Who owns infrastructure and equipment that is used to extract oil?

[Boojatta]

Imagine estimating the total value of all infrastructure and equipment that is used around the world to extract oil. What percentage of that total is owned by OPEC countries?

If infrastructure and equipment is capital, then OPEC countries seem to be practicing some kind of capitalism. Why do discussions about the nature and future of capitalism often focus on America and East Asia as though America and countries in East Asia were the main examples of places where some kind or kinds of capitalism are practiced?

[Selatius]

1. It's difficult to regulate OPEC simply because it's an organization of nation-states.

Corporations, like Exxon-Mobil, are ultimately entities of the state, chartered and regulated by nations. It's true that OPEC operates as a cartel, strictly controlling supply to boost profits, yet at the same time, I don't imagine them holding influence over the world for too long if the world is bent on finding alternative sources of energy.

[Boojatta]

2. Where did the Original Post mention the idea of regulating OPEC?

The Original Post was supposed to be about capital in OPEC countries that is used to generate oil revenues and about the place of such capital in the context of general discussions of capital and capitalism.

[Selatius]

5. In that case, to answer your question: I would say you have an example of either direct/indirect...

ownership of the means of production. By that, I mean ownership being in the hands of the state. In several of the OPEC countries, the oil infrastructure is directly owned by the state. That, I would say, is an example of the state acting instead of private shareholders. In other OPEC nations, the infrastructure is essentially owned by shareholders in privately-run corporations, yet their activities such as output could be regulated by a state agency.

They say the Soviet Union was an example of state capitalism, where all the assets of that nation were owned essentially by a small number of people and exercised for the benefit of that small number at the expense of the majority.

Those who assert it is statist capitalism may have a fair point, but at this point, I've gone beyond facetious differences between whether an asset is owned by a state body or a private corporation. In either case, power is still exercised by a small number of people. In a labor co-op, for instance, ownership is held in the hands of the laborers relative to the population at large. It's still an example of a small number exercising assets to profit off the many.

We may or may not be able to get away from that dynamic of the small exercising power over the many, but democratic mechanisms could be installed to help prevent abuse, but I digress. That's to the larger topic of democratizing the workplace and of democratizing the means of production.

[yellowdogintexas]

3. depends on where ..BIG OIL owns a lot of it. Lots of medium to small

prospecting companies own a great deal of it too.

Shell, Conoco, Exxon, etc all develop prospects anywhere they can.

Places like Venezuela, Saudi, Iran may all be state owned, but not sure

[A HERETIC I AM]

4. I think you might find the percentage of the infrastructure assets actually owned by the OPEC

countries to be rather small, compared to the whole.

An oil rig in the North Sea or the Gulf of Mexico might be operated by Shell or Exxon or BP, but it is almost certainly leased from another company, like Transocean for instance.

Specifically regarding Saudi Arabia, the country owns the national oil company, SaudiAramco but its roots are with American Oil companies, the genesis being Standard Oil of California in 1933. The Saudi government took control of it in 1980

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco

[On the Road]

6. Oh, I Thought You Were Asking

whether anyone on DU owns infrastructure or equipment used to extract oil.

I certainly do not.

:smoke: