It would seem that nations and national interests of host based multi-national firms would engage the basic’s principals of microeconomics for the welfare of its host citizenry. That is not the case, nor will it ever be. A multi-national is loyal to quarterly and yearend reports only. Its obligation is to its shareholders; and not the national interest of its host nation. That is not to say Exxon is not an American company, it is, but its decisions, as a firm, and it’s interactions with national interest to form policy are based on what is best for the company, not for the consumer of the host nation.
It does not care if per/bbl price is $117 or $52 the barrel. Its concern is point of extraction to point of delivery, period! It is understood from the perspective of the market. The firm factors the prices of goods and services and the cost production and that is what you are supposedly paying for; but you are not.
What you are paying for, is the belief that Exxon, delivers its product in a fair market environment, and that Exxon, has you in its frame of reference, when it extracted oil from the ground at $6.87per/55gal/bbl and processed it for another $2.40 per/bbl. and that the company was under extreme duress to accomplish this task; as a result, you are paying $4.00 a gallon at the pump. Look at the figures Exxon posted on production. Look at its ROI: 220 gals @ $4 per/gal = $880bbl gross before COS.
Now consider one other part of the equation. Refiner capacity is down; a documented fact, refineries were shutdown. Why were refiners closed? Is there a shortage, or have the companies become more technologically efficient? Are there gas lines? Is supply controllable? Do producer nation control output? Is the board of OPEC a multi-national? What is in the interest of producer nations whose only export is oil? What drives this market? Are you paying for the belief that supply is on the decline based on the information from the parties that control and market this resource? What is in the interest of regional powers to control this resource, and in that regard, where is the fault line that a world power would risk a true war to preserve its national interest. And conversely, where is the line in the sand where a producing nation would risk their annihilation looking into the abyss of breaching that fault line.
Gas is cheap at $4.00 a gallon.
Consider this nine year old article:
Pravda 1/29/1999
The US administration plans to launch an extensive economic intrusion in the Arctic from Alaska
The Russian government urgently needs to determine the basis of its state policy in the Arctic region. To make matters worse, politicians will probably have to face a serious problem from abroad too. It has recently transpired that the US administration plans to launch an extensive invasion in the Arctic region in order to oust potential partners from the oil-rich territory. The USA particularly plans to build airbases in Alaska, while US oil giants intend to develop the Arctic shelf. To mask the intrusion and make it look like a peaceful initiative, the USA would be ready to render humanitarian assistance to Russia to improve the living standard of “the impoverished northern nations of Russia.” In addition, Washington says that it will protect the whole world from the huge hole in the ozone layer of the Earth's atmosphere above the Arctic territory. This territory, however, belongs to Russia, but it seems that the fact does not bother the US administration.
One may thus infer that “American partners” claim to obtain the key role in the development and exploitation of the Russian territory. The ice-bound north is just a start. Russia urgently needs to take measures to move the Arctic economy forward and create investment-attracting conditions in the region. Otherwise, the people living in the Far North of the country will have a chance to see Chinese ice-breakers traveling by.
It is obvious that the development of USA's new objective in the Arctic region will be conducted within the scope of the nation's ambition to dominate the world. This intention is officially registered in the US National Security Strategy. The document entitles Washington to possess all necessary resources to influence the situation in all key regions of the globe. The Arctic has become one of such regions.
Since1999, Vladimir Putin has rectified that. A quick glance of the paper written by Dr. Olcott of the James Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University should clear that up. Title: “Valdimir Putin and the Geopolitics of oil”.
.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/fil...t_english1.pdf