Blog Archives

Obama’s Successful Foreign Failure

The president may look incompetent on Syria. But his behavior fits his strategy to weaken America abroad.

by Norman Podhoretz

It is entirely understandable that Barack Obama’s way of dealing with Syria in recent weeks should have elicited responses ranging from puzzlement to disgust. Even members of his own party are despairingly echoing in private the public denunciations of him as “incompetent,” “bungling,” “feckless,” “amateurish” and “in over his head” coming from his political opponents on the right.

For how else to characterize a president who declares war against what he calls a great evil demanding immediate extirpation and in the next breath announces that he will postpone taking action for at least 10 days—and then goes off to play golf before embarking on a trip to another part of the world? As if this were not enough, he also assures the perpetrator of that great evil that the military action he will eventually take will last a very short time and will do hardly any damage. Unless, that is, he fails to get the unnecessary permission he has sought from Congress, in which case (according to an indiscreet member of his own staff) he might not take any military action after all.

Summing up the net effect of all this, as astute a foreign observer as Conrad Black can flatly say that, “Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and before that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States.”

Yet if this is indeed the pass to which Mr. Obama has led us—and I think it is—let me suggest that it signifies not how incompetent and amateurish the president is, but how skillful. His foreign policy, far from a dismal failure, is a brilliant success as measured by what he intended all along to accomplish. The accomplishment would not have been possible if the intention had been too obvious. The skill lies in how effectively he has used rhetorical tricks to disguise it.

The key to understanding what Mr. Obama has pulled off is the astonishing statement he made in the week before being elected president: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” To those of us who took this declaration seriously, it meant that Mr. Obama really was the left-wing radical he seemed to be, given his associations with the likes of the anti-American preacher Jeremiah Wright and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, not to mention the intellectual influence over him of Saul Alinsky, the original “community organizer.”

So far as domestic affairs were concerned, it soon became clear—even to some of those who had persuaded themselves that Mr. Obama was a moderate and a pragmatist—that the fundamental transformation he had in mind was to turn this country into as close a replica of the social-democratic countries of Europe as the constraints of our political system allowed.

Since he had enough support for the policies that this objective entailed, those constraints were fairly loose, and so he only needed a minimum of rhetorical deception in pursuing it. All it took was to deny he was doing what he was doing by frequently singing the praises of the free-enterprise system he was assiduously working to undermine, by avoiding the word “socialism,” by invoking “fairness” as an overriding ideal and by playing on resentment of the “rich.”

But foreign policy was another matter. As a left-wing radical, Mr. Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs. Accordingly, the fundamental transformation he wished to achieve here was to reduce the country’s power and influence. And just as he had to fend off the still-toxic socialist label at home, so he had to take care not to be stuck with the equally toxic “isolationist” label abroad.

This he did by camouflaging his retreats from the responsibilities bred by foreign entanglements as a new form of “engagement.” At the same time, he relied on the war-weariness of the American people and the rise of isolationist sentiment (which, to be sure, dared not speak its name) on the left and right to get away with drastic cuts in the defense budget, with exiting entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan, and with “leading from behind” or using drones instead of troops whenever he was politically forced into military action.

The consequent erosion of American power was going very nicely when the unfortunately named Arab Spring presented the president with several juicy opportunities to speed up the process. First in Egypt, his incoherent moves resulted in a complete loss of American influence, and now, thanks to his handling of the Syrian crisis, he is bringing about a greater diminution of American power than he probably envisaged even in his wildest radical dreams.

For this fulfillment of his dearest political wishes, Mr. Obama is evidently willing to pay the price of a sullied reputation. In that sense, he is by his own lights sacrificing himself for what he imagines is the good of the nation of which he is the president, and also to the benefit of the world, of which he loves proclaiming himself a citizen.

The problem for Mr. Obama is that at least since the end of World War II, Americans have taken pride in being No. 1. Unless the American people have been as fundamentally transformed as their country is quickly becoming, America’s decline will not sit well. With more than three years in office to go, will Mr. Obama be willing and able to endure the continuing erosion of his popularity that will almost certainly come with the erosion of the country’s power and influence?

