DOCSLIB.ORG

Read the Full PDF

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Read the Full PDF Job Name:2251929 Date:15-05-21 PDF Page:2251929pbc.p1.pdf Color: Cyan Magenta Yellow Black THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE fOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH, established in 1943, is a publicly supported, nonpartisan research and educational organization. Its purpose is to assist policy makers, scholars, businessmen, the press and the public by providing objective analysis of national and international issues. Views expressed in the institute's publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers or trustees of AEI. Institute publications take three major forms: 1. Legislative Analyses-balanced analyses of current proposals before the Congress, prepared with the help of specialists from the academic world and the fields of law and government. 2. Studies-in-depth studies and monographs about government programs and major national and international problems, written by independent scholars. 3. Round Tables, Rational Debates, and Symposia-proceedings of discussions, debates, and conferences where eminent authorities with contrasting views discuss controversial issues. ADVISORY BOARD Paul W. McCracken, C/lairman , Ednlllnd Ezra Day University Professor of Business Administration, University of Mic1ligan R. H. Coase, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Milton Friedman, PaulS. Russell Distinguished Service Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Gottfried Haberler, Resident Sell alar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research C. Lowell Harriss, Professor of Ecol1omics, Columbia University George Lenczowski, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley Robert A. Nisbet, Albert Schweitzer Professor of the Humanities, Columbia University James A. Robinson, President, Ul1iversity of West Florida EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Herman J. Schmidt, Chairmlln of the Board Richard J. Farrell William J. Baroody, President Richard D. Wood Charles T. Fisher III, Treasurer Richard B. Madden SENIOR STAFF Anne Brunsdale, Director of Publications Edward J. Mitchell, Director of Joseph G. Butts, Director of Legislative National Energy Studies Analysis W. S. Moore, Director of Legal Policy Robert B. Helms, Director of Health Studies Policy Studies Robert J. Pranger, Director of Foreign Thomas F. Johnson, Director of Research and Defense Policy Studies Gary L. Jones, Assistant to the President Louis M. Thompson, Jr., Assistant to for Administration the President for Communication Richard M. Lee, Director of Planning David G. Tuerck, Director, Center for and Development Research on Advertising VlITICAL IITIGIITIOI II THI OIL IIDVSTIY THE AEI NATIONAL ENERGY PROJECT The American Enterprise Institute's National Energy Project was established in early 1974 to examine the broad array of issues affecting U.s. energy demands and supplies. The project will commission research into all important ramifications of the energy problem-economic and political, domestic and international, private and public-and will present the results in studies such as this one. In addition it will sponsor symposia, debates, conferences, and workshops, some of which will be televised. The project is chaired by Melvin R. Laird, former congressman, secretary of defense, and domestic counsellor to the President, and now senior counsellor of Reader's Digest. An advisory council, representing a wide range of energy-related viewpoints, has been appointed. The project director is Professor Edward J. Mitchell of the University of Michigan. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of either the advisory council and others associated with the project or of the advisory panels, staff, officers, and trustees of AEL VlBTICAL IITlaRATIOI II THI OIL IIDUSTBI Idited b, Bdward J.l1itchell American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Washington, D.C. Edward J. Mitchell is professor of business economics at the Univer­ sity of Michigan and director of the American Enterprise Institute's National Energy Project. Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. ISBN 0-8447-3215-X National Energy Study No. 11, June 1976 Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 76-20267 © 1976 by American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. Permission to quote from or to reproduce materials in this publication is granted when due acknowledgment is made. Printed in the United States of America CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Edward J. Mitchell 1 1 INTEGRATION AND COMPETITION Wesley J. Liebeler 5 Introduction 5 Vertical Integration: Creation of Efficiencies 7 Vertical Integration and the Restriction of Output 20 Conclusion 32 2 COMPETITION IN THE OIL INDUSTRY Richard B. Mancke 35 Competition vs. Monopoly 35 The Evidence: Market Structure and Conduct in the Major Facets of the Domestic Petroleum Industry 39 The Evidence: Market Structure, Conduct, and Performance in International Oil Markets 52 The Evidence: Structure and Conduct in the Markets for Other Energy Products 54 The Evidence: Oil Company Profitability 60 The Evidence: Special Monopoly Arguments 63 The Evidence: A Concluding Comment 67 Conclusion 70 3 CAPITAL COST SAVINGS OF VERTICAL INTEGRATION Edward J. Mitchell 73 The Economies of Vertical Integration 73 Explaining the Absence of Integration 83 Risk Reduction and Capital Cost Economies 90 The Effects of Vertical Divestiture 101 Appendix: Earnings and Dividend Rankings for Stocks 101 4 VERTICAL INTEGRATION IN THE U.s. OIL INDUSTRY David J. Teece 105 Introduction 105 Theory of Vertical Integration 108 Vertical Integration in the Petroleum Industry: The Affirmative Rationale 114 Vertical Integration in Petroleum: Possible Anticompetitive Consequences 154 Divorcement in the Petroleum Industry: Predictable Consequences 169 Conclusion 181 Appendix 1: Definitions Used in the Federal Energy Administration's Refiner IImporter Historical Report on Petroleum Products Distribution 182 Appendix 2: Refiners by Federal Energy Administration Categories 184 Appendix 3: The Degree of Vertical Integration of the Refining Sector in the Petroleum Industry, 1961-73 187 5 LESSONS OF THE STANDARD OIL DIVESTITURE Arthur M. Johnson 191 Creation and Dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust 192 Standard Oil Company (Indiana) 199 Prairie Oil & Gas Co. 202 Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) 203 Ohio Oil Company 206 Standard Oil Company of New York 207 The Standard Oil Company (Ohio) 208 Atlantic Refining Company 210 Other Severed Companies 212 The Standard Oil Dissolution in Retrospect 213 INTRODUCTION Edward 7. Mitchell "Breaking up the oil companies" has become a popular idea in Wash­ ington. It occurs repeatedly in the campaign rhetoric of presidential aspirants and has already given rise to an unsuccessful but close Senate vote on vertical divestiture of the petroleum industry. Vertical divestiture means splitting companies that operate in many phases of the oil business into separate production, refining, transportation, and marketing companies. As always, political popularity is derived from public opinion. Polls show that the American people hold a highly unfavorable view of the oil industry. But public opinion is a sound basis for public policy only when that public opinion is informed. And public opinion regarding energy, and the oil industry in particular, is pitifully un­ informed. According to polls, the public believes that oil companies make sixty cents of profit on each dollar of sales. In fact, they typi­ cally make four to five cents on each dollar of sales. The question of oil company profits is a simple one compared to the issue of vertical integration and vertical divestiture. If the public is uninformed or misinformed on oil company profits it cannot have the foggiest idea of what the consequences of vertical divestiture might be. With such a foundation of ignorance it is hardly surprising that the issue should give rise to demagogy. Professor M. A. Adel­ man of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world's leading authorities on the petroleum industry, has remarked: The public attitude toward the multinational oil companies brings me back to the bad old days of Joe McCarthy. Then, many of our people, frustrated, angry, and a bit fearful of the unreachable leaders of the "monolithic Communist bloc," went out determined to find and bash an enemy at home. Today, unable to do anything about high oil prices, 1 many of our citizens are inclined to take it out on the multi­ national oil companies.1 The purpose of this volume is to remove some of the mystery from the subject of vertical integration and to help the reader arrive at some informed conclusions on the consequences of divestiture. These are not easy tasks, inasmuch as vertical integration is still largely a mystery to economists: indeed, it is fair to say that only in recent years has much serious thought been given to the subject. Recent research has mainly served to raise questions about earlier economic models and theories and about the policy conclusions of earlier economists and lawyers. Thus, this book is in part compensa­ tion for whatever misleading advice our predecessors may have offered. To explain the connection, if any, between vertical integration and competition Professor Wesley J. Liebeler introduces the concept of vertical integration
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Full-Depth Asphalt Pavements for Parking Lots and Driveways. It Is Based on the Asphalt Institute's Thickness Design Manual, Manual Series No
    E D C ,!1 T R F (I ED 023 277 EF 002 075 Full-Depth Asphalt Pavements for Parking Lots andDriveways. Asphalt Inst.,College Park, Md. Report No -IS -91 Pub Date Oct 67 Note-16p. Available from-The Asphalt Institute, AsphaltInstitute Building,College Park, Maryland. EDRS Price MF 4025 HC -$090 Descriptors -*Asphalts, *Driveways, *ParkingFacilities The latest information for designingfull-depth asphalt pavementsfor parking lots invehicle and drivewaysiscoveredinreiationshiptothe continued increase registration. It is based on TheAsphalt Institute's ThicknessDesign Manual, Series No. all aspects of asphalt pavementthickness 1 (MS-1), Seventh Edition, which covers design in detail, utilizing the latest,computer-derived information from pavementtests here and abroad. The pavementcross-sectiOns given arefor typical conditions. Tables, drawings, and photographs areincluded. (IRK) Is-DEPTH U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE PAVEMERTS OFFICE Of EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLYAS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS Of VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIALOFFICE OF EDUCATION Inc NTS POSITION OR POLICY. OCTOBER 1967 THE ASPHALT INSTITUTE ins INFORMATION SERIES NO. 91( IS-91 ) ijairif:JJaadiora Alia#4111:aai jel. #11 1:1111111. 44;1 o . A IF la Passenger Cars In most areas of concentrated population around theworld, parking space for motor vehicles is at a premium. In 1966, over 94 millionvehicles were registered in the United With similar growth being .1 States, with no sign of any let-up in registration growth. .4* 4,1 tr. experienced throughout the world, it is likely that theneed for more parking space will continue indefinitely.
    [Show full text]
  • SEC News Digest, 01-16-1961
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Jl$~~~ IDil@rn~fijf ~ A brief summary of financial proposals filed with and actions by the S.E.C. Q)~@ Washington 25, D.C. (In ordering full text of Relea.e. from Publication. Unit, cite number) FOR RELEASE January 16, 1961 Statistical Release No. 1728. The SEC Index of Stock Prices. based on the closing price of 300 common stocks for the week ended January 13, 1961, for the composite and by major industry groups compared with the preced- ing week and with the highs and lows for 1960 - 1961 is as follows: 1957-59 :tl 100 Percent 1960 1961 1/13/«;1 1/6/61 Change High ~ Composite 120.5 118.3 11.9 121.4 107.7 Manufacturing 115.1 113,0 11.9 122.0 103.6 Durable Goods 118.5 117.0 11.3 129.5 107.7 Non-Durable Goods 112.1 109.2 12.7 115.1 99.5 Transportation 100.5 97.8 12.8 108.3 87.1 Utility 147.1* 144.2 11.9 147.1 118.4 Trade. Finance & Service 134.5* 132.5 11.5 134.5 120,5 Mining 83.8 83.3 10.6 86.7 67,0 *New High SECURITIES ACT REGISTRATION STATEMENTS. During the week ended January 12. 1961. 21 registration state- ments were filed. 23 became effective. 3 were withdrawn, and 303 were pending at the week end. ORDER SUSPENDS MARKWELL-WEST STAR MINING REGISTRATION. In a "stop order" decision announced today (Release 33-4317), the SEC suspended the effectiveness of a Securities Act registration statement filed in January 1957 by J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reason Given for the UK's Decision to Float Sterling Was the Weight of International Short-Term Capital
    - Issue No. 181 No. 190, July 6, 1972 The Pound Afloat: The reason given for the U.K.'s decision to float sterling was the weight of international short-term capital movements which, despite concerted intervention from the Bank of England and European central banks, had necessitated massive sup­ port operations. The U.K. is anxious that the rate should quickly o.s move to a "realistic" level, at or around the old parity of %2. 40 - r,/, .• representing an effective 8% devaluation against the dollar. A w formal devaluation coupled with a wage freeze was urged by the :,I' Bank of England, but this would be politically embarrassing in the }t!IJ light of the U.K. Chancellor's repeated statements that the pound was "not at an unrealistic rate." The decision to float has been taken in spite of a danger that this may provoke an international or European monetary crisis. European markets tend to consider sterling as the dollar's first line of defense and, although the U.S. Treasury reaffirmed the Smithsonian Agreement, there are fears throughout Europe that pressure on the U.S. currency could disrupt the exchange rate re­ lationship established last December. On the Continent, the Dutch and Belgians have put forward a scheme for a joint float of Common Market currencies against the dollar. It will not easily be implemented, since speculation in the ex­ change markets has pushed the various EEC countries in different directions. The Germans have been under pressure to revalue, the Italians to devalue. Total opposition to a Community float is ex­ pected from France (this would sever the ties between the franc and gold), and the French also are adamant that Britain should re­ affirm its allegiance to the European monetary agreement and return to a fixed parity.
    [Show full text]
  • BP Plc Vs Royal Dutch Shell
    FEBRUARY 2021 BP plc Vs Royal Dutch Shell 01872 229 000 www.atlanticmarkets.co.uk www.atlanticmarkets.co.uk BP Plc A Brief History BP is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London. It is one of the world’s oil and gas supermajors. · 1908. The founding of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, established as a subsidiary of Burmah Oil Company to take advantage of oil discoveries in Iran. · 1935. It became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company · 1954. Adopted the name British Petroleum. · 1959. The company expanded beyond the Middle East to Alaska and it was one of the first companies to strike oil in the North Sea. · 1978. British Petroleum acquired majority control of Standard Oil of Ohio. Formerly majority state-owned. · 1979–1987. The British government privatised the company in stages between. · 1998. British Petroleum merged with Amoco, becoming BP Amoco plc, · 2000-2001. Acquired ARCO and Burmah Castrol, becoming BP plc. · 2003–2013. BP was a partner in the TNK-BP joint venture in Russia. Positioning BP is a “vertically integrated” company, meaning it’s involved in the whole supply chain – from discovering oil, producing it, refining it, shipping it, trading it and selling it at the petrol pump. BP has operations in nearly 80 countries worldwide and has around 18,700 service stations worldwide. Its largest division is BP America. In Russia, BP also own a 19.75% stake in Rosneft, the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas company by hydrocarbon reserves and production. BP has a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index.
    [Show full text]
  • 12. the Oil-Igarchy
    151 12. The Oil-igarchy “Competition is a sin.” - John D. Rockefeller From farm to pharmaceutical, diesel truck to dinner plate, pipeline to plastic products, it is impossible to think of an area of our modern day lives that is not affected by the petrochemical industry. The story of oil, is the story of the modern world. Parts of that story are well known, Rockefeller and Standard Oil, the internal combustion engine and the transformation of global transport, the house of Saudi, and the oil wars in the Middle East. Other parts are more obscure, the quest for oil and the outbreak of World War I, the petrochemical interests behind modern medicine, the big oil money behind the green revolution. But that story, properly told, begins somewhere unexpected, not in Pennsylvania, with the first commercial drilling operation and the first oil boom. But in the rural backwoods of the early 19th century New York state. And it doesn't start with crude oil or its other derivatives, but a different product altogether...snake oil. Dr. Bill Livingston, celebrated cancer specialist was the very image of the traveling snake oil salesman. He was neither a doctor nor a cancer specialist. His real name was not even Livingston. More to the point, the rock oil tonic he pawned was a useless mixture of laxative and petroleum. And had no effect whatsoever on the cancer of the poor townsfolk he conned into buying it. He lived the life of a vagabond, always on the run from the last group of people he had fooled.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re: BP P.L.C. Securities Litigation 10-MD-02185-Second Amended
    Case 4:10-md-02185 Document 871 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/14 Page 1 of 167 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: BP P.L.C. SECURITIES ) LITIGATION ) No. 4:10-MD-2185 ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) Honorable Keith P. Ellison Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ) No. 4:12–1837 ) OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 277 East Town Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 AND JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, 275 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 AND SCHOOL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, 300 East Broad Street, Suite 100, Columbus, Ohio 43215 AND OHIO POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND, 140 East Town Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 PLAINTIFFS, v. BP PLC 1 St. James Square London Case 4:10-md-02185 Document 871 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/14 Page 2 of 167 SW1Y 4PD DEFENDANT Case 4:10-md-02185 Document 871 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/14 Page 3 of 167 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................ ......1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE....................................................................6 III. THE PARTIES........................................................................................7 A. Plaintiffs....................................................................................7 B. Defendant.............................................................................. ...8 IV. NON-PARTIES.....................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Ethecon Black Planet Award 2010
