On 5/12/07, Marvin Gandall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoshie wrote:
> On 5/11/07, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> so "Hubbert's Peak" is due to nationalizations?
>
> Setting any talk of a peak aside, the FT is basically saying that
> state oil companies tend to limit access and give less than maximally
> favorable terms to oil multinationals based in the West. That line of
> thinking no doubt has and continues to fuel the empire's foreign
> policy.
=================================
The article's real beef about nationalized oil is that there is inherent
political pressure on state oil companies to direct their revenues to social
programs and other state spending rather than to exploration and the
development of new supply which would hold oil prices in check.
Except in the Gulf states, which have no obligation to most of their
populations, that is correct, but political pressures are not
inherent. Till the rise of Chavez, PDVSA, already a state company,
gave great deals to capital. Political pressures have risen in recent
times in an increasing number of countries, however, and while the oil
boom lasts, more countries are likely to see challenges from below
clamoring for more redistribution of oil profits.
--
Yoshie