No doubt he will either deny that anything has gone wrong, or failing that, he will resort to his favorite tactic of blaming others—Congress or the Republicans or Rush Limbaugh. But what is also almost certain is that he will refuse to change course and do the things that will be necessary to restore U.S. power and influence.

And so we can only pray that the hole he will go on digging will not be too deep for his successor to pull us out, as Ronald Reagan managed to do when he followed a president into the White House whom Mr. Obama so uncannily resembles.

Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960-95. His most recent book is “Why Are Jews Liberals?” (Doubleday, 2009).

A version of this article appeared September 9, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama’s Successful Foreign Failure.

Source

USS Iowa: Historic battleship makes last, brief voyage

By Dana Feldman
LOS ANGELES | Sat Jun 9, 2012 11:20pm EDT

(Reuters) – The battleship USS Iowa, a storied vessel that served during World War Two and the Cold War, made a brief final voyage on Saturday to its permanent berth at the Port of Los Angeles, where it will open as a naval museum next month.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and U.S. Navy veterans who served on the 175-foot-tall (53-metre) ship, which was decommissioned in 1990, were among the hundreds of invited celebrants along for the ride.

The USS Iowa was commissioned in 1943. It carried President Franklin Roosevelt across the Atlantic to a meeting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin during World War Two.

Later in the war, the Iowa pounded beachheads in the Pacific with its 16-inch guns ahead of Allied landings and took part in the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay in 1945. During the Korean War in the 1950s, it conducted gun strikes and bombardments.

After being decommissioned in 1958, it returned to service in 1984 during the latter years of the Cold War.

On Saturday, it was towed from a temporary anchorage in the outer harbor through the port’s main channel.

As onlookers cheered and a high school band played, the ship arrived at its permanent spot at Berth 87. It will open as a naval museum on July 7.

“The USS Iowa, ‘The Battleship of Presidents,’ is a symbol of American ingenuity and common purpose,” Villaraigosa said onboard the ship shortly after it docked.

“We are honored to welcome the USS Iowa to its new home in Los Angeles,” he said. “What a great thing to the men and women of the U.S. Navy. She’s a ship unlike any other.”

The 887-foot-long (270-metre) battleship had previously been moored in the Northern California city of Richmond, where volunteers refurbished it for months until the Los Angeles Harbor Commission voted in May to create a permanent home for it.

Tugboats pulled the ship under the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco on May 26 and took it south to Los Angeles, where in recent days it underwent final preparations.

Bob Dedic, an 86-year-old Navy veteran, served on the USS Iowa during World War Two. He was an electrician and said that he and his fellow crewmates during battle were often not told their location. But ice cream cones sold for 5 cents.

“It was a great experience in my life. Too bad there was a war going on,” Dedic said with a laugh.

The distance between the two points in the Los Angeles harbor that the ship covered on Saturday was roughly 1 1/2 miles. But the ship stretched out its last journey by first passing Pier 87 and traveling under a huge suspension bridge farther up the channel, before circling back to dock at its destination.

(Additional reporting by Steve Gorman, Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Peter Cooney)

THE SCARIEST JOBS CHART EVER

https://i2.wp.com/static7.businessinsider.com/image/4fa3d76a69bedd1d7e000001-905-587/chart.jpg

by Joe Weisenthal

As always, the infamous chart from Calculated Risk.

It compares the pace of this jobs recovery vs. every other one since WWII by looking at the trajectory of jobs lost and gained since the recession began.

Read more: BI

Obama’s Hidden Tax Hikes

image

Mike Brownfield
March 2, 2012 at 8:32 am

EXCLUSIVE: It could be said that President Obama has never seen a tax hike he doesn’t like — whether it’s letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, insisting on higher taxes for job creators, and yesterday calling on Congress to raise taxes on the oil industry. But as much as the President wants to raise taxes, Heritage has discovered that there are even more tax hikes hidden in his budget, adding up to a total of $2 trillion in higher taxes.