    ethecon Black Planet Award 2010 On the bestowal of the International ethecon Black Planet Award 2010 on Tony Hayward, Bob Dudley, Carl-Henric Svanberg, other responsible executives and the major shareholders of the oil- and energy corporation BP/Great Britain Cover Photo The photo depicts a BP company press conference covering the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer of 2010 which took place in front of the seat of the US government, the White House in Wash- ington. At the microphone is chairman of the board Carl-Henric Svanberg, behind him former CEO Tony Hayward (left) and the CEO-designate Bob Dudley (second from left). Publisher Donations Account ethecon EthikBank Germany Foundation Ethics & Economics IBAN DE 58 830 944 95 000 30 45 536 Wilhelmshavener Straße 60 BIC GENODEF1ETK 10551 Berlin/Germany GLS-Bank Germany Phone +49 - 30 - 22 32 51 45 IBAN DE05 430 609 67 6002 562 100 eMail [email protected] BIC GENODEM1GLS Chairman of the Board of Directors Dipl. Kfm. Axel Köhler-Schnura (Founder) P.O.Box 15 04 35 40081 Düsseldorf/Germany Schweidnitzer Str. 41 40231 Düsseldorf/Germany Phone +49 - 211 - 26 11 210 Fax +49 - 211 - 26 11 220 eMail [email protected] Printed on 100% recycled paper / edited November 2010 ethecon Foundation Ethics & Economics ethecon Black Planet Award 2010 on Tony Hayward, Bob Dudley, Carl-Henric Svanberg and other responsibles of the BP corporation Table of contents The Blue Planet Project an the two ethecon Awards Speech by Axel Köhler-Schnura ................................................................................................................... 3 ethecon’s statement justifying the bestowal of the Black Planet Award 2010 on BP Responsibles ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SEC News Digest, 11-25-1977
    Issue 77-227 u.s. SECURITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS EXCHANGE COMMISSION NASD SANCTION AGAINST WILLIAM E. BRANDOW REDUCED TO CENSURE The Commission has modified the sanction imposed by the NASD on William E. Brandow, a Minneapolis insurance broker. The NASD had suspended Brandow from association with any member for one year. The Commission reduced his sanction to censure. Brandow was the administrator of a Minnesota school district's tax-sheltered annuity program (TSA). Among the insurance companies he represented was one which sold variable, as well as fixed, annuities. Variable annuities are securities, and the company which sold them is an NASD member. In his capacity as TSA administrator, Brandow sent letters annually to school district employees about the various annuity plans offered in that program. The Commission sustained the NASD's finding that the letter Brandow sent out in 1975 was sales liter- ature required to be filed with the NASD. It also affirmed the NASD's finding that Brandow failed to file that letter, and a similar one mailed in 1974. The Commission reversed the NASD's finding that the content of Brandow's 1975 letter was misleading. The Commission found that Brandow erroneously concluded that his letters were not sales literature covered by the filing requirement. It noted that Brandow's "failure to file was not prompted by contempt for the rule," nor did it suggest a lack of integrity. The Commission also noted that the pendency of this case has precluded Brandow from working for an NASD member. In effect, he had already served a lengthy suspension.
    [Show full text]
  • 57 Part 210—General Allocation and Price Rules
    Department of Energy § 210.1 with section 552 of title 5, United 212.93(b)(4)(iii)(B)(I); 212.93(i)(4); States Code and part 202 of this title. 212.94(b)(2)(iii); 212.128; 212.132; 212.172; (b) Matter may be withheld from dis- and § 212.187 of part 212. closure under section 552(b) of title 5 (b) Effective February 5, 1985, para- only on the grounds specified in: graph (a) of this section shall apply, to (1) Section 552(b)(1), applicable to the extent indicated, only to firms in matter specifically required by Execu- the following categories. A firm may be tive Order to be kept secret in the in- included in more than one category, terest of the national defense or for- and a firm may move from one cat- eign policy. This section shall be inter- egory to another. The fact that a firm preted to include matter protected becomes no longer subject to the rec- under Executive Order No. 11652 of ordkeeping requirements of one cat- March 8, 1972, establishing categories egory shall not relieve that firm of and criteria for classification, as well compliance with the recordkeeping re- as any other such orders dealing spe- quirements of any other category in cifically with disclosure of IEP related which the firm is still included. materials; (1) Those firms which are or become (2) Section 552(b)(3), applicable to parties in litigation with DOE, as de- matter specifically exempted from dis- fined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Oil Company Standard Oil of Ohio Standard Oil of Nebraska National Transit Company Crescent Pieline Co
