DOCSLIB.ORG

Petroleum Investment in the Arabian Gulf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petroleum Investment in the Arabian Gulf OXFORD INSTlTUTE = FOR = ENERGY STUDIES Petroleum Investment in the Arabian Gulf Goran Bergendahl Oxford Institute for Energy Studies F5 1985 The contents of this paper are for the purposes of study and discussion and do not represent the views of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies or any of its members. Copyright 0 1984 Oxford Institute for Energy Studies ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many persons have given valuable comments to the author concerning the content of this report. Special thanks go to John Mugno, Citibank; Lakdasa Wijetil leke, Michael Pearson and Isaac Sam, World Bank; Jens Mb1 lenbach, Leo Drol las, Marshal 1 Hal 1 and John Borkowski, British Petroleum. 1. PETROLEUM INVESTMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST 1 2. INVESTMENTS IN KUWAIT 4 3. INVESTMENTS IN QATAR 10 4. INVESTMENTS IN SAUDI ARABIA 16 5. INVESTMENTS IN THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 26 6. CONCLUSIONS 34 MOTES 45 REFERENCES 46 FIGURES FIGURE 1 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE MIDDLE EAST PETROLEUM INDUSTRY 3 2 FLOW OF GAS PRODUCTS IN QATAR 12 TABLES TABLE 1 CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION AND PETROLEUM REFINING IN KUWAIT 37 2 INVESTMENTS IN KUWAIT 38 3 CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION AND PETROLEUM REFINING IN QATAR 39 4 INVESTMENTS IN QATAR 40 5 CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION AMD PETROLEUM REFINING IN SAUDI ARABIA 41 6 INVESTMENTS IN SAUDI ARABIA 42 7 CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION AND PETROLEDM REFINING IN TRE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 43 8 INVESTMENTS IN TIIE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 44 In 1974 the thirteen OPEC countries suddenly received record oil revenues of $114 billion. The disposal of that income was as follows: 35% was used to finance imports of goods - mainly consumer goods and the remainder - the current account surplus - was placed abroad, mainly in the form of bank deposits (see statistics in Bergendahl 1984). When a second, even larger wave of oil revenues ($279 billion) reached the thirteen countries in 1980, a larger proportion (some 64% or $179 billion) was used directly for imports. But this time a substantial part of the remainder was placed into longer-term assets, such as stocks, bonds and real estate. Two years later oil revenues fell slightly to a level of $200 million and the current account surplus almost disappeared. What had happened? Did the OPEC countries choose to direct their surpluses into domestic consumption or into domestic investments? The answer is not a simple one for at least two reasons. First, there is an enormous difference between the four low-absorbing OPEC countries and the other nine. Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE accounted for oil revenues of $62 billion in 1974, $206 billion in 1980 and $104 billion in 1982, with more and more spent on domestic consumption and investments (39% in 1974, 68% in 1980, and 86% in 1982). Secondly, since the "low-absorbers" by definition are unable to consume most of their oil revenues, they therefore had substantial opportunities for investment from 1974 to 1982. Figure 1 shows how the four low-absorbers have taken advantage of this situation by letting petroleum investment grow from $700 million in 1971 to more than $14 billion in 1981. This implies a growth rate of 35% per year, a very high rate in comparison to other OPEC countries and the rest of the third world. The present study will investigate the activities behind these statistics. The purpose will be to fol low up actual investments made by the four low-absorbing Gulf countries during the ten year period 1973-82. The emphasis will be on petroleum- related investments. However, other large-scale investments will also be included. The outline is as follows. The analyses of actual investment alternatives are in Sections 2-5, with one section each for Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Finally, conclusions and areas for further study will be presented in Section 6. 