Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China Oil Exec Dismayed Over U.S. Reaction to Unocal Bid...
washingtonpost.com ^ | Wednesday, July 6, 2005 | Peter S. Goodman

Posted on 07/06/2005 6:44:02 PM PDT by crushelits

BEIJING, July 6 -- The chairman of CNOOC Ltd., the Chinese energy firm embroiled in a thorny campaign to purchase the
U.S. oil company Unocal Corp., voiced dismay on Wednesday over what he called "overreaction" from Washington by those portraying the deal as a threat to fair trade and U.S. national security.

In an interview with The Washington Post at CNOOC's headquarters in Beijing, Chairman Fu Chengyu said critics of his company's bid for Unocal were guilty of viewing China through an outdated lens by failing to appreciate how economic reforms have forced Chinese companies to adopt market principles and focus on profitability.

"They don't understand what has happened in China in the last 20 years," said Fu, speaking fluent if halting English. "Most of the concerns are related to politics and not the commercial side. I didn't expect that so many people would be so sensitive to this. We are following a system that was set up by Western leading companies, especially the United States. We are walking along a path that they paved, so we thought, 'This is natural.' " But Fu expressed confidence that CNOOC would eventually convince critics that its acquisition poses no menace.

"Our board has made the decision that we have to win this bid," he said.

As CNOOC continues its pursuit of Unocal, the conflict has become symbolic of the struggle by the United States to adjust to the implications of China's growing force in the global economy. Since CNOOC stunned markets last month with its unsolicited offer for Unocal, seeking to trump a lower bid from the U.S. oil giant Chevron Corp., a vocal segment of Congress has assailed the deal as a provocation in an already tense trade relationship between China and the United States.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: bid; chinaoilexec; dismayed; overus; reaction; unocal

1 posted on 07/06/2005 6:44:07 PM PDT by crushelits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Sorry dude, national security and all that stuff.

How about a few Dairy Queen franchises in the U.S.A.? Gotta great footlong cheese hotdog and ice cream cakes. Can't miss.

Just send $1 Trillion in small, unmarked, non-sequential bills to F15Eagle, and I'll set ya up with some DQ franchises or a Subway or two (Jared not included).


2 posted on 07/06/2005 6:48:28 PM PDT by F15Eagle (no I don't really deal in DQ and Subway stores but I do like their food from time-to-time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
over what he called "overreaction" from Washington by those portraying the deal as a threat to fair trade and U.S. national security.

No probrem.

3 posted on 07/06/2005 6:50:32 PM PDT by b4its2late (GITMO is way too nice of a place to house low life terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Call back when China is a free country and Taiwan is recognized as an independent country.


4 posted on 07/06/2005 6:53:42 PM PDT by Founding Father ( Republicans control the Oval Office, Senate and House, but still can't govern.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
I really don't understand the beef here. China has a hell of a lot of our dollars, all earned legally. Now they want to buy something with them. They need a vehicle for orderly oil production and distribution. I have much more heartburn about them controlling both ends of the Panama Canal personally.

Unocal has no monopoly on anything. They are simply an efficient player in the oil markets. It a symptom of how unsophisticated the Chinese are that they need Unocal "at any price" to get the know-how to play a bigger role in the energy world.

5 posted on 07/06/2005 6:54:43 PM PDT by DJtex (;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
The chairman of CNOOC Ltd., the Chinese energy firm embroiled in a thorny campaign to purchase the U.S. oil company Unocal Corp., voiced dismay

How does one say........

"Deeply saddened"...or...

"Deeply concerned"

in ChiCom?

Now, ask me if I care, you ChiCom Rat Bastar@

I wonder what the head 'Rat schmucks have to say on this. I have not seen / heard anything. I want to hear what "Pollissi" and "I learned everything from Tommy", Reid, and "I can get you the Olypmics" Hitlery - what do they have to say on this?

LVM

6 posted on 07/06/2005 6:59:22 PM PDT by LasVegasMac ("God. Guts. Guns. I don't call 911." (bumper sticker))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJtex
China has a hell of a lot of our dollars, all earned legally.

