re: ExxonMobil withdraws ITEP requests, future Baton Rouge expansion in question

All in all, Exxon recieved approximately $70MM/yr in tax breaks for the first 10 years in Corpus.

Call me crazy, but I don't believe they made the decision for a $9B plant, the largest of its kind, based on some local tax break. It's all lagniappe to them.

ETA - That's not to be taken as a vote of confidence in BR leadership.

70MM x 10 is 700 million dollars. That's almost 10% of project cost. Am I wrong in thinking that's substantial?

quote:

---

Slakster, u are either an engineer or an accountant. Layfolks don't use M correctly. U did.

---

While MM is normal usage in some fields (mainly accounting and finance as scientific fields usually use exponents) it is actually incorrect usage or at least an odd bastardization. If you use K(ilo) for thousands you should use mega (M) for millions to remain consistent. If using the M from Roman numerals you should use an M with a bar over the top (1000 x 1000) to represent millions since MM means two thousand but the M for thousands would confuse most people today.

quote:

---

70MM x 10 is 700 million dollars. That's almost 10% of project cost. Am I wrong in thinking that's substantial?

---

It's a large sum, no doubt.

Exxon in 2017 reported revenues of $244,363,000,000 and $19,710,000,000 in earnings.

70MM is 0.03% of total revenue and 0.36% of earnings.

FWIW, Polyethylene plants are printing money and have been for a decade.

quote:

---

While MM is normal usage in some fields (mainly accounting and finance as scientific fields usually use exponents) it is actually incorrect usage or at least an odd bastardization. If you use K(ilo) for thousands you should use mega (M) for millions to remain consistent. If using the M from Roman numerals you should use an M with a bar over the top (1000 x 1000) to represent millions since MM means two thousand but the M for thousands would confuse most people today.

---

I use MM and K because they're the least likely to be confused for anything else.

That's great, but companies don't plan new-construction packages as percentages of global revenue. There are budgets. Tax incentives are factored into site studies during Fel-1 to produce initial cost and ROI estimates.

The Corpus project isn't a PE plant. It's a cracker if I recall correctly.

Yeah it's ethylene cracker. PE downstream of ethylene.

Of course all incentives are taken into account for site selection process along with everything else.

I personally don't have a problem with loading them up with incentives for new plants. Give em the farm. My issue is after the agreed upon term, it needs to come fully on the tax rolls.

65% of the value of Exxon Refinery has never been in the tax rolls here in EBR. While I understand that there have been some major expansions since they first opened, there's no credible explanation as to why the vast majority of that plant is off the rolls.

We helped them buy the Cadillac. Why are we replacing the tires and paying for the tune ups?

You love spouting this, so I did some FACT checking. Yep, about 60% of the refinery is off the tax rolls (not roles as you said in the other thread). ITEP is (was) the bandaid that helps keep overall tax rates somewhat in line with the tax rates elsewhere (especially Texas). Louisiana’s tax system is horribly outdated and frankly broken, but since there isn’t any political appetite for opening the Constitution and making any real changes. Without ITEP, Louisiana isn’t competitive. Remember Texas has lower sales taxes and ZERO income tax. Also remember that the refinery has been there since 1909 and there are formulas set for assessing value that consider these little things like the age of equipment and depreciation schedules set by the IRS and state and local taxing authorities. And NEVER on the tax rolls is JUST flat out wrong.

So quit posting like the company doesn’t pay any taxes, maybe it would be instructive for you to read the links Martini posted above so you have ALL your facts. Again, like TBR, you cherry pick a few areas of focus and ignore the others, like how much the company does pay every year (right at $100 Million).

And the incentives and overall tax burden is factored into site selection. As are the ability to find and retain an educated and skilled workforce. Since you are posting like you are such an expert in site selection, please tell me how a corporation would view Louisiana versus Texas on the quality of the EBR education system, infrastructure, crime and legal climate. Or the political system. Or access to skilled/educated workers.

And to resond to your terrible analogy, we give them tax credits so they do tuneup the car and replace the tires so the car keeps running and burning gas and providing transportation (value) and doesn’t end up sitting in the driveway on flat tires rusting away like all the others just north of town. And EBR certainly didn’t buy the car, just helped out with the initial taxes on the purchase so they didn’t buy it in Texas. There’s a pretty big gap between Billions in investments and Millions in incentives. Obviously some (all) other parishes understand that. As the WBR Parish President said (in a statement in which he said how much they appreciate Exxon being in WBR) “financial ignorance ends at the Mississippi River”. And as Ascension showed last week, it also ends at the Parish line.

If he’s MAGA, I’m an Olympic athlete.

I'd love to see Exxon relocate to St Francisville or Ventress.

Let BR waller in their own shite, they deserve to suffer the consequences for electing stupidity at all levels of local government.