2 Figure 1 Capital Expenditures for the Middle East Petroleum Industry LNG-PLANTS I OIL b GRS EXTRRCTION ;I 1'1 REFINERIES PIPE LINES CHEHl CRL PLRNTS 3 The small kingdom of Kuwait, with about 1.45 mil1 ion inhabitants in an area of 17,000 km 2 , has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Though the country is quite young - it became independent in 1961 - its oil history stretches back over several decades. In 1933, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (today British Petroleum) and the Gulf Oil Company applied for a concession. One year later they formed the Kuwait Oil Company (KOC) which started to explore the concession area in 1936. In 1938 oil was discovered in Burgan in Southern Kuwait. After the Second World War Burgan was developed, and exports started in 1946. Oil was discovered at Margwa in 1951 and at al-Ahmadi in 1952. After 1955 KOC started to drill in Northern Kuwait. Oil was discovered at Raudhatain in the same year, at Bahra in 1956, at Sabriyah in 1957, at Minagish in 1959 and at Umm Gudair in 1962. In 1974, the Government took over 60% of the assets of KOC including a refinery and an LPG plant at al-Ahrnadi. The f ol lowing year the Government acquired the remaining 40% equity. BP and Gulf Oil were guaranteed liftings of 500,000 b/d and 450,000 b/d respectively at a discount of 15 cents/barrel and with 60 days’ credit. 4 In 1947, the American Independent Oil CO (Aminoil) applied for a concession in the Neutral Zone. Drilling started in 1949 and oil was discovered at Wafra in 1953 and at Urn Gudair in 1966. The company was taken over by the Government in 1977 and was transferred to KOC in 1978. The offshore rights of the Meutral Zone were obtained in 1957-8 by the Arabian Oil Company (AOC), end the Kuwaiti Government obtained 10% of the equity of AOC. Oil was discovered at Rhafji in 1960, at Hout in 1962, at Lulu in 1966 and at Dorra in 1967, In 1974 the Kuwaiti Government took over an additional 202 of the equity of AOC. The Kuwait National Petroleum Company (KNPC) was established in 1960 to be owned jointly by the Government and by private Kuwaiti interests. It took over the domestic distribution of petroleum products from KOC, and in 1975 the Government gained complete control of RNPC, The company now operates three refineries, Mina Abdulla (taken over from Aminoil in 19781, Mina al-Ahmadi (formerly operated by KOC) and Shuaiba. In addition, the Kuwait Shell Petroleum Development Company and the Kuwait Spanish Petroleum Company unsuccessful ly drilled in Kuwait. Both companies are now dissolved. The main investments in Kuwaiti crude oil production were made before 1970. Crude oil production peaked in 1972 at about 3,300,000 b/d, after which capacity utilization declined substantially to a level of about 800,000 b/d in 1982. Table 1 gives details of this development, and it can be seen from these statistics that the decline in demand for crude oil is one factor 5 responsible €or the drop in production. The export of refined products has been more stable, although there has been a slight decline from a peak in 1979. Refinery capacities were expanded at Shuaiba in 1973-76 and a new Isomax unit was introduced in 1978 (see Central Bank of Kuwait, 1980, p42). In 1979 there was a reduction in output capacity at Mina al-Ahmadi leading to an almost maximal use of refinery capacities that year. Since then Kuwaiti usage of its refinery capacity has declined to a level of 0.57 in 1981. In spite of this low use, Kuwait has decided to modernise and expand the plants in Mina al-Ahmadi and in Mina Abdul lah. KPC's capital was increased by KD 1.5 bill ion (=$5.4 billion), to cover the outlay (see MEED, May 1983, p9). For Mina al-Ahmadi, Japan Gasol ine obtained a contract worth between $500- 700 million for the installation of 11 new units by 1984. Later the same company obtained an additional contract worth approximately KD 325 million to install an additional desulphurisation unit, a hydrocracking unit, another vacuum distillation unit and 8 fluid catalytic cracking unit. The final structure is planned to be completed in 1986/87. Furthermore, the refinery capacity of Mina Abdul lah will be expanded up to a level of 250,000 b/d at a cost of KD 230 mil1 ion. KPC's subsidiary, Kuwait Santa Fe Braun Engineering and Petroleum Projects Company got this contract, including the upgrading of existing units and the installation of new processing units (for details, see Arab Oil & Gas Directory, 1983 ~162). The aim is to expand refinery output by 93,000 b/d of