Oil: Money, Politics, And Power In The 21st Century: What You Should Be Reading This Week

It's impossible to know everything, but we're willing to give it the old college try. Each week we'll be looking at books that help make sense of the world around us. We're not trying to be the smartest here -- just smarter than everyone we know.

More than two months after Deepwater Horizon exploded off the coast of Louisiana, BP announced this week that its gaffe-prone chief executive, Tony Hayward, would be replaced by -- of all people -- Robert Dudley, the current head of BP's operations in the region. The irony of the appointment may be coincidental, but it suggests the broader cavalier behavior in the bones of the oil biz. Oil: Money, Politics, and Power in the 21st Century offers a narrative of the oil industry over the past two decades, following the major executives, traders and politicians as they wrestle for big profits and access to the world's most important natural resource.

“Elephants” And “Orphans”

Tom Bower's account of the oil industry takes us through the fine print of negotiations between Big Oil and government for access to reserves, consolidation among the major companies and a (basically) unregulated market for trading the commodity. It’s equal parts politics and business, with valuable lessons for guys who deal with shifty international partners.

The text is dense but enlightening, and several patterns emerge. One that’s central to the book and gives context to the Deepwater mess is the boom/bust cycle. Explorers find an "elephant,” or major reserve, and there’s serious dick swinging; drilling into an ”orphan,” or dry well, means losses in the millions (or billions) and shame in the industry. (It definitely sounds shameful.) The same is true with successful/collapsed negotiations, and with good publicity or bad press resulting from accidents or spills. In all cases, the business reacts loudly and then runs for cover. “In oil, mistakes get buried in the mists of time,” waxed Philip Watts, former chairman of Shell.

More For Less

It turns out that BP’s chief executive from 1995-2007 spent most of his tenure doing bong rips off the mists of time. Although each of the majors has done its share of grim bidding -- Exxon in Alaska (major spill), Shell and Chevron in Nigeria (major death) -- John Browne’s motto was “more for less,” and he had a reputation for relying more on management consultants than on engineers. Safety lapsed, with a series of fatal explosions in Texas and Alaska, oil leaking from corroded pipes in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and -- in the Gulf of Mexico -- the Thunder Horse platform tilting a dangerous 20 degrees because of poor engineering, which BP had farmed out to freelance contractors.

“How can you prove BP is 'Beyond Petroleum'?” Browne was asked. “We’re only a petroleum company. It's a simplistic and provocative slogan. The press will be cynical. They'll murder it. And so will Exxon.”

While he was cutting costs to boost profits, Browne  -- who, not that it’s important, apparently met his lover on a site called Suited and Booted -- claimed, insanely, that BP was the first “green” oil major. Together with the ad guys at Ogilvy, he replaced BP's old tag, “British Petroleum,” with the shinier “Beyond Petroleum.” He was reinventing the company with a new, environmentally friendly image.

Which, uh, didn't work out.

The reality is that oil is a risky business, environmentally and politically. Corruption is practically required to get at oil reserves in the Third World. Scandal and mishap are the cost of doing business. And even developed governments can only do so much to regulate. Energy security and expectations of endless fuel demand their cooperation, at least until entire coastlines are threatened. The question now is whether Deepwater Horizon will lead to any fundamental change in the oil game. Bower's book, already on the press at the time of the spill, gives us context to believe that it won't.

The Truth Hurts

"Back in the 1910s and 1920s, everyone went to Latin America and talked about risks. Indonesia was meant to be terribly politically risky. We went to Saudi Arabia and we went to Iran and got nationalized twice. We got thrown out of Libya. My point is that's the nature of the business." 

- Lee Raymond, former CEO and Chairman of ExxonMobil, quoted in Oil: Money, Politics, And Power In The 21st Century


Read more: http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/austin_500/517_oil-money-politics-and-power-in-the-21st-century-what-you-should-be-reading-this-week.html

Tweet

Read More

Manliness In Politics

At the very least, a manly person will exhibit confidence and a willingness to shoulder responsibilities and burdens with courage and without complaint."

President Teddy Roosevelt and General George S. Patton, appraising the current state of the American male, would not findLarry David and Paul Rudd “hilarious." Not even in that super neurotic way. Nor would they think highly of Tom Brady’s decision to make his hair look exactly like Justin Bieber’s. They would shake their heads and kick the dirt, wondering what happened to their kind: robust, manly American men, resolving to ride to Washington to lecture our leaders. But there, a glimmer of hope would emerge. They would discover that while “manliness” is far less important in people’s private lives than in previous eras, manliness in politics is still a desirable if not required quality.

