-
Website
http://www.ChristopherSPenn.com/ -
Original page
http://www.christopherspenn.com/2008/07/28/the-solution-to-the-offshore-drilling-question/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I agree we need new ideas and applaud your enthusiasm. Until we can get everyone to understand the economics behind this issue we will continue to suffer... Just my two cents...
Exxon Mobil has a 6% profit margin. If you nationalize the oil production, the only possible savings that come into play are within that 6% - and I don't know if you've looked at any government-run program lately, but they are not exactly models of efficiency. (This is the same government that accumulated that debt, I'll remind you.)
The reason we have the gasoline resources that we do is that *profit* provided the motive to invest billions of dollars, explore more areas for oil, build huge refineries, etc. We should be thankful Exxon-Mobil exists to enable our car-centered lifestyles.
In all seriousness, read Atlas Shrugged. Pay attention to what happens when Francisco's mines are nationalized. If you think "hey, that's just fiction" then read up on what's happening right now with Hugo Chavez and how well nationalizing the oil companies is working for Venezuela.
You're right on the efficiency of government. That said, the government does do some things well - NSF is a model of efficiency.
As for Exxon Mobil, I'll disagree. They haven't invested. The last new refinery in the United States was completed a short 32 years ago, in 1976. No new refining capacity has been added despite Exxon Mobil's record profits. Further, both BP and Shell have committed significant chunks of profits towards alternative energy research, recognizing that it's in their own best interests to develop new products that aren't petroleum based. ExxonMobil has given a miss to that research.
Nationalise - erm... no. The reason is simple - you either nationalise by buying shares from shareholders at their current value... in which case you have to take on a HUGE extra debt... or you nationalise by taking the shares away at less than they are currently worth (maybe, but not necessarily down to zero). If you do THAT, then you get EXXON Mobil, but in round terms lose the ability to persuade anyone else to set up a company, well, ever. Why would YOU risk your money in something that the government could just take away from you because they thought they could run it better?
Now, I have to confess here that, as someone who was a senior manager at BP from 1997-2000, I share your views about whether EXXON/Mobil has done the job it could, but nationalisation would be completely the wrong answer.
That's worth serious consideration - after all, it's effectively the model that pretty much every other government (including mine here in the UK) adopted - start out owning, and look at selling out only later, once the production is established and stocks are running down :-)
Likewise, I'm reasonably in favour of the use of Government income to produce jobs - provided those jobs are in areas that produce ongoing infrastructure (ie - you can use government money to build roads or water treatment plants, but shouldn't use government money to, say build Operating Systems or cars.)
We should cope with the expensive gas in the near term to rid ourselves of it through electricity-producing domestic resources faster than giving ourselves more oil. You don't give a heroin addict more heroin when you're trying to get him to quit. Don't do the same with our addiction to oil.
It won't be comfortable, but breaking addictions isn't a comfortable thing.
If we took the money that we could put into oil/gas exploration and put it instead into upping PV cell efficiency, that would be a much better investment.