It’s really not. Articles and “studies” that spread this line always rely heavily on an esoteric (read: deceptive) definition of the word “subsidy”. First, some guy does a purely academic calculation of all O&G externalities and declares that this number represents the “correct amount” of taxes that O&G should pay. Next he takes the difference between actual taxes paid and his imaginary number, and calls this meaningless, hypothetical number a “subsidy”. In reality, where we don’t get to redefine words as a matter of convenience, the oil & gas industry is not “heavily subsidized”, but in fact generates huge amounts of tax revenue.
If you look at the cost for, say, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), (estimated at $1.7 trillion), which was used to secure our access to oil, I'm not convinced the costs don't come out ahead of the tax revenue it generates.
It’s really not. Articles and “studies” that spread this line always rely heavily on an esoteric (read: deceptive) definition of the word “subsidy”. First, some guy does a purely academic calculation of all O&G externalities and declares that this number represents the “correct amount” of taxes that O&G should pay. Next he takes the difference between actual taxes paid and his imaginary number, and calls this meaningless, hypothetical number a “subsidy”. In reality, where we don’t get to redefine words as a matter of convenience, the oil & gas industry is not “heavily subsidized”, but in fact generates huge amounts of tax revenue.