naphtha, 50,000 b/d of gasol ine, 118,000 b/d of ATK, 117,000 b/d 6 of diesel and 82,000 b/d of low sulphur oil. At the same time fuel oil production will be reduced by almost 100,000 b/d. Altogether, this means that output will be doubled from about 352,000 b/d today to 725,000 b/d when the investment is completed, 1 In the petrochemical sector, Petrochemical Industries Corporation (PIC) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KPC. In 1964, PIC, Gulf Oil and BP set up the Kuwait Chemical Fertilizer Company (KCPC) to operate a petrochemical plant at Shuaiba (Plant A), producing urea, sulphuric acid, ammonia and ammonium sulphate. In 1973, PIC took over the shares of BP and Gulf Oil in the company. Then in 1977 the plant capacity was expanded from 550 tonneslday to 950 tonnes/day. PIC also operates Plant B at Shuaiba, which includes 2 urea units (670 tonnes/day) and 2 ammonia units (800 tonneslday).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Country Analysis Brief: Kuwait
    Country Analysis Brief: Kuwait Last Updated: November 2, 2016 Overview Kuwait was the 10th-largest producer of petroleum and other liquids in 2015. As a member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), Kuwait was the world’s 10th-largest producer of petroleum and other liquids in 2015, and it was the fifth-largest producer of crude oil among the 14 OPEC members. Despite its relatively small geographic size (about 6,900 square miles), in terms of production, it only trailed Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates in production of petroleum and other liquids in 2015. Kuwait's economy is heavily dependent on petroleum export revenues, which accounted for more than 70% of the government’s total revenues in 2015, according to IMF estimates.1 In fact, petroleum exports accounted for almost 89% of total export revenues in 2015.2 Much like other OPEC producers, Kuwait saw the value of its total exports fall sharply in 2015 as crude oil prices fell. In 2014, Kuwait’s value of exports totaled roughly $104 billion and fell to about $55 billion in 2015. The share of petroleum exports in 2014 was 94% of the total export revenue.3 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that Kuwait’s net export revenues totaled $40 billion in 2015, about half of what Kuwait earned during the previous year.4 Although some of the decline in net export revenue is a result of a decrease in production and exports during the year, the decrease in crude oil prices accounted for most of the decline in net export revenues.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil and Gas Technologies Supplemental Information
    Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 7: Advancing Systems and Technologies to Produce Cleaner Fuels Supplemental Information Oil and Gas Technologies Subsurface Science, Technology, and Engineering U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Oil and Gas Technologies Chapter 7: Advancing Systems and Technologies to Produce Cleaner Fuels Oil and Gas in the Energy Economy of the United States Fossil fuel resources account for 82% of total U.S. primary energy use because they are abundant, have a relatively low cost of production, and have a high energy density—enabling easy transport and storage. The infrastructure built over decades to supply fossil fuels is the world’s largest enterprise with the largest market capitalization. Of fossil fuels, oil and natural gas make up 63% of energy usage.1 Across the energy economy, the source and mix of fuels used across these sectors is changing, particularly the rapid increase in natural gas production from unconventional resources for electricity generation and the rapid increase in domestic production of shale oil. While oil and gas fuels are essential for the United States’ and the global economy, they also pose challenges: Economic: They must be delivered to users and the markets at competitive prices that encourage economic growth. High fuel prices and/or price volatility can impede this progress. Security: They must be available to the nation in a reliable, continuous way that supports national security and economic needs. Disruption of international fuel supply lines presents a serious geopolitical risk. Environment: They must be supplied and used in ways that have minimal environmental impacts on local, national, and global ecosystems and enables their sustainability.
    [Show full text]
  • The US Response to Attacks on Persian Gulf Oil Infrastructure and Strategic Implications for Petro-States
    ISSUE BRIEF 10.29.19 The US Response to Attacks on Persian Gulf Oil Infrastructure and Strategic Implications for Petro-States Jim Krane, Ph.D., Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies Mark Finley, Fellow in Energy and Global Oil On Sept. 14, 2019, Saudi Aramco’s enormous oil tanker and its crew for two months. In oil processing plant at Abqaiq was hit in a October, Iran’s national tanker company surprise cruise missile and drone attack. reported an attack on an Iranian oil tanker Further strikes damaged facilities at the in the Red Sea.3 Khurais oil field 150 miles away. The attacks None of these disruptions had more on some of the world’s most vital pieces of than a short-lived effect on global oil prices. energy infrastructure initially knocked out Iran appears to have played a direct or 5.7 million barrels per day (Mb/d) of Saudi indirect role in the May/June tanker and oil production and 0.7 Mb/d of natural gas Saudi attacks. But the Trump administration liquids production, the largest ever outage has not, as yet, followed the guidelines in in volume terms in the modern history of oil. the 1980 Carter Doctrine, which states that Oil prices immediately jumped from $60 to Washington would use military force—if $69 per barrel. necessary—to protect its interests in the Gulf. Just over two weeks later, the sense of The US president suggested at one point urgency was gone. Saudi Aramco had fully that ultimate responsibility in dealing with restored the lost production, even as repairs the attacks rested with Saudi Arabia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study of Chevron Nigeria
    Investing in Fragile Contexts: A Case Study of Chevron Nigeria Background to Chevron in Nigeria: Chevron is one of the world's leading integrated energy companies. Its roots go back to the formation of Pacific Coast Oil Company in 1876. That company later became Standard Oil Company of California and, subsequently, Chevron Corporation. Chevron acquired Gulf Oil Corporation in 1984, merged with Texaco (formerly The Texas Fuel Company, formed in Beaumont, Texas, in 1901) in 2001 and acquired Unocal in 2005. These mergers and acquisitions have strengthened Chevron's position as an energy industry leader, increasing its crude oil and natural gas assets around the world. Chevron is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry. It has a diverse and highly skilled global workforce of approximately 64,700 employees. Its business operations traverse 100 countries. In 2014, Chevron's average net production was 2.571 million oil-equivalent barrels per day. About 74 percent of that production occurred outside the United States. At the end of 2014, Chevron had a global refining capacity of 1.9 million barrels of oil per day. Challenges: Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa and has the largest economy on the continent. It has an estimated population of 170million people who are from different ethnic backgrounds and speak more than 200 languages. The country has a high rate of unemployment and poverty, and outbreaks of violent, inter-ethnic conflicts are rife. Governance and transparency is sometimes a challenge. Nigeria gained its independence from Great Britain in October, 1960 and Chevron arrived in the country a year after.
    [Show full text]
  • Kuwait Petroleum Corporation: Searching for Strategy in a Fragmented Oil Sector Paul Stevens
    Kuwait Petroleum Corporation: Searching for Strategy in a Fragmented Oil Sector Paul Stevens Working Paper #78 July 2008 PESD Working Paper #78 July 14, 2008 Stevens, KPC The Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University is an interdisciplinary research program focused on the economic and environmental consequences of global energy consumption. Its studies examine the development of global natural gas markets, the role of national oil companies, reform of electric power markets, international climate policy, and how the availability of modern energy services, such as electricity, can affect the process of economic growth in the world’s poorest regions. The Program, established in September 2001, includes a global network of scholars—based at centers of excellence on five continents—in law, political science, economics and engineering. It is based at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Program on Energy and Sustainable Development Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies Encina Hall East, Room E415 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6055 http://pesd.stanford.edu 2 PESD Working Paper #78 July 14, 2008 Stevens, KPC About the National Oil Company Study While the role of the state is declining in nearly every sector of world economic activity, in hydrocarbons the pattern is quite different. State-controlled oil companies—so-called national oil companies (NOCs)— remain firmly in control over the vast majority of the world's hydrocarbon resources. Some NOCs are singular in their control over their home market; others engage in various joint ventures or are exposed to competition. PESD’s study on National Oil Companies focuses on fifteen NOCs: Saudi Aramco, NIOC (National Iranian Oil Co), KPC (Kuwait Petroleum Co), PDVSA (Petróleos de Venezuela) , ADNOC (Abu Dhabi National Oil Company), NNPC (Nigerian National Petroleum Co), PEMEX, Gazprom , Sonatrach, CNPC, Petrobras, Petronas, ONGC, Sonangol, and Statoil.
