Should all countries nationalize their oil reserves?

[Arctic Dave]

It seems to me that the concept of oil corporations is an archaic business model. Petroleum exploration and production is an extremely specialized field. Everything is contracted out from the siesmic work, the drilling to the fabrication and operations of facilities. What do you believe are the benefits of the current business model?

I dont see one myself except that it creates wealth for a few at the expense of the people. Why couldn't we create a model that uses the oil to create an income for the country?

[joshcryer]

1. Most have, Canada is the one exception (of the large producers).

[Arctic Dave]

3. Should they. Do you think the curent model is good for Canada?

[joshcryer]

9. Canada would benefit from it, certainly. But Canada is happy with the 50% sharing situation...

...that they have going on. So basically Canada does in fact get a kind of nationalized oil with the benefits of capitalist oil mongers who have no problem tearing the environment to bits to get at it.

In Canadas situation with the tar sands? It's probably better for them not to nationalize, since once you nationalize you have to listen to your population and they may well tell Canada to stop fucking the environment up. With capitalists doing the fucking shit up you have a scapegoat and the government isn't directly cuplible. "We let them do such and such, it's not our fault the standards weren't good enough."

[Cleita]

2. I have always believed that nations should

nationalize their natural resources including us. No more BP and other global energy companies stealing what is ours and we shouldn't be stealing what is theirs.

[Arctic Dave]

5. Obviously there would still be contractors to develop the fields.

Alaska is one of the few states that owns the resources which produces a great deal of wealth for us.

[Cleita]

13. Oh sure as long as those contracts are awarded by bid.

Apparently, Kock, Halliburton and other industries are today getting govt. contracts without bids and that is plainly wrong. I'm more interested in who controls the money and that should be, we the people, as in our government.

[Arctic Dave]

23. All contracts could have a two to four year sunset and rebid.

[midnight]

4. I have no problem with nationalizing the oil reserves.. I'm wondering though

why we should not move on to other sources of energy....

[Arctic Dave]

6. We should move on.

Why couldn't the profits made on oil production now go to new energy systems? Why should the profits go to a few?

[Angry Dragon]

7. Yes

[Arctic Dave]

8. Should other resources be included?

[Angry Dragon]

12. Our elected officials have stated in the past

that protection of oil is vital to our National security
so it should follow that they need to take control of it
and out of the hands of corporations

I do not believe they have stated that other resources
are vital to National Security

[white_wolf]

10. I think we should nationalized our oil industry

and use the profits to fund infrastructure,universal health care, and research into alternative forms of energy.

[Arctic Dave]

14. A lot of people would agree with you.

We are creating billions in wealth from oil production profits.

[Canuckistanian]

11. All this "Drill, baby, Drill" ignores one fact

Oil companies have ZERO alliances to America. If ANWR were opened for drilling today, the oil would STILL be shipped overseas.

An oil company executive stated as much.

[Arctic Dave]

16. So we should nationalize them?

If the state owns the oil why not produce it themselves and reap the profits for the good of the country and it's people?

[Canuckistanian]

28. I think every country should have it's own, government-owned oil company

And they get first rights to extract. NOBODY loses money on oil. Why should multinationals only get away with paying a pittance for royalties?

[Arctic Dave]

32. I think that sounds pretty smart.

[L. Coyote]

15. If the USA nationalized the oil industry, the national debt would disappear pronto

Either that or energy prices would go down so much we would have a thriving
economy and restore our competitive position in the global economic scheme.

[Nye Bevan]

17. I really don't see how "the national debt would disappear".

If by "nationalize the oil industry" you mean that the state would assume ownership of the oil companies, the Government would be forced to compensate the existing shareholders (Takings clause) which would cost billions. So the national debt would *increase*.

[Arctic Dave]

21. Why not create a state oil company?

Why take over another company? Then they could bid the jobs out just like the oil companies do.

[L. Coyote]

25. Record Profits from Big Five Oil Companies

Big Oil Feasts on Economic Woes
Record Profits from Big Five Oil Companies Feed on High Gas Prices
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/high_oil.html

[Arctic Dave]

19. That would be a really nice outcome.

:)

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. Energy prices wouldn't go down at all

not when the US imports over half of all the oil it uses. It'd be three-quarters of all the oil it uses if not for the fact that there's about four million "barrels of oil" a day in production from corn-based ethanol.

[robinlynne]

18. AND BANKS.

[Hugabear]

20. ALL energy sources should be nationalized

And that's for starters. I see another poster pointed out the banking industry, which would be another nice step.

[Ozymanithrax]

22. Nationalize the way the Saudis did it?

I don't think so.

How about the way Libya nationalized oil, by having a state run oil company and then just creating dozens of small companies as fronts.

