China wants UNOCAL - Mercedes-Benz Forum

View Poll Results:
0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 4 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 10:38 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
Date registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
China wants UNOCAL

Oh dear, oh dear, what to do? New high gas prices only three weeks from the pumps, and this is for real as the dollar has gained almost 10%. Much of the increase up to now has just reflected a weaker dollar. China is trying to buy UNOCAL and Maytag, but more serious they've done deals to buy Venezuelan oil that we're dependent on.
Even though 60% of UNOCAL's production is in Asia anyway and they sell much of their Alaskan production to Japan the Chinese would gain an insight to all of UC's seismic maps in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Can't imagine the deal will go down.
What to do? I was just out to LA to see my little dear graduate from UCLA – now there's a real Anthropologist in the family. Couldn't help but notice that about 30% of the grads were Asian and even more were Mideastern. WASP's are toast, but they still rule at Orange Coast College and the "Surfer Dude" set - play REM song now.
crash9 is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 4 (permalink) Old 06-23-2005, 10:56 AM
BenzWorld Elite
Shabah's Avatar
Date registered: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 300c (1956)
Location: 19 05'40.0 N, 49 49'09 E
Posts: 2,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: China wants UNOCAL

They are smart; they don't want Afghanistan or Iraq. Hell they don't even need to invade Taiwan; it will eventually fold and bow down.
Shabah is offline  
post #3 of 4 (permalink) Old 06-25-2005, 06:47 PM
BenzWorld Elite
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: China wants UNOCAL

Interesting analysis by the NY Times.

In Unocal Bid, U.S. Struggles With China Policies


WASHINGTON, June 25 - President Bush's initial response to the proposed takeover of a major American oil company by a Chinese rival has been to duck. It is not hard to see why.

The $18.5 billion offer by the China National Offshore Oil Corporation for Unocal, which had already made a deal to be acquired by the American oil giant, Chevron, is forcing the administration to confront its own internal rifts over whether China should be viewed as friend, foe or something in between.

It is putting a spotlight on a host of related economic and foreign-policy issues - from North Korea's nuclear program to America's growing dependence on foreign capital and the upward pressure on gasoline prices caused by China's thirst for oil - that defy easy solutions.

Hardly a week goes by without Mr. Bush vowing to make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, so any deal that increases that dependence - or is even perceived as doing so - would create a problem for him.

And the situation has left the administration once again confronting the likelihood that its numerous ties to the oil industry will become a political issue.

"It's nothing but a headache for them," said James B. Steinberg, who was deputy national security adviser under President Bill Clinton.

For now, the administration is in a holding pattern. With no deal yet agreed to, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday that the issue remained hypothetical. The White House has avoided substantive comment on the matter.

People inside and outside the administration who are involved in the matter said the White House would do its best to avoid taking a position for a while by referring a deal, if one is completed, to a body known as the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which reviews sensitive acquisitions by companies from abroad on the basis of national security.

"We have so much on the plate with China," said an adviser to Mr. Bush, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity because the president discourages unauthorized discussions about internal deliberations. "How do you come down hard on them for this deal?"

Dealing with energy policy has always been politically fraught for Mr. Bush, who got his start in business in the mid-1970's as an independent oilman in West Texas and who has often been cast by his opponents as a tool of the oil industry. Vice President Dick Cheney is even more of a lightning rod for that type of criticism, having led Halliburton, the giant oilfield services company, before joining the Republican ticket in 2000.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a director of Chevron for a decade before Mr. Bush's election, and even had a Chevron tanker named for her. (The tanker has subsequently been renamed.)

Even if he were inclined to take a strong stand on the takeover, Mr. Bush would still have to navigate divisions among his advisers over how to proceed.

In recent months, the Pentagon and the State Department have been taking a harder line toward China, reflecting a broader push by conservatives in and out of government.

In a speech in Singapore this month, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld criticized China for stepping up military spending in the absence of an obvious threat, and said growth in political freedom in China has not matched economic growth. State Department officials have been blunt in stating that China has not done enough to use its economic clout to press North Korea into serious negotiations about ending its nuclear program.

