NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,490984,00.html
Despite being one of the world's largest oil producers, Iran has introduced gasoline rationing. The move caused long lines at the pumps -- and rioting.

The problem they're having is a lack of refining capacity, caused by an underinvestment in refining. While I wouldn't want to suggest that this is because there's no one encouraged to take inititative and make a chunk of money by increasing capacity (actually, no, that's exactly what I want to suggest), their response to the problem is the really interesting part (and smacks of another leader making headlines in relation to oil) - just offer very subsidised prices "so even the very poor can afford petrol".

The subsidies have been getting more and more expensive and the government hasn't been able to afford them in years. Ahmadinejad didn't want to abolish them because he knew it would cause a backlash.

So that's their solution: keep the same cheap price, just restrict supply. The result is a mess, as you would expect.

What does this have to do with nationalizing the oil industry? Something that has been done in Venezuela and Russia as well (well, at least for all intensive purposes) without it being the cause or having to do with gas rationing.

What does this have to do with nationalizing the oil industry? Something that has been done in Venezuela and Russia as well (well, at least for all intensive purposes) without it being the cause or having to do with gas rationing.Nothing--it's a way of making a claim when there's no underlying evidence. It's much like looking at correlative instead of causative evidence.

What does this have to do with nationalizing the oil industry? Something that has been done in Venezuela and Russia as well (well, at least for all intensive purposes) without it being the cause or having to do with gas rationing.
That's because it's not an immediate effect. It's the lack of investment (in this case in refining capacity) that brings down not-for-profit businesses in an industry like this.

That's because it's not an immediate effect. It's the lack of investment (in this case in refining capacity) that brings down not-for-profit businesses in an industry like this.

I doubt that connection can be made on the face of it. Refining capacity can be controlled just like drilling capacity. Nationalizing on its own is not going to selectively cause refining capacity to drop while not effecting drilling.

I doubt that connection can be made on the face of it. Refining capacity can be controlled just like drilling capacity. Nationalizing on its own is not going to selectively cause refining capacity to drop while not effecting drilling.
There's nothing specific about refining capacity as such, no.

The deal is this: if you're in the business to make money and there's competitors out there, you're constantly driven to find ways to earn more money. Whether it's drilling capacity, refining capacity or any other sort of supply - when demand starts to seriously exceed supply you're going to want to be in there.

Not-for-profit operations don't have this pressure. This doesn't naturally make them not want to expand capacities, but it takes away a big reason for it. In the case of Iran, the remaining incentive was government policymaking, which is generally slow, often misinformed, easily hijacked by interest groups or just has different criteria. For example, expanding drilling capacity is a relatively simple operation and in Iran's case directly yields crude export revenue. Refinineries are more difficult to build and cutting edge designs are often trade secrets developed by large companies, which the Iranian government is unlikely to match. They also cost more in maintenance, and the pay-off is twofold: one being the petrol they can offer domestically (which is price controlled and hence won't earn much) and the other petrol exports (in which case they'd be competing with aforementioned cutting edge designs).

So they won't make money of it, they'd most likely be losing money. Now try to walk up to your cash-strapped head of government department and convince him to build a massive refinery because you anticipate shortages in the future...your plan is always going to lose out when compared to other uses for the money. That's why chances are nothing will be done until the crisis is actually at hand (which is what seems to be the case now) - and now it will still take years until the extra capacity is actually online.

There's nothing specific about refining capacity as such, no.

The deal is this: if you're in the business to make money and there's competitors out there, you're constantly driven to find ways to earn more money. Whether it's drilling capacity, refining capacity or any other sort of supply - when demand starts to seriously exceed supply you're going to want to be in there.

Not-for-profit operations don't have this pressure. This doesn't naturally make them not want to expand capacities, but it takes away a big reason for it. In the case of Iran, the remaining incentive was government policymaking, which is generally slow, often misinformed, easily hijacked by interest groups or just has different criteria. For example, expanding drilling capacity is a relatively simple operation and in Iran's case directly yields crude export revenue. Refinineries are more difficult to build and cutting edge designs are often trade secrets developed by large companies, which the Iranian government is unlikely to match. They also cost more in maintenance, and the pay-off is twofold: one being the petrol they can offer domestically (which is price controlled and hence won't earn much) and the other petrol exports (in which case they'd be competing with aforementioned cutting edge designs).

So they won't make money of it, they'd most likely be losing money. Now try to walk up to your cash-strapped head of government department and convince him to build a massive refinery because you anticipate shortages in the future...your plan is always going to lose out when compared to other uses for the money. That's why chances are nothing will be done until the crisis is actually at hand (which is what seems to be the case now) - and now it will still take years until the extra capacity is actually online.

Second question. Since when did nationalized = not for profit? Venezuela's nationalized oil industry certainly operates for profit.

Not even going to bother posting here, post another of NL's unfounded and evidenceless anti-leftist posts to attract attention to his own immature trollish rantings.

Congrats NL, you have become the new MTAE.

Statoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil) would like to disagree with this thread.

Second question. Since when did nationalized = not for profit? Venezuela's nationalized oil industry certainly operates for profit.
In which case the process I was describing is a little weaker. But given that it is in fact a state-run company, the pressures are not nearly as great. You wouldn't expect PDVSA to actually go bankrupt if they made a mistake. Add the lack of competition and the political motives for some of the decisions they make and you can see why there's a big chance that the firm will fall behind.

And just to support that point: There's not an analyst in the world who doesn't say that Gazprom is seriously underfunding maintenance operations, which they couldn't afford if they weren't protected from harm (both legal and economic) by the Russian state. And now it's proposed they get to start their own military...that's further than Exxon ever got!

Congrats NL, you have become the new MTAE.
AP accusing NL of being MTAE? LOL, OMG!

For the record though: I'm not anti-left, I'm anti-state control. Hence why I'm not a fan of Gazprom either though you wouldn't call Putin a leftist.

Statoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil) would like to disagree with this thread.
I invite you to read the article. Not only is the firm now on the share market, but it was run by independent management as a money-making operation.

The initial idea was to allow for the building of skills and expertise needed to create a domestic oil industry.

So state-owned? Yes.

But not state-controlled.

What happens when you have a nationalised oil industry?I dont know

ask AB reborn, he lives in Brazil, or any of the on of the Generalites from Venezuela.

Not even going to bother posting here

Too late.

post another of NL's unfounded and evidenceless anti-leftist posts to attract attention to his own immature trollish rantings.

The only one being immature here is you.

Congrats NL, you have become the new MTAE.

Only in your own mind...the rest of us know better.

What does this have to do with nationalizing the oil industry? Something that has been done in Venezuela and Russia as well (well, at least for all intensive purposes) without it being the cause or having to do with gas rationing.

You know, examples aren't going to make Neu Leonstein change his mind. He's so pro-market and anti-State that he makes Adam Smith look like a communist. :D

I must add that I don't think that NL is a troll, least of all the new MTAE. The difference? He tries to explain his point of view and usually gives some reliable source. Also, usually he doesn't flame at others because they debate or counter his opinions.

About the OP: in Italy, when petrol industry was nationalised (almost totally state-owned, through ENI and AGIP of the IRI state group) gas prices were very lower than they are now. Since the liberalisation of the petrol market, prices have been rising constantly, even when the crude price was going down. Hell, we pay more than 1,33 euro/litre. So, imo, we fared better with the nationalisation.

In which case the process I was describing is a little weaker. But given that it is in fact a state-run company, the pressures are not nearly as great. You wouldn't expect PDVSA to actually go bankrupt if they made a mistake. Add the lack of competition and the political motives for some of the decisions they make and you can see why there's a big chance that the firm will fall behind.

And just to support that point: There's not an analyst in the world who doesn't say that Gazprom is seriously underfunding maintenance operations, which they couldn't afford if they weren't protected from harm (both legal and economic) by the Russian state. And now it's proposed they get to start their own military...that's further than Exxon ever got!

Can you show me an analyst saying that about Gazprom? Something written in the last year, since things have been changing very quickly in Russia.

Being nationalized also has nothing to do with not being able to go bankrupt. Your business can fail whether it is under government control or not. As for competition, the oil/gas industry is not the corn industry. It does not operate as a competition merely on a national scale. Iran has other countries in OPEC to compete with, therefore yes, there is competition.

Well state is just the primary body for public, and taxation is the guardian of the public wealth, once you go down the road of excess capital production for profit instead of consumption, your going down the path of elitism. Sure the state is a representative body for the public, and can be and has been abused in the past, and it needs reforming, but people like you are against the public in general, you only care for your elite private interests and not for the common people. Sure common ownership as an ideology has been abused, but it is an ideal to be worked towards in a democratic consensus manner, if you are against it your against the people.

Not even going to bother posting here, post another of NL's unfounded and evidenceless anti-leftist posts ...and der spiegel is his bible ;)

and der spiegel is his bible ;)

DS is the conservative German whack-off session guide, I mean just read their articles regarding Iran and the like - it's like Faux does Germany.

ask AB reborn, he lives in Brazil
Not sure whether you have access to JSTOR, but if you do: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-6805(197222)46%3A2%3C182%3APTPOAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

Can you show me an analyst saying that about Gazprom? Something written in the last year, since things have been changing very quickly in Russia.
I suppose I should clarify: there's not a lot on underinvestment in maintenance, but there is a lot on underinvestment of (strangely enough) productive capacity...
http://www.upi.com/Energy/Analysis/2007/04/24/upi_energy_watch/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4MK616K-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2a76028b6a7a5a818aacc8a179741fdc
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1981818.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6072158.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/business/6496921.stm

Being nationalized also has nothing to do with not being able to go bankrupt. Your business can fail whether it is under government control or not.
Not if it's a state-controlled monopolist though. And besides, if it's under government control it's not my business, is it?

As for competition, the oil/gas industry is not the corn industry. It does not operate as a competition merely on a national scale. Iran has other countries in OPEC to compete with, therefore yes, there is competition.
And it's been doing fairly okay with crude exports. The area where it's not exposed to competition is the domestic market for refined petrol, hence the underinvestment.

see? I can play silly games and make nonsensical hyperbole, too.

Neu Leonstein, Kevin Rudd and his evil mob of trade union communists are going to come into your house come November and steal your property.

Well state is just the primary body for public, and taxation is the guardian of the public wealth
Huh? I would have thought taxation is the creator of public wealth and the treasury is the guardian...

...once you go down the road of excess capital production for profit instead of consumption...
The issue right now is too little capital production not for profit. Excess capital production would cut into your profit.

...but people like you are against the public in general, you only care for your elite private interests and not for the common people.
Well, first of all I'm flattered but I deliver pizzas. There's not a lot of elite about me.

And secondly, right now the common people aren't doing too well when it comes to getting petrol for their cars in Iran. And it's a pity too because I heard that together with an Indian company an Iranian firm has just introduced the first Iranian-designed and -built car for the masses.

The point is that state-control of particularly the oil industry has a history of failure. Even if you can find me an example where things worked out relatively well (for example Petrobras, though that's no longer state-controlled and only partly state-owned), the majority of these experiments have failed and the majority of large-scale failures to provide petrol to people has been the result of these experiments.

Why would you then continue to advocate it as a policy, when privately owned companies have a much better record providing people with affordable petrol? Why does it matter so much to you where the profits go, if it is indeed "the people" that are your priority?

Sure common ownership as an ideology has been abused, but it is an ideal to be worked towards in a democratic consensus manner, if you are against it your against the people.
I'm not against the people, I'm one of them myself.

I'm against people who use "the people" as justification for their policy ideas without any further supporting arguments. If you're going to hurt people (and by expropriating privately-run firms certainly hurts someone) the justification has to be pretty good to make sense from a utilitarian point of view. And even though there's shades of objectivist idealism in me, my support for the free market is based on utilitarian considerations before all others.

and der spiegel is his bible ;)
I can't help it, they write decent articles about stuff CNN and BBC don't report.

Unlike the German site, Spiegel International isn't so much a news website as a collection of commentaries and background information on current events. As such they make good and interesting reading most of the time and form a good basis for a debate on NSG.

Which doesn't mean that I don't disagree with quite a bit of stuff they write (or just find it boring). It's just that when I do, I don't post about it.

see? I can play silly games and make nonsensical hyperbole, too.
But the Iranian energy industry is heavily regulated.

Neu Leonstein, Kevin Rudd and his evil mob of trade union communists are going to come into your house come November and steal your property.
Fun fact: I hate Howard so much, if I could vote I'd vote ALP. And I would have done so last time too. They've got their faults, but they aren't going to do anything stupid and they're not oozing social conservatism, authoritarianism and xenophobia out of every orifice.

In fact, there are only two Liberal politicians who would make me consider voting for the Liberals, and they're Costello and Turnbull. And maybe that guy with the funny glasses, but just because he refused to support Howard a few months ago (I don't know much about him otherwise).

Not even going to bother posting here, post another of NL's unfounded and evidenceless anti-leftist posts to attract attention to his own immature trollish rantings.AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. My apologies. But it was just too fucking hilarious.

Well state is just the primary body for public, and taxation is the guardian of the public wealth, once you go down the road of excess capital production for profit instead of consumptionIn Andaras Prime, economics bankrupt YOU!

Jesus. Talk about lunacy.

Because you're sure going to make a profit when nobody consumes your product.

Because zero overproduction in a monopoly sure doesn't give the monopolist (Be it Microsoft or the state) the opportunity to reduce product quality to increase profits (Inelastic goods are awesome like that).

Because zero surplus value (== profit) sure wouldn't mean stagnation - but then, I suppose that living in dozen-strong bands of hunter-gatherers has its own charme.

No wonder you're opposed to private entrepeneurship - you would go broke in a matter of days.

If you're lucky, that is.

DS is the conservative German whack-off session guide, I mean just read their articles regarding Iran and the like - it's like Faux does Germany.You talking about the same Spiegel who is with some regularity pissing on these same conservatives (The high point being the Spiegel scandal in 1962)?

Anyway.

I quite like how everybody is citing assorted examples of state-run oil industries having no such problems (Quietly forgetting that they tend to have been nationalised quite recently, as is the case in Venezuela), but nobody is actually arguing the issue at hand - that sheer populism causes the Iranian government to limit access to gas to its own people, rather than investing in more infrastructure. That the state - as owner of the oil industry - doesn't appear to be interested in investing in the industry (Apparently public pressure isn't a concern), unsurprisingly, as exporting raw oil is more profitable than providing the locals with refined oil, or that bureaucracy is hampering it to no end.

Nah... Who would do something as silly as that?

I quite like how everybody is citing assorted examples of state-run oil industries having no such problems (Quietly forgetting that they tend to have been nationalised quite recently, as is the case in Venezuela),

Don't you include myself, young man.
I quoted the italian example. In Italy, energy marked has been liberalised recently. It has been nationalised, iirc, partly back in the '30s by Mussolini and then completely in the '60s by the NATO-aligned Democrazia Cristiana cabinets.


but nobody is actually arguing the issue at hand - that sheer populism causes the Iranian government to limit access to gas to its own people, rather than investing in more infrastructure.

...is there any need to repeat for the nth time that Ahmadinejad is a bloody right-wing populist who's exploiting the backwardness of most of the Iranian economy for his own political agenda? Really, is there any need?

...is there any need to repeat for the nth time that Ahmadinejad is a bloody right-wing populist who's exploiting the backwardness of most of the Iranian economy for his own political agenda? Really, is there any need?I hate to point out the blatantly obvious, but nationalisation/ state control remain nationalisation/ state control, regardless of whether you term any given leader and/ or his/ her party 'Left' or 'Right'. The issues raised apply regardless of which direction you see Ahmenedijihad coming from.

Also, I think 'Regardless' is an awesome word. Almost as good as 'Indeed'.

What happens when you have a nationalised oil industry?

I think I'll ask someone from Norway.

What happens when you have a nationalised oil industry?

I think I'll ask someone from Norway.

The system in Norway was way different than the one in other oil-producing companies. Statoil was created along with private sector companies in order to intentionally ensure it would have to compete with them, and along with government scrutiny of their business it ensured they were highly efficient despite being state-owned.

The system in Saudi Arabia or Iran is totally different. Not only is foreign direct investment restricted or outright banned (as it is in Saudi Arabia), but state-owned companies are given a monopoly and there is no independence or government review of their books. These companies are so loaded with patronage and rife with corruption that they are pretty much bank accounts for the people in power, and it eventually shows when production and the economy collapse due to mismanagement.

If the world's state-owned companies were designed like Statoil, there wouldn't be these kinds of problems. State ownership works fine if they have to compete, are given independence in their affairs, and have government review of their policies and leadership in order to ensure accountability.

The problem they're having is a lack of refining capacity, caused by an underinvestment in refining. While I wouldn't want to suggest that this is because there's no one encouraged to take inititative and make a chunk of money by increasing capacity (actually, no, that's exactly what I want to suggest), their response to the problem is the really interesting part (and smacks of another leader making headlines in relation to oil) - just offer very subsidised prices "so even the very poor can afford petrol".

You are aware that the lack of refineries in Iran is caused by the US sanctions, that make it practically impossible for Iran to find a oil refining company willing to settle there I assume ?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,490984,00.html


The problem they're having is a lack of refining capacity, caused by an underinvestment in refining. While I wouldn't want to suggest that this is because there's no one encouraged to take inititative and make a chunk of money by increasing capacity (actually, no, that's exactly what I want to suggest), their response to the problem is the really interesting part (and smacks of another leader making headlines in relation to oil) - just offer very subsidised prices "so even the very poor can afford petrol".

The subsidies have been getting more and more expensive and the government hasn't been able to afford them in years. Ahmadinejad didn't want to abolish them because he knew it would cause a backlash.

So that's their solution: keep the same cheap price, just restrict supply. The result is a mess, as you would expect.

If you nationalize in order to keep prices cheap for the common person, it's stupid to nationalize. If you nationalize in order to make a shitload of money for the country, and you don't subsidize gas prices, it's smart to nationalize.

You are aware that the lack of refineries in Iran is caused by the US sanctions, that make it practically impossible for Iran to find a oil refining company willing to settle there I assume ?

That's not really true. There are plenty of companies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia that trade with Iran and could easily invest to expand their oil refining infrastructure. The US's influence in the oil sector pales in comparison to the rest of the world so our sanctions have little effect on the industry. The problem is these foreign companies not investing both because of restrictions imposed by the Iranian government on investment and the country's unstable leadership.

Iran's state-owned oil sector is chronically underfunded and has been for nearly 30 years. The idiocy of their revolution drove out many experienced petroleum engineers and managers, depriving the country of the skilled workers and management needed to run the company and the oil industry properly. Their infrastructure is decaying due to mismanagement and they are not capable of developing their resources to their fullest potential.

In fact, Iran produces 2 million barrels per day less in 2007 than it did in 1977. It has never recovered from the Revolution.

If you nationalize in order to keep prices cheap for the common person, it's stupid to nationalize. If you nationalize in order to make a shitload of money for the country, and you don't subsidize gas prices, it's smart to nationalize.
But does government ever do anything just to make money? Can it withstand the calls to actually use that money for something, like in this case to provide cheap petrol?

If government wants to earn lots of money, it's easier to just invest as a minority shareholder in companies that do. Like China is doing with Blackstone.

EDIT: I just realised I answered my own question. If it invests in financial markets, then that's mainly to make money. But was there ever a state-owned and state-operated company that was simply profit maximising?

But does government ever do anything just to make money? Can it withstand the calls to actually use that money for something, like in this case to provide cheap petrol?

If government wants to earn lots of money, it's easier to just invest as a minority shareholder in companies that do. Like China is doing with Blackstone.

EDIT: I just realised I answered my own question. If it invests in financial markets, then that's mainly to make money. But was there ever a state-owned and state-operated company that was simply profit maximising?

More profit=more revenue, means more government works can be done or the same works done with lower taxes. Either way makes government more popular and helps get them re-elected.

Iran makes a stupid move and is surprised by the consequences... okay. Not the first time something like this happens.

More profit=more revenue, means more government works can be done or the same works done with lower taxes. Either way makes government more popular and helps get them re-elected.
Hmm, that's a bit indirect, isn't it?

I mean, can you find me an example of such a company which is out to do nothing but earn government some money without serving other motives? The only ones I can think of are a few state-owned investment funds and very maybe Saudi Aramco and the like (though in those cases there are not only subsidies on fuel at home but the companies are also slush funds and foreign policy tools).

Not even going to bother posting here, post another of NL's unfounded and evidenceless anti-leftist posts to attract attention to his own immature trollish rantings.

Congrats NL, you have become the new MTAE.

You, dearie, build strawmen like it is your job.

So Iran is run by idiots. Thanks for telling me, I had no idea.

So, Iran is instituting rationing to deal with gas shortages caused by deficient refining capacity.

On the flip-side, in the US recent high gas prices have been directly linked to.... deficient refining capacity.

The problem seems not to be a problem with nationalizing the industry, but rather a lack of infrastructure investment in BOTH countries.

So, why is only the nationalied system being brought to task? There is not, after all, a current push to build more refining capacity in the US. Why not? Because the oil companies are rather fond of the high prices the tight market affords them. It lets the board members vote each other huge bonuses for a job well done....

So, why is only the nationalied system being brought to task? There is not, after all, a current push to build more refining capacity in the US. Why not? Because the oil companies are rather fond of the high prices the tight market affords them. It lets the board members vote each other huge bonuses for a job well done....

It's not being built in the US because refineries suffer a brutal NIMBY/BANANA backlash from the same people who complain about high gas prices; they complain about things and then when a company would like to invest the process becomes so bogged down that it never moves forward. The only new refinery currently in the works has been bogged down in bureaucracy for over a decade and has cost billions of dollars. The irony of that fact is that the fixed cost per barrel for that refinery is many times higher than it is for new capacity added by expansions at existing refineries.

Also, the situation in the US is far different; our oil prices are not ridiculously underpriced through government subsidies and so market forces balance supply and demand to prevent shortages. I mean, Iran's cars get on average 12 miles per gallon, a level not seen in the developed world since the late 1960's when oil was dirt cheap and gigantic steel gas guzzlers dominated the market. Gasoline waste (and smuggling for resale at profit in Turkey or Iraq) is so rampant there that they lose billions in revenue and economic potential because it is being burned in an atrociously inefficient manner.

But the Iranian energy industry is heavily regulated.
you missed the title bit at the top of my post. Here it is again for your elucidation and edification:
Enron: What happens when you have an unregulated energy industry
see? I can play silly games and make nonsensical hyperbole, too.

It's not being built in the US because refineries suffer a brutal NIMBY/BANANA backlash from the same people who complain about high gas prices; they complain about things and then when a company would like to invest the process becomes so bogged down that it never moves forward. The only new refinery currently in the works has been bogged down in bureaucracy for over a decade and has cost billions of dollars. The irony of that fact is that the fixed cost per barrel for that refinery is many times higher than it is for new capacity added by expansions at existing refineries.

Also, the situation in the US is far different; our oil prices are not ridiculously underpriced through government subsidies and so market forces balance supply and demand to prevent shortages. I mean, Iran's cars get on average 12 miles per gallon, a level not seen in the developed world since the late 1960's when oil was dirt cheap and gigantic steel gas guzzlers dominated the market. Gasoline waste (and smuggling for resale at profit in Turkey or Iraq) is so rampant there that they lose billions in revenue and economic potential because it is being burned in an atrociously inefficient manner.

So, you're blaming.... freedom in the US for oil supply problems? Why do you hate your freedoms? You must be for the terrorists!

;)

And I never stated that the situations were identical. Just throwing the thought that maybe, just maybe, there was a little bit more to the issue of ensuring refinery capacity than the simplistic, jingoistic "nationalized industry is teh ebil" proposed by the author.

The mighty USA can't keep up with refining requirements and people makes excuses. Other countries can't and it is, in those cases, indicitive of the inherent inferiority of their governments.

Never mind that Iran, over the past three decades, has also had to contend with various sanctions, a concerted attempt by the US to isolate it and curtail it's opportunities for economic progress, and one of the bloodiest and costliest wars of the era.

But no, the whole problem - according to the OP - is nationalization.

Bull.

And I never stated that the situations were identical. Just throwing the thought that maybe, just maybe, there was a little bit more to the issue of ensuring refinery capacity than the simplistic, jingoistic "nationalized industry is teh ebil" proposed by the author.
Jingoistic? Me?

I mean, I'm lots of horrible things, but a nationalist I ain't.

The mighty USA can't keep up with refining requirements and people makes excuses. Other countries can't and it is, in those cases, indicitive of the inherent inferiority of their governments.
I actually do the think that the Iranian government is pretty bad, not just because it imposes policies I don't like but also because it's pretty bad at implementing them. But that's not the point...the point is that even though there are bottlenecks in US refining as well, so far you haven't seen anyone riot because they had to wait the whole day for petrol. Though it's gotten a bit more expensive (but then, it did here and in Europe as well - the oil price had a bit to do with it too I think), the whole system hasn't collapsed and everyone who needed it was able to get some petrol.

Never mind that Iran, over the past three decades, has also had to contend with various sanctions, a concerted attempt by the US to isolate it and curtail it's opportunities for economic progress, and one of the bloodiest and costliest wars of the era.

But no, the whole problem - according to the OP - is nationalization.
Who is responsible for providing petrol to the people in Iran? The Iranian government.

Has it been able to do this? No.

Is it possible to get refineries built if you're not on good terms with the US? Yes.

Did Iran make quite a bit of money from crude oil exports which could have been used to build refineries? Yes.

So I haven't seen a better explanation than this being yet another case of inept government management which can be added to a pretty long list. And unlike when a private company makes a mistake, in this case the government tried to cover it up with price controls, thus making the problem worse.