Did somebody mention "Oil"

[Storekeeper]

"When liberals and populist conservatives attack "Big Oil" for manipulating world markets, they're generally levying charges against capitalism and unfettered free markets. But who exactly is "Big Oil?" Believe it or not, "Big Oil" is actually "Big Socialism." The Economist recently looked at the largest oil companies in the world, and found that the thirteen largest oil companies in the world are all state-owned, where all profits go to national governments. These thirteen companies control 90 percent of the world's oil. Exxon Mobil, the largest publicly listed company in the world, comes in a measly fourteenth, and controls only a tiny share of the world' oil reserves."

TheAgitator.com: Who Is "Big Oil?": Comments

[Marmite the Dog]

National oil companies | Oil's dark secret | Economist.com

I'm surprised that a respected publication such as The Economist would publish such a poorly written and researched article like this. Most of it is basically an attack on Venezuela and its government. I'm still trying to work out how such a poorly run company (Petróleos de Venezuela) can offer the US such cheap oil.

[friscofrankie]

"The Economist recently looked at the largest oil companies in the world, and found that the thirteen largest oil companies in the world are all state-owned, where all profits go to national governments.

of these companies how many actually remove the oil from the ground, transport it, refine it the distribute it. The wording of the OP (maybe even the article) is a somewhat less than artful use of semantics. The major corporatiopns are the ones that "control" the oil, whether they control the ground it comes out of or not.

I worked on contract for a major oil company in their "upstream" division. Upstream covers everything from exploration (prospectin') to field development extraction and, to a lesser degree, transportation.

The way that the leaders in this organization bouinced these so called "controllers of 90% of the worlds oil" on their knee, setup governements, dealt ulitmatums resulting in civil war or territorial battles was amazing.

Armed "compounds.," oild fields requiring a SCBD (self-contained Breathing Device) to walk out side on any given day, wars over overland transport. The Governement in Lagos Nigeria n the dole, the vennuzuelan govrnemnet officials taking Huge pay-offs to force citizens off their land. All fosterd by just this one company in the 10 - 12 months I was there.

Interesting company, I shoulda stayed on, I'd be rich! The executives with their pictures on the wall posed with the various third world leaders they'd bought and paid for, Nigerian & Kasakstani (sp?)"trainees" over for a bit of "training." Man the money we had to throw at hardware and projects.

I watched a whole contingent from one country walk out on a deal fill about 100 -150 offices, in a matter of one week, the country between the oil and the sea wanted to truck the crude, the comapny wanted to build a pipeline. The country that "controlled" ( ) the oil had the oil, and a contract, but if they couldn;t "work out" a transport solution they were stuck with oil in the ground, they attacked the buffer country, war broke out.

There was this other, more powerful country with leaders & generals heavily invested in the contstruction, materials and support industies that helped a tiny bit.

Yeah, maybe 90% of the world's oil is in the "control" of some shithole third-world contries governements but the motherfuckers with the infrastructure to turn that shit into money are the ones pullin the strings.

[Storekeeper]

I'm the first to admit FF that none of these "oil" countries seem to be able to handle the "refinery" process and are dependent on Western countries for the process.

But you're missing the point. These oil rich countries do get a large cut ... what do they do with the money ? Build palaces ? Wire it to Switzerland ?

The point isn't that the capitalistic companies pocket 10 billion to the socilaist countries 1 billion ... the point is where is the 1 billion going ?

Kinda subtle I know but ...

[man with no head]

What do drug lords do with the money they make? Bill Gates? What do any of them do that earn substantial amounts of money like that?

In times of rising oil prices, companies that own and produce a considerable portion of the crude oil used in their refineries may benefit more than other companies that must purchase most or all of their supplies on the open market.

In other words companies that own their own fields, transportation, refineries, and distribution are making a huge killing because the open market is driving prices of the raw material up.

In reality it's worse than narcotics because in the narcotics trade the drug lords, distributors, etc. don't actually refine the material. The growers take care of that so the profits are mor evenly distributed.

Did you know, for example, that under the Taliban the average income of the average Afghan poppy grower went from $750 per year to almost $7,000? Wonder why that's so hard to give up?

[Storekeeper]

But what do the governments do with their cut ?

[man with no head]

If you're talking about most states the government keeps the money...otherwise known as corruption.

In a place like Alaska the oil companies pay royalties which benefit Alaskans directly through checks each year.

Perhaps if the same scheme were used in these other places there wouldn't be any terrorism against the West and we wouldn't need to station troops there.

