| Million dollars., | |
| Wells bored and in production | 100 |
| Value of ground on which they are situated | 50 |
| Pipe-lines, railways and rolling-stock | 50 |
| Refineries, buildings and machinery | 50 |
| Various properties, chiefly British | 50 |
[21] Cp. chap. ii, Oil: Its Origin, Discovery, and History.
[22] July 1920.
[23] Each Mexican well produced as much, in 1920, as 537 American wells.
A STATE-SUBSIDIZED COMPANY: THE ANGLO-PERSIAN
Although the United States, in spite of the civil wars they let loose there, could never drive Pearson out of Mexico, they triumphed over him in Central America and the chief States of South America by the mere force of their prestige. During 1912 and 1913 Pearson obtained concessions in Costa Rica, Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador. That would have given him a monopoly of the supply of oil to all shipping passing through the Panama Canal. Washington placed its veto on these concessions and caused them to be annulled in the name of the Monroe Doctrine. No South American republic dared to resist.
Meanwhile the Shell installed itself in Trinidad, a British colony, then in Venezuela and Colombia. To quiet all fears it was wise enough to associate itself with American firms: for example, the Colon Development was founded, a British company constituted in common with the American Carib Syndicate. It has since come out that all the British shares are grouped in the hands of the Burlington Investment, which is itself dependent on the Royal Dutch-Shell. Not having succeeded directly, through Pearson, who was too much distrusted by America, Britain has none the less succeeded indirectly, through Deterding, in controlling the entrance to the Panama Canal.