Lower oil production is the real story

By LOREN STEFFY
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Eleven billion dollars is not enough.

That, at first blush, seemed to explain how Exxon Mobil Corp. could earn that much money in three months and still see its stock fall 4 percent.

Wall Street expected more, and so did Exxon Mobil investors. At a time of record oil prices, America's biggest oil company reported an earnings increase that was the smallest among its peers.

The profit is what captures everyone's attention, but there's a bigger concern hidden amid the numbers of Exxon Mobil's earnings.

The company's worldwide oil production fell 10 percent, to just under 2.5 million barrels a day.

Some of the decline came from Exxon Mobil's dispute over the seizure of assets by the Venezuelan government, but even excluding those assets, the company's production declined. Overall production, including natural gas, fell 3 percent.

While Exxon Mobil boosted production from fields in West Africa and the North Sea, the gains weren't enough to offset declines from aging oil fields, the company said.

The company blamed the decline in part on its contracts with oil-producing countries, which allow those countries to claim a larger share of oil volumes as prices rise. In other words, the higher prices go, the less oil Exxon Mobil gets.

As those countries benefit from higher prices, living standards rise and, as I mentioned last week, their own demand for oil increases. That, in turn, means less oil for companies such as Exxon Mobil over the long term.

The problem isn't unique to Exxon Mobil.

Other major oil companies also offered a stark production picture. BP's was unchanged from a year earlier. Shell reported a gain only because it boosted natural gas production, which offset lower oil output. ConocoPhillips reported an increase but attributed it to its 20 percent stake in Russia's Lukoil.

With national oil companies now holding most of the world's reserves, companies like Exxon Mobil are left with few places to look for new production.

The public, though, has little concern for Exxon Mobil's travails. We only care about what we see from our side of the pump, and that means the price and the profits of the company whose name is atop the sign.

Exxon Mobil has reported earnings between $9 billion and $11 billion in almost every quarter since late 2005, and every time it does, the public outcry grows.

Capitalizing on outrage
Politicians are quick to capitalize on that outrage.

"I believe we should impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and use that money to suspend the gas tax and give families relief at the pump," Hillary Clinton said in a statement addressing Exxon Mobil's earnings. A typical family, she claims, would save $70. John McCain already has called for a "gas tax holiday."

A closer reading of Exxon Mobil's earnings statement, though, shows Clinton is missing the point.

Her plan, and McCain's, would essentially lower gasoline prices at the pump. And how will we respond? We'll drive more. We're talking about summer, after all. Time to load up the kids in the land yacht and cruise to Destin at 12 miles to the gallon.

As demand rises, it depletes supply even further, and that, in turn, drives prices up in the world market. Shortages aren't solved by using more.

Barack Obama, by the way, has proposed a broader windfall profits tax on the industry based on crude prices, which the companies don't control. He'd tax oil over $80 a barrel, Bloomberg News reported, even though futures markets are indicating oil will stay above $100 through 2016.

Using this logic, we should tax pizza places because of soaring cheese prices.

They don't like it either
As I've said before, oil companies don't welcome the numbers we're now seeing at the pump. Not only do they cut into refining margins — another reason Exxon Mobil's profit didn't grow as much as expected — they make us start buying Priuses in spite of their bean-pod appearance.

So the public and politicians decry Exxon Mobil's profit while the market frets over a mere 17 percent increase. Both miss the more disturbing numbers, the ones that portend greater problems, not just for the oil companies but for all of us who use their products.

It's not a question of whether $11 billion is too much or not enough. It's a question of whether 2.5 million barrels is.

Loren Steffy is the Chronicle's business columnist. His commentary appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Contact him at loren.steffy@chron.com. His blog is at http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy/.