[Storekeeper]

Perhaps if the same scheme were used in these other places there wouldn't be any terrorism against the West and we wouldn't need to station troops there.

It's a whole lot easier to just steal the money and blame the woes of the country on you know who.

FF mentioned Nigeria. I happen to know a retired University of Oklahoma professor who recently returned to Nigeria to work for his cousin the President of Nigeria.

I don't think we're going to have the same sort of problems with these people as we're having with the radical fundamentalist Muslims.

[man with no head]

Ok, but it's still unstable (witness all the problems against oil workers) and there's vast amounts of poverty there while certain people live like kings. What about Venezuela? The only oil exporter that comes to mind that's a real democracy is Canada.

Since you called up Nigeria, here's proof:



And don't be so sure about Nigeria's links to terrorism either. Currently fundamentalist Muslims are trying to make the country unstable. The source of their funding? Saudi Arabia, our so-called friend.

[lom]

The source of their funding? Saudi Arabia, our so-called friend.

That's not nice of them, it will eventually cause consumer oil price to rise..

[Storekeeper]

Surasak ... doesn't seem to me that socialism is working then in Nigeria either.

[man with no head]

Perhaps it's more of a problem of going from piss poor to wealthy overnight. We had time to develop democracy (to some degree) before the U.S. became a powerful rich nation.

Now, perhaps the question should be: do the oil companies benefit more from a capitalist source of oil versus a socialist/dictatorship?

[Whiteshiva]

But what do the governments do with their cut ?

Well my government invests most of it.

Bloomberg.com: Europe

[friscofrankie]

I'm the first to admit FF that none of these "oil" countries seem to be able to handle the "refinery" process and are dependent on Western countries for the process.

But you're missing the point. These oil rich countries do get a large cut ... what do they do with the money ? Build palaces ? Wire it to Switzerland ?

The point isn't that the capitalistic companies pocket 10 billion to the socilaist countries 1 billion ... the point is where is the 1 billion going ?

Kinda subtle I know but ...

I will admit to not reading teh article only the post. That point wasn;t even hinted at in the Post Subtle to the point of nonexistence?

The above post might even be read as a subtle indictment of "socialism." Seriously, can we indict "socialism" due to the actions of dictators that lead/rule with the gun and fear? the economic system is hardly the culprit here but the demonic dictators that have killed and tortured their way into power, many time with the help of "Big Oil."

Why is it that the US will support some Governments such as these and then label others as "Axis of Evil?" (a catchy phrase, you will admit, as long as you've a literacy level below 9th grade) Are the oil companies evil? No more than a Don Gotti, Al Capone or any other money hungry gangster. Make no mistake, the people in office in DC are not alturistic fools, they are there for money and power; this is , and always will be, the case. The only factor that keeps it in check is the 'merikan people. Lately they have been fooled and scared shitless, It is a sad time for the US.

But in your post are you indicting the leader of these governments or defending "Big Oil?" I think one could be excused for reading it as the latter. "Big Oil" controls the oil and these governments, the US governement seems to have come under the same control to the extent that they are willing to help start wars or topple/support governements depending on the pliability of said government leader regardless of their benevolence or lack thereof.

Now that the point is made, Ah, yes socialism, communism just about any "ism" relies on the honesty of the leaders doesn't it? While the US leaders use misdirection, even better distibution of the wealth, perhaps even a chance at a bigger "slice of the pie" to keep the masses somewhat placated, and has a certain amount of "checks and balances" the authoritarian leaders of the aforementioned "socialist" governements use guns, force and terror.

Folks like Bill Gates, mentioned above, or "big Oil' share a taste of the proceeds with their shareholders, capitalism works.

One can hardly indict "Big Oil" for going for maximum profits. This is capitalism at work. If you do not make whatever effort is allowed you, you will be eaten by your competitors.

One CAN and SHOULD indict a country with unparalleled and unprecedented power for not taking the responibility of it's might to correct these wrongs, and in fact, exacerbating them.

[Whiteshiva]

Great Post FF!

[Storekeeper]

I don't know Frankie ... your post sounds good. I want to agree with you in one paragraph and then in the next I feel like you contradict yourself.

The last two paragraphs for example.

But to answer your question if I was actually indicting anyone it would be the people who point their fingers at Big Oil for the problems of the world who get fooled by the rhetoric of the governments who for the most part don't do shit for their people in these oil countries ... Norway being the above noted exception by one of the posters.

