chickaree wrote: <snip> Business needs to be competitive and athletic. American business has gotten fat and wheezy.
This tells me you have no clue of what it is like to work lease sales, how much risk is involved and how much money often gets left on the table. As the old saying goes, huge risks may yield huge gains. Conversely, huge risks as in lease sales often involve huge losses when the concepts used to bid turn out to be wrong once the drill bit tests the ideas.
chickaree wrote: If Exxon was a hungry, competitive corp. It would have submitted the necessary plan instead of expecting an automatic renewal from government cronies.
Out of ignorance you can assert anything you wish. It seems there is more to the story than is known now and I'm certain we will hear about this in due time. And to address your comment regarding hunger and competitive, I doubt Exxon got to be the company it is if it were not hungry and competitive. It's somewhat of an absurd position to take, but then again so many of us are judgmental in areas where expertise is wanting because we have an agenda that outweighs all else.
CinnamonGirl wrote: Okay, but who are they loosing it to?
You all are worried about separation of church and state but we should not have to compete with the fed.
CG,
Please consider these facts:
Energy resources on public lands are joint assets of all Americans. That's why exploration and development companies pay the government for the right to explore them and develop any resources they find.
It's in the best interests of the citizens of the US to have development of energy resources take place promptly to start the cash flowing from these assets. Aside from paying for the lease, there is generally revenue sharing once production is underway.
The cash flows to the government benefit the people of this country, but the extra expense associated with another lease auction will be spread across everyone who is a consumer in the global energy market (in the form of potentially higher prices). That being said, this is a net gain for the US. That assumes, of course, that the US remains a desirable place for energy companies to invest in exploration and production.
There are huge natural gas resources off the coast of India. Some companies have taken the risk of buying leases there and have benefited enormously due to large discoveries. The people of India have made out as well. The companies (look at a stock chart of Niko Resources over the last few years) agree to share revenue and even sell at predetermined prices, giving preference to strategic industries. On the other hand, India is a corrupt bureaucratic nightmare, so most of the oil majors (Exxon, Statoil, BP, etc) won't do business there. The type of administrative problem Exxon is experiencing in the gulf pales in comparison to the bureaucratic risk they run in much of the rest of the world.
Anyway, I don't know if this will end up being good or bad, but it isn't a case of competing with the government.
I do not believe that, I think this could be a case of competing with the government. If the government starts looking at contracts and enforcing regulations based on how much money they receive out of the transaction then they are not neutral anymore. The job of government is not to be stock holders or make money it is to regulate if needed. And why do you think back in 2008, the bail out was so terrifying to everyone?
At the very least they need to be consistent. I am just saying that if they are looking at this from a standpoint of how much they and the tax payers get out of the deal then they certainly are competing. MHO.
I do not believe in changing the rules or my ideals just because money is involved.