    [Show full text]
  • The New American Oil Boom Implications for Energy Security
    The New American Oil Boom implications for energy security a project of The New American Oil Boom implications for energy security a project of copyright © 2012 securing america’s future energy. all rights reserved. Disclaimer: Although the authors and endorsers of this report have used their best efforts in its preparation, they assume no responsibility for any errors or omissions, nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of or reliance on information contained herein. The authors have sought to obtain permission from all image, data, and chart owners and apologize to any who could not be properly traced for permission and acknowledgement. Energy Security Leadership Council council co-chairs General P.X. Kelley, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) Frederick W. Smith 28th Commandant, U.S. Marine Corp Chairman, President and CEO, FedEx Corporation members Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.) General John M. Keane, U.S. Army (Ret.) Former Director of National Intelligence and Former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command Admiral Timothy J. Keating, U.S. Navy (Ret.) General Bryan “Doug” Brown, U.S. Army (Ret.) Former Commander, U.S. Pacific Command Former Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command Herbert D. Kelleher Founder & Chairman Emeritus, Southwest Steve Cahillane Airlines Co. President & CEO, Coca-Cola Refreshments (CCR), The Coca-Cola Company John F. Lehman Former Secretary to the U.S. Navy Admiral Vern Clark, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Former Chief of Naval Operations General Michael E. Ryan, U.S. Air Force (Ret.) 16th Chief of Staff, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Investment Rationale LTM EV/EBITDA 4.5X LTM Price/Earnings 8.7X at the Start of FY19-20 the E&U Team Decided to Disband Its Long- Held Synthetic U.S
    RESEARCH REPORT November 9, 2019 Insert Picture in Master View Stock Rating BUY Price Target $72.00 – $89.00 Bear Price Bull Case Target Case $72.00 $80.50 $89.00 Ticker COP ConocoPhillips Market Cap (MM) $63,642 Investment Rationale LTM EV/EBITDA 4.5x LTM Price/Earnings 8.7x At the start of FY19-20 the E&U team decided to disband its long- held synthetic U.S. ETF. To do so, the team liquidated all of its 52 Week Performance holdings and identified two U.S.-based names to take active positions in: ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) and Kinder Morgan, Inc. 100 (NYSE: KMI). This report focuses on ConocoPhillips, and seeks to 78.3 analyze the company’s business model and explain the E&U team’s investment rationale. 75 The QUIC E&U team believes that COP has a best in-class 69.6 management team which exhibits strong capital prudence, a shareholder-friendly business model underpinned by quality assets, 50 and an all-weather balance sheet capable of generating free-cash- flow throughout the entire cycle. 25 Despite ConocoPhillips’ strengths, investors continue to discount the Nov-18 Mar-19 Jul-19 Nov-19 company’s value, largely because of COP’s infamous leverage profile during the mid 2000s energy boom and uncommon listing position TSX:COP TSX Capped Energy Index as a mega-cap pureplay E&P name. Given COP’s stark deleveraging, refined capital allocation strategy, and attractive operational characteristics, the E&U team concludes Energy & Utilities that these concerns are trivial and estimate the company’s equity value is approximately $72 - $89, a 21% - 50% premium to current Mircea Barcan market prices.