[Bung]

"When liberals and populist conservatives attack "Big Oil" for manipulating world markets, they're generally levying charges against capitalism and unfettered free markets.

Wow, after a couple of bottles of wine that just doesn't make any sense at all. Has this site gone all intellectual or have you just swiped that statement from a government website?

what crap! Please give a laymans explanation of this statement. I bet you can't.

[attaboy]

To Bung's sigline:

Jesus is coming

and he's bringing his lawyers.

[friscofrankie]

I want to agree with you in one paragraph and then in the next I
feel like you contradict yourself.
The last two paragraphs for example.

One can hardly indict "Big Oil" for going for maximum profits. This is capitalism at work. If you do not make whatever effort is allowed you, you will be eaten by your competitors.

One CAN and SHOULD indict a country with unparalleled and unprecedented power for not taking the responibility of it's might to correct these wrongs, and in fact, exacerbating them.

Sometimes SK, you crack me up
One could be excused in thsi day and age for confusing the two; i.e. "Big Oil' and "country"

Maybe I should have use "government" instead of "country" still confusing though

[keda]

America has a secret oil reserve that contains 12 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

This oil field spans Utah, Wyoming and Colarado. It lies beneath what is called The Green River Formation. Until now it has not been feasible to go after this oil because it is not your conventional kind of oil. It is contained in a rock called oil shale. It is grainy to the touch and greasy. When it is heated it oozes oil. For every ton of this rock there is one barrel of oil. That's 2 million barrels of oil per acre. There are over 16,000 square miles of oil shale in The Green River Formation. They have just begun drilling.

Technology has now caught up to the point that this oil can be extracted for as little as $10. per barrel.In northern Alberta Canada there has been in progress for the last 5 years what is called The Athabasca Oil Project. In the Cold Lake area north of Fort McMurray the oil is in the form of bitumen. A tar like substance sometimes referred to as tar sands. When heated it also produces a high quality oil. This area also contains more oil than in Saudi Arabia. The Americans have been pouring trillions of dollars in investment in this area. It is growing so fast that there is a critical labor shortage. The unemployment rate in the province of Alberta is zero. Those that are skilled in any of the trades can make an easy $100,000 Cdn. per year salary.

A $10,000 investment in the leading oil sands companies in the late 90's is now worth more than half a million.

Some of you may recall that earlier this year I said I was off to visit Shenzhen China. Do you know how many percent the Schenzhen stock exchange is up this year?

In another week or so I will be off to visit Fort McMurray. There's alot of oil company's with fast growing profits not to forget the oil services sector that I'd like to give an old fashioned cowboy hand shake.

Point is for those of you that like PTT and PTTEP I do not believe oil prices will keep on going up indefinitely. The oil extraction process in these two areas I've mentioned is slow but with new technology developing rapidly and trillions of dollars pouring into these areas it won't be long before capacity reaches the point of being able to supply the world's energy needs for the next 500 years or more. This may take another 10 years but it is inevitable. America will not put up with being held hostage to the likes of Iran. Until this point is reached you may see some spikes in the price of oil but in the long term the mideast oil barons will sooner or later be selling their kabeesa on the street just to make a living and sitting around smoking their hookah pipes dreaming of the good old days....

Ma'a salama


For more info, check out this website
About Oil Shale

Oil Shale Resources


Location of the Green River Formation Oil Shale and Its Main Basins

While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation would last for more than 400 years1.


More than 70% of the total oil shale acreage in the Green River Formation, including the richest and thickest oil shale deposits, is under federally owned and managed lands. Thus, the federal government directly controls access to the most commercially attractive portions of the oil shale resource base.




Could be the major problem now is to find a way to pacify the tree huggers.

keda

[man with no head]

Do you have any idea the massive environmental mess that creates? Don't you dare sit there and claim that getting oil from oil sands or shale is envirronmentally sound.

See this image? This is one of the oil sand sites in Alberta. For scale, the image on the right is Bangkok. A whole section of Alberta the size of Bangkok is destroyed so some asshole American can drive their gas guzzling SUV through Los Angeles:



Why do we insist on more digging, more wars, more destruction when we won't even bother with conservation? I tell you what: ban all SUVs and non-commercial vehicles getting less than 35MPG and I'll support your oil sand exploration.

