Corruption Inquiry Exposes Australia’s Biggest $70Bn Oil Revenue Theft (They Tried To Bury This)

Overview

The video argues that Australia’s oil and gas “windfall” profits during the global fuel crisis have not translated into fair returns for everyday Australians. It claims that the taxation system and corporate structures allow major companies to pay little or no tax on large revenue streams.

Key Claims and Analysis

1) Price rises vs. taxes collected: a “mismatch”

The video argues there is a major mismatch between what Australians pay for fuel and what producers pay back to the country through taxes and royalties.

• As petrol and diesel costs rise (with interest rates tightened to manage oil-driven inflation), the video claims oil majors are earning large profits without a corresponding increase in taxes/royalties to Australians.

2) Government failure to capture LNG export revenue

The video claims the government is not capturing enough revenue from LNG (natural gas) exports.

• It cites a “live tracker” estimating about $74 billion in missed revenue since July 2022, attributed to inadequate taxation of gas exports.
• The argument is that LNG export earnings grew dramatically over time, while PRRT collections allegedly fell.
• It also claims that forecasts predict PRRT collections declining further by 2029–30.
• The speaker suggests this lost resource revenue forces the government to seek money elsewhere—implying higher taxes and charges on consumers.

3) Criticism of the PRRT structure (why it may under-tax LNG)

The video criticizes the PRRT (Petroleum Resource Rent Tax) as not being well-suited to modern LNG operations.

• It describes the PRRT as designed for older offshore/pipeline contexts rather than large-scale LNG export.
• It claims LNG profits occurring in later stages—liquefaction, shipping, trading, export—may fall outside the tax base.
• It also alleges companies can deduct large upstream costs and defer PRRT indefinitely using mechanisms already acknowledged by Treasury.

4) Political response portrayed as “shut up” / “off the table”

The video portrays government leaders as refusing to discuss higher gas taxes.

• It claims the Prime Minister/treasurer figures decline to raise gas taxes, arguing it is not the right time to jeopardize gas export relationships and contracts.
• It pushes back by saying Treasury forecasts show declining PRRT revenue, questioning when any “more tax sooner” would actually occur.

5) “Villain two”: loopholes used by oil companies to minimize tax

The video argues companies exploit legal pathways to reduce tax.

• Inpex: alleged to have paid no royalties (the claim is linked to supply from Commonwealth waters).
• Chevron (Gorgon): alleged to have delayed meaningful PRRT payments, with the video suggesting first meaningful PRRT around 2025, nearly a decade after production began.
• Shell (core example):
  • The video alleges Shell routes Australian LNG through a Singapore trading entity, booking profits there so they face a lower effective tax rate.
  • It claims the trading business generated large markup profits (figures cited: roughly $83B in LNG purchase/sales value and about $22B markup), with tax benefits attributed to booking in Singapore.
  • It also references findings attributed to the ACCC: Shell sold gas to its own affiliate at below international prices before resale at higher prices, framed as a tax avoidance strategy.

6) “Bombshell” comparison to other countries

The video includes a comparison to argue Australia taxes its LNG less than it imports it.

• It claims Japan collects more tax from importing Australian LNG than Australia collects from exporting it (figures given: Japan ~$1.8B/year vs Australia ~$1.4B via PRRT).

Proposed Remedy

Replace or scrap PRRT with an export tax

The video’s central policy recommendation is a 25% tax on gas exports, arguing it would generate far more revenue than current arrangements.

• It contrasts this with Norway’s model of capturing petroleum revenues into a sovereign wealth fund, claiming Norway benefited while Australia is left with heavy debt.

Economic and Social Stakes

The video argues the missed revenue could have funded public services, including:

• hospitals
• housing
• childcare
• education
• Medicare dental services

It frames the situation as not only unfair, but structurally designed to benefit companies while shifting costs toward households.

Presenters / Contributors

• No named presenter is provided in the subtitles. The speaker addresses the audience as “guys,” but no identity is given.