In a new report, Heritage’s Curtis Dubay uncovers Obama’s hidden tax hikes and finds that the President’s proposed $1.561 trillion tax increase over 10 years is much bigger than advertised. In fact, the President wants to raise taxes by $1.689 trillion – that’s $128 billion more than was reported by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the President’s FY 2013 budget proposal.

What’s to account for the discrepancy? Dubay explains that OMB reports the tax hikes in areas other than the tax section, misleading readers into believing that the President’s tax hikes are smaller than they are in reality. Among them are the “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee,” better known as the bank tax, which adds another $61 billion to the President’s tax hike total; a $44 billion tax hike from allowing the IRS to adjust a program integrity cap; a $48 billion increase of the unemployment tax; and a $1 billion hike of user fees for commercial navigation of inland waterways.

How’s that for “the most transparent White House in history”?

But wait, there’s even more.

On top of the $128 billion in hidden taxes, the President takes credit for tax cuts when he really doesn’t deserve it. Dubay reports that the budget includes $317 billion in pre-existing tax cutting policies, including the payroll tax holiday ($31 billion), the American Opportunity Tax Credit ($137 billion), the Research and Experimentation Credit ($109 billion), the group of tax-reducing policies known as the “tax extenders” ($34 billion), along with a handful of other provisions totaling $6 billion — even though these policies were already part of the tax code. In other words, the President wants to get all the credit, while dodging the blame.

Take away those wrongly counted cuts and the President actually wants to raise taxes by more than $2 trillion!

Dubay says the White House has some explaining to do:

Congress should disregard the misleading tax hike figure from OMB’s table and use the correct $2 trillion amount when referring to the total tax hikes in the President’s budget. And Members of Congress should question OMB as to why they chose to mislead readers about the total tax hike that President Obama has called for on American taxpayers.

Why does all this tax talk matter? Take a look at the economy. America is experiencing a historically slow recovery, the likes of which haven’t been seen since World War II. Private-sector employment is 4.5 percent below pre-recession levels, unemployment remains at 8.3 percent — the highest since the 1981-1982 recession — and only 63.7 percent of adult Americans are active in the labor force, the lowest since 1983. Meanwhile, small businesses say taxes are among their most important problems — they fear Washington will raise taxes in order to pay for even more spending, so they’re sitting on the sidelines and not producing jobs. Now it appears that their worst fears are coming true.

Instead of raising taxes through the roof and hiding a chunk of those tax hikes from the American people, Washington should pursue policies that encourage growth and will help put the unemployed back to work. One way to do it is with Heritage’s “New Flat Tax” which simplifies the tax system and encourages investment.

America doesn’t need $2 trillion in higher taxes, especially in a time of a weak recovery. And it certainly doesn’t need them slipped through under their noses. The President’s budget claims credit for tax cuts he doesn’t deserve, hides the true cost of the tax hikes he imposes, and punishes job creators instead of encouraging them to expand. Consider it the President’s secret recipe for a weak economy.

Source

West in political crisis has echoes of 1930s

image

By Stella Dawson
Sun Jan 1, 2012 8:04am EST

(Reuters) – Dysfunctional politics threatens to deliver a protracted period of slow global growth, possibly lasting well beyond 2012, which will only deepen the political and economic problems for the West.

The global financial crisis that began four years ago has morphed into a political crisis for the United States and Europe. Leaders incapable of wrestling their debt loads to manageable levels or reviving strong economic growth are stoking turmoil in markets and populist unrest among the citizenry.

The political malaise is also hastening the shift of world economic power toward developing countries led by China. At worst, it could cause a second global recession bringing with it political upheaval on a scale not seen since the 1930s.

These unpalatable scenarios are being sketched by a growing number of leading political strategists, academics and economists after an extraordinary year when the once unthinkable came to pass: the United States had its credit rating downgraded while the developing world enjoys upgrades; Europe went cap in hand to Beijing for a financial bailout; and Brazil overtook Britain within the G7 club of major economies.

