BP Finds Way To Bypass US Crude Export Ban 247
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Bloomberg reports that the oil industry is pressuring President Barack Obama to end the 41-year-old ban on most crude exports but British Petroleum (BP) isn't waiting for a decision. The British oil giant has signed on to take at least 80 percent of the capacity of a new $360 million mini-refinery in Houston that will process crude just enough to escape restrictions on sales outside the country. 'It's a relatively inexpensive way around the export prohibition,' says Judith Dwarkin 'You can lightly ruffle the hydrocarbons and they are considered processed and then they aren't subject to the ban.' Amid a flood of new US oil, the demand for simple, one-step plants capable of transforming raw crude into exportable products such as propane is feeding a construction boom along the Gulf Coast. The first such mini-refinery, built for 1/10 the cost of a complex, full-scale refinery, is scheduled to open the first phase of its 100,000 barrel-a-day crude processing plant in July, The mini-refineries take advantage of the law that allows products refined from oil to be sold overseas, though not the raw crude itself. 'The international buyers of these products will likely need to refine them further, so this is basically a veiled form of condensate exports,' says Leo Mariani."
Yes, but... (Score:2)
But ... the CO2!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not BP's problem, and until we make it theirs, why should they bother?
Re: (Score:3)
Do a compromise on keystone, where it is approved, and then 2 limited time subsidies are created for electric cars, and the other for nat. gas commercial vehicles.
At the same time, raise federal road taxes on gas/diesel by
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you REALLY want to see the price of gas lowered, there is a simple way to do this.
Do a compromise on keystone, where it is approved, and then 2 limited time subsidies are created for electric cars, and the other for nat. gas commercial vehicles.
We already have large subsidies for electric vehicles, how do you envision these subsidies being different? If you expect the subsidies to get a significant portion of drivers to switch to EV's, how will these subsidies be funded? You've already earmarked the fuel taxes for road repairs.
At the same time, raise federal road taxes on gas/diesel by .25/gal/ year for the next 4 years, and then convert it to a % of the price, with a minimum. Next, give the gas tax to the state in which it comes from, and the diesel tax is used by the federal DOT. Then work on our roads
So add a dollar to the existing 55 cent fuel tax over 4 years, making fuel cost around $4.50 - $5.00 gallon.
By doing this, we will see the tar sands hit global market, raising our local prices. BUT, with the above limited time subsidies, it will move our new vehicles over to none-oil, which will drop demand for gas rather quickly, and then will allow diesel and gas to be around 2/gal.
So we'll pay more for fuel, but fuel will be cheaper? I'm not sure I follow that logic. Also, it's not clear how you'll pay for roads when the fuel tax goes away.
You underestimate how long it would take to switch the USA over to EV's -- even if there was enough world-wide battery capacity to do it (there's not), there would be grid problems -- the grid wasn't designed for everyone to go home and plug in a 6000W charger for 6 hours every night. Smart chargers could help with that by letting the power company control chargers to distribute load, but they aren't here yet, and won't be ready on a large scale in 4 years. If everyone switched to Natural Gas vehicles, then the cost to generate electricity would rise since power companies have been taking advantage of cheap NG to generate electricity
The easiest way to reduce demand is to just tax fuel - don't add $1 in taxes, add $5 in taxes phased in over 10 years. Once drivers are faced with paying $10/gallon, they'll look for fuel efficient commute alternatives themselves (which includes transit (which can be funded from the fuel tax), cycling and moving closer to work, so it will reduce congestion at the same time -- just putting everyone in an EV doesn't help with congestion). Of course, it's not that simple, since drivers know that such a tax would never happen, and they can just vote in someone that will continue to keep fuel cheap.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The easiest way to reduce demand is to just tax fuel
Sorry no, there is no easy way to reduce demand of OIL. If you want to truly reduce demand of OIL you need to find a VIABLE alternative fuel, electricity and NG are not VIABLE alternative fuels
Re: (Score:3)
Once drivers are faced with paying $10/gallon, they'll look for fuel efficient commute alternatives themselves (which includes transit (which can be funded from the fuel tax), cycling and moving closer to work, so it will reduce congestion at the same time -- just putting everyone in an EV doesn't help with congestion).
I love that argument. Nirvana can come if we just raise taxes enough! We'll all bike to work on green parkways serenaded by bluebirds. If we just raise taxes enough.
Of course, costs for food and everything else we don't make at home from stuff we already have at home, will skyrocket, but hey, who cares? We'll all just ride public transit funded by high taxes that no one can afford, that being the point of raising the cost of gas in the first place. You know, to make people stop using gas? How will that wor
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Taxing things to change behavior does not work, because one thing government likes as much as power is MONEY. Once they have succeeded in reducing demand through taxes, the revenue will go down and they'll cry that some other tax (probably the income tax) will have to go up to make up the "shortfall".
But if the behavior is changed so much that other taxes are needed to make up the shortfall, then it sounds like it worked.
Re: (Score:3)
Taxes should only be used to fund the constitutionally mandated functions of govt (especially the Feds).
Government is NOT supposed to be there to try to define or guide my behaviors.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to crack down on this!!!
Let's keep all this oil here and try to bring the freakin' price of gas back down to what it was pre-Katrina at least.
Market distorting policies are less efficient than direct subsidies. Instead of restricting oil exports, it would be more effective, and have the same result, to just directly pay people to drive more and buy gas guzzling cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Economics - how does it fucking work.
Yes, folks, it's only 7 March and cayenne8 has already made the stupidest post on slashdot for 2014.
We need this urgently today for political reasons (Score:2)
Regardless of the ecological effects of our chemical energy dependency and the grey-area nature of this workaround, I applaud the move in general.
The world has given too much power to oil- and gas-funded dictatorships. Right now, the West is hesitating about sanctions against Russia (which are required for peaceful settlement of the crisis in Ukraine) because they depend too heavily on the Russian resource exports.
The proper way is of course to lift the restrictions, but that is a heavy, lengthy politic
Re: (Score:2)
The world has given too much power to oil- and gas-funded dictatorships.
It is not a coincidence that some of the world's most odious governments are major petroleum producers. Oil revenues can buy off opponents, and allow otherwise disastrous economic policies to continue. Putin and the Saudi Monarchy would both be long gone without money from oil exports to keep them afloat. Venezuela's economy appears to finally be collapsing, despite their oil exports, but that should have happened long ago. The worst cases are countries like Nigeria, that are basically run as kleptocrac
Re: (Score:2)
"It is not a coincidence that some of the world's most odious governments are major petroleum producers. "
The USA is currently no. 3 in terms of oil production at about 10% of the world's total. North Korea is 110th, according to Wikipedia. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, too much focus has been done on the US on the Middle East. In reality, what needs to be the focus is Eastern Europe and the Pacific Rim. A Middle East in turmoil is a norm. A pissing contest between Japan, China, Russia, Singapore, the Koreas, and other nations in the area will be no less than World War 3 with its effects felt worldwide.
Oil is a nice thing to have, but keeping China and Japan from going to war with each other is far more important because that conflict would fundamentally affect th
Re: (Score:2)
All the hot air from politicians won't change that.
In fact, it adds to the problem ! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Plastics. We're don't burn them and drops of oil are used to create them.
I'll take that retirement fund now, thx.
Re: (Score:3)
The world runs on oil.
The world runs on long-chain hydrocarbons. They could come from the air, but instead the entrenched base of oil barons is making sure we keep burning every drop of oil:
I bet the retirement fund on every drop of oil being burned. So far I've been right. We'll see if I end up eating cat food - but I don't think that's likely...
I think it's more likely you'll end gasping, or perhaps wheezing before rattling.
Re: (Score:2)
The world runs on oil.
The world runs on long-chain hydrocarbons. They could come from the air... (snip)
Using *what* process? From AIR? Really?
Oh you mean photosynthesis... Ok..
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing that can replace oil on the menu except nuclear technologies
At best, you are underinformed. Or, you are lying. Which is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, when oil becomes too expensive to burn, we might see nuclear plants coupled with thermal depolymerization facilities so garbage in landfills can be "boiled" back to crude.
However, I'm hoping there is some sense in the long term. Eventually we are going to move to nuclear power, or end up being overrun by a country that has done the switchover [1].
[1]: For a lot of intents and purposes, energy is money. There are a lot of chemical processes which, if we had cheaper energy, would be incredibly
Re: (Score:2)
Bachelor Chow!
nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
crude oil, lightly shaken, and exported to the world.
revenues, lightly tossed, and exported to Bermuda.
Both cases just avoiding the law through legal means. In other words, the law's an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
The world prefers its crude shaken, not stirred.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I agree. While we're at it let's stop subsidizing the solar power industry, the windmill industry, and the ethanol industry.
Part of the reason fuel is so expensive is that there is a subsidy in the form of mandated ethanol use. Another reason is a ban on cheap imported sugar. All so the corn growers can make a lot of money and turn the Great Plains into a corn monoculture.
BP != British Petroleum (Score:3, Insightful)
BP haven't been known as British Petroleum for many years. It seems to be a tag most used (now) by the US. [I wonder if there have been any recent events that might cause the folks in the US to think that US folks weren't involved? Better to point the finger elsewhere.]
Just like the drug war (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Typical Bureau Land Mgt BS (Score:5, Interesting)
I did some reading to find the basis of the 1975 law, administered by my "favorite" federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management (Jack Abramoff's digs). Apparently it was originally passed during the OPEC embargo when the USA was concerned about domestic shortages. Then it becomes like ethanol or agricultural subsidies, it stays because it reduces competition. Probably a violation of the WTO as well, same as when USA, EU and Japan challenged China's rare earth metal export bans... which China tried to express as an "environmental law"... which is the only current argument I can find for the crude export ban (CO emissions).
So is it a case of corporations skirting a government law, or a government skirting an international fair trade treaty?
Re: (Score:2)
So is it a case of ... a government skirting an international fair trade treaty?
I sure hope so. Enough violations and maybe we can just scrap the WTO and a bunch of "free trade" agreements.
P.S. Don't rebut this by citing a simple minded analysis like comparative advantage alone. Given how many things the simplistic application of that leaves out, it'd be more credible to cite a comic book.
Look Deeper (Score:3)
I think that the United States has a vested political interest in controlling the sale of oil. [wikipedia.org] Which is not to suggest that you are wrong per se, but I think that the US oil policies are better understood in the context of hegemony than fair trade. However, the oil industry has been putting all of their propaganda efforts towards lifting this ban; I mark a half-dozen articles [google.com] in Forbes alone within the last two years. As long as they can keep away from any concerns about national security, they might get th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Our foriegn policy is so nakedly hypocritical I am not sure it matters.
Obama wins an election rams through a policy that is unpopular with the majority loudly protested by a small minority and the line is "elections have consequences."
Egypt elects a leader (belonging to party we don't like) and before his elected term is up, the military is ousting him, but oh no "its a not coup" we are told; because it it was we would have to stop giving the Egyptian military foreign aide, which would leave us with no way
Re: (Score:3)
"Around the export restriction" (Score:2)
Ahh the rule makers always love to complain about how people follow their rules.
Another way to say the same thing is that the export restrictions created a market for lightly processed oil products. If there is demand there is demand, it doesn't go away because you will it to. If that demand can be met in some way that fits in the rules and is still profitable, people WILL do it.
Trying to call that getting around a restriction is like the magic player complaining that someone insisted on playing stuff at th
So all the crap stays in the US? (Score:2)
If we can only export refined oil, it means we have to refine it on US soil. This is a dirty business, producing loads of crap you don't want in your environment. This ban forces us to destroy our own environment, while exporting the goodies that come out of it. This doesn't seem long-term smart.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, (which is false in this case, I'm sure) we would do the best possible, cleanest refining we could, so as to cause the least amount of damage to the planet on the whole. That is, if we were looking beyond ourselves.
We aren't, and we won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is to keep the oil in the US, for strategic reasons. If we burn up all the world's oil and keep ours in reserve, we're going to be in good economic (if not ecologic) shape in the endgame. That assumes, of course, that burning all those fossil fuels doesn't doom us first — the ecopalypse outpacing the singularity, if you like, though both labels are sensational. All life will not end, but equally, intelligence (and output) will not reach infinity.
Re: (Score:2)
This. And I think it's not even endgame, there's shorter time horizon strategic value to have surplus crude in the US where we're not needing to rely on imports in a crisis situation.
We can keep the tankers running in brushfire wars, when we start tangoing with the big boys that's not as good of an option. Being able to get it at home is a lot more appealing.
Take a lesson from Mr. Vader (Score:5, Funny)
The more you tighten your grip, the more will slip through your fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to comment, but this was better and more "on target" than anything I was going to blather. Good comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure this wasn't the intent of the law? (Score:5, Interesting)
>>...new $360 million mini-refinery...demand for simple, one-step plants capable of transforming raw crude into exportable products such as propane is feeding a construction boom along the Gulf Coast.
Call me cynical, but it seems that most legislation aims to protect the existing jobs of stalwart political supporters in sponsors' districts. (e.g., Obama's first term "stimulus," which was mostly used to shore up the existing salaries and pensions of his political base.) Perhaps the intent of this bill was to continue a Gulf Coast construction boom, leading to more voter, er, labor-intensive refinery jobs?
Re: (Score:3)
"which was mostly used to shore up the existing salaries and pensions of his political base"
I've got bad news for you - the stimulus pretty much all went to government contractors, the vast majority of which are controlled by, and for the benefit of, right-leaning individuals. The money was spread far and wide, so at the ground level it's probably 50-50, but those folks do nothing but vote and none of them give enough to campaigns to make it interesting. I don't remember huge stimuli for the entertainment
Drill, Baby Drill (Score:2)
Here, would you like a hand with that petard? (Score:3)
Let them finish their mini-refinery. Let them ramp up production. Let them sign hundreds of contracts obliging them to deliver on partially-refined product.
Then, and only then, really fuck 'em by ban the export of insufficiently-refined product.
I have gotten so sick of companies dodging the intent of the law lately. I by no stretch of the imagination count as a hardcore law-and-order authoritarian, but it doesn't take Mother Jones to point out that we simply can't allow situations like this, or the whole Apple/IBM/Google/etc paying no US tax, and so on, to continue. If a company wants to play on our field, they need to follow our rules as intended.
"Well whatd'ya know, the rules of golf don't explicitly ban using a tunnel-boring machine to dig a straight shot to the cup! You sure got us, have fun turning Augusta into a strip-mine."
Re: (Score:2)
what exactly is the intent of the ban that is so evil compared to world oil market?
Re: (Score:2)
in this case the law is stupid and doesn't do its claimed purpose, which was to protect U.S. citizens from oil price volatility. Prices of gasoline and other crude protect spike and dip according to global world oil market (imagine that) even with that useless law.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about Aereo, right?
No?
Awkward...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except insofar as the courts have actually spanked them rather than shrugging and saying "oh well, you found a loophole, have a nice day"... Yes, actually, I would include them in that. Cool idea or not, their core business model involves nothing more "noble" than trying an end run around rebroadcast rights. You or I have every right to time-shift what we watch; that doesn't even play in the same fair-use-ballpark as a for-profit company actively rebroadcasting s
Re: (Score:2)
It's a stupid law which is indefensible. This is not corporate taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
It only counts as a stupid law because it fails in its intent. To that extent, we agree.
Beyond that, though, I would have to consider energy self-sufficiency one of the few legitimate "national security" interests we have. This doesn't involve BP selling cheap shoes abroad; it involves nothing less than BP pillaging our natural resource for the price of laughable token "leases" on the mineral rights to truly huge swaths of land, on
What is the difference between this and Fedora? (Score:2)
Fedora is doing the same thing: skirting the law.
The theory was that an unjust law could be ignored. In this case, export laws to certain countries was being skirted by simply not asking where the code came from, wink wink, nod nod.
Perhaps BP thinks the law is "unjust" and thus has a right to ignore the law?
Why can Fedora do this and people applaud it and BP is a villain?
Seems to me sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and allowing people or corporations to selective ignore laws means there is no ru
Re:Which is why corporations are born criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
They're only breaking the spirit of the law, not the letter.
That makes it perfectly OK, just ask the NSA if you don't believe me.
Re: (Score:2)
A Typical Mix-Maxer response. The rules _technically_ allow this, so I will ruin the game for everyone by twisting/optimizing them to the limit to win even if I have to destroy the game to do it.
Future generations will see the mass influx of STEM geeks into the finance and business arena as a catastrophic social development in early 21st century industries.
Re: (Score:2)
This is basically the same thing that we saw the other day, when the judge said that Upskirt videos were not against the law. The problem is, there is no shame left in the world, because that is harmful to little sensitive minds.
Re:Which is why corporations are born criminals (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why I sometimes like the Finnish system of law in which something that is clearly done in order to circumvent a current law is considered as breaking it. This removes all the stupid verbal acrobatics that US lawyers resort to in order to interpret a law differently than what was intended.
Example: Say you want to donate someone a large sum of money, but don't want to pay taxes for it. One might try to circumvent the tax by marrying someone, immediately divorcing and having a contract that in case of divorce the other person has a right to precisely the amount of money that you were supposed to donate to them in the first place.
Technically if you do that, you don't have to pay any tax, but the tax authorities would immediate judge this as an attempt to bypass taxes and you would be ordered to pay the tax doubled. This applies to practically all laws and the ways that courts interpret them. Most Americans probably think this is stupid, since they see possible abuse. However, this hasn't materialized in Finland.
Re: (Score:3)
the Finnish system of law
I'd be happy if they just enforced the American system of law. Does that mean no action in this case? Yes, until or unless the laws or changed. However, there are so many egregious violations of law by major corporations (*cough* Wall Street *cough*) that don't get investigated, let alone prosecuted, that I'd be thrilled if they enforced existing laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically if you do that, you don't have to pay any tax, but the tax authorities would immediate judge this as an attempt to bypass taxes and you would be ordered to pay the tax doubled. This applies to practically all laws and the ways that courts interpret them. Most Americans probably think this is stupid, since they see possible abuse. However, this hasn't materialized in Finland.
In the US, the scenario you described would be called tax evasion and you would be charged by the IRS. Even in Finland, I am sure there are illegal ways to do things and legal ways to do things. Surely, every time you buy something from the store you aren't charged for larceny because it is illegal to steal and you circumvented that law!
Technically, what BP is doing is legal under the law. The correct solution, if the US doesn't like it, is to change the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically if you do that, you don't have to pay any tax, but the tax authorities would immediate judge this as an attempt to bypass taxes and you would be ordered to pay the tax doubled. This applies to practically all laws and the ways that courts interpret them. Most Americans probably think this is stupid, since they see possible abuse. However, this hasn't materialized in Finland.
In the US, the scenario you described would be called tax evasion and you would be charged by the IRS. Even in Finland, I am sure there are illegal ways to do things and legal ways to do things. Surely, every time you buy something from the store you aren't charged for larceny because it is illegal to steal and you circumvented that law!
Technically, what BP is doing is legal under the law. The correct solution, if the US doesn't like it, is to change the law.
In the UK it would be "tax avoidance" if it did not break any law. members of parliament would wring their hands and call "shame" - then do the same things themselves. -- ~~~~
Re: (Score:3)
Well - sort-of.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/avoidan... [hmrc.gov.uk]
There are problems with this sort of approach - implementing 'anti-abuse' rules means that now instead of (in principle) understandable legislation - you have a collection of people all of which may take a slightly different approach to decision-making.
The other issue is that it's not practically going to impact (for example) Amazon - or any of the other major tax avoiders - as they are able to use international financial structuring to avoid national tax, in
Re: (Score:2)
You must be pretty naive to think that the "possible abuse hasn't materialized in Finland". First of all, this idea is also present in the German tax code ( 42 AO). It is a constant reason of judicial trouble, and it puts the state above the law - because it only works against the taxpayer and not in other circumstances. It is a clear indication of a cleptocratic government. Second, there are hidden costs: In your example, a couple marrying and then divorcing again is clearly f*cked. Their marriage is lost,
"...clearly done in order to..." (Score:2)
I'm curious, how much time in court is spent debating wether something was "clearly done" for a specific purpose?
Re: (Score:2)
Its a nice concept, in theory. But in practice it probably creates (or at least enhances) the same one of the problems we already have in our "justice" system here in the US. It creates overly broad laws that can be interpreted any number of ways.
I understand the concern, but I don't think you can have laws that are resistant to loopholes unless you basically make them so vague that nobody can be really sure what the law is.
I think the Finnish system is more about risk management. You define something that is outright illegal and will definitely get you in trouble. That then creates legal risk that absolutely any activity whatsoever might be found as violating the rule, but the probability of that goes up as you get closer to the line.
The US syste
Re:Which is why corporations are born criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
They're only breaking the spirit of the law, not the letter.
True. They are 'getting around' the law against exporting crude, by not exporting crude. It seems the law needs to be amended to define better what is considered exportable if they want to stop this.
Re: (Score:2)
They're only breaking the spirit of the law, not the letter.
True. They are 'getting around' the law against exporting crude, by not exporting crude. It seems the law needs to be amended to define better what is considered exportable if they want to stop this.
I doubt that is even possible. There is no law that you can write that somebody else won't find a way to bend. Just look at wall street.
Re:Which is why corporations are born criminals (Score:4, Insightful)
They're only breaking the spirit of the law, not the letter.
True. They are 'getting around' the law against exporting crude, by not exporting crude. It seems the law needs to be amended to define better what is considered exportable if they want to stop this.
Perhaps they should get rid of the ban altogether? Seriously, with the trade deficit spiraling out of control [ourfuture.org], it makes no sense at all to ban exports.
Rather than question BP for 'getting around' the law, we should question why we have such bad law in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
They're only breaking the spirit of the law, not the letter.
True. They are 'getting around' the law against exporting crude, by not exporting crude. It seems the law needs to be amended to define better what is considered exportable if they want to stop this.
Perhaps they should get rid of the ban altogether? Seriously, with the trade deficit spiraling out of control [ourfuture.org], it makes no sense at all to ban exports. Rather than question BP for 'getting around' the law, we should question why we have such bad law in the first place.
Agreed. That's why I said 'if they want to stop this'.
Re: (Score:2)
A better question is can congress even ban the export of anything? The Constitution forbids export taxes, is a ban materially different than say a tax of eleventiy billion percent?
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations, government agencies, religions, industries.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich people who pay less of a tax rate than people who make a whole lot less aren't violating any laws, but they are surely fucking this country over, their flag-waving and jingoism notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians do the same thing.
In fact, everyone does that... its not criminal... its human.
We are as a species... opportunists. It is our default attitude as a species.
We are not predators, herd animals, ambushers... etc... we are opportunists. We pick the low hanging fruit. It is our nature.
You put something in front of us that blocks us from getting what we want and we'll find ways around it or through it. Or we'll just do something else if that's more profitable.
In this case, they found a cheap way aroun
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is our individualism excessive?
Should we subsume our identity into something else?
What? Nationalism and patriotism? If not that then what legitimacy would that identity have?... Organized religion?
I don't think our individualism is excessive. In fact, i think many of the problems we've had lately have come from an erosion in our individualism.
You note that much of our individualism is conformist. Well, is it individualism at all then? Probably not.
Individuals don't seek conformity. They seek ind
Re: (Score:2)
Opportunism isn't evil though.
That's that problem with more interpretations of people's morality. You have to remember that at base level, people are amoral. That isn't to say they are unmoral... just amoral. The natural response is a response without morality.
Now we can condition morality into people, but its just a condition. Its an artificial construct imposed on natural behavior.
And an artificial construct can be pretty much anything. If you want to talk about human nature, then you have to examine huma
Re: (Score:2)
Why stop someone from selling what they've legally worked for?
If you think BP produced the petroleum, you're a few hundred million years out of date. They extracted it, and performed some minimal refining, but what produced the product they extracted? Neither BP nor anyone else can produce the raw product, and there is a finite supply of it. Therefore the reason for a market - that higher prices provide an incentive to produce more of something - doesn't apply in the long run. The petroleum under the ground in the US is a national resource.
Re: (Score:3)
Therefore the reason for a market - that higher prices provide an incentive to produce more of something - doesn't apply in the long run. The petroleum under the ground in the US is a national resource.
What of the air in the atmosphere? Is that not an international resource? Should we not have a market for use of what the atmosphere will bear, perhaps to preserve CO2 (and particulates, and VOCs, etc) at pre-industrial-revolution levels? We now literally have cars whose exhaust is cleaner than their intake in "polluted" cities, where the value of "polluted" is vastly exceeded by some cities. I'd be looking at Beijing if I could see it.
Economics is all well and good if you don't get to ignore externalities.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of places have laws like that. The reason is pretty simple. Unrefined crude is worth a lot less than refined oil. Exporting the crude without refining it means a massive loss of revenue for the extracting nation.
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, but refining is also very expensive and has some serious non-dollar external effects, like air pollution. Certainly all that revenue creates a few hundred high-paying jobs, and maybe that is reason enough to keep it here - but it is not without cost.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not ever done, but corporate charters can be revoked at the whim of government.
Was a British company not anymore (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Was a British company not anymore (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the USians want to cast it in a bad light, they call it "British Petroleum". It makes it sound sinister and evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling it a British company is debatable, but more defensible than calling it "British Petroleum (BP)". British Petroleum isn't even its previous name.
Re: (Score:2)
Even when it was called British Petroleum it was mostly owned by the camel-jockeys.
But that's Thicky Pickens for you...
Re: (Score:2)
No idea what you're talking about. Here's the top line from Wikipedia:
Re: (Score:2)
..don't you have a concept about an "agreement" and the "spirit of an agreement", and how violating one means also violating the other?
Would you want to be arrested for violating the spirit of a law in the opinion of the arresting officer?
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of a corporation is to maximize profit at whatever cost to anyone else.
Tim Cook might not agree with you. The goal of a corporation is whatever its owners decide the goal should be.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say Tim Cook is doing an excellent job of maximizing profit.
He may be doing a lot of other, more noble things as well, but its all causing his company to maximize its profit.
Is he noble, or just good at what he does and picking 'the right way' to give people what they want?
Re: (Score:2)
I expect that the stockholders will agree with him as long as the stock increases in value and/or provides dividends better than the competition. As soon as what he wants starts costing them serious money, he's gone.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of a democratic government is to maximize the population's well being."
That is not at all the goal of a democratic government.
A lot of people mistakenly think that "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare" mean "try to make everyone happy" and "give the people what the want", when they really mean is "maintain order so things runs smoothly" and "provide a system of laws that allows people to pursue their interests without undue interference from the government". Note that the Surpreme Court ruled that "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution"
Gotta eat to live, gotta steal to eat (Score:2)
Re:It's fascinating (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the same thing people.
No it's not. Forget the simple minded propaganda that copyrights are a form of property like physical property - they're a government granted and enforced monopoly that raises prices many fold by artificially restricting what would otherwise be almost cost free production of copies. That's nothing like petroleum or any other physical property. Moreover, unlike creative works, or even manufactured items or services, there is a fixed quantity of petroleum available. The situations are the exact opposite of each other.
Fixed quantity of distinct musical phrases (Score:2)
Moreover, unlike creative works, or even manufactured items or services, there is a fixed quantity of petroleum available.
How is that? Songwriters have been found liable of accidental "plagiarism" (copyright infringement without attribution) over having copied an eight-note phrase. Now each note has a length and a pitch, other than the last note in a phrase. The last note in a phrase has no duration because there is no following note, and a phrase can be transposed to end on any note. There are about two distinct lengths (short and long), and seven distinct notes within any scale (do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti). This gives 14 pos
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The number of slashdotters that bleat about "teh evil corporations that break teh law!"
But support bypassing copyright law and getting their content for free because "information must be free".
It may be the same thing, but it isn't necessary the same people. We aren't a borg collective who all think alike. Some people defend Free Software, which requires copyright law in order to exist. Some people download all the torrents. There may be a cross-section that does both, which is as you say hypocritical. But the existence of that cross-section does not invalidate the opinions of those who consistently hold one position or the other.
Also, not all laws are created equal. Some people may support polit
Re: (Score:2)
Which is kind of curious to mention. Since speed limits started being enforced all around the world to reduce oil consumption in the 1970s.
Re: (Score:3)
What's appalling isn't that, but the ones who bleat about the evil corporations breaking the law when the evil corporations are NOT breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not a new thing. Not only does government at all levels choose what they will or will not enforce based on political expedience, they also abuse the intent of the law in order to use it as a weapon against
How should the state define "old enough"? (Score:2)
there is a lot of anger towards e.g. pedophiles who get round the ban on underage sex by waiting until they are old enough
The trouble is that different constituents have different rules as to what defines "old enough". Some people would apply the rule popularized by F. Hugh Herbert's play The Moon Is Blue of the age difference plus fourteen years, or equivalently half the older partner's age plus seven years. Under this rule, 19 and 17 is OK but 23 and 18 isn't. Others would claim that no age is old enough outside a state-recognized marriage or other domestic partnership.