    [Show full text]
  • The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill's Impact on People's Health
    THE SEA GRANT and GOMRI THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL’S PARTNERSHIP IMPACT ON PEOPLE’S HEALTH: The mission of Sea Grant is to enhance the practical use and INCREASES IN STRESS AND ANXIETY conservation of coastal, marine Larissa Graham, Christine Hale, Emily Maung-Douglass, Stephen Sempier, Tara Skelton, and Great Lakes resources in LaDon Swann, and Monica Wilson order to create a sustainable economy and environment. There are 33 university– The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill stretched beyond the based Sea Grant programs Gulf of Mexico’s waters, plants, animals, and habitats. It affected the throughout the coastal U.S. These programs are primarily mental health of some residents along the Gulf Coast. The impacts supported by the National varied based on what kind of job a person had, how attached they were Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the states to the place they lived, and how many disasters they had lived through in which the programs are prior to the spill. located. In the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill, BP committed $500 million over a 10–year period to create the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, or GoMRI. It is an independent research program that studies the effect of hydrocarbon releases on the environment and public health, as well as develops improved spill mitigation, oil detection, characterization, and remediation technologies. GoMRI is led by an independent and academic 20–member research board. The Sea Grant oil spill science outreach team identifies the best available science from projects funded by GoMRI and others, and only shares peer- reviewed research results.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Tax Rates for Oil and Gas Companies
    Effective Tax Rates of Oil and Gas Companies: Cashing in on Special Treatment July 2014 Table of Contents Page Results in Brief …………………………………………………………………….. 3 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………. 4 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 6 Notes …………………………………………………………………………………… 6 U.S. Federal Effective Tax Rates, 2009-2013 …………………………… 7 Foreign Effective Tax Rates, 2009-2013 ………………………………..... 8 Deferred Tax Liabilities from Property, Plant, and Equipment in 2012 and 2013……………………………………………………………………….. 9 Appendix: Company Profiles ExxonMobil Corporation ……………………………………………......... 10 ConocoPhillips …………………………………………………………………. 12 Occidental Petroleum Corporation …………………………………….. 14 Chevron Corporation ………………………………………………………… 15 Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ………………………………………. 17 Chesapeake Energy Corporation …………………………………......... 19 EOG Resources, Inc. …………………………………………………........ 20 Devon Energy Corporation …………………………………………......... 22 Apache Corporation ………………………………………………………….. 23 Pioneer Natural Resources Company ………………………………….. 25 Continental Resources, Inc. ……………………………………………… 27 Marathon Oil Corporation …………………………………………………. 28 Hess Corporation ……………………………………………………………… 29 Range Resources Corporation ……………………………………………. 30 Plains Exploration & Production Company …………………………. 31 SandRidge Energy, Inc. ……………………………………………………. 33 Whiting Petroleum Corporation …………………………………………. 34 Denbury Resources, Inc. ………………………………………………….. 35 Noble Energy, Inc. …………………………………………………………… 36 Concho Resources Inc. …………………………………………………….. 37 Company Notes …………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Economy of Arab Gulf States-RS-Lh-KCU
    JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF ARAB GULF STATES BY KRISTIAN COATES ULRICHSEN, PH.D. FELLOW FOR THE MIDDLE EAST JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY MAY 8, 2015 The Political Economy of Arab Gulf States THIS PAPER WAS WRITTEN BY A RESEARCHER (OR RESEARCHERS) WHO PARTICIPATED IN A BAKER INSTITUTE RESEARCH PROJECT. WHEREVER FEASIBLE, PAPERS ARE REVIEWED BY OUTSIDE EXPERTS BEFORE THEY ARE RELEASED. HOWEVER, THE RESEARCH AND VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS PAPER ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESEARCHER(S) AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY. © 2015 BY THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY OF RICE UNIVERSITY THIS MATERIAL MAY BE QUOTED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION, PROVIDED APPROPRIATE CREDIT IS GIVEN TO THE AUTHOR AND THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY 2 The Political Economy of Arab Gulf States Introduction This paper assesses the multifaceted reasons behind the Arab Gulf states’ uneven record of integration into the global economy. It begins by documenting how the ties binding the Gulf states into the global economy are both deep-rooted and long predate the discovery and extraction of oil in the 20th century. Rather, the opening section highlights the historical interconnectivity of the transnational flows that tied the region into a broader economic hinterland spanning the Indian Oceanic world. Nevertheless, these processes were patchy and subject to partial reversal during the early oil years. Thus, the second section examines the entrenched dynamics that also served to limit the Gulf states’ relationship with the international system, both politically and economically.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranking Operator by Gas 1947
    PDRANKOP UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PRODUCTION MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE 22-DEC-2000 GULF OF MEXICO REGION PAGE: 1 Production by Operator Ranked by Volume (4120) Start Date : 194701 Report Type : Report End Date : 199512 ASCII File Name: C:\TIMSWork\PDRANKOP.DAT Report Option: Order by Total Gas Group By : All Operator Crude Oil Condensate Total Oil Natural Gas Casinghead Total Gas (BBLS) (BBLS) (BBLS) (MCF) (MCF) (MCF) 00078 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 1,926,333,769 137,016,779 2,063,350,548 11,063,925,241 2,504,607,294 13,568,532,535 00689 Shell Offshore Inc. 1,417,893,524 85,274,236 1,503,167,760 7,372,318,798 2,025,230,206 9,397,549,004 00001 Conoco Inc. 797,691,267 90,614,940 888,306,207 6,665,540,300 1,270,468,340 7,936,008,640 00540 MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCING SOUT 323,970,684 67,931,345 391,902,029 6,452,624,776 498,954,383 6,951,579,159 00276 Exxon Mobil Corporation 1,093,558,792 56,026,660 1,149,585,452 5,223,562,198 1,323,290,927 6,546,853,125 00985 Union Exploration Partners, Ltd. 172,994,887 68,962,600 241,957,487 5,693,340,954 248,803,779 5,942,144,733 00081 Tenneco Oil Company 213,224,062 48,335,567 261,559,629 5,587,612,854 279,449,349 5,867,062,203 00040 Texaco Inc. 189,506,674 33,936,036 223,442,710 4,576,194,031 442,571,025 5,018,765,056 00114 Amoco Production Company 97,147,101 34,421,651 131,568,752 3,175,779,982 235,024,436 3,410,804,418 00167 PennzEnergy Company 191,565,059 26,157,422 217,722,481 2,812,024,858 262,674,308 3,074,699,166 00967 Atlantic Richfield Company 242,193,417 18,221,055 260,414,472
    [Show full text]
  • Historic NAME: Gulf Oil Distribution Facility STREET & NUMBER
    (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FoRM ~NAME 01? PRopEwry hISTORIC NAME: Gulf Oil Distribution Facility OTHER NAME/SITE NUMBER: Hickory Street Annex L~LoCATIoN STREET & NUMBER: 501 Second Avenue CITY OR TOWN: Dallas VICINny: N/A NOT FOR PUBLIcATION: N/A STATE: Texas CODE: TX COUNTy: Dallas CODE: 113 zu CODE: 75226 [3. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certif~’ that this (~nomination) L request for determination of eligibility) meets the documentation standards for registering propertie~s in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property ( ~ meets) (_ does not meet) the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant (_ nationally) (_ statewide) (x locally). C_See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of certil~ying official Date State Historic Preservation Officer, Texas Historical Commission - State or Federal agency and bureau In my opinion, the property _meets does not meet the National Register criteria. (_ See continuation sheet for additional comments.) — Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau [~. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CERTIFICATION I hereby certif~’ that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action entered in the National Register —
    [Show full text]