The shifting international economic order toward developing countries is nothing new. But it has been happening at a faster pace than expected, accelerated by what these analysts have begun describing as Western democracy in crisis.

They see a government credibility problem in the United States and European Union, stemming from a perception that the political elite is too closely tied to the financial elite in the West, and their collusion caused the financial chaos of 2007 and 2008 and its messy aftermath, leaving the average citizen burdened with higher public debt, higher taxes, unemployment and austerity programs.

Left to pay for what voters see as the elite’s mistakes, public confidence in government has been undermined, and political paralysis has set in as Western leaders struggle to pull governmental levers that are not working effectively.

In contrast, developing nations have been modernizing their institutions and markets, delivering growth rates in the past decade triple those of the West. By 2020, the Centre for Economics and Business Research in London estimates that India and Russia will have joined China and Brazil in the G7 ranks as the biggest economies in the world based on total GDP output, ousting Britain and France. Only the United States, Japan and Germany will be left from the old G7 that dominated the international order since World War II.

Niall Ferguson, a prominent economic historian now at Harvard, calls this an historic power shift.

“For the better part of 500 years, it was Westerners on both sides of the Atlantic who could say that they had the best economic system, that they developed the best political system and so forth. And those claims have sounded increasingly hollow in our time,” Ferguson said in an interview.

The breakdown in public confidence caused by the financial crisis has revealed a deeper problem. “What we’re seeing in government is part of a wider crisis of Western institutions,” he said.

The Tea Party movement in the United States, the Occupy Wall Street movement and riots in Europe all are populist expressions of this breakdown of trust. Institutionally, it is reflected in a U.S. Congress deadlocked over taxes and spending with lawmakers so polarized by different narratives on the causes and fixes for the financial crisis that it is nearly impossible to reach decisions, even though both sides recognize that if left unchanged, their policies will bankrupt the nation, he said.

In Europe, leaders lurch from summit to summit, making partial decisions on fixing a debt crisis and trying to save the 17-member monetary union. But in the process the political elite in Brussels and the capitals are losing touch with their democratic base, which is uncertain it wants to pay the price required for monetary union through deep cutbacks.

Heather Conley, a former U.S. Under Secretary of State for European Affairs and now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said this near political paralysis seen in the United States and Europe is common when governments are at an inflection point.

“Without decisive direction and leadership, we march in place or attempt to muddle through, uncertain of which path to take. The West is at such a moment,” she said.

“Only an external shock I fear will force us to take the uncertain (new) path. Or we will become so frustrated that the West will choose leaders who will take us in a radically new direction. I’m not sure our frustration level has reached that level, yet. But Europe may be arriving there soon.”

Governments in Greece, Italy and Spain have collapsed or been voted out of power in the past year, and 2012 brings presidential elections in the United States, France and Russia.

ASIA NOT IMMUNE

The fall-out from Europe’s debt crisis is being felt far and wide.

Japan already has endured nearly two decades of lost economic growth and weak political leadership after its financial bubble collapsed in the early 1990s.

George Friedman, geopolitical strategist and chief executive of Stratfor Global Intelligence, sees a distinct risk that China too will join the club of countries in political stalemate, subdued or stalled growth and popular unrest – with potentially serious consequences.

“When the United States, Europe and China go into a crisis of this sort, it can reasonably be said that the center of gravity of the world’s economy and most of its military power is in crisis. It is not a trivial moment,” Friedman wrote in “Dominoes of Doom” on the website EconomyWatch.com.

China’s economy, heavily dependent on exports, is slowing fast. Officials described the global economic outlook as “extremely grim” last month after its annual work conference, signaling deep concern as China enters a year of leadership change.

The Chinese government responded to the global recession spawned by the 2007-2008 financial meltdown with a massive credit expansion that has stoked inflation and fed a property boom. It also increased controls on the economy through state-owned companies, further concentrating state power, which Friedman sees as politically destabilizing as growth slows down.

Witness the past month villagers in southern China in a 10-day standoff with public officials over land expropriation, thousands marching in Haimen city to protest a power plant and a worker sit-in in Dongguan city demanding back pay after their paper plant closed.

ENDING PARALYSIS

The best that can be hoped for in 2012 is a muddling through, where economic growth in the United States averages around 2 percent compared with zero in the euro zone, analysts said. World growth, buoyed by emerging markets, looks set to average around 3 percent.

Martin Sass, founder of the New York based hedge fund M.D. Sass with $7.5 billion under management, is among those pinning his hopes on the elections breaking the stalemate. “I never expected the level of dysfunction in the U.S. and European lawmaking … and I never saw fundamentals count for so little in the stock market. Politics and contagion were the drivers of this underperforming market, not balance sheets and earnings.”

“It is going to take a new election in November (in the United States) to get any legislation through to deal with our problems,” Sass said.

If the political system starts functioning effectively again, Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive officer at PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund, said it’s not too late for policymakers to catch up and avert serious economic downturn.

But elections alone may not prove the answer. To break the paralysis, political leaders need to offer a new vision, one that rebalances the cozy linkage between finance and politics, otherwise the credibility of the political system will remain compromised, said Scheherazade Rehman, professor of international affairs and finance at George Washington University.

“There has to be a shifting of our institutions. The banking system is at the heart of our economic system and with it extraordinary ties to the political system. We have to rethink the close relationship that caused the breakage,” she said.

The political crisis shot to the foreground this year as voters lost confidence in how governments responded to the 2007-2008 financial crisis, global recession and the resulting explosion in sovereign debt levels. Two narratives have emerged of what went wrong. The left casts the banker as the prime villain, unpunished by the political elite who allowed CEOs to violate all the principles of fiduciary and moral responsibility in pursuit of personal gain, which fuels the perception of a political system in collusion with a criminal financial elite it is unwilling to punish.

The right-wing narrative casts big government as the villain for exploiting the crisis to expand its regulatory powers that intrude on free markets, and to spend money on huge bailouts and social welfare programs that have only exploded the budget deficit.

In both narratives, the victim is the average citizen who is left paying a gigantic bill – through high unemployment, higher taxes and lost economic opportunity. Either way, the compact between political governance and economic life has broken.

“The political reaction, whether big government is seen at fault or big business, the reaction is that the system is tainted and there is too much crony capitalism at work,” said Raghuram Rajan, finance professor at the University of Chicago and former International Monetary Fund chief economist.

There is a distinct possibility that political dysfunction will continue well after the 2012 elections – held in May for France and November for the United States, while China completes its leadership handover by the spring of 2013.

In the United States, voters could return a divided and polarized Congress again, continuing the legislative standoff. One-party rule may prove little better, if the path chosen toward budgetary discipline is excessive taxation or ultra-steep budget cuts. In France, the election winner’s relationship with Germany and fellow EU leaders will prove critical.

Although Western democracy has demonstrated the flexibility to reform when facing severe challenges, the shadow of the 1930s looms large. This uncertainty over whether strong political leadership can emerge in 2012 is haunting markets.

John Browne, senior economic consultant to Euro Pacific Capital, is among the pessimists. He told clients in his year end note that American and European Union politicians have shown utter unwillingness to take tough decisions they know should be enacted to avoid looming global economic disaster.

“With an estimated $6 trillion plus solvency shortfall of the euro zone banks, and $16 trillion in U.S. public debt, it will take leadership of far greater caliber to avert a disaster. Such leadership is nowhere in sight,” he said.

(Reporting By Stella Dawson; editing by Claudia Parsons)

Source

Veterans Day 2011

image

History

On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918 an armistice between Germany and the Allied nations came into effect. On November 11, 1919, Armistice Day was commemorated for the first time. In 1919, President Wilson proclaimed the day should be “filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory”. There were plans for parades, public meetings and a brief suspension of business activities at 11am.

