Try That in Russia, Exxon
One lesson of recent years in Big Oil is that while most of the industry zigs, Exxon zags.So it was last week, as the company won attention for court victories that froze some $12 billion in Venezuelan state assets abroad. This involves its dispute with Hugo Chavez over his demand for control over oilfields in the country. Exxon also got a judge to seize hundreds of millions of dollars due to
Is such confrontation wise corporate strategy? The rest of the industry – sitting conspicuously on the sidelines as spectators in this rumble – wants to know, too.
Some analysts have read the news as a warning to all the petro-nationalists out there that Exxon at least won’t be pushed around. And if Exxon is successful, the others might follow suit.
One sign that Exxon’s muscle-flexing is a limited tactic, and not a strategy, however, is its experience with its giant natural gas project in Russia, called Sakhalin-I.
Over the last year, the other big companies working in
Exxon knows the history of companies going to court to get their way in the former Soviet Union – despite “victories,” they mainly end up empty handed. The FSU states simply don’t honor the courts’ rulings, and leave it to the companies to figure out what to do next.
The distinction is that
Rights: Creative Commons
Labels: Exxon, Gazprom, hugo chavez, medvedev, pdvza, Putin, sakhalin, venezuela


2 Comments:
Excellent post, Steve - I think Bob has one in the pipes also about the Venezuelan asset freeze.
Another outcome to consider is that Gazprom and regulatory authorities will put as much pressure as possible on Exxon over the sale of Sakhalin gas to China, then relent at the last moment in dramatic negotiations in exchange for a concession elsewhere. As your colleague Bret Stephens of the Journal has pointed out, the Kremlin has become adept at creating problems and then offering solutions.
More credit should be given to Rex Tillerson for his willingness to stand up for the company's contract rights. Let's recall that just last year at this time, there was speculation that Exxon could be squeezed out of a stake in Sakhalin -1, just like Shell. In this context, what other energy executive is willing to say something like this?
"Over the long term, such isolationism and resource nationalism is counterproductive, hurts those who have the greatest need for energy to support economic progress, and undermines our shared goals of economic development, supply security and environmental protection."
http://www.energyintel.com/DocumentDetail.asp?Try=Yes&document_id=216738&publication_id=31
Hi James. I don't expect Gazprom to pull back on Sakhalin-I sales. For now, it has decided not to press for a Russian majority stake; instead, it wants the gas at a concessionary rate -- either less than China would pay, or lacking the upside pricing flexibility that might be built into a contract with Beijing. Gazprom needs this gas, both at home and perhaps to meet export contracts, particularly if Central Asian supplies remain volatile.
I do admire Exxon's single-mindedness. The jury is out, however, on whether the time for this attitude has passed.
Thanks for the comment as usual and best, Steve
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home