New at Reason
Katherine Mangu-Ward fills up with ideology at the gas pump.
Comments to "New at Reason":
joe | February 6, 2007, 9:34am | #
You won't buy gas from Venezuela, so you go across the street to a company that buys from Saudi Arabia and Iran?But it's ok, because they've been funding the people who were wrong about global warming.
Huh?
Joe, since the company doesn't buy gas from countries that support terrorism, I doubt they buy from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
joe | February 6, 2007, 9:50am | #
Bob,She went across the street to Exxon, for the purpose of avoiding Citgo.
V.M. | February 6, 2007, 10:00am | #
"She went across the street to Exxon"So she hates Alaska, then? :)
(but consumers discriminating this way is all part of the game. So spend yer dollers (sic) wherever you want! woo hoo!)
In the eastern seabord region odds are long that Exxon gas is from Venezuela too.
Scott | February 6, 2007, 10:35am | #
From the Energy Information Administration:
Can I tell which country or State the gasoline at my local station comes from?
The name on the service station sign does not tell the whole story. The fact that you purchase gasoline from a given company does not necessarily mean that the gasoline was actually produced by that particular company's refineries. While gasoline is sold at about 169,000 retail outlets across the nation, about one-third of these stations are “unbranded” dealers that may sell gasoline of any brand. The remainder of the outlets are “branded” stations, but may not necessarily be selling gasoline produced at that company's refineries. This is because gasoline from different refineries is often combined for shipment by pipeline, and companies owning service stations in the same area may be purchasing gasoline at the same bulk terminal. In that case, the only difference between the gasoline at station X versus the gasoline at station Y may be the small amount of additives that those companies add to the gasoline before it gets to the pump.
Can consumers reduce the revenues flowing to a certain country or countries by boycotting companies that have a history of importing from those countries?
Due to the global nature of the oil market, boycotts by individual consumers or even individual countries cannot reduce the oil revenues of a given oil producing country/countries. At best, consumer boycotts of a company known to import crude oil would result in a temporary reduction in the market share of that particular company. Because the overall consumer demand for products made from oil (like gasoline and diesel fuel) would be unchanged, the oil would simply be purchased by some other company.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/experts/contactexperts.htm
Lamar | February 6, 2007, 10:43am | #
Where does this terror-free oil come from? Obviously, Venezuela is terror-free, but socialist anti-US blabbermouths really make my skin crawl. Sudan? They're peaceful, right? Nope. Russia? The Middle East?I guess this whole exercise makes people feel better about supporting global terrorism while simultaneously fighting it.
thoreau | February 6, 2007, 10:53am | #
I get that the gasoline you put in your car may not come from wells and refineries operated by the company whose logo is displayed above the gas station. I get that their retail outlets, pumping, and refinery operations are sometimes distinct arms of a parent company.However, if for whatever reason you want to punish company X for some practice, not buying from its retail outlets will still hurt company X, even if the gasoline from those outlets was not necessarily produced in whatever country you're concerned about.
Of course, once you decide not to buy from company X, you still have to wonder what the other companies are up to...
Isn't the idea of oil producers going out of their way to destroy "us" sort of nutty? Isn't that like the checkers at Wal Mart shooting at people as they walk in the door?
Mike | February 6, 2007, 10:55am | #
Let's see: you can't buy Venezuelan oil because they're Socialists. Can't buy mideast oil because it supports terrorism. Can't buy Russian oil because they're crony-capitalist facists who kill the opposition.Almost makes you think maybe the problem isn't the source, but the product.
Rhywun | February 6, 2007, 11:07am | #
Ridiculous government subsidies and tax breaks aside, Exxon profits shouldn't be the federal government's business and demagouging about excess profit make my blood run cold.Only if you believe Exxon's claims that such subsidies and tax breaks have no effect on their profits (I'm sure they'd be more than forthright in admitting otherwise...!), and if you have no problem with propping up the corrupt regimes of the middle east, and if you scoff at the emerging consensus about oil & global warming. But not to worry, I'm sure none of that profit is going to be pissed away on multi-hundred-million dollar payouts to retiring executives.
ChrisO | February 6, 2007, 12:39pm | #
I'm going to buy whatever the hell is the cheapest gas on the block, or the most convenient:1. I'm a raging narcissist. Whatever is good for me is good for America. And if it isn't? Screw everybody else.
2. Oil is fungible.
MikeP | February 6, 2007, 1:15pm | #
Almost makes you think maybe the problem isn't the source, but the product.You said it! I mean, take a look at the top three producers of oil for US consumption:
3. Mexico: 1,598,000 barrels/day
2. Canada: 1,616,000 barrels/day
1. United States: 5,419,000 barrels/day
James | February 6, 2007, 1:26pm | #
ChrisO is right. Reserve capacity is something like two or three percent. Shifting your personal consumption has exactly zero impact on Iran's ability to find a buyer for their oil.Now, if you're really torqued off at every oil producer, you could try to reduce your consumption by, say, buying a smaller car or taking the bus from time to time. That's something the producers would really notice, really quickly. Boosting the reserve capacity by even a couple of points would have a dramatic impact on prices, which would have a dramatic impact on revenue.
History shows that oil producers have poor budget discipline and they lock themselves into multiyear programs (usually weapons) when prices are high. When prices drop, they are forced to grab market share to make up the difference. An Iran scrambling for market share to keep its economy from collapsing might be much more open to constructive criticism in its nuclear program.
The best part is, we don't even need to find allies for this initiative. The US consumes so much oil that we can singlehandedly boost reserve capacity just by systematically reducing consumption. That is, we have enough slack to reduce consumtion faster than the dreaded Chinese could even take it up. If the pinheads that run this country had their act remotely together they would realize that it's the US holding the oil weapon and act accordingly.
Patrick D | February 6, 2007, 2:05pm | #
It’s great that this article highlighted the BS of U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Leon Hadar has long asserted this. I just did a check myself last week. Average crude imports from the Middle East and North Africa amount to less than 13% of average daily U.S. consumption. Hardly represents the “stranglehold” consistently portrayed.James, would you like to run for office on the platform of, "Whenever oil prices spike, I'll increase the gas tax"? Try explaining that to the average idiot.
Lamar | February 6, 2007, 2:33pm | #
MikeP:Who knew that the argument could be won with a top 10 list!! I mean, a top 3 list. I guess if you rounded out the top ten, your argument would kind of stink. Let's not do that!
MikeP | February 6, 2007, 2:50pm | #
Lamar:The argument was that oil itself was the problem. Such a list refutes that argument, as well as educates those who think the US gets all its oil from the Middle East.
The actual problem is that most political economies of the world suck. Any high value natural resource will lead them to lazy economic development and power hungry governments. This is true for any economic good gained with little effort: Oil isn't especially tarred with that brush.
Rex Rhino | February 6, 2007, 3:04pm | #
Oil is a commodity... it isn't like Apple iPods, or Kraft Maccaroni and Cheese, or a Chevy Impala, ok?Boycotting a specific oil company has no effect on the market price of that chain's oil, since the price of oil is determined by a global world market, and demand is much higher than supply. If you don't buy that oil, someone sure as hell will, for just as high a price.
Now, if you want to boycott all oil, period... that is a different story. A significant reduction in the demand would seriously reduce the profits of the oil companies and oil exporting countries.
Billy Ghoat | February 6, 2007, 3:46pm | #
"Only if you believe Exxon's claims that such subsidies and tax breaks have no effect on their profits"Exxon's Return on Invested Capital is about 10%. Do you want 10% to be the base-line ROIC that the Gov has determined merits the taxing away of all your earnings? Any investments in your 401(k) earning more that 10%? Where does one go to find a Libertarian Website?
Lamar | February 6, 2007, 3:53pm | #
MikeP:You said, "Any high value natural resource will lead them to lazy economic development and power hungry governments."
The "high value natural resource" in question is oil.
Ergo, oil is the problem. You are saying that the problem is the underdeveloped or corrupt governments or societies. I say that none of it would bother us if it weren't for the oil. Just because we know how to handle the oil doesn't mean that oil isn't the problem. OK, it's the handling of the oil, but it wouldn't be a problem if it were a less expensive commodity.