The Treasury Department says Libya's National Oil Corp. controls the companies. They are involved in oil exploration, production and sales. The United States already has frozen $32 billion in Libyan assets.

The companies are Arabian Gulf Oil Co., Azzawiya Oil Refining Co., Brega Petroleum Marketing Co., Harouge Oil Operations, Jamahiriya Oil Well Fluids and Equipment, Mediterranean Oil Services Co., Mediterranean Oil Services GMBH, National Oil Fields and Terminals Catering Co., North African Geophysical Exploration Co., National Oil Wells Drilling and Workover Co., Ras Lanuf Oil and Gas Processing Co., Sirte Oil Co., Zueitina Oil Co. and Waha Oil Co.

Many countries, like Mexico, have nationalized oil. That doesn't really mean the profits roll down to the people.

In the US, the USRA during WWI was the last time the US really nationalized an industry. It ran the railroads very well, standardized engines, and ran things efficiently. When they turned the railroads back to the owners after the war, many of them went bankrupt, because what could be efficient and work well when no profit is taken goes bankrupt when profits are taken.

Nationalizing industries can work well, or it can suck monstrously. It would depend on how you do it.

[Arctic Dave]

24. "Profits" would go to fund government.

I believe the state would do well to have it's own pruduction company also. I don't see why the state couldnt manage a oil company, today they are mostly contract specialist. They own very little of the equipment to produce oil(except once the facility is built).

[Ozymanithrax]

27. What your are suggesting is world wide socialism...

I don't think human nature is up to the task.

[Arctic Dave]

31. I wouldn't call it socialism as much as it is sensibility.

Socialism is a form of governance, this would be for natural resources production.

Other countries do something similar, are they socialist?

[Ozymanithrax]

42. Some of them claim to be...

Kung Bushmen were before anyone dreamed up Socialism, but they were hunter gatherers in small bands.

[robcon]

29. NO. Maximum corruption. Maximum waste.

Look what's happened in Venezuela.

[Arctic Dave]

34. What happened in Venezuela?

Do you believe there isn't any corruption in the way things are done now? What waste do you refer to? As a person who has worked in the oilfields for 18 years the amount of waste I have seen would make your eyes pop out. From food to materials.

[zorahopkins]

30. Not Nationalize -- INTERNationalize

Let's face it, all resources are really resources of the entire world.

It makes no sense to have a corporation own natural resources.

But it also makes no sense to have a country own natural resources.

Instead, all natural resources should be held in trust by an International Organization -- like the United Nations. That way, the resources can be use for the benefit of those people most in need.

Need (not profits or nationalism) should determine the allocation of natural resources worldwide.

[Arctic Dave]

33. That would be an interesting way to do it.

Do you would think we could do that now?

[zorahopkins]

35. A Journey Of 1,000 Miles

It would not be easy.

But a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.

If the poor of the world were able to mobilize against the rich, that would be a significant start.

[Arctic Dave]

37. True. nt

[The2ndWheel]

36. Doesn't make sense for humans to own natural resources either

If the resources are really resources for the entire world. Which they aren't, since that's not how you were using the word world. What you were talking about was humans privatizing the profits of the entire planet, and socializing the costs to the rest of life. Like any good individual nation or corporation would do.

And the U in UN is a joke.

[zorahopkins]

38. "Held In Trust"

I think if you look at my earlier email, you will see that I did not say that natural resources should be "owned".

I said that they should be "held in trust".

If the UN doesn't work for you, then I hope it would be possible to form a truly international agency that would care for the Earth's natural resources, and would hold them in trust for ALL of the animals and plants on the Earth.

Human beings do need to respect the rights of other animals and of the plants.

Thanks for pointing that out!

[The2ndWheel]

39. The planet is too diverse and complex of a place for a single organization

made up of a single species, to care for it. Unless we eliminate that diversity and complexity.

[zorahopkins]

40. Then Let's Have Several Organizations

I celebrate the planet's amazing diversity!

If one organization can't accomplish justice with regard to the world's resources, then I'd be in favor of several organizations.

[The2ndWheel]

41. Like nations and corporations?

Or several global institutions representing various interests which would end up wasting valuable time and energy competing against each other for resources, and more importantly control over who gets to do what where, when, why, and how?

[zorahopkins]

43. No! No! No!

Certainly NOT like nations and corporations!

What I am thinking of are organizations that would not be greedy and nationalistic, but would instead be caring, nurturing, diverse, compassionate, and truly concerned for the welfare of all the plants and animals on this planet.

Corporations think only of themselves and their stockholders.

Nations think only of their own nationals.

Both nations and corporations are totally unconcerned about the rights of plants and animals.

We need to break down and do away with those types or organizations, and replace them with holistic, cooperative, caring, and compassionate organizations that will enable the use of the planet's natural resources for the good of all.

[FiveGoodMen]

44. Yes