Prior to the year of 1999, Exxon and Mobil were the two largest American oil companies, which were direct descendants of the John D. Rockefeller’s broken up Standard Oil Company. In 1998 Exxon and Mobil signed an eighty billion dollar merger agreement in hope to form Exxon Mobil Corporation, the largest company ever created. Such a merger seems astonishing, not only because it reunited parts of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, but also because it would be extremely difficult for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to approve this merger due to its size and importance in the oil market. In fact, it took the FTC an entire year after the merger was proposed to make a decision due to its rigorous analysis in the product and its geographic market, the concentration of the oil market, the potential anticompetitive effects of the merger, the effects towards their growth and labor force, and lastly, the likelihood of entry and the efficiencies that may affect anticompetitive concerns. Although all of these notions are played a role in the analysis of the merger, it is important to remember that the merger’s result efficiencies did outweigh the the anticompetitive risks that were involved, especially since the oil market was headed towards decreasing prices to expand production.
Both the CEO of Exxon, Lee Raymond, and the CEO of Mobil, Lucio Noto, announced that it is because of this reduction in prices and downsizing within the oil industry that the merger is taking place, the very nature of the oil industry was becoming increasingly competitive. The oil industry as whole was becoming more efficient, causing oil prices to fallr. Firms can only maintain their prices equal to or above marginal cost, and if prices are lower than marginal...
... middle of paper ...
...ts of $77 billion, but also the largest in the number of divestitures. It might seem as if the size of the merger could have caused anticompetitive harm, which is very much true whenever you analyze the local levels, but the oil industry is one that is not limited by the borders of a country, it is an industry that is located internationally and that is therefore affected by any factor that occurs internationally. The efficiency changes and the cost reduction within this international industry were the major causes that lead this merger to take place. The more efficient an industry can be, the better the outcomes for both the consumers and the country, and therefore it can be concluded that the anticompetitve risks that were reduced by the FTC required divestitures resulted to be more than enough for the efficiencies to outweigh the risks in the U.S. market of oil.
Rockefeller was America’s first billionaire, and he was the true epitome of capitalism. Rockefeller was your typical rags-to-riches businessman, and at the turn of the twentieth century, while everyone else in the working class was earning ten dollars max every week, Rockefeller was earning millions. There has been much discussion as to whether Rockefeller’s success was due to being a “robber baron”, or as a “captain of industry”. By definition, a robber baron was an industrialist who exploited others in order to achieve personal wealth, however, Rockefeller’s effect on the economy and the lives of American citizens has been one of much impact, and deserves recognition. He introduced un-seen techniques that greatly modified the oil industry. During the mid-nineteenth century, there was a high demand for kerosene. In the refining process from transforming crude oil to kerosene, many wastes were produced. While others deemed the waste useless, Rockefeller turned it into income by selling them. He turned those wastes into objects that would be useful elsewhere, and in return, he amassed a large amount of wealth. He sold so much “waste” that railroad companies were desperate to be a part of his company. However, Rockefeller demanded rebates, or discounted rates, from the railroad companies, when they asked to be involved with his business. By doing so, Rockefeller was able to lower the price of oil to his customers, and pay low wages to his workers. Using these methods,
When John D. Rockefeller merged with the railroad companies, he had gained control of a strategic transportation route that no other companies would be able to use. Rockefeller would then be able to force the hand on the railroads and was granted a rebate on his shipments of oil. This was a kind of secret agreement between the two industries. None of the competition knew what the rates were for the rebates or the rates that Rockefeller was paying the railroad. This made it hard for the competition to keep up with the Standard Oil Company. The consequences led to many oil companies getting bought out by Rockefeller secretly. All in all, 25 co...
One of these factors was the logistical nightmare of redeveloping the infrastructure needed to transport oil to the refinery. As early as 1881, Standard oil operated approximately 3,000 miles of pipelines, eventually owning ninety percent of the nation’s pipelines. Although transcontinental railroads were an available alternative, pipelines were cheaper, reduced handling and storage fees, and were more efficient. The fact that modern oil companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars into speculating for sustainable natural oil deposits implies that such deposits are rare and hard to identify with a passing glance. If the spurts of oil proved to be isolated incidents, the capital invested in building pipelines and reestablishing a monopoly would have been squandered.
America is dependent on other nations for their ability to create energy. The United States is the world’s largest consumer of oil at 18.49 million barrels of oil per day. And it will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future considering the next largest customer of oil only consumes about 60% of what the U.S. does. This makes the U.S. vulnerable to any instability that may arise in the energy industry. In 2011, the world’s top three oil companies were Saudi Aramco (12%), National Iranian Oil Company (5%), and China National Petroleum Corp (4%). The risk associated with these countries being the top oil producers is twofold. One, they are located half way around the world making it an expensive to transport the product logistically to a desired destination. And two, the U.S. has weak, if not contentious,...
Pratt, Joseph A. “Exxon and the Control of Oil.” Journal of American History. 99.1 (2012): 145-154. Academic search elite. Web. 26. Jan. 2014.
In 2004, crude oil producers around the world expected a 1.5% growth in the world’s demand for crude oil. The actual growth rate was more than double the projections at 3.3%. This growth was due to rapidly industrializing of foreign countries such as, China and India. Therefore the lack of crude oil affected the supply of gasoline to consumers at the pump.
ExxonMobil has had nothing major in 2010 that could impair the low levels of control risk assessed by our a...
...o chance of competing with Standard Oil due to all the tactics they employed to keep their prices low. This ravished small town families and had a similar effect as to what Wal-Mart does to family run shops nowadays. Numerous families living in small town America lost their income because of Standard Oil and forced hardship upon many.
A few years ago, the price of gasoline peaked at a price of about four dollars a gallon, indicating a similarly high price for crude oil. This high price for crude oil incentivized many companies to invest in hydraulic fracturing in the state of Oklahoma. A problem arises, however, as many companies would spend more drilling than they profited from the oil drilled. According to Richard Manning, “A couple of generations ago we spent a lot less energy drilling, pumping, and distributing than we do now” (431). With this vast investment in the oil industry in Oklahoma, eventually the price of oil dropped and these companies went bankrupt. With the decline in oil prices, so too did the Oklahoman economy follow as Asjylyn Loder remarks, “In the second quarter of last year [2015], Oklahoma’s economy shrank 2.4 percent” (12). This collapse in the economy has been seen before by Oklahoma and will not likely recover for likely many
To understand the increase in gas prices, one must first identify the distribution of dollars paid per gallon at the pump. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (eia) in 2010, the annual average paid at the pump consisted of 68% crude oil, 7% refining, 10% distribution and marketing, and 15% taxes (see Fig.1). This shows an increase of crude oil over the 2000-2009 average of 51%. (e. I. Administration)
In the story,“The Wreck of the Kulluk” (2014) written by McKenzie Funk, Funk revealed that Shell was eager to pursue more oil in what are called proved reserves due to their Arctic leases nearing expiration date. These proved reserves are otherwise known as “a petroleum company’s most sacred promise about the future” (Funk, 2014, pg. 1). Oil companies have no hesitation when going to extreme limits to find this precious resource, and we can no longer continue to sustain the methods used for obtaining fuel due it affects all aspects of our society. Our selfishness and ignorance are destroying the very elements humans need to survive, and will only lead to the end of life on planet Earth. Had different decisions been made by fuels companies
In addition to the pro-competitive economic effect some firms also experience what is known as a post-merger which is basically an incentive for a firm to raise downstream competitor costs by raising upstream market costs. Hence the increased price pressures the previously established downstream prices which cause conflict.
In conclusion, OPEC's monopoly of the petroleum industry has been a strong one since the 1960's since its members enjoy economies of scale. Its decisions concerning the output of petrol have always been strong affecting the rest of the world. This monopoly is socially inefficient due to the output and the deadweight loss that results. Interestingly enough, to break this monopoly, the new Iraq has the potential to turn the market power around.
The formation of OPEC in the 1960’s was motivated by complex, inter-dependent factors including the end of British colonization, the surge in the demand for oil based energy, and a desire for the member nations to benefit from – and control - the market price of “the most valuable commodity in the history of the world” (Myers & Lyford, N.D., p. 1): crude oil. Today, OPEC purports to have three primary objectives:
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have received considerable attention both in the academic literature and in the media. Many conflicting theoretical and empirical interpretations about the nature of OPEC and its influence on world oil markets have been proposed. The debate is not centred on whether OPEC restricts output, but the reasons behind these restrictions. Others explain production cuts in the 1970s in terms of the transfer of property rights from international oil companies to governments (Johany, 1980; Mead, 1979). Others explain output restrictions in terms of coordinated actions of OPEC members.