I bet Bill Gates would like to debate that statement.

LVM

7 posted on 07/06/2005 7:00:53 PM PDT by LasVegasMac ("God. Guts. Guns. I don't call 911." (bumper sticker))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
It seems to me that their "free market" complaint holds no water because the offer is being made by a pure communist government owned entity. Maybe I'm wrong but I still see communist and it's evil twin socialist as enemy number one of the United States of America. Their offer is not a free market offer, thus they can shove it up their happy family triple delight.
8 posted on 07/06/2005 7:01:52 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

Screw the Commie SOB's!


9 posted on 07/06/2005 7:04:26 PM PDT by vpintheak (Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: crushelits

I bet the Taliban was dismayed with our reaction to 9/11.

(And Saddam is probably still wondering what he could've done differently in regards to "weapons inspectors".)


11 posted on 07/06/2005 7:06:58 PM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJtex

Here is the issue.

They are a government owned company. If they want to buy someone, they can outbid any private bidder if the Chicom government wants it badly enough through government subsidies.

There is no way we should allow the sale of Unocal to the Chinese government. Any promises they make are not worth the breath that forms them.

I have two examples:

"We promise not to use this advanced milling equipment to enhance our military aircraft."

"We promise not to use this satellite booster technology to advance our nuclear missle technology."

Yeah, right. Clinton should have been impeached for allowing both of those technologies to be given outright to the Communists with nothing more than promises not to militarize them.


12 posted on 07/06/2005 7:08:56 PM PDT by rlmorel ("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
"Our board has made the decision that we have to win this bid,"

He didn't mention that his board is the government of the PC.

13 posted on 07/06/2005 7:12:49 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJtex
Unocal has no monopoly on anything

Unocal used to own and operate the only commercially viable lanthanides mine in the US, in the vicinity of the Chocolate Mountains in the Mojave desert. Lanthanides are rare earths which have several unique and essential applications in military technology. Due solely to the totally corrupt machinations of Senator Feinslime several years back, Unocal was forced to curtail its lanthanides mining operations. At the time, the only other source for the rare earths in question was a mainland China company, a company by the oddest coincidence involved in business dealings with Feinslime's husband. It is possible that Unocal still holds the mineral rights to its Kali operation. If so, the sale of Unocal to the Chicoms would give them control of a natural resource critical to our national defense.

14 posted on 07/06/2005 7:47:13 PM PDT by Bedford Forrest (Roger, Contact, Judy, Out. Fox One. Splash one.<I>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
I understand the Yellow Menace.

Only a dumbass would sell the Gulf oil Fields especially since the rice eaters already control the Panama Canal....

Jeeez....We are being encircled. The Chi-Coms are making a bid to corner the oil market, and the Russians are helping them to kill carriers.

Either the NKs will mortar Seoul our the ChiComs will attack Taiwan, and then they'll look at us and say:

"So what are YOU gonna do????"

15 posted on 07/06/2005 7:55:09 PM PDT by The Drowning Witch (Sono La Voce della Nazione Selvaggia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All
Last week, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution urging the Bush administration to scrutinize the deal as a potential threat to U.S. national security.

Bill Gertz told KSFO's Barbara Simpson (2 July, Sat.) that American corporations in China are told that they must lobby Washington to represent the Chi-coms' interests. Otherwise they may not be allowed to continue to do business in China.

So far the notorious Rep. Jim Moran (D, Va) backs the sale of UNOCAL plus about twenty other elected "representatives" of U.S. citizens. See, http://www.goodbyejim.com and http://www.morantics.com. Only about twenty? (More lobbying, useful idiots!) I'd call that ball one.

The Chi-coms' White House connection is Mark McKinnon, former media advisor to Pres. Bush, who is Vice Chairman of Public Strategies. He is CNOOC's media adviser and lobbyist. That's strike one on us.

And how many times has the Committee on Foreign Investments, an inter-agency committee chaired by the Secretary of Treasury, said no? Strike two.

Mr. Gertz also told Ms Simpson and her listeners that Bush Administration policy makers are divided between pro-business and pro-national security. Business almost always wins over national security. Strike three.

The U.S. just struck out.

Good bye UNOCAL.

16 posted on 07/06/2005 10:58:21 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bedford Forrest
RE: "Due solely to the totally corrupt machinations of Senator Feinslime several years back. . . ."

Thank you for reminding all about that. Lots of state Democrats made a bundle off those shenanigans as well as the lovely Mr. Feinstein, Richard Blum.

17 posted on 07/06/2005 11:03:38 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

an overreaction about China ??

Naaaaa .. it's just that they have a history


18 posted on 07/06/2005 11:31:21 PM PDT by Mo1 (We will stay in the fight until the fight is won ~~~ President G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crushelits

What's Global Crossing?


19 posted on 07/07/2005 12:06:28 AM PDT by endthematrix ("an ominous vacancy" fills this space)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
"...and the Russians are helping them to kill carriers."

What are you saying here?

20 posted on 07/07/2005 12:15:05 AM PDT by carl in alaska (Hey John Kerry...we don't do this just for "entertainment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
"Good bye UNOCAL."

I don't think so. CNOOC was late into this game and that's going to cause problems for them. I predict Chevron will sweeten its offer for Unocal to move very close to the CNOOC offer early next month. This will not leave CNOOC enough time to make a decision on a counter offer and to have this counter offer fully evaluated by Unocal shareholders before they vote on Chevron's offer on August 10. Unocal shareholders will not want to wait for the lengthy regulatory review of CNOOC's offer, and a majority of them will vote to accept Chevron's offer. Patriotism and anti-communist sentiment will play a significant unspoken role in this vote. Game, set, and match to Chevron.

Institutions own about 84% of Unocal's stock, and most of those money managers want this deal to happen in 2005 so they can lock in big gains on their Unocal stock and improve their 2005 performance bonus, (although you won't hear them say that.) If CNOOC buys Unocal, the regulatory and national security review may not be completed until next year, and those money managers don't want to wait until next year to lock in their capital gains. If a CNOOC deal runs into regulatory trouble, Unocal's stock price could start slipping and sliding and none of the current owners want to see that happen.

21 posted on 07/07/2005 12:47:15 AM PDT by carl in alaska (Hey John Kerry...we don't do this just for "entertainment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Drowning Witch
Only a dumbass would sell the Gulf oil Fields especially since the rice eaters already control the Panama Canal....

We are surrounded - COSCO (China Ocean Shipping Co) which is partly owned by the Chinese Military has facilities - thanks to the Clintons at the time of ChinaGate - at the Port of Los Angeles, Long Beach, CA, Seattle and somewhere on the east coast!

22 posted on 07/07/2005 12:54:39 AM PDT by AnimalLover ( ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Archon of the East

Right on and well put. (Boy it sucks to be honest)


23 posted on 07/07/2005 1:00:20 AM PDT by torchthemummy (Ron Bonjean: "Deepthroat...Deanthroat...Dean likes the taste of his own foot.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bedford Forrest

So make Unocal divest those mines as condition of sale.


24 posted on 07/07/2005 1:03:52 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: WilliamofCarmichael; carl in alaska

Yeah, I think CNOOC was way too late into this game and Chevron is doing a masterful job of generating uncertainty in the minds of Unocal's shareholders about the CNOOC deal. I'd expect Chevron to increase their offer just before the 8/10 vote and that should get the majority of shares voted for their offer despite any counter-moves by CNOOC. As far as I know, it only takes a simple majority to approve the Chevron deal and that should happen on 8/10. CNOOC's offer was too late and they don't have time to clear up all the uncertainties about regulatory approval. That's the way business works in the US--you snooze, you lose.


