Petrobras feels the downside of fossil fuel subsidies

Taxpayers, activists, and politicians see this outrageous tally of fossil fuel subsidies and get angry at the oil company — but in Petrobras' case, Rapier writes, it's the oil company footing the bill.

Bruno Domingos/Reuters/File
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva holds up his hands which are covered with oil during a ceremony at Petrobras 50, a ship-shaped floating production vessel near Rio de Janeiro in this April 2006 file photo. A vast majority of so-called fossil fuel subsidies are really governments keeping fuel prices artificially low for consumers, Rapier writes.

Petrobras: A Case Where ‘Fossil Fuel Subsidies’ are Bad for an Oil Company

When most people hear the phrase “fossil fuel subsidies” it conjures up images of governments giving their hard-earned tax dollars to already highly profitable oil companies. That’s what they have been conditioned to think by certain activists and politicians, and quite naturally this image evokes outrage.

On more than one occasion, I have pointed out that the vast majority of these so-called fossil fuel subsidies are really governments keeping fuel prices artificially low for consumers. This is a subsidy because consumers aren’t paying the true price of the fossil fuel, and the amount of the subsidy is the difference between what consumers pay and the market price. In most cases, the primary beneficiary of the subsidy is the consumer, and the secondary beneficiary is the fossil fuel company who gets to sell more product than they otherwise might.

In oil producing countries, the government is typically the entity providing the subsidy. They do this by giving up revenue. For example, in Venezuela consumers can buy gasoline for pennies a gallon. The state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. sells gasoline at well below the cost to make it, and the loss of revenue to the government is the amount of the fossil fuel subsidy to the consumer. 

Then there’s the Brazilian oil company Petrobras (NYSE: PBR). Petrobras is one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, and the largest company in Latin America. Petrobras is a publicly traded company, and in fact I personally have owned shares in the company since late 2008, when I bought them following the oil price crash in the second half of 2008. But the Brazilian government also owns the majority of the voting shares in the company, and that’s where things get interesting.

To combat rising inflation, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has stopped Petrobras from increasing its fuel prices. Because of strong demand growth in Brazil, the country is no longer self-sufficient in refining capacity. Therefore, Petrobras is actually being forced to import gasoline and sell at 8% below cost. This has resulted in an estimated $8 billion loss for 2012, which is the company’s first loss since 1999.

Now imagine for a moment what this actually means. Petrobras itself is eating this subsidy, which is benefiting consumers. But the subsidy gets tallied onto the roles of “fossil fuel subsidies” — even though in this case it is costing an oil company money. Taxpayers, activists, and politicians see this outrageous tally of fossil fuel subsidies and get angry at the oil company — which is getting killed by this subsidy.

It boggles the mind.

Source: An Oil Company Finds Itself On the Losing End of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Petrobras feels the downside of fossil fuel subsidies
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today