POLITICAL CONTROL OF PRODUCTION

The status of the political control of the world’s output of petroleum in 1917, as determined by the best data now available, is indicated in the [table] following.

The accompanying diagram ([Figure 1]) shows the proportion of the world’s production of petroleum contributed annually by each of the principal producing countries in each of the last ten years.

Table 2.—Political Control of the World’s Production of Petroleum in 1917

Source
of production
Quantity of
production
(barrels)
Percentage
of total
Country
exercising
political
control
United States335,315,601 66.17United States
Russia 69,000,000 13.62Russia
Mexico 55,292,770 10.91Mexico
Dutch East Indies 12,928,955  2.55Holland
India8,078,843  1.59Great Britain
Persia  6,856,063  1.36Persia
Galicia  5,965,447  1.18Poland (?)
Japan and Formosa  2,898,654  0.57Japan
Roumania  2,681,870  0.55Roumania
Peru  2,533,417  0.50Peru
Trinidad  1,599,455  0.32Great Britain
Argentina  1,144,737  0.23Argentina
Egypt  1,008,750  0.20Great Britain
Germany    995,764  0.20Germany
Canada    205,332  0.04Great Britain
Venezuela    127,743  0.03Venezuela
Italy     50,334  0.01Italy
Cuba     19,167...Cuba
506,702,902100.00

Fig. 1.—Proportion of the world’s output of petroleum contributed annually by each of the chief producing countries, 1908-1917.

Aside from the control exercised by Great Britain through its protectorate relation over the petroleum resources of Egypt, control of the petroleum resources of the various countries is mainly by virtue of state sovereignty. This political control is in proportion to the strength of the government in the country exercising it. Recent developments whereby the British government becomes the majority stockholder of a corporation controlling the oil resources of Persia, practically transfer the political control, as well as the commercial control, of Persian petroleum from Persia to England. Mexico’s recently attempted firm political control of her vast petroleum resources depends for its success upon her diplomatic ability in dealing with the stronger governments of England and the United States, whose nationals have acquired a commercial control that is threatened by Mexico’s new and decided nationalistic policy.