    Prairie Oil and Gas Co. Standard Oil of Kansas Standard Oil of Indiana Solar Refining Standard Oil Company Standard Oil of Ohio Standard Oil of Nebraska National Transit Company Crescent Pieline Co. Standard Oil Company Standard Oil Company of Kentucky Phillips Petroleum Company Chevron Marathon Oil Corportation Standard Oil Company Chevron Texaco Union Tank Car Company Standard Oil Company Atlantic Petroleum Waters-Pierce Oil Co. Sinclair Cumberland Pipe Line Co. Standard Oil Company Continental Oil Co. Borne-Scrymser Company South Penn Oil Company Colonial Oil Standard Oil Company Standard Oil Company of California SOCONY-Vacuum Mobil Vacuum Oil Company Anglo-american Oil Co. New York Transit Company Indiana Pipe Line Company Standard Oil Company Northern Pipeline Compnay Buckeye Pipe Line Company Chesebrough Manugacturing Exxon Standard Oil Company South West Pennsylvania Pipe Line Co. Marathon Oil Company Texaco Marathon Oil Corportation Standard Oil Company Royal Dutch / Shell Standard Oil Company of California Galena-Signla Oil Company Marland Oil Swan & Finch Company Standard Oil Company Eureka Pipe Line Company Gulf Oil Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey ExxonMobil Standard Oil Company Standard Oil of New Jersey Standard Oil Co. of New York Southern Pipe Line Company The Ohio Oil Company South Penn Oil Standard Oil Company Consolidated Oil Corporation Atlantic Richfield Company Sinclair Oil Corporation Chesebrough-Ponds Standard Oil Company SOHIO Amoco Borne-Scrymser Company South West Pennsylvania Pipe Line Co. Standard Oil Company Unilever Pennzoil National Transit Company Swan & Finch Company Ashland Inc. Prairie Oil and Gas Co. Standard Oil of Kansas Standard Oil of Indiana Solar Refining Standard Oil Company Standard Oil of Ohio Standard Oil of Nebraska National Transit Company Crescent Pieline Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 7 Business Regulation Case Study: Standard Oil
    UNIT 7 BUSINESS REGULATION CASE STUDY: STANDARD OIL CHAPTER 1 THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION ..................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2 ROCKEFELLER’S MILLIONS ...........................................................................................................7 CHAPTER 3 JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IN CLEVELAND.................................................................................12 CHAPTER 4 THE THEORY OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE................................................................................................15 CHAPTER 5 EMPIRE ʹS CHALLENGE TO STANDARD ..................................................................................19 CHAPTER 6 BUSINESS 0RGANIZATIONS.........................................................................................................23 CHAPTER 7 ROBBER BARON OR INDUSTRIAL STATESMAN ....................................................................28 CHAPTER 8 THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT AND STANDARD OIL....................................................33 CHAPTER 9 STANDARD OIL ON TRIAL...........................................................................................................36 CHAPTER 10 THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES...............................................................................................39 by Thomas Ladenburg, copyright, 1974, 1998, 2001, 2007 100 Brantwood Road, Arlington, MA 02476 781-646-4577 [email protected] Page 1 Chapter 1 The Industrial Revolution he word ‘revolution’ implies
    [Show full text]
  • BP Plc Vs Royal Dutch Shell Which One to Buy Right Now
    DECEMBER 2019 ATLANTIC ADVISORY BP plc Vs Royal Dutch Shell Which one to buy right now 01872 229 000 www.atlanticmarkets.co.uk01872 229 000 www.atlanticadvisory.co.uk www.atlanticmarkets.co.uk BP Plc Ticker BP. Objective Capital growth and income Dividend Yield 6.71% A Brief History BP is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London. It is one of the world’s oil and gas supermajors. · 1908. The founding of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, established as a subsidiary of Burmah Oil Company to take advantage of oil discoveries in Iran. · 1935. It became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company · 1954. Adopted the name British Petroleum. · 1959. The company expanded beyond the Middle East to Alaska and it was one of the first companies to strike oil in the North Sea. · 1978. British Petroleum acquired majority control of Standard Oil of Ohio. Formerly majority state- owned. · 1979–1987. The British government privatised the company in stages between. · 1998. British Petroleum merged with Amoco, becoming BP Amoco plc, · 2000-2001. Acquired ARCO and Burmah Castrol, becoming BP plc. · 2003–2013. BP was a partner in the TNK-BP joint venture in Russia. Positioning Bp is a “vertically integrated” company, meaning it’s involved in the whole supply chain – from discovering oil, producing it, refining it, shipping it, trading it and selling it at the petrol pump. BP has operations in nearly 80 countries worldwide, produced around 3.7 million barrels per day (590,000 m3/d) of oil equivalent, and had total proven reserves of 19.945 billion barrels (3.1710×109 m3) of oil equivalent.
    [Show full text]