Exxon loses decision in court battle with Venezuela

[flashl]

Source: IHT

LONDON: A freeze on $12 billion in Venezuelan assets awarded to Exxon Mobil should be lifted, a British court ruled Tuesday.

Exxon convinced a court in January to freeze the assets of the Venezuelan state oil company so cash would be available if it won arbitration over an oil field which was lost in President Hugo Chávez's nationalization drive.

But after hearing Petróleos de Venezuela's arguments, the judge ruled against Exxon.

"The injunction granted against the defendant, Petróleos de Venezuela, should be discharged," Justice Paul Walker told the court.

IHT

Read more: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/18/business/18exxon.php

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. LOL!

those "poor" bastards.
say, what were their profits last years?

[Winterblues]

9. Their NET PROFITS were and are

OVER One Hundred Million Dollars a Friggin' Day day in and day out week after week month after month year after year for over four straight years. What could your local community do with a Hundred Million Dollars? This is Exxon's Net Profit every DAY. Net Profit..After All other expenses are paid..in the pocket money. OVER One Hundred Million Dollars Every Damn Day ..and price of fuel keeps going up...

[sergeiAK]

10. They also paid ~$87m in taxes *every day*

So we get to see what the US gov can do with 87 million dollars every day. Not much, it would appear.

XOM's profit margin was just over 10% in 2007. They sold >$1B in product every day, and had a net profit of ~$100m every day. Seems pretty damn normal to me. There are companies with much, much, higher profit margins, but they do not sell the amount of product XOM does in a day.

Exxon is evil, but not because they make money. They are evil for what they did in AK, and for how they've avoided paying for it.

[Winterblues]

11. Taxes are one of those expense that are paid before Net Profits

It is unconscionable for any company making that much to keep prices as high and even to raise them. It is called gauging and "War Profiteering". You may be able to justify such excess profits but no one will ever convince me they are moral..

[sergeiAK]

15. 10% profit != excessive

Businesses exist to make money. Making money is not immoral. Repeat, profits are not immoral. You can (as Exxon has) commit immoral acts in search of profit, but making money, by itself, is not a moral issue.

Also, I know taxes are not part of net profits. I was pointing out that they pay >35% taxes already.

How do you justify calling 10% profit margins immoral? What should a business have as a profit margin? Is 2% moral? 5%? 100%?

Or is it a matter of size? How big can a "moral" company be? $20B market cap? $100B? $1T?

[Winterblues]

20. You have lost all concept of reality

One Hundred Million dollars a Day in Net Profit during an energy crisis and war is immoral. You can talk percentages until you are blue in the face but there is no excuse for such excessive Net Profits at such a time or for that matter any time..

[sergeiAK]

23. They move $1B/day

They're gigantic. You have failed to demonstrate how that is immoral. You pay them, they give you gas. I pay them, they give me gas (not really, I buy from BP, but BP probably buys from them). They are evil for what they did in AK (and how they try to justify it), but their profits are from being in a very profitable (at the moment) business. I see no moral problem with profit, you have failed to prove me wrong.

10% is a profit margin I would've been ashamed to make when I ran my business. I was operating on ~25% margin. Was I price-gouging?

You didn't answer my questions, instead resorting to personal attacks. Try to keep it civil.

[heliarc]

26. Winter blues is right, you're crazy

We've got a population that is going bankrupt from health care costs, is losing homes to disaster with no help in sight, is losing homes to bad banking practices, and can't afford to get to work and it's still ok for a company to make $100 million in profits? I don't know, I'm a New Deal Democrat and I think the Oil companies ought to be nationalized here in the states too.

There're plenty of moral problems with profit when people in this country can't get medical attention because Hospital Emergency rooms continue to close. For a company as large as Exxon moving as much money as you say... it begins to affect the nation as a whole and the US govt should regulate it

[sergeiAK]

32. So address the actual problem

For example, the fact that our dunderheaded Commander in Chief has squandered the resources of this nation, drug us into war, and generally made a pigs breakfast of things. Make it harder for companies to influence politicians (good luck), and elect fiscally responsible people to office. Make health care affordable, either through regulation or nationalization, regulate the lending (and borrowing) in the mortgage market. Make the US dollar worth something again by balancing our budget and repurchasing T-Bonds. Pay down the national debt. These are all steps that would help our situation.

Punishing success is not the answer. XOM is taxed at ~40% right now. If you want to nationalize them, you'll have to pay fair market value for them. That is approximately $470B right now.

As for the "moral problem" of healthcare, they're not in that business. Nor are they in the business of housing people. Non sequitur.

[heliarc]

39. Paying your fair share is no punishment for success.

The tax should be upwards of 50-60% IMHO... And that's when these big companies actually pay their taxes, and don't funnel it offshore.

$470 billion would be a better deal than this f-ing war. And eminent domain is never fair market. The public good is the public good.

[sergeiAK]

41. Exxon does actually pay their taxes

One of the few corps that does. IMO, 40% is reasonable, as it is heavy enough to allow a company to make a profit, and light enough to encourage growth. I'd go up to 50%, but I find the idea of the government taking anything over half the profits of a company they don't own quite insane.

If they want 100% of the profit, let them buy the company. It's for sale every day on the NYSE. Then they could run it as they see fit, along with reaping considerable rewards, and having a national oil industry.

$470B would be a damned better deal than this war. Exxon actually makes money :P

As for paying fair market value, you kinda have to, if you want to pretend that you respect the rule of law in this country. Eminent domain allows you to take something for the public good, provided you compensate them for it.

[heliarc]

43. Fair... but in the case of Venezuela...

There's a bitter taste in your mouth when a foreign company owns your prize resources. Its true of ITT in Chile, and its certainly true of Exxon in Venezuela. A company like Exxon is there at the pleasure of the Venezuelan government, and their rules should govern the issue. IMHO "You kind of have to if you want to pretend that you respect the rule of law in this country." Its rare that companies like Exxon, ITT, United Fruit and a whole host of other companies actually abide by the rules of their host countries. I don't see why their host countries should pretend to hard to respect the rule of law when they are trying to wrest their own resource control back for themselves.

But we all know where "the rule of law" ends in Venezuela. If enough US companies whine to their lackey senators, the CIA buys off a union in Venezuela and the Tanks roll in and thousands of people get tortured. Nothing new... just US Foreign Policy.

[sergeiAK]

44. The Venezuela case is vastly overblown by both sides.

Chavez offered Exxon a bad deal. Exxon didn't want to take it, so they took it to court. Since PVDSA didn't show up to the first hearing, they got their assets frozen, vastly out of proportion since the court only heard Exxon. This case will be resolved with a reasonable compromise in the end. Exxon wants $4B in cash for the project, Chavez offers $500m in oil that's difficult to refine. I imagine the true value of it lies somewhere in the middle. It's a standard eminent domain case.

[Winterblues]

34. I did not attack you personally in any manner

I called you no names at all. I suggested you have lost concept of reality and I stick to that belief. One hundred million dollars per DAY year after year is not acceptable. It would be another matter if they tried to aid America in it's time of crisis but they only exasperate the problem, by allowing prices to soar. Venezuela is lowering cost of oil for those that need it but not Exxon with their record upon record profits.

[sergeiAK]

37. Saying I lost concept of reality = personal attack.

How is that hard to understand? Sticking to it is a reinforcement of such. Calling someone insane is a personal attack.

Exxon is not a government. They bear no responsibility to subsidize the poor. Chavez is subsidizing fuel for the poor out of tax dollars. Exxon collects no (direct) taxes. They exist to make money for their shareholders. They do that quite well right now. They allow prices to soar because it's in their best interest to do so.

You and I will pay $3.50/gal, so they charge it. If we wouldn't pay that, they wouldn't/couldn't charge it. Don't like it? I don't either. So I'm working on electric car research. What are you doing?

[krispos42]

21. Except that...

They are not using the profits to compete with other oil companies, either directly or indirectly.

They are not competing and they are not investing in infrastructure, but they are using the profits to fatten the wallets of executives, bribe Republicans to use our military to seize oil for them.

They are simply too big.

[sergeiAK]

24. Sure they are.

If they didn't compete, wouldn't BP/Shell/Citgo/any other oil co. killed them by now?

They surely do enrich their execs, as any company does. Oddly enough, they enrich the owners of the company too. That's what businesses do. I started my company to make money. I made money. If I hadn't, I would have shut the business down (and eventually did, once it became more hassle than the profit justified).

How are they "too big"? Is there a moral limit on a company's size?

[krispos42]

56. If they were competing, whouldn't prices be lower?

Where is the price war?


Face it, companies don't want to compete. Ever, if they can avoid it. To compete successfully, you need to either a)make the same product cheaper, b) make a better product for the same prices, or c) some positive combination of the two.

You also need to introduce new products and services, the marketing know-how to garner attention, and the customer service people to generate good word-of-mouth and to keep the products sold.

All of which costs money, which cuts into profits. And who benefits? The consumer!


No, no, no, that does not maximimize capital and profits.


It is far easier and far more profitable to either have a monopoly on the market or for the companties in a market to have an "agreement" between themselves. Like how the Five Families used to run the organized-crime rackets in New York.

The free market benefits consumers, not companies that compete fairly in the market. Trust me, if GM could pay somebody a billion dollars and outlaw both foreign-made cars and foreign ownership of domestic automotive factories, they would as soon as the banks opened today.


And yes, there is a limit on company size. I don't know if it's a "moral" limit or not, but there is a point at which a company gets too big. Remember, money equals free speech, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling about a century ago. So the more money a corporation has, the more political speech it has. Eventually it overrides both the public and the ability of the government to do the public good on municiple, county, state, and even federal levels.

The same thing happens with wealthy people, as well. The top 5% earn more than the bottom 50% nowadays, so guess who has the most free speech? Who do the politicians listen to? Who's voice is louder?


If it were up to me, corporations would have an income tax system that was based on the ratio of profits to total revenues. Small companies can have very high profit-to-revenue ratios while paying a comparatively small percentages of taxes, large corporations would not. This would encourage the growth of small, independent companites and discourage behemoths.

I would also make the first $50,000 of any employee's pay a tax deduction, to encourage raises and bonuses to the line workers.

But that's just me.

[sergeiAK]

57. You would likely tax Exxon less then

They make a rather low percentage profit (which they can do because they are so large). They made just over 10% last year, so unless you plan on taxing companies more the lower their margins are, they'd be in the bottom bracket of the tax scale. I find that abominable, they should be in the top bracket, given that they are a behemoth, the likes of which are rarely seen. If you're also basing it on market cap or something similar, I think it's worth a look, though it would be subject to lots of "gaming". Granted, that makes it very similar to the current one :P

I like the employee pay deduction idea. I'd also like to see an R&D deduction, but I can't think of a way to prevent massive fraud on it.

There really is one monopoly when it comes to gasoline (a fungible commodity), and that monopoly consists of the major players (BP, Shell, Citgo, Exxon). They can't make a "better" product, because gas is the same regardless. This leaves marketing to differentiate. That doesn't really work so well. So that leaves price to compete on. Commodity pricing is "set" by the NYMEX, as what a trader is willing to pay for that commodity, regardless of source. The futures market represents what people are willing to pay, and brings the seller with the lowest price to the buyer with the highest, until one side or the other stops buying/selling. Recently, the buyers have been out in force, propped up by easy money at low rates, driving prices up. They couldn't sell it unless someone was willing to buy, likewise in reverse. The oil companies are taking advantage of the fact that oil is a rather inelastic demand item, and thus, they can charge more without reducing demand too much. It's a capital intensive business to get into, meaning that you have to really misprice the product before it's profitable for a new guy to jump into the market. This is one of the compelling arguments for nationalized oil industries.

[krispos42]

58. when your revenues are in the hundreds of billions of dollars...

Oh, yeah, that 10% would earn you a spanking.

Remember, their 10% omes after hundreds or thousands of 7-figure paychecks for top executives! And billions in government subsidies!

And note that, despite the high profits, they aren't building any new refineries. In fact, a new one was just canceled.

Why?

Why, because they see a long-term drop in demand! Higher fuel-ecomy standards, you see... :eyes:

They are ooperation in keeping refinery capacity low as well.

[sergeiAK]

59. So you plan to base it on market cap then?

Or gross revenue (as the current system is)?

Makes sense, though I would argue a combination of gross revenue and profit margin would be most fair. It would avoid punishing high-value startups with little in the way of revenue despite a high margin (such as solar energy companies), yet still make money from the hugely profitable companies like XOM, MSFT, etc. BTW, 10% is nowhere near a high margin. I own stock in two companies with >70% margins. Both are fairly small, between 1 and 10B in market cap.

Canceling the new refinery does actually make economic sense. Refineries are a very durable item, and demand will decrease as America wakes up and realizes that we're addicted to oil like a junkie and his heroin (and the health effects are similar). Whether Chinese/Indian demand will be large enough to keep that refinery running is unknown, so they err on the side of caution. Not to mention it would likely be cheaper for China/India to build their own refineries (esp if we piss off Chavez enough) since their environmental standards are much lower than ours. That and few people want a refinery nearby, as despite best efforts of regulators, they're dirty, ugly, and prone to exploding.

If it's in the oil companies best interest to build a new refinery in the US, why isn't Shell/Citgo/BP doing it? They all have the cash to build one. But they don't. If it would make them money, why wouldn't they stab Exxon in the back and build one? Are you saying businessmen are loyal?

They don't want to increase the supply unless the supply is drastically low. There's a point where it becomes sufficiently profitable, and they don't think we're there yet. Their money, their right not to use it.

[mbperrin]

31. Adam Smith considered economic profits immoral.

Payments to production components:
Land (any natural resource) receives rent.
Labor (human labor) receives wages.
Capital receives interest.
Entrepreneurs receive profit. The caveat is that if entrepreneurs are receiving one dime more
profit than it takes to keep them working, then that is an economic profit(or more old fashioned, monopoly profit), and the problem is that these excess monopoly profits, those amounts over and
above which an entrepreneur would keep going for, prevent other production from occurring.

All resources are scarce, human wants and needs are unlimited, wealth is production. Anything that interferes with production, then, is uneconomic (and immoral), and excess profits are one of those immoral problems. He pointed out himself in the Wealth of Nations that the first thing any group of business people do, even in a social setting, is to discuss ways to cheat the public out of their money.

So yeah, too much profit is immoral. How do we know it's too much? Well, what do they do with it? Do they build new refineries? No. Do they expand their current network? No, they're closing stations right and left and leaving established fields in the US rapidly. Well, what? They hand out huge bonuses to management and directors, not one dime of which goes to increasing production of any kind.

Just a view from an old fashioned theory of economics.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wednesdays]

48. So you're saying corporate greed is okay

:eyes:

[Arctic Dave]

51. I think you are adding taxes and royaties together

By calling them taxes you are not being entirely correct. Royalties are a totally different animal. Which is to say that the state gets a portion of the profits for allowing Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips to produce on public leases(public oil) this is not taxing them. The state usaully taxes infrastrutcture. This keeps the state out of the oil business and the oil business out of the state business.

[sergeiAK]

54. My mistake

The trading screen I was looking at does not separate the two. Rookie mistake, I should've caught it as an investor in private royalty trusts :P

[northzax]

2. see, PDVSA?

it's amazing what happens when you actually bother to show up in court!

[Judi Lynn]

45. If you had bothered to inform yourself, Exxon did this behind Venezuela's back.

Save yourself the embarrassment by staying in touch with the news, such as it is.

It was discussed here at length at the time.

[StClone]

3. Can't wait for Obama to get in office

And work with Chavez instead of against him. The ruling shows that Hugo is not wrong, but legally enabled.

[hack89]

17. Obama will go nowhere near Chavez

is my guess. Chavez's ties to Cuba and FARC are simply too hot a political issue for Obama - even assuming he has any affection for Chavez to begin with.

[StClone]

40. He has to have a relationship, better the sooner.

Venezuela consistently ranks as one the top suppliers of U.S. oil imports.

Unlike the Bush policy of undercurrent threats, subversion and aiding powers anti-Chavez, Obama will do well to foster a healthier relationship regardless the FERC connection.

Bush has been roundly criticized for many policies. But, Bush has never suffered that his buddies in the House of Saud are anti-women, that Saudi Arabia was the source of most 9-11 attackers nor that the Saudis finance their religious faction in Iraq.

[Judi Lynn]

46. Ordinarily, affection shouldn't enter in a formal relationship handled on behalf of one's country.

But we do know how confused fascists get.

[fascisthunter]

4. GOOD! (nt)

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. Great! - This is good news indeed, bringing bullies to their knees is long overdue.

.
.
.

But Exxon has lots of our taxpayers' money to appeal,

And many lawyers . .

So I expect an appeal if it is at all legally possible.

But this is a good sign.

Thanks Hugo!

[DCKit]

6. So Exxon quadruples their efforts to avoid paying Alaskans...

for the Exxon Valdez oil spill citing "unforeseen financial difficulties beyond our control." Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

I'd credit Karma, but Exxon is simply a very bad corporate/world citizen with no credibility and chickens that are coming home to roost. No doubt the malAdministration will find a way to compensate them for this imaginary loss - at our expense, of course. The insane profits they've been r(e)aping off "Teh War on Terra" hardly satisfy salary and bonus expectations, let alone investor demand.

[Peace Patriot]

42. Exxon Mobil didn't lose anything. They walked away from a deal that

Norway's Statoil, France's Total, British BP and even Chevron agreed to--Venezuela getting a 60% share of its own oil. They walked away and into court, and, WITHOUT EVEN NOTIFYING Venezuela, and sought to freeze $12 billion in Venezuelan assets. And I am quite sure that their primary motive was to destabilize Venezuela, as economic warfare, in concert with...

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

They're planning Oil War II: South America. Its object to regain global corporate predator control of the Andes oil fields and other resources (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina), and to destroy these democracies into the bargain. Their fucking lie about Hugo Chavez--that he is a "dictator"--which they relentlessly promote in the teeth of all evidence--is the psyops prep for this war, mainly intended to put North Americans to sleep while they pull it off. And I am fairly certain that it is going to happen this year, and likely be started in Bolivia, where white separatists--funded by USAID-NED and covert budgets (our money!)--want to split off four gas/oil rich provinces from the central government of Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia (a mostly indigenous country), and a Chavez ally--to deny benefit of those resources to the poor majority. Prime conditions for Rumsfeldian chaos, and "dividing and conquering" those "terrorists" and "dictators" and brown hordes in South America who dare to challenge global corporate predator rule...with social justice, democracy, peace, transparent elections, lawful government, and things like Chavez's recent proposal for equal rights for gays and women. (Some "dictator.")

I don't think Rumsfeld & co. will win this war. But he may create hell on earth for some South Americans, while he fails. And, although he calls for "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America (the fascist thugs running Colombia, and the fascist cells that Bush/U.S. is funding within the Andes democracies), if he doesn't get U.S. troops on the ground (say, in support of the Bolivian separatists when they declare their "independence" this May), he has plenty of other forces to work with, including the Colombian security forces and closely tied rightwing paramilitary death squads, mercenaries (Blackwater, active in Colombia), and fascist paramilitaries and militias within the targeted countries, and billions of dollars stolen from us in Iraq and stashed away for these purposes.

U.S. bombs, U.S. surveillance, and, more than likely, U.S. aircraft (and possibly U.S. special forces) have ALREADY been used in this Oil War--in the recent Colombian bombing of Ecuador and murder of the FARC hostage negotiator, who was the chief contact with the presidents of France, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina and others, who were trying to get a peace process started to end Colombia's 40+ year civil war. Colombia is the continent's dinosaur--a fascist enclave that the Bushites have larded with $5 BILLION in military aid (our tax money), and that has one of the worst human rights records on earth (murders of thousands of innocent union leaders, peasant farmers, political leftists, human rights workers and journalists). The Bushites are stoking this civil war. They don't want peace. That's why Colombia bombed the location of the first two hostages, of the six that Chavez got released, while they were in transit out of the country, and why they targeted and bombed the hostage negotiator. They want WAR. They like war. War is their solution to every problem. It is highly profitable to them. And it creates opportunities to steal resources that belong to others, and to inflict fascist government on them.

The precedent has been set. U.S. MILITARY support of fascist incursions into peaceful, democratic, sovereign countries.

I hope this set-back to Exxon Mobil is a monkey wrench in their dirty rotten plans. But I don't think it will stop Rumsfeld. They are trying other ways to destabilize Venezuela, and to try to break up the strong alliance among Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina. (Venezuela wisely avoided war with Colombia, last week, and I think talked Ecuador's president--who was very angry--out of retaliating. It was a trap set by the Bushites.) I think the alliance will hold, and that the rest of South America--which has mostly leftist governments now--will resist these outrages, as they escalate. I think it will be the death knoll for U.S. influence in South America.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. Posting here because I need this info elsewhere.

Namely, to rub it on the face of some rightos.

[redqueen]

12. Heh.

Love the comic in your sig. :hi:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. Courtesy SouthofTheBorderPaul

:hi:

[Phred42]

8. EXXON - the sign of the Double Cross

[redqueen]

13. Fantastic news.

It's been a long time coming... but maybe we're finally starting to see the dawn.

[bagrman]

14. Let's nationalize our oil companies, give them a Trillion $s and charge everyone

3 bucks a gallon for gas and take the profits and buy everyone health insurance.

[sergeiAK]

16. You'd have to buy them, and that might cut into profit a wee bit -nt

[Joanne98]

18. Great idea. let's do it. K&R

[ronnie624]

27. Better yet,

exclude insurance companies from the health care system completely, and allow the government to operate the financing. Profiteering from health care needs by middle men is unnecessary, illogical and immoral.

[fascisthunter]

61. It Would Help Pay Down the Debt Conservatives Shackled to this Country of Ours

[wordpix]

65. how about charging them for use of our continental shelf, wildlife "refuges", national forests

where they pay a couple of dollars an acre to mine and drill based on 1800's law?

Geesh, they're drilling and mining on our land for free, just about. :puke: Why don't we just CHARGE the bastards for their leases based on 2008, not 1870?

[heliarc]

22. "over an oil field which was lost"

And which Exxon declined compensation for. I hate articles like this that make things seem different than they are. Exxon was offered compensation for an oil field and they declined it. In the US this is called eminent domain and I'm sure that if a foreign entity (I don't know let's say the Saudis) owned large utilities and the US was unhappy with that, they would have full jurisdiction to compensate the that foreign entity WHATEVER THE F WE WANTED TO, and the Foreign entity would have to go home. The US has always played by those rules in every other part of the world so I don't blame Venezuela for doing the same.

This is GREAT NEWS! Hopefully the British courts can make it stick.

[sergeiAK]

25. Eh, this is pretty normal.

Exxon was offered $X. They say the property was worth $Y. Y>X, so they sue to resolve it. Due process of law at work, and I'd imagine the court will find the true value to be between X and Y.

[northzax]

35. you know all this was is an asset freze, right?

since PDVSA declined to participate in the first round of arbitration? it has nothing to do with the actual arbitration over the Cerro Negro project.

how is that project going, by the way? oh, it's shut down for 6 months because PDVSA can't replace the proprietary technology that ExxonMobil built into it? oops.

and if you read carefully, you will see that PDVSA offered ExxonMobil $500m worth of unrefined unupgraded heavy crude, which would have to be sent through Cerro Negro, at ExxonMobil's expense? that ExxonMobil asked for cash, as detailed in the contract, and were told to take the oil? that the arbitration court is ruling on the actual value of ExxonMobil's assets (which, if the numbers PDVSA is releasing about production are correct, is somewhere close to $4 billion?) $4 billion, and they were offered $500m in barter. This isn't eminent domain as you think of it. This is the government coming, taking your $400,000 house and offering you $50,000 worth of Cheetos in exchange. not cash, cheetos.

[flashl]

36. Like this?

Eminent domain a possibility for oil pipeline

MITCHELL, S.D. (AP) -- Builders of a crude oil pipeline across South Dakota will consider beginning eminent domain proceedings if negotiations with landowners aren't successful, a project official said.

L.A. "Buster" Gray, engineering and construction manager for the U.S. portion of the TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, said the company will negotiate with landowners as long as possible, but would consider invoking its right of eminent domain "somewhere toward the fourth quarter," which begins in October.

Gray said negotiations with landowners would not have to end with the filing of eminent domain paperwork.

"Even if we institute going forward with filings, it would not preclude us from continuing efforts to reach an amiable agreement," Gray said Tuesday in an interview with The Daily Republic of Mitchell.

The TransCanada pipeline would cover 1,845 miles from Canada to Illinois and transport 340,000 barrels of crude oil per day.

Its 220-mile path through eastern South Dakota would cross Marshall, Day, Clark, Beadle, Kingsbury, Miner, Hanson, McCook, Hutchinson and Yankton counties.

The state Public Utilities Commission must approve the project. It held four hearings this week to take public comment on the project.

Eminent domain allows the taking of private property for public use, in exchange for just compensation to landowners. State law gives pipeline companies that are acting as "common carriers" the right of eminent domain, and TransCanadas lawyers say the proposed pipeline meets the "common carrier" definition.

TransCanada has been pursuing easements with private landowners on the roughly 500 tracts of land required for the project in South Dakota.

TransCanada officials say they are trying to secure fair easements and hope to avoid going to court with the eminent domain process.

"We hope we don't have to do it at all," said TransCanada lawyer Brett Koenecke, of Pierre. "It's certainly the company's policy to negotiate with landowners and achieve arm's length bargains with them that are satisfactory."

Sioux City

[AllyCat]

28. Viva Chavez! Poor Exxon...now they'll only make $8 gazillion today n/t

[biglefthander]

29. What about Prince William Sound?

Buy Citgo gas, screw Exxon.

[sergeiAK]

33. Take it to court, make them pay, with interest

They've avoided that long enough.

[flasoapbox]

30. loldongs

Ha, ha! Blow me, Exxon!

[Judi Lynn]

47. Hey, they can blow many of us, too!

Welcome to D.U., flasoapbox. :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[Judi Lynn]

49. What a story! DU'ers are NOT surprised! Here's a later version:

Court reverses Exxon freeze on Venezuela assets
Reuters, Tuesday March 18 2008 (Recasts; adds additional comments from Venezuela)
By Tom Bergin

LONDON, March 18 (Reuters) - A British judge on Tuesday lifted a $12 billion freeze on Venezuelan assets awarded to Exxon Mobil, dealing a blow to the giant oil company in its fight with the OPEC nation over President Hugo Chavez's nationalization crusade.

Exxon had convinced an English court to freeze the assets of Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA, in January so cash would be available if Exxon won an arbitration over an oil project Venezuela took over last year.

But, after hearing PDVSA's argument, the judge ruled there was no urgent risk of the company hiding its assets to avoid paying compensation and discharged the injunction.

"Our people won, our country won, our homeland won," Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said at a press conference, after earlier describing the decision as a "100 percent" victory for Venezuela. "The judge's decision is a lesson to Exxon Mobil."
Venezuela's government bond prices, which had been battered by the freeze, rallied after the ruling.
(snip)

"This is the beginning of the end of the harassment campaign Exxon instigated against Venezuela," Venezuelan ambassador to the United Kingdom Samuel Moncada said at the High Court.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7395230

[Judi Lynn]

50. From a Venezuela opposition newspaper:Venezuela wins case against Exxon Mobil

Caracas, Tuesday March 18 , 2008
Venezuela wins case against Exxon Mobil

Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil company, is not challenging the decision, Pdvsa’s lawyers said
EL UNIVERSAL

Venezuela Tuesday obtained a significant victory in its legal dispute against US oil major Exxon Mobil, as the England and Wales High Court decided to overturn an order freezing USD 12 billion in state-run oil firm Pdvsa's assets outside of Venezuela.

"I have decided that the court order" to freeze Pdvsa assets worldwide -which was issued last February 24 at the request of Exxon Mobil- "must be revoked," Paul Walker, the judge hearing the case, said in court.

The annulment is effective immediately, the judge said at the end of the hearing on the case, which started last February 28 in London-based England and Wales High Court.
(snip)

"The judge's ruling is good news not only for Venezuela, but also for small countries with natural resources, as the court said Venezuela was right, thus acknowledging the country's sovereignty over its resources," Moncada added.

"Additionally, the British court decision to reject the misuse of the legal means to settle trade issues should be a lesson for everybody," the Venezuelan diplomat stressed. He praised the fact that the ruling meant "a defeat for Exxon Mobil's maneuvers of judicial terrorism."

More:
http://english.eluniversal.com/2008/03/18/en_eco_art_venezuela-wins-case_18A1441999.shtml

[Rage for Order]

52. Don't get too excited

This is merely a preliminary ruling that un-freezes the assets that Exxon had requested be frozen a couple of months ago. The courts have not yet ruled on Exxon's claims for compensation for their interests in Venezuela.

[Zorra]

53. Not to worry, the US Federal Reserve will bail Exxon out. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

55. Exxon Mobil must pay for court case

Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Oil: Venezuela - Exxon Mobil must pay for court case

Exxon Mobil must pay nearly $767,000 in legal costs after a judge overruled the U.S. oil giant's earlier freeze order on billions of dollars of Venezuelan assets, Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said Tuesday. The company has to pay the money within 21 days.

However, Xhinua reports Venezuela is willing to restart negotiations with Exxon at the World Bank's International Center for Investment Conflict Settlement, he added.

"We will go back to arbitrage in New York, seeking fair compensation for companies that have seen their interests affected," he said.

http://ionglobaltrends.blogspot.com/2008/03/oil-venezuela-exxon-mobil-must-pay-for.html

[martymar64]

60. We should Freeze Exxon's assets until they pay up for Exxon Valdez

That's been dragging on for decades with no resolution still!

[fascisthunter]

62. Now You are Talking

They deserve much more than that.

[wordpix]

66. Excellent idea! Fucking bastards think they can get away with wrecking the AK coastline

and fisheries. :grr: Meanwhile, they're raking in the trillions with no more thought to their dirty deeds.

[Zhade]

63. Sweet. Fuck Exxon.

NT!

[Judi Lynn]

64. Crude move by Exxon gives Chavez an edge

Crude move by Exxon gives Chavez an edge
Published: Sunday, 23 March, 2008, 07:07 AM Doha Time

By Rory Carroll

CARACAS: President Hugo Chavez has scored a significant victory over ExxonMobil when a British court lifted a $12bn freeze on Venezuelan assets and sided with his administration against the oil giant.

The ruling backed Venezuela’s government in a row with the US multinational over an oil field in the Orinoco, a decision which could embolden other governments to get tougher with oil companies.

Authorities in Caracas celebrated when the British high court awarded legal costs against Exxon and ordered it to pay compensation for damages caused by freezing assets of Venezuela’s state oil company, PDVSA. The presiding judge, Paul Walker, said the reasons for his judgment would be made public tomorrow.

Last month Exxon obtained an interim injunction freezing assets pending arbitration over the disputed oil field, a high-risk strategy which has backfired and granted a propaganda coup to Caracas.

More:
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=208751&version=1&template_id=43&parent_id=19