The Core Of Manliness

To understand why manliness in politics is still necessary, we need to uncover what manliness means. While our concept of the term has changed with the generations -- from the solitary frontiersman to the company man with kids -- certain themes endure. At the very least, a manly person will exhibit confidence and a willingness to shoulder responsibilities and burdens with courage and without complaint. This person will also have an ability to form a clear plan of action and lead others in pursuit of its goal. The sign on President Truman’s Oval Office desk -- “The Buck Stops Here” -- is nothing if not manly virtue. It’s important to note that these qualities are not exclusive to the Y-chromosome; history is replete with examples of manly people who happen to be female.

The Benefits Of Manliness In Politics

Why is manliness valuable for national leaders? The answer lies in the analogy between manly virtues and martial virtues, the qualities that make for a good soldier or a good military commander. It’s no surprise that the latter has been a lasting archetype of manliness.

The more an environment has the structural features of war -- high stakes, ruthless competitors, limited information -- the more it makes sense to have manly leaders, whether they are in big business or politics. But what makes international and domestic politics like war?

The international realm presents a clear parallel, since the actors compete feverishly to advance their interests, often uncertain about others’ intentions and capabilities. There are exceptions to this, places where nations work together in conditions of trust and shared aims, but international politics generally aren’t like a bowling league, and having manly qualities is useful in navigating the terrain.

A manly leader will have the confidence to compete, to project an aura of personal and national power and to make fast decisions in times of international crisis. During the Cuban Missile Crisis,President Kennedy called upon these traits to rapidly assess the risk of nuclear war tied to various policy proposals, to select one option (for example, naval quarantine as opposed to air assault of Cuba) and to stare down Soviet Premier Khrushchev.

Domestic politics, with its rabid party competition and a constitutional structure that pits individuals and branches of government against one another, are also similar to war. Strong and courageous leadership is necessary these days to get even the smallest bill passed.

The Possible Costs Of Manly Politicians

Beyond its core of positive attributes, the definition of manliness, and its usefulness to leaders, is less clear.

Manliness may entail a “puffiness,” as it were, whereby one jealously guards his pride, possibly exuding an air of macho pretentiousness. A manly person might be unwilling to change a course of action, ask for help or own up to his mistakes. He does not pull over for directions. George W. Bush seemed to make a point of having these qualities, with often catastrophic consequences. One inspired exception, to be fair, was his decision to “surge” in Iraq. Often misinterpreted as a change of direction, it was nothing more than a strong-headed doubling down on his war plan, perhaps the product of a manly refusal to admit he was wrong.

Two further questions about the definition of manliness are crucial as the term relates to politics. First, it’s unclear whether a manly person merely takes challenges as they come or actively seeks them out. This tension dovetails the difference between real cowboys, who are a rather quiet and meticulous bunch who keep to themselves, and movie cowboys, who often hunt for peril, hungry to put their honor on the line. To the extent that manly politicians seek out conflict, danger and war for their own sake or without sufficient caution, manliness is detrimental, often coming with the high cost of bloodshed.

Second, once presented with a challenge, desired or not, there may be a limit to how long a manly person will deliberate before forming a plan. Philosopher Harvey Mansfield describes manliness as knowing how to be confident in situations of insufficient knowledge. We can still wonder when we can responsibly declare that we should stop gathering information, but after a certain point, a manly person will not dither. He assesses, he decides and he does not look back. Such leadership is strong and comforting. At the edges, though, manliness might involve a dangerous degree of rashness. When candidates like John Kerry are declared flip-floppers, that most grievous of political barbs, it is their manliness (aside from their integrity) that is being called into question.

Are Republicans More Manly Than Democrats?

Manliness is agnostic as to its goals -- it can be employed for big or small government, for great good or great evil -- and no party has a monopoly over the term. In recent years, however, republicans have claimed the mantle of manliness for themselves, with much political success. Indeed, their worst policy moments, from their seeming impetuousness for war to their suppression of dissent, stem from having too much, rather than too little manliness. Sarah Palin epitomizes this dark side of the concept, the manly vices.

For their part, Democrats have lost something of the clarity of vision and purpose that marked their manly forbears, like FDR, Truman and JFK. While President Obama has undeniable manly confidence and robust leadership abilities, the simplicity and boldness that characterizes how a manly leader handles problems sometimes escapes him, especially when he appeals to the murky notion of “pragmatism.” He needs to clarify his vision of justice and security to shake off the notion that he is someone who handles problems piecemeal, rather than one who leads a nation in his chosen direction. He needs to reassert, in short, that he exhibits manly virtues. This applies, only more dramatically, to the Democratic Party as a whole.  

Manliness And The Vote

When people go to the voting booths this November and in 2012, whom they choose will depend not only on which policies they support, but on which candidates have the requisite manliness to lead the country. And that makes sense. While the costs of manliness are real, the benefits of the manly attitude propel the world forward.

Read  more: http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/special_feature_500/567b_manliness-in-politics.html

Tweet

Read More