Today on Blogcritics
Home » Red China wants Unocal’s black gold

Red China wants Unocal’s black gold

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The first thing I thought when I heard about the Chinese government’s effort to acquire Unocal was that British Petroleum held the role of business terra firma on the American soil of Alaska for a long time before getting out in 1989. They have pretty much dominated the supply there, though their ability to distribute is controlled by the country’s possession of the Alaskan pipelne and the land.

My second thought was about America’s strong lobbying efforts to open up the oil industry in other countries — most especially Russia — so the United States can buy companies or oil fields there. A 2004 speech from Ali Moshiri, managing director, ChevronTexaco Latin America (while shockingly absent any talk of conservation), brings out a plan for pushing into other countries, and some of the difficulties his company has had doing so.

With those two thoughts leading this week’s reading research project I sought more information, gathering together what I’ve heard, read and seen just over the last couple of days.

Even after reading that the country’s ninth-biggest oil company, Unocal accounts for less than 6 percent of American production and that its major asset is natural gas and oil just off-shore of Indonesia, my squirrelly gut reaction is the same. The Unocal purchase by China National Offshore Oil Corp., the third largest oil company in China (and 70-percent Chines-government owned), is part of a strategy that “Big Red” has been pursing in recent months and years to shore up its own supply.

Chevron had been the favorite in the rush to buy Unocal but why is it up for sale anyway? Isn’t that a question worth asking as well? I could not find the answer online.

According to a 2003 Unocal Prospectus (PDF) seven of nine members of the Unocal voting Board of Directors are Malaysian.

Timothy Ling was Unocal chairman from 2002 to 2004 when he died of a heart attack following a workout.

Can it be a coincidence that this great push comes at a time when the President of China is, himself, an oilman, of sorts. President Hu Jintao holds a master’s degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Southern California. (Source)

Better hybrid than Red

My gut reaction here is, nice try China, but no thanks.

And Congress members from both side of the aisle are about ready to act based on that same forceful blow to the solar plexus. National security is the big buzz and the deal can be stopped dead on these grounds by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, a multi-agency board.

“It does raise questions about how much of the country we are willing to sell to a Communist country that we might be fighting someday,” said Michael O’Hanlon, an international military specialist at the Brookings Institution. But he added, “I’d be surprised if we really fall on our sword to prevent the sale.”

Source

An undoubtedly big factor that isn’t part of the discussion is that Unocal remains the main player in constructing a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan. Progress stalled on that in 1998 less than a year after Central Asia Gas Pipeline (CentGas) was formed (Source: Unocal) when Unocal pulled out of the deal. In 1997, Unocal had been in talks with the Taliban.

But it moved ahead again in 2002 (Source: BBC. That was a year that saw Unocal at first say it still wasn’t interested and by the end of the year they had changed their minds.

As well as its Indonesia gas and oil reserves, Unocal has about 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the area. (Sources: Unocal, also Unocal 2004 Annual report and 2003 Annual Report PDF)

Last year’s China purchase of IBM’s personal computing division was not under the same scrutiny.

But, no less a paper than the Houston Chronicle – smack dab in the middle of oil country – writes an admonishing headline on an editorial about the $18.5 billion hostile bid: Irrational protectionism fuels fear over China oil bid with a subhead: Unocal takeover would change little in oil markets

Washington Post op-ed writer Sebastian Mallaby argues here that the United States would actually realize a net benefit from the sale. He finds the comparison’s to Japan’s 80s spending spree informative and worth revisiting.

Some people fear the economic threat from China. Others fret about expensive oil. With the skill of an accomplished arsonist, China has now poured gas on the flames of these separate anxieties, turning two medium-size fires into a single inferno

Writer Fred Cederholm points to the irony, especially this year, that much of America’s independence is celebrated with fireworks manufactured in China.

Of course, for a long time the United States has been not independent but entirely dependent on foreign oil to function. (Canada – 1.68 million barrels; Saudi Arabia- 1.49 million barrels; Venezuela- 1.46 million barrels; Mexico- 1.35 million barrels. Others combined: 7 million barrels). Source. A barrel equals 42 gallons of crude.

The furor over America’s exaggerated consumption (in not only transportation but the manufacture of plastics and aiding the manufacture of a whole warehouse full of other items) is already here and energetic. It will only get hotter. Much of the technology already exists, but these same oil companies and car companies really aren’t eager to change the status quo.

But China is eager for change – and in a spending mood.

Mallaby seems to have decided that $18.5 billion is no big deal: “If you look for a convincing reason to block China’s bid for Unocal, you’re not going to find one.”

Nevertheless, people are going to keep looking.

==
Sources:
AP / Business Week article: China oil company bids $18.5B for Unocal.

OF INTEREST – AP / Forbes: Chinese Oilman Is Leading Beijing’s Unocal Bid.

— Philip Bowring of the New York Times‘ s owned International Herald Tribune gives a good insight into the finances of the deal: Beyond China’s Oil Bid, A Greater Danger.

– The myth of untapped oil reserves. Asia Times: The Saudi Oil Bombshell

Energy Bulletin : A letter from oil exploration insider

By TEMPLE A. STARK, Casa Grande, Arizona RSS FEED

Powered by

About temple

Always been a writer, always maintained an interest in politics, how people communicate and fantasy worlds within photography and books. Previously wrote for Blogcritics back in 2005 and interested in exploring the issues and topics I'm interested - the changing landscape of entertainment. all from the POV of a creator first, consumer, second.
  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Nice, so globalization only works when it’s fair to the West? Think again – money talks.

    Furthermore, I have a feeling that Chevron isn’t too interested in closing this deal – they’ve got a lot on their plate already.

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    With all this talk about “reds,” it makes me feel like Joe McCarthy has come back from the dead and is posting on Blogcritics in the guise of Temple Stark.

    And Aaman, nice point. Americans have always thought in terms of their global interests first. If China wants to buy an oil company, it becomes a threat to national security; when America does it, it’s considered good business.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    I didn’t say my gut reaction was the correct one; just that that’s what it was. My point two addresses that same thing – we’ve been lobbying to open up markets for American business so it’s a little awkward, to the say the least, to now say China can’t get into ours.

    See … I’m ahead of you. Either or that or I’m so far behind you’re lapping me.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Temple, you know it’s all about the lede and the headline:)

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    Interesting, btw, that you mentioned the IBM takeover in your post. There’s a bit about it in the new issue of Wired. Haven’t read it yet, but I was thinking about it when I saw the title of your post.

    Also interesting is that “red China” seems to be growing more and more capitalist each day. It’s getting to be more and more impossible to maintain a self-producing economy in this age of globalization. With the new CAFTA, it looks like we’re heading irreversibly further in this direction.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    CAFTA pretty much snuck in there, didn’t it?. Nothing compared to the battle over NAFTA.

  • http://www.pippensqueak.blogspot.com gypsyman

    Just a quick note about Canada being one of the U.S. s bigest supliers of crude. China is attempting to buy up a huge interest in the Alberta Tar sands project which is going to be responsible for the production of a majority of our oil in the future.
    gypsyman