[man with no head]

Canada Pays Environmentally for U.S. Oil Thirst

FORT MCMURRAY, Alberta -- Huge mines here turning tarry sand into cash for Canada and oil for the United States are taking an unexpectedly high environmental toll, sucking water from rivers and natural gas from wells and producing large amounts of gases linked to global warming.

The digging -- into an area the size of Maryland and Virginia combined -- has proliferated at gold-rush speed, spurred by high oil prices, new technology and an unquenched U.S. thirst for the fuel. The expansion has presented ecological problems that experts thought they would have decades to resolve.

Industry officials say they do not pollute the river, and instead reuse the water they take as often as 17 times. The leftover emerges as a black, foul liquid collected in tailing ponds. The ponds have grown; one dam is among the largest in the world. The mining companies must fire off propane cannons to scare away migrating birds from the toxic waters.

Disgusting.

Ah, you might say, but there is enough shale oil to last 5,000 years! Shale oil (or oil shale) is actually a misnomer: the rock is not shale but organic marlstone, and it contains no oil, but rather a solid organic material called kerogen. Promoters prefer the term "oil shale," which facilitates the sale of venture shares. Efforts to develop an oil shale industry date back nearly 90 years, and so far all attempts have failed. The recovery process involves mining ore, transporting it, heating it to 900°F, adding hydrogen, and disposing of the waste, which is much greater in volume than the original ore and is also a pollution hazard. Processing and auxiliary support facilities require large amounts of fresh water -- a resource intrinsically more precious than oil.

Oil sands are likewise reputed to be potential substitutes for conventional oil. The Athabasca oil sands in northern Alberta contain an estimated 870 billion to 1.3 trillion barrels of oil -- an amount equal to or greater than all of the conventional oil extracted to date. Currently, Syncrude (a consortium of companies) and Suncor (a division of Sun Oil Company) operate oil sands plants in Alberta. Syncrude now produces over 200,000 barrels of oil a day. The extraction process involves using hot-water flotation to remove a thin coating of oil from grains of sand, then adding naphtha to the resulting tar-like material to thin it so that it can be pumped. Currently, two tons of sand must be mined in order to yield one barrel of oil. As with oil shale, the net-energy figures for oil sands are discouraging. Geologist Walter Youngquist notes "it takes the equivalent of two out of each three barrels of oil recovered to pay for all the energy and other costs involved in getting the oil from the oil sands.

The primary method used to process oil sands yields an oily wastewater. For each barrel of oil recovered, 2.5 barrels of liquid waste are pumped into huge ponds. In the Syncrude pond, 14 miles in circumference, 20 feet of murky water floats on a 130-foot-thick slurry of sand, silt, clay, and unrecovered oil. Residents of northern Alberta have engaged in activist campaigns to close down the oil sands plants because of devastating environmental problems, including displacement of native people, destruction of boreal forests, livestock deaths, and an increase in miscarriages.

Do we really want to cause this kind of mess just to drive our gas guzzling vehicles around? Would Americans tolerate it if it was the Grand Canyon, Florida Beaches, or California coast instead?

[Storekeeper]

A whole section of Alberta the size of Bangkok is destroyed so some asshole American can drive their gas guzzling SUV through Los Angeles

This is where you lose plot my man ... it's nearly the entire world driving SUVs, trucks, cars, whatever ... Japan, Australia, England, China ... this isn't some problem unique to upstanding fine American citizens.

[man with no head]

How many people in Japan or elsewhere are driving Tahoes, Surburbans, Explorers, or Excursions?

C'mon dude we use 20 million barrels per day of the stuff. We use more for our vehicles alone than China demands for 1.2 billion people.

Don't give me that 'well they use it too' crap. It is Americans wasting gasoline that is the largest source of the problem on this planet.

It wouldn't cost us a thing to be more efficient. But that's the problem, isn't it? Big Oil doesn't make profits when we use less and own fuel efficient vehicles. GM, Ford, and Chrysler are too dependent on selling gas guzzling vehicles for their profits.

Growth no matter the cost.

[Storekeeper]

Let's not get back on statistics dawg ... but what you mention is statistically insignificant.

By the way ... I would never go on a 'what about them tangent' ... my point is purely that maybe you might want to climb out of that anti-America euro jockstrap is all.

And yer crazy as hell if you think the Chinese are gonna back off on their oil consumption just cause "America sez so" ...

By the way ... if you didn't know already ... I'm damn glad GWB doesn't want to agree with the Kyoto Treaty either. Another fool thing morons want Americans to do ... hand cuff our own citiznes while nobody else does a gawd damn thing.