Has anyone seen articles about Chevron's reaction to ecuadorian courts ruling against them on a big environmental mees they have there? I went on Peter gabriel's website to see what he was up to and saw an article that amazed me, Ialways thought Chevron had thier act together. Now not so sure.
Chevron in Ecuador
- Thread starter sittingduck57
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
+1 Texaco is the name to have in SA/Caribbean. Chevron just was engaged because of their Texaco buy.
The only thing that amazes me is that big companies are still willing to invest into regions that have historically nationalized and stolen their investments when it suited them.
For a different slant than Peters leftist dribble...look here...
Ecuadors Chevron Shakedown
For a different slant than Peters leftist dribble...look here...
Ecuadors Chevron Shakedown
Big American oil companies assess risk/reward carefully . If you want to see well managed businesses take a look at them .
Didn't think that sounded right.
Originally Posted By: bruno
Big American oil companies assess risk/reward carefully . If you want to see well managed businesses take a look at them .
I think for the most part they do...they have to, considering the markets they are forced to explore in.
But when I look at the history of Sunoco or to a lesser extent Texaco, I'm amzed at all that was stolen from them by the stroke of a pen.
Big American oil companies assess risk/reward carefully . If you want to see well managed businesses take a look at them .
I think for the most part they do...they have to, considering the markets they are forced to explore in.
But when I look at the history of Sunoco or to a lesser extent Texaco, I'm amzed at all that was stolen from them by the stroke of a pen.
JHZR2
Staff member
But at the same time much of the product set for chevron is shipped out from the USA to friendly distributors. Not everything need be produced locally, and there are LOTS of totes and drums of oil going around the area, coming from the USA.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
The only thing that amazes me is that big companies are still willing to invest into regions that have historically nationalized and stolen their investments when it suited them.
For a different slant than Peters leftist dribble...look here...
Ecuadors Chevron Shakedown
Oil is never a purely financial driven industry and they have always been mingling with risk: military, corruption, foreign policy, you name it. I highly doubt any nation on earth just sell the entire oil field out right and never claim a percentage of the oil field output thereafter. Wait, that was Russia before Putin, and look what happen to that oil tycoon now.
Like all others said, oil industry has the best risk assessors and foreign policy experts money can buy, and they know how far to keep the carrot from the donkey's mouth and how close to keep the stick from the donkey's behind.
The only thing that amazes me is that big companies are still willing to invest into regions that have historically nationalized and stolen their investments when it suited them.
For a different slant than Peters leftist dribble...look here...
Ecuadors Chevron Shakedown
Oil is never a purely financial driven industry and they have always been mingling with risk: military, corruption, foreign policy, you name it. I highly doubt any nation on earth just sell the entire oil field out right and never claim a percentage of the oil field output thereafter. Wait, that was Russia before Putin, and look what happen to that oil tycoon now.
Like all others said, oil industry has the best risk assessors and foreign policy experts money can buy, and they know how far to keep the carrot from the donkey's mouth and how close to keep the stick from the donkey's behind.
Oil companies have been a target of terrorism (Both public and Private) for a hundred years. They perfectly understand the risk and how the risk can change in an instant as the voting parasites elect a new political terrorist or private guerilla fighters pop up in the third world. Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil is probably the most intelligent manager in the business.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
The only thing that amazes me is that big companies are still willing to invest into regions that have historically nationalized and stolen their investments when it suited them.
For a different slant than Peters leftist dribble...look here...
Ecuadors Chevron Shakedown
Oil is never a purely financial driven industry and they have always been mingling with risk: military, corruption, foreign policy, you name it. I highly doubt any nation on earth just sell the entire oil field out right and never claim a percentage of the oil field output thereafter. Wait, that was Russia before Putin, and look what happen to that oil tycoon now.
Like all others said, oil industry has the best risk assessors and foreign policy experts money can buy, and they know how far to keep the carrot from the donkey's mouth and how close to keep the stick from the donkey's behind.
Agreed.