Even before the oil deal was in the headlines, the White House was working furiously to file the rough edges off a soon-to-be-released Pentagon report on China that described the country as a potential military threat. And in just two weeks, Ms. Rice is expected to land in Beijing, pressing anew for help on North Korea and making the point that if the North refuses to give up its nuclear program, the administration wants China to join in on sanctions. The Chinese have made clear they want to avoid that at all costs.

But if Mr. Bush's national security advisers have tended toward a more hawkish view of late, his economic team has by and large viewed China as a vast market to be opened, a vital source of capital for the United States and a country whose political liberalization can be encouraged through economic engagement. Taking punitive action against China now, Mr. Snow told the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday, would be counterproductive.

It is still not clear where some of the major players in the internal debate, especially Mr. Cheney, the primary architect of the administration's energy policy, may come out.

"It will require some presidential leadership to address this array of issues and assign priorities and deal with the politics," said Richard C. Bush, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is an authority on China.

The coming talks with Beijing over North Korea's nuclear threat come against the backdrop of a trans-Pacific relationship that grew warmer after a rocky start at the beginning of the Bush administration. But the diplomatic maneuvering has been subject to periodic flare-ups of tension over a variety of issues, including Taiwan and China's support for Iran, a major supplier of China's oil.

"Remember, to the Chinese everything is related: the economics, the diplomacy, the military posture. It's all one," said a senior administration official, who declined to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy.

The White House's reasons for playing for time, and avoiding any immediate escalation of tensions with Beijing, start with the fact that its most urgent diplomatic priority right now - defusing the nuclear threat from North Korea - depends to a great extent on cooperation from China. That effort is entering a crucial phase.

But there are other strategic reasons to keep the relationship on an even keel. The financial stability of the United States, with its chronic budget deficits and propensity to spend far more than its saves, depends increasingly on the willingness of China to buy American government bonds. Any breach in relations could lead to higher interest rates.

At the same time, the administration is trying to contain a protectionist backlash aimed not just at China but at Mr. Bush's free-trade philosophy in general. Congress has already grown impatient with what many members of both parties see as China's unwillingness to play by the rules of the global economy; any steps that inflame anti-China feelings could give new impetus to efforts to impose tariffs or other trade sanctions over the White House's objections.

The proposed deal presents Mr. Bush himself with a tough trade-off when it comes to economic openness. Mr. Bush has long lauded the benefits of reduced barriers to the flow of goods, services and money, and for the most part his administration has welcomed investment by China in American companies. This year, the administration approved I.B.M.'s sale of its personal computer business to a Chinese company, Lenovo. This openness also works in the other direction: Bank of America said earlier this month that it would pay $2.5 billion for a stake in China Construction Bank.

Mr. Bush has made "energy independence" one of his defining themes. While the Chinese in this case say they would not be taking oil away from the United States, the deal's opponents suggest that it would place a vital resource in the hands of a nation that has a voracious and growing appetite for energy to fuel its rip-roaring economic expansion.

The proposed oil deal is also a window into a much broader and even more complex topic: how the United States should manage its role in the global economy.

In the Clinton administration, globalization framed much of the debate about foreign and economic policy. Mr. Bush has tended not to view the world through the same prism, and, especially since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, globalization has been distinctly subordinated to security issues as a policy consideration.

But the forces that globalization encompasses have continued to reshape national economies and individual lives as jobs and money migrate across borders, and companies and markets adapt. And because of its high profile, the Chinese offer for Unocal could lead Mr. Bush to enunciate more of the principles he thinks should guide the painful trade-offs that globalization often requires.

"This is a piece of the larger and single most important challenge facing Americans," said Rahm Emanuel, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Clinton before being elected to Congress as a Democrat from Illinois in 2002. "How do we compete in a global economy we know is good for us but that individually leads to less security rather than more opportunity? Unless we deal with that as a country, we will lose our predominant position."

David E. Sanger and Jeff Gerth contributed reporting for this article.
Botnst is offline  
post #4 of 4 (permalink) Old 06-28-2005, 03:11 AM
BenzWorld Elite
theboss's Avatar
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: 560 SEL Euro
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 1,784
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: China wants UNOCAL

so UNOCAL will soon become UNLOCAL!!
theboss is offline  
Sponsored Links

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On


    Title goes here

    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome