HA HA! Take that Chavez!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


See that's how I know you are full of it. Everyone knows secrets about their job, stuff they don't want other people to know.

If I were in operations that might be true. But oil folks look at their in house lawyers as kind of the internal cops-- the people that will tell them not to do stuff. On almost anything that an oil company can do wrong in Canada (safety issues, environmental spills as examples) there are regulations that would impose a positive duty on us to report the incident. If I became aware of such things from any individual employee I would have a professional obligation to advise them to report. I would also bring any such incident to the attention of HSE and my boss since my duties are to the corporation and not to any individual who might have created the problem etc etc.

If I hid something like that I would put my job (our corporate constitution is heavy on compliance and ethical behavior) and my professional standing ( I cannot counsel the commission of an offense) at risk and depending on the level of my involvement could arguably be involved in committing an offense myself. Why would I risk ANY of that for my employer? They are just an employer.

Your attitude shows that you don't believe there is anyone out there with professional ethics. That is a sad sad commentary on your work experience

Hell the worst thing I do at work is post at poly-- and since I am at the office far too long each day, I figure I am entitled to my breaks.

Do some people have "secrets"?-- I'm sure they do-- But I don't of the type you are talking about. If people are doing stuff that is "wrong", they are not telling me

Again you don't have a sweet clue about the role of a lawyer in a large corporation. You have probably watched too many TV drama where lawyers are always portrayed as the people who try to screw the system to get their client free from something they did.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I thought you might be attaching significance to the fact that things were built that were nationalized.

Kind of

I do draw a distinction between the oil in the ground which absolutely is owned by the nation state subject only to dispositions they have made through leases and permits AND any asset that is brought in ,built or purchased by someone.


Its not a huge practical difference but I do view the resource itself as different than buildings and chattels

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


I have 2.

1. The fact that a country can make ANY law they wish does not mean they should. Use your imagination of the wide variety of laws a sovereign country COULD make--( Oh and as a first law repeal all constitutional protections to do with any rights of your citizenry) Then go from there

I don't want to get into a "should" thing with you. Obviously you think they shouldn't have and I think they should have. Let's not repeat ourselves to infinity here.

2. Since the US can 'pass any law they wish", I think they should apply reciprocity to any any nation state that seizes stuff like Ven did. They in turn would seize say Citgo and aggrieved US corps could sue or apply for compensation from the proceeds. Why SHOULD't the US due to venezuela what Venezuela was doing to the US

I fully expected them to do that, and I don't give a **** about it really. I think it is what Hugo wanted.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Kind of

I do draw a distinction between the oil in the ground which absolutely is owned by the nation state subject only to dispositions they have made through leases and permits AND any asset that is brought in ,built or purchased by someone.


Its not a huge practical difference but I do view the resource itself as different than buildings and chattels

But if Exxon knew that the government had the power to seize ALL of the property when they made the investment then they accepted that risk.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369


In my example, the things I listed were illegal by most standards. In yours, the seizing was illegal by most standards. Thus, equivalent...

Your standards is code for your morals. I don't care.

[Patroklos]

But if Exxon knew that the government had the power to seize ALL of the property when they made the investment then they accepted that risk.

See the Chicago mugging thing. According to Kid a women raped in a dark alley has no recourse because she knew there was a risk. Awesome

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


See the Chicago mugging thing. According to Kid a women raped in a dark alley has no recourse because she knew there was a risk. Awesome

Stop haking. I don't support rape. Venezuela's actions were legal and ethical because Exxon accepted the risk. It's business, not public safety you hack.

[Elok]

So, if we were to do what Chavez is always warning his people about and "denationalize" U.S. corporate assets in Venezuela using Navy SEALs, would that be acceptable? After all, given how often he claims it's going to happen, he can't pretend he didn't see the risk that comes from cheating the world's sole superpower at business and claiming an ideological right to do so...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Let's go this way with it.

Do you think Exxon knew that their investment carried the risk of nationalization when they made it?

That's an interesting angle I don't hear often enough. Why not just suppose a company voluntarily assumes risk of political upheaval when doing business in that part of the world? Maybe they were even deliberately adjusting their bargaining position at the time to account for that risk, in which case recovering assets now would be a windfall. Just a notion.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
So, if we were to do what Chavez is always warning his people about and "denationalize" U.S. corporate assets in Venezuela using Navy SEALs, would that be acceptable? After all, given how often he claims it's going to happen, he can't pretend he didn't see the risk that comes from cheating the world's sole superpower at business and claiming an ideological right to do so...

Do you assume that the US has some authority in Venezuela? That's the issue here. Venezuela has the authority to nationalize assets here. Exxon new that and made the investment, so accepting that risk. Now we have to here endless whinning comparing it to ass rape.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Flubber
2. Since the US can 'pass any law they wish", I think they should apply reciprocity to any any nation state that seizes stuff like Ven did. They in turn would seize say Citgo and aggrieved US corps could sue or apply for compensation from the proceeds. Why SHOULD't the US due to venezuela what Venezuela was doing to the US

Does anyone here have any idea why this didn't happen? I'm confused because in reality "the US" wouldn't have to do anything; the aggrieved corporations, whether individually or as co-plaintiffs, would merely have to file a complaint with a federal court sitting in alienage jurisdiction. The court would then simply enter a pre-judgment attachment on assets of the Venezuelan state and/or Citgo (assuming Citgo had enough direct involvement in the conversion as opposed to merely receiving its benefit from the state), litigate to a fairly foregone conclusion against the defendant(s), and liquidate to satisfy the judgment.

What possible reason could the oil companies have not to have done this yet??? I highly doubt it's fear that they'd lose on the merits, as they've already filed and won suits in both common law and civil law countries. What am I missing here?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Do you assume that the US has some authority in Venezuela? That's the issue here. Venezuela has the authority to nationalize assets here. Exxon new that and made the investment, so accepting that risk. Now we have to here endless whinning comparing it to ass rape.

Well, the U.S. most certainly has authority in the U.S. Suppose Dubya were to retain and torture, for several months, every Venezuelan citizen on U.S. soil. Without even having a shred of a reason, just for fun. When pressed, he'll say he's "defending liberty." Given this administration's fondness for kidnapping and torture, those citizens had to have known the risk before coming here. So, is this wrong? Why or why not?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


Well, the U.S. most certainly has authority in the U.S. Suppose Dubya were to retain and torture, for several months, every Venezuelan citizen on U.S. soil. Without even having a shred of a reason, just for fun. When pressed, he'll say he's "defending liberty." Given this administration's fondness for kidnapping and torture, those citizens had to have known the risk before coming here. So, is this wrong? Why or why not?

Of course. I will answer just for you Elok. Please try to impress me though.

[Elok]

So, why is it wrong? Is it because the administration didn't pass a law giving itself the power to torture a whole category of civilians? That's the main difference I can see here--that in my example it isn't strictly legal, it's just that our leader tends to ignore the law and get away with it. Also that it's torture as opposed to theft, but I can't help that Dubya only steals from the next generation of taxpayers.

Supposing he'd frozen and then liquidated the bank accounts of Venezuelan nationals, not in response to this but pre-emptively, as an extension of the Cold War doctrine of "containing" communism? That seems more analogous to what Chavez is doing--ideologically justified robbery. Oh, and I guess he'd have had to make a bunch of ominous speeches about "the new axis of evil" and "financial weapons in the war against whaddyacallit, the bad guys," and so on, so the Venezuelans would have seen it coming. How is it different?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
So, why is it wrong? Is it because the administration didn't pass a law giving itself the power to torture a whole category of civilians? That's the main difference I can see here--that in my example it isn't strictly legal, it's just that our leader tends to ignore the law and get away with it. Also that it's torture as opposed to theft, but I can't help that Dubya only steals from the next generation of taxpayers.

Supposing he'd frozen and then liquidated the bank accounts of Venezuelan nationals, not in response to this but pre-emptively, as an extension of the Cold War doctrine of "containing" communism? That seems more analogous to what Chavez is doing--ideologically justified robbery. Oh, and I guess he'd have had to make a bunch of ominous speeches about "the new axis of evil" and "financial weapons in the war against whaddyacallit, the bad guys," and so on, so the Venezuelans would have seen it coming. How is it different?

I don't think that it's stealing. That's why I support it. The question is was it ever trully Exxon's property. That's why I mention that Exxon knew about the risk of nationalisation when they built the facility. Indeed, they made teh deal with an oppressive right wing regime. You must admitt that they realized the risk of a Chavez type government taking power. When you accept a risk there is usually payment involved and indeed Exxon got a very good deal.

Honestly I don't see corporate property as being the same as personal property. And I certainly to equate taking it with torture.