In 1926, the United States Congress officially recognized the end of World War I and declared that the anniversary of the armistice should be commemorated with prayer and thanksgiving. The Congress also requested that the president should “issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.”

An Act (52 Stat. 351; 5 U. S. Code, Sec. 87a) was approved on May 13, 1938, which made November 11 in each year a legal holiday, known as Armistice Day. This day was originally intended to honor veterans of World War I. A few years later, World War II required the largest mobilization of service men in the history of the United States and the American forces fought in Korea. In 1954, the veterans service organizations urged Congress to change the word “Armistice” to “Veterans”. Congress approved this change and on June 1, 1954, November 11 became a day to honor all American veterans, where ever and whenever they had served.

In 1968 the Uniforms Holiday Bill (Public Law 90-363 (82 Stat. 250)) made an attempt to move Veterans Day to the fourth Monday of October. The bill took effect in 1971. However, this caused a lot of confusion as many states disagreed with this decision and continued to hold Veterans Day activities on November 11. In 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed Public Law 94-97 (89 Stat. 479), which stated that Veterans Day would again be observed on November 11 from 1978 onwards. Veterans Day is still observed on November 11.

Sea Axe – The Workboat Of Billionaires

image

By John Konrad On October 27, 2011

Could the world’s most desirable mega-yacht be an oil field workboat in disguise?

This week an armada of boats lay siege on Fort Lauderdale for the year’s largest boat show and, like models during fashion week, countless mega-yachts arrive daily with hopes of seducing a billionaire to sleep in her cabin. But, for one exceptional beauty, this is not the goal.

With a sharp chiseled bow softened by elegant curves the Sea Axe is a genuine head turner. Her looks are unique and stunning but, unlike most other yachts of her type, they also serve a function enabling her to cut through chop and blaze down the face of a following sea at high speed. Even more intriguing is her lineage. The latest in a line of workboats designed by Damen Shipyards, her unique shape is based off the Fast Crew Supplier, a workboat developed  to service oil rigs in the rough waters of the North Sea. This fact, combined with her natural beauty, is what most intrigues the world’s wealthier individuals.

The Sea Axe FYS (Fast Yacht Support), as she is named, is not designed to be the primary yacht of billionaires. Instead she is designed as an elegant work horse capable of both turning heads and carrying the toys of her wealthy owners. The Sea Axe’s generous deck space provides plenty of room for a launch boat, jet skis, automobiles and a helicopter.

In addition to toys  the Sea Axe can also carry fuels, consumables, waste and extra staff. In short, the Sea Axe lets owners make the most of their luxury megayacht experience by acting as a floating storage room for extra people and stuff. And she is fast capable of speeds up to 28 knots with a sailing range of 5,000 nautical miles (at 18-knots).

In the Christopher Guest-directed comedy, Best in Show, one character is continuously approached by men she once slept with.  The details of her pre-marital love affairs, combined with her wardrobe of scant lycra pull-ups, leads her neurotic husband to compare her to “a cocktail waitress on an oil rig.”

One day the lucky owner of Sea Axe may be similarly dismissive but, this week in Fort Lauderdale, this working class girl of Aberdeen is truly the best in show.

Source

GULF OIL CORPORATION

Official Gulf Oil Corporation photos from a pr...

Image via Wikipedia

GULF OIL CORPORATION. The Gulf Oil Corporation was an expansion of the J. M. Guffey Petroleum Company, which was organized in May 1901, and which acquired the interests of Anthony F. Lucas and John A. Galey in the Spindletop Oilfield. In this company, organized to exploit the new oil discovery, Guffey had a seven-fifteenths interest, while A. W. and R. B. Mellon and some of their associates including James H. Reed, William Flinn, J. D. Callery, T. H. Given, and Joshua Rhodes owned the balance. Later in the same year the same men organized the Gulf Refining Company of Texas for the purpose of refining and marketing the crude oil produced by the Guffey company, and a refinery was built at Port Arthur. By the fall of 1902 approximately $6 million had been invested in the two companies, and the dwindling production at Spindletop made necessary a reorganization. W. L. Mellon was placed in active charge of the Guffey and Gulf operations, although J. M. Guffey remained the nominal head for five years more. Only the most efficient management kept the two companies from going bankrupt during the period 1902 to 1907, when Texas crude production continued to decline. In January 1907 the Gulf Oil Corporation was formed with A. W. Mellon as president, and Guffey’s interest was purchased for about $3 million. The Gulf Oil Corporation then built a 400-mile pipe line from Port Arthur to the Glenn Pool field in Oklahoma, which had been discovered in 1906, and began refining Oklahoma crude in September 1907. A subsidiary, the Gypsy Oil Company, was organized under Frank A. Leovy to handle production operations in Oklahoma. Altogether the reorganization and expansion program required an additional investment of $7 million, but by the end of 1908 Gulf’s position had become relatively strong. In less than two years following the opening of the Glenn Pool pipeline Gulf’s production had more than doubled and had exceeded the refinery throughput of 11,000 barrels daily. During the next twenty years Gulf’s growth was steady, the company expanding its production operations into nearly all of the major oilfields in the United States and into Mexico and Venezuela. In West Texas Gulf became the leading producer. A network of pipelines connected Gulf’s production with refineries at Port Arthur, Fort Worth (built in 1911), Bayonne, New Jersey (1925), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1926), and Sweetwater, Texas (1928). By 1928 the company’s assets had grown to an estimated $232 million, while crude production rose to 78 million barrels annually.

Gulf’s organization was characterized by integration from production of crude to retailing of refinery products. In 1929 it was decided to expand the retail business, which had been concentrated in the south and east, into Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan. At the beginning of the Great Depression a $90 million expansion program was undertaken, which included the building of refineries in Cincinnati, Toledo, and Pittsburgh, the construction of an 800-mile pipeline from Oklahoma to Ohio, and the acquisition of more than 400 marketing facilities. Partially because of the expansion program the depression severely affected Gulf; for the first time in its history the company operated at a loss in 1931. The depression period brought about retrenchment and some internal reorganization of the company. In general the policy of maintaining and operating service stations was abandoned in favor of leasing them to independent operators, and each of the four major departments (production, transportation, refining, and marketing) was placed on a separate accounting basis. By the mid-1930s the company began to prosper again, and the dramatic increase in demand for oil during World War II further fueled the company’s expansion. In 1950, with a capital investment of $1,075,000,000 and owned by more than 32,000 persons, the Gulf Oil Corporation had 43,000 employees, carried on extensive production in the United States, Venezuela, Kuwait, and Canada, operated 10,000 miles of pipelines and a large fleet of tankers, and sold the products of its refineries through more than 36,000 service stations in the United States and nearly as many others in foreign countries. In 1951 Gulf Oil Corporation completed one of the world’s largest (at the time) catalytic cracking units in Port Arthur, Texas, and in the same year began construction of plants in Port Arthur for the manufacture of ethylene and isooctyl alcohol, a major move in developing its petrochemicals capacity. While the Fort Worth, Sweetwater, and Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) refineries were dismantled in the 1950s after the facilities had become obsolete, the Port Arthur and Philadelphia refineries continued to expand and the Toledo and Cincinnati refineries were modernized. New refineries were built or acquired in the United States, with additions at Purvis, Mississippi, Santa Fe Springs, California, and Venice, Louisiana.

Increasing its capital expenditures in the 1950s, Gulf joined with B. F. Goodrich Company to form a new company, Gulf-Goodrich Chemicals, Incorporated, through which Gulf maintained an important position in the manufacture of synthetic rubber from petroleum-derived feedstocks. It also acquired Warren Petroleum Corporation in 1956 and that same year increased its interest in British American Oil Company by trading Gulf’s Canadian properties for 8,335,648 common shares of British American stock, bringing Gulf’s interest in that company to 58 percent. Gulf also extended its exploration and production operations in the 1950s, including an extensive program for exploration of underwater leases in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana, which became one of the company’s leading domestic producing areas. With the conclusion of World War II, Gulf, as a 55-percent participant in Kuwait Oil Company, resumed operations in Kuwait to put into production petroleum discovered there about the time of the war’s outbreak. Production from these vast reserves climbed steadily and yielded for Gulf’s interest an average of more than 1.3 million barrels per day in 1967. Gulf owned or had an interest in twenty-two refineries in addition to those in the United States. Adding to its European refining capacity, refineries at Milford Haven, Wales, and Huelva, Spain, went on stream in 1968 and a permit was obtained for construction of a refinery at Milan, Italy, to further strengthen Gulf’s capacity to supply products for its growing European markets. Discoveries in Bolivia and Nigeria were developed in the 1960s and added significantly to Gulf’s foreign oil production. Production from discoveries in Colombia and Cabinda was expected to begin before the end of 1968, and substantial discoveries were made in Ecuador. Gulf was producing oil and gas from eleven nations as its explorations continued in thirty countries. A milestone in Gulf’s marketing operations was reached in 1966. With the acquisition in 1960 of Wilshire Oil Company of California and in 1966 of mid-continental retail outlets and storage and distribution facilities of Cities Service Oil Company, Gulf for the first time had service station representation in all forty-eight adjoining states of the continental United States. Gulf’s transportation facilities moved more than a million barrels of crude oil daily from oilfields to refineries throughout the world by pipelines and tankers. In 1968 the world’s largest ship, the 312,000-deadweight-ton tanker, Universe Ireland, was placed in service for Gulf. It was the first of six such tankers planned for use by the company to deliver Middle Eastern and West African crudes to deepwater terminals at Bantry Bay, Ireland, and at Okinawa for transshipment to European and Far Eastern refineries by smaller vessels. Refining capacity was increased along with Gulf’s expansion in other petroleum operations. The company owned full or partial interest in thirty United States and foreign refineries. In 1967 the company processed an average of 1,295,000 barrels of crude oil daily. By the 1960s Gulf had become a major producer of petrochemicals, plastics, and agricultural chemicals. In 1967 Gulf entered the field of nuclear energy. In this program it began uranium exploration and acquired the General Atomic Division of General Dynamics Corporation, renaming the subsidiary Gulf General Atomic Incorporated. At the end of 1967, with total assets of $6.5 billion owned by more than 163,000 shareholders, Gulf Oil Corporation had 58,000 employees working in more than fifty nations to provide the world with petroleum and other energy-producing products.

Gulf fell on hard times in the 1970s. Several of its key management figures were implicated in illegal political contributions in the early 1970s, and their successors, in the eyes of many in the oil community, failed to provide clear and aggressive leadership. The company’s long and valuable association with Kuwait ended in 1975, when Gulf’s operations there were nationalized by the Kuwaiti government. In spite of costly attempts to find new sources of oil, the company’s reserve supply was rapidly dwindling by the late 1970s, declining by 40 percent between 1978 and 1982. In 1983 Gulf was still the sixth largest oil company in the United States and managed to turn its oil reserve crisis around, replacing 95 percent of its reserves by the end of the year. Because of what many perceived to be its weak and excessively bureaucratic management structure, Gulf seemed a good candidate for a takeover. In August of 1983 Thomas Boone Pickens’s Mesa Petroleum Corporation, rebounding from an unsuccessful attempt to acquire General American Oil Company, began to buy up shares of Gulf Oil. After Mesa had gained control of 11 percent of Gulf’s stock, Pickens engaged in a proxy fight for control of the company. Gulf executives fought Boone’s takeover and eventually invited takeover offers from other companies and collections of investors. On March 5, 1984, the Gulf board voted to sell the company to Chevron (Standard Oil of California) for $13.2 billion. Gulf operations were merged into Chevron in what was the largest corporate merger to date.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Craig Thompson, Since Spindletop: A Human Story of Gulf’s First Half-Century (Pittsburgh: Gulf Oil, 1951). Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991).

Original Article

%d bloggers like this: