Reposting to correct date : Also not entirely unprecedented. The original arrangements in Iran, Saudi and to a lesser degree Iraq very similar. The only difference is they used American corp proxies for that ownership. But anyone with any basic common sense understood what that meant. One need only read the Prize by Daniel Yergin to understand the fine line between private sector western oil interests and state ones. ARAMCO even stands for Arabian American Oil Company 🙄 Nick Butler, former BP executive and Gordon Brown advisor, told the Weekend of Mistakes conf earlier this year that the government–company relationship is and always has been mutually dependent. This was during a panel on the rise of state capitalism. Butler even said he “was slightly surprised by the rubric that was put out for this session, which implied that state capitalism was something new” noting “states and business have worked together for many centuries. I go back to the East India Company, the Levant Company, many many entities across the world”. He added: “ I've always thought that the economic theory, which suggests that there is a great difference between the state, between public activity and private activity was rather an illusion”. He then shared a personal anecdote about how Tony Blair had summoned him to Downing Street because he wanted BP to invest in Russia, telling him”the government will do whatever you want. It's part of our policy,” and so BP went ahead and did. He added BP had always been partly state‑owned (rescued in 1975) but that he only realized how close the link with government was once joining them. As he noted, Companies need the rule of law, policy support and sometimes political or even military backing and financial help (subsidies, export credits) to operate abroad. Equally, states need those companies to build national competitiveness, create jobs and revenue.