fuel per litre ar the moment is approx £1 ($1.45)

      • Interesting hypothesis.

        (And think you meant “high” in 2nd sentence.)

      • Jenny Sommer

        The taxes are to finance everything. They also apply to locally produced oil (profitable from 50€ upwards).
        In Austria the revenue was used for roads and streets up to 1987 and is now part of the general budget. It was 4,14b€ or 5,27%of the budget 2014.
        Jetfuels and ships are exempt.
        Lower taxes for Diesel, heating oil and gas. People who commute to work get some money back….

        25% of fuels are bought by ‘fuel tourists’ because taxes in Germany and other neighbouring countries are higher (because motortaxes are higher in Austria where you pay for kW/PS…that’s why you can afford high powered cars in Germany but not in Austria…

      • Jens Stubbe

        I think that Norway, UK and Denmark are the only western European net exporters of oil, so you might have a point there.

        However right now US oil industry is in a fix – why on earth would anyone suspend capitalism and bail them out.

        Every american that does not own oil value chain shares or shares in the stupid banks that have backed oil investments stand to gain if oil companies has to be restructured with new ownership.

        With $50 billion dollars you could once and for all kickstart Synfuel production based upon cheap renewables and excess CO2 in the oceans.

        39% of the grid is delivered by coal power and 23% by natural gas, which is obviously not sustainable economically or environmentally but to increase intermittent wind and solar and in time go 100% renewable you need to balance the intermittent sources, which can be done by producing Synfuels.

    • Bubba Nicholson

      The lack of a big fuel tax is a subsidy to people in America who drive ICE vehicles, as are the tax breaks to oil companies. The free burnt fossil fuel pollution removal by the wind (i.e. air pollution tolerance) is also such a subsidy.

  • exdent11

    The key to passing a tax on oil [ I’d make it 30$ per barrel ] is to put it on IMPORTED oil alone. This measure would surely get the support of Republicans and Democrats from oil producing states. There would be benefits for environmentalists too. Let me explain..
    1. This tax would give relief to the oil industry, the banks that hold their loans, the U.S. economy , and ,surprisingly ,to the clean energy industries by….
    2a.Supporting the price of natural gas which sometimes have their contracts tied to the price of oil. Higher natural gas prices makes clean solar or wind more competitive.
    2b. Part of the deal that would help environmentally conscious Democrats swallow the idea of helping oil companies would be that a third of the revenue would go to alternative energy projects and R+ D. A third would go to needed road and bridge repair. The last third would be divided up to rebates to low income people paying higher gasoline taxes and [ for political purposes ] to industries hurt by higher oil prices.
    2c. Obviously higher gasoline prices might make people think twice before buying higher emissions big vehicles.

    2d. Higher gasoline prices make electric cars more competitive.
    3. Finally this tax would be phased out gradually when oil goes above 60$ per barrel.

    • Bob_Wallace

      We’d have to renegotiate our trade agreements. We could easily see US goods banned from other countries.

      Aside from that….

    • Ronald Brakels

      A $10 a barrel of oil tax that only applied to imported oil would, in its first year, take about $50 billion dollars from Americans in general and give it as a windfall to US oil companies. I think there are better things that could be done with around $50 billion (in just the first year) than give it to oil companies. These days it could pay for maybe 50 gigawatts of solar capacity or a greater amount of wind. Or it could pay for the $7,500 dollar electric car credit for 6.67 million electric vehicles. Drop it to $5,000 and make it a nice round 10 million vehicles.

      A good rule of thumb is, if there are things you want to achieve, it’s usually a good idea to just use your resources to achieve them directly rather than goiing by round about routes such as giving money to oil companies.

      • Bubba Nicholson

        Taxing foreign oil would not necessarily affect the price of gasoline. It would depend where you live. Such a tax would discourage foreign oil production and importation and encourage conservation at home. It would also increase the break-even point on domestic production, keeping uneconomical wells in operation here and shutting some down overseas, discouraging foreign oil production unfairly. The tax would also encourage electric cars in the affected areas (the NE USA).
        The correct tax policy would tax the various fossil fuel products on the basis of their aggregate toxicity and danger to public health.

        • Ronald Brakels

          No, taxing foreign oil by $10 a barrel would immediately increase the cost of US domestic oil by $10 a barrel. The United States uses more oil than it produces and imports the difference. So if I owned a US oil well I would immediately raise the price by $10 a barrel. Because where else are they going to get the oil from? Overseas? American oil companies would claim they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to raise prices.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Good point. Producers don’t discount their oil out of patriotism.

          • Bubba Nicholson

            What I said was true. Your analysis is simplistic.

          • Ronald Brakels

            “What I said was true.”

            Please feel free to make a connected series of statements to establish that your proposition is true.

            “Your analysis is simplistic.”

            Thank you.

          • milliamp

            It costs OPEC nations less than it costs US and canadian producers to produce oil. The higher the price of oil, the more we buy local.

            US and canadian sources simply cannot afford to sell oil at current prices without operating at a loss. An import tax would make sure we prefer local oil first before paying for imported oil.

            Right now the problem is oil is too cheap and this is something that could be easily solved with a tax. If anything the cost of foreign oil doesn’t reflect our other military and political costs associated with securing it and needs to be taxed higher.

          • Bubba Nicholson

            Prices vary across the country because sources vary across the country. When costs are incurred locally, say for special California formulations, the prices of all gasoline across the country do not rise. The price rises locally, i.e. in and around California. Since imported oil does not distribute across the country evenly, the prices of gasoline after a foreign oil tax is levied will also not distribute evenly.

          • Ronald Brakels

            The price of oil produced in the United States closely tracks international oil prices except when special conditions occur such as local refining capacity being maxed out.

            If you look at this graph you can see the price of West Texas Intermediate oil closely tracks that of North Sea Brent oil until 2011 when increasing US oil production exceeded refining capacity:


            The close tracking of international oil prices does not occur by chance. It happens because if local oil producers charged more than international prices, people would purchase international oil instead and US producers wouldn’t be able to sell all the oil they produce and so they would make less money than they would otherwise. If they went the other way and sold oil for less than the international price, people would buy all the oil they can currently produce and and then they would purchase the rest of the oil they want from overseas. In this situation the US oil producers will have made less money then they could have if they had instead sold the oil at or around international prices. Because oil producers have an incentive to maximise the amount of money they make, US oil prices will always be close to international prices except when special conditions apply such as limited refining capacity.

          • Bubba Nicholson

            … such as limited refining capacity, limited transportation options, and excess local production of oil/gasoline, local taxes, and differential governmental solicitude.

          • Ronald Brakels

            You are not addressing why I think US oil prices will go up by about $10 if a $10 tax is placed on imported oil. Could you please paraphrase why I think US oil prices will go up by about a similar amount if a tax is placed on imported oil so I can see that you understand me?

          • Bubba Nicholson

            This is why Congress passing a law against exporting oil is so unfair. Oil is not evenly available and the better the transportation network, the greater the returns to the producer, the happier are more distant customers, etc. The more people are pleased, the better it is for the economy.
            What you describe does happen with precious metals freely traded, the value of money which is easily transferred, etc.

      • exdent11

        The problem is nothing gets done in Politics without something for both sides. I would rather spend all the tax on renewables but it is not going to happen. Higher oil prices are good for clean energy, period ! Right now , very low gasoline prices are encouraging a backward movement in emissions. EVs are going to have a rough time of it too. Too much damage to the oil industry and the banks that have backed them could push us into a recession which will have the Republicans calling for less spending on clean energy. Also I really like the idea of a tax just on imported oil to stick it to the Saudis who started this oil drop to try to kill off competition which includes clean biofuels and an EV transition as well as the American fracking industry.

  • Martin

    Why only $ 10 per barrel, when even Exxon thinks $ 60 is a more realistic number?
    Yes $ 10 barrel would be a starting point and at the same time remove all the subsidies, except for the “blowback”, are cheap FF entrenched in the US constitution?

Back to Top ↑