AMERICAN OIL SUPPLY: WHO'S MINDING THE STORE?

Re the analogy of the U.S. opening its own "store" (representing increased oil drilling in the U.S.): I ask, who is it who opens the new store? The proprietors of the new store opened it to sell on the market to anyone who walks in the door, not only to people in the neighborhood. Unless there is a law that requires dedicated sales to the neighborhood, then the store has opened on the global market. It is NOT a neighborhood store operating in a restricted sales area. In case of shortage of items to sell, the new store will sell to those who can pay the higher prices. The new store does not have loyalty to the neighborhood; after all, it is a business, not a charitable organization. The United States does not produce oil; oil corporations produce oil. So, in the analogy, the U.S. does not open the "store." 

Unless the U.S. passes laws requiring oil sales only to the neighborhood (to the U.S), then a global store it is. True, OPEC is instrumental in setting global prices (and insuring a steady supply), and the oil corporations (even the ones who are ostensibly "American") seem to be happy about that. The issue of control is an interesting one. By the way, nowhere do I say that OPEC does not have a stranglehold over the people of the U.S.; indeed it does (with "our" consent because "we" do not pursue serious policies of alternative energy sources), but, importantly, the stranglehold comes with the collusion of ostensibly "American" oil corporations. How are they any different than an Arab sheikdom? I believe it would be no different if all the world's oil were in hands of oil corporations, instead of a mix of private corporations and nationalized companies such as the ones in Brazil, Venezuela and other South American countries, Mexico, Russia, Nigeria and other Sub-Saharan countries, countries in Central Asia, India, Malaysia, and the Middle East. 

My point is that the pretense of the "U.S." increasing production is a myth because the "U.S." does not produce oil. If the people of the U.S. want some control over supply (but pricing would still be very difficult to restrict to a single country), then the U.S. government should nationalize the "American" oil corporations, giving back control to the country, and run them perhaps something like TVA. 

Otherwise, it is not an Arab sheik to whom we bow, we kowtow also to BP, Chevron, Exxon-Mobile, and the like. I am not bashing the oil corporations. They are what they are, operating on a global market. This latter fact is impossible to counteract, unless there is change in ownership.

WHO OWNS OUR OIL?

Statements such as "our oil" and "we" should increase drilling in the U.S. so that "we" will not be dependent on other countries misses a fundamental point about who "owns" the resources and what happens to them. When oil corporations buy a lease and extract the petroleum, they then sell it on the global market. They have the legal right, and every market inclination, to sell to the highest bidder on the global market, not solely to consumers in the U.S.

"American" oil corporations are not beholden to Americans, any more than GM or any other corporation. There are no laws that stipulate they must sell their products to Americans (there is no "American" market anyway for several commodities--only a global market). They are not even "American" corporations in any but a general sense: global corporations in an era of global capitalism do not (and cannot, if corporate efficiency and profits are primary) have much loyalty to nations and localities, except as their notions of corporate good-citizenship and public relations behoove them. It is their call.

As illustration: When you purchase a fishing license and catch a fish in U.S. territorial waters (antecedent to this point the fish is "owned" by the U.S.), who "owns" the fish (after catching it)? Does the U.S. as a country, or do you? Can you sell it, or do as you want? Of course, you can. The same with petroleum: Drilling in the U.S. does NOT decrease our dependence on other countries (or on the oil corporations). Unless you want petroleum resources nationalized, they "belong" to the U.S. only as long as they are in the ground un-extracted (actually, only before the leases are sold). After extraction, they are not "ours"--they are owned by the oil corporations to sell on the global oil market.

There is a group of politicians who wants Americans to get hot about "our" oil for their own political purposes. When you hear one pontificate in this manner, ask, "Whose oil?"

OIL HYPE, OIL POWER

Finally I get assurances that my analyses and suspicions are correct about drilling for oil in the U.S. and whether any of the production is dedicated to the U.S. market. The answer: No, none of the oil drilled within the U.S. is dedicated, or reserved, for the U.S. market. Am I wrong? Please tell me.

It is simple: there is a global market for oil, therefore oil is sold on the global market, no matter where it is drilled. Just because the oil is found IN the U.S. does not mean it belongs TO the U.S. I see and read that some Americans say "we" must drill for more oil in the U.S. The problem is that they conflate "American" oil corporations with the U.S. as a country. The oil corporations are not the U.S. They get oil (from anywhere they can); they sell oil (to whomever they contract) on the global market. The oil does NOT belong to the U.S., at least after the oil parcels have been leased. THE OIL BELONGS TO THE GLOBAL OIL CORPORATIONS!!!! (You can tell that I'm getting upset at this.)

Again, today, I watched a Youtube video in which an (uninformed) eloquent person says that if Russia and Venezuela are smart enough to enjoy gasoline prices at about $1 per gallon because they drill their own oil, then why does not the U.S. do the same and become energy independent? It does not take much knowledge to understand that oil in Venezuela is NATIONALIZED! It is not clear who owns the oil in Russia, but it is safe to say that it is controlled by the state.

I have really struggled to figure this out. If you say "we" should drill "our" oil, I have a simple, direct question: Who are "we" and where is "our oil?" If it is true that when global oil corporations lease oil parcels, they control those parcels and the potential production, and they drill what is then THEIR oil, and there is a global market for oil, and the global oil corporations sell to whomever they want on the global market--then at which politicians are you ranting? And why are you pretending to be jingoistically patriotic vis-a-vis some politicians (you label as "liberal") who resist oil drilling in sensitive areas and, as you say, cause our gasoline prices to rise or at least prevent our gas prices to decrease?

Global oil corporations, global oil market--do you get the picture? Or am I wrong? Please inform me. Looks to me that "our" oil belongs to the global oil corporations. No oil is solely dedicated to the U.S. market.

The more you protest, the more you make the case for NATIONALIZED oil! Or at least legislation that CONTROLS the global oil corporations. Is this want you want? Can you imagine global oil corporations supported by right-wing politicians (and others, too) would ever consent to their becoming controlled by the U.S. government? Would you support this? Then why the false, jingoistic whining?

Many conservatives and other politicians of more liberal leanings are supported by oil money. In no imaginable situation can I foresee that Congress would opt for nationalized or even federally controlled oil production and marketing. CAN YOU?

The following link of the Consumer Federation of America addresses some of these problems: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/07-31-2008/0004859817&EDATE=

Here is an excerpt:
ExxonMobil and other major oil companies charge the same price for oil and natural gas that it extracts from the United States, as they do for oil and natural gas they extract abroad. It is a world market and they charge the world market price.

It seems such a simple and compelling argument for the jingoistically inclined to blame others who they label as liberal who they falsely say are preventing "us" from becoming "energy independent," while continuing to rely on oil as our main energy source. To the extent that they call for "our" oil to be drilled for "us," the more they will NOT call for moving away from oil dependence (from wherever the oil comes) and not support the development of alternative, clean, sources of energy.

Who profits from our continuing dependence on oil (from wherever it comes)? Two entities: oil corporations and politicians who are supported by them. Either those people who call for this type of pretend energy independence (continued reliance on oil) are in the pocket of oil corporations or they are ignorant. Am I wrong? Please tell me. This is a vital, crucial issue of utmost importance of public policy being "debated" in the public forum.

Am I wrong? Please inform me.