Hmmm, let’s see—Exxon has Alaska oil lease for decades. Does nothing with it. Ergo Alaskans cannot derive income from their own oil. Not to mention the little matter of reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil. This arrangement persisted through a number of Alaskan governorships. I leave the issue of what Exxon was doing to manage this status quo for another day’s discussion.
Enter Palin. She bucks her own party and recompetes the lease. Exxon loses, TansCanada wins. How exactly was Exxon deprived its right to due process? Please be specific if you can.
Oh, and please explain why it was a good thing (or made any sense) that governors preceeding Palin allowed Exxon to sit on the oil for all those years. Be specific if you can.
Is it the role of government to direct companies to do something that they do not want to do?
What reason did Exxon have for not drilling?
What was the best busisness decision for Exxon?
(I’ll be honest. I don’t understand Alaskan politics. It seems to be one large fusion of business and state. The government can force an oil company to drill so that Alaskan citizens can get a bigger check. The whole thing sounds like something a Swede would come up with).