But at the same time, there is a huge difference between a company going into partnership with a country to develop a field, a split by percentage would be a fair and equitable situation and the way it was usually done...But then in say Sunocos case in Venezuela after all the infrastructure/investment is in place the pols decide to nationalize, leaving a company like Sunoco holding the bag.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
The only thing that amazes me is that big companies are still willing to invest into regions that have historically nationalized and stolen their investments when it suited them.
For a different slant than Peters leftist dribble...look here...
Ecuadors Chevron Shakedown
Oil is never a purely financial driven industry and they have always been mingling with risk: military, corruption, foreign policy, you name it. I highly doubt any nation on earth just sell the entire oil field out right and never claim a percentage of the oil field output thereafter. Wait, that was Russia before Putin, and look what happen to that oil tycoon now.
Like all others said, oil industry has the best risk assessors and foreign policy experts money can buy, and they know how far to keep the carrot from the donkey's mouth and how close to keep the stick from the donkey's behind.
Agreed.
But at the same time, there is a huge difference between a company going into partnership with a country to develop a field, a split by percentage would be a fair and equitable situation and the way it was usually done...But then in say Sunocos case in Venezuela after all the infrastructure/investment is in place the pols decide to nationalize, leaving a company like Sunoco holding the bag.
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
But at the same time, there is a huge difference between a company going into partnership with a country to develop a field, a split by percentage would be a fair and equitable situation and the way it was usually done...But then in say Sunocos case in Venezuela after all the infrastructure/investment is in place the pols decide to nationalize, leaving a company like Sunoco holding the bag.
Foreign investment is always a risky move but they do have the carrot and stick as well. Many things oil companies do, like withholding trade secret or know how, limiting future support, or working with other governments so that they will ban trading with the sovereign nation in nationalization, would be ways to discourage these activities.
You can claim the oil field back, but if you can't get oil out of it, it may not be useful. These oil companies wouldn't put the most expensive technologies in countries that are risky unless they are going to make money out of it safely and consistently.
But at the same time, there is a huge difference between a company going into partnership with a country to develop a field, a split by percentage would be a fair and equitable situation and the way it was usually done...But then in say Sunocos case in Venezuela after all the infrastructure/investment is in place the pols decide to nationalize, leaving a company like Sunoco holding the bag.
Foreign investment is always a risky move but they do have the carrot and stick as well. Many things oil companies do, like withholding trade secret or know how, limiting future support, or working with other governments so that they will ban trading with the sovereign nation in nationalization, would be ways to discourage these activities.
You can claim the oil field back, but if you can't get oil out of it, it may not be useful. These oil companies wouldn't put the most expensive technologies in countries that are risky unless they are going to make money out of it safely and consistently.
If you have done any business in ANY South American country, you will quickly realize that you are afforded all of the legal protection available. Alas, there are none. John--Las Vegas.
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
You can claim the oil field back, but if you can't get oil out of it, it may not be useful. These oil companies wouldn't put the most expensive technologies in countries that are risky unless they are going to make money out of it safely and consistently.
Huh...Wha???
There are many examples in the very recent past where that is exactly what the oil companies have done. I'm not talking about possibilities, or guesses as to what may happen moving forward, I'm talking about specific examples where they have invested and developed entire fields only to have it stolen from them.
You can specualte all you like about what "may" happen in the future, and I'm sure they do take every effort to mitigate those risks...but none of that changes history and examples where they have been short changed by the powers that be.
You can claim the oil field back, but if you can't get oil out of it, it may not be useful. These oil companies wouldn't put the most expensive technologies in countries that are risky unless they are going to make money out of it safely and consistently.
Huh...Wha???
There are many examples in the very recent past where that is exactly what the oil companies have done. I'm not talking about possibilities, or guesses as to what may happen moving forward, I'm talking about specific examples where they have invested and developed entire fields only to have it stolen from them.
You can specualte all you like about what "may" happen in the future, and I'm sure they do take every effort to mitigate those risks...but none of that changes history and examples where they have been short changed by the powers that be.
- Status
Similar threads