25 posted on 07/07/2005 1:07:31 AM PDT by defenderSD (Suddenly the raven on Scalia's shoulder stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven...."Nevergore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bedford Forrest
Europium is a lanthanide used in color TV picture tubes. Unless you have a LCD screen, you couldn't freep without it.
26 posted on 07/07/2005 1:08:57 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
"So make Unocal divest those mines as condition of sale."

Bingo, if necessary divestiture of mines required to clear our national security review. No big deal, and fortunately they can't put the mines on ships and take them to China during the next (let's hope not) corrupt Dem administration.

27 posted on 07/07/2005 1:12:12 AM PDT by defenderSD (Suddenly the raven on Scalia's shoulder stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven...."Nevergore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: All
THE YELLOW MENACE WILL OVERCOME US ALL.
(scroll, scroll, scroll)
... especially since the rice eaters already control the Panama Canal

The silence is deafening. The hypocrisy though, that's quite another thing ....

28 posted on 07/07/2005 1:22:03 AM PDT by jayhorn (the gop is a "big tent" my pasty white ..................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jayhorn

Isn't the Panama Canal relatively useless now because it's too small to handle large commerical ships and big Navy ships, such as aircraft carriers? If I recall correctly, our carriers can't pass through the Panama canal and neither can most large oil tankers.


29 posted on 07/07/2005 1:28:59 AM PDT by defenderSD (Suddenly the raven on Scalia's shoulder stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven...."Nevergore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jayhorn; DJtex

If I recall correctly, we base half of our aircraft carriers on the west coast and half on the east coast and they never go through the Panama Canal because the canal is too small for ships of that size. Very larg crude carriers (VLCC's) also are based on the two coasts or the gulf coast and they can't fit through the Panama Canal either. I believe there's a study underway about building a new Panama Canal that doesn't use any locks and could handle much bigger ships. It would be an incredibly expensive project, however, and it's not going to start any time soon.


30 posted on 07/07/2005 1:40:24 AM PDT by defenderSD (Suddenly the raven on Scalia's shoulder stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven...."Nevergore.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Archon of the East
"Maybe I'm wrong but i still see communism...
You're not wrong. It is just another dictatorial atheistic form of surf control.
31 posted on 07/07/2005 3:26:11 AM PDT by rodguy911 (Time to get rid of the UN and the ACLU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska; defenderSD
Thank you both for the information about the UNOCAL shareholders.

carl in alaska, you asked another Freeper what was meant by his reply about carriers.

I'm betting he was referring to China's growing navy with emphasis on destroying U.S. aircraft carriers. Here is a short excerpt from an old Bill Gertz column. Russia is fully involved helping the PLA.

"'The SS-N-22 is the most dangerous anti-ship missile in the Russian, and now the Chinese, fleet,' said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican. 'Our Navy admittedly has scant ability to defend against this 200-kiloton nuclear-capable weapon.'

"The missile has a range of 65 miles and can deliver nuclear or conventional warheads. Chinese military writings have indicated that Beijing is working on weapons to defeat U.S. carrier battle groups." [End quote]

I'm glad to be reminded that shareholders can stop this sale. I became a news junky in 1950 with the news bulletin that South Korea had been invaded and we were at war again.

I have zero reasons to trust the Chi-coms.

32 posted on 07/07/2005 7:38:29 AM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Hillary is the she in shenanigans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

Heard anything about China owning 40% of US mortgages?


33 posted on 07/08/2005 1:05:41 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Hadn't heard that. But I think Saudi prince Alwaleed owns a majority or significant part of Citibank.


34 posted on 07/08/2005 1:13:09 PM PDT by F15Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

That glib-talking prognosticator of earth changes was on the Art Bell Show again for the 50th time last night and he was going so fast I could only catch a few things [I should be asleep at that time but this guy was keeping me semiconscious]. He also said that either K- or Wal-Mart, I forget which, owned most of the prisoner bonds in the US. One thing I got from all that is that most of us don't have a clue what is really going on in the world as far as business is concerned, and it seems to be stranger than even most amateur conspiracists think.


35 posted on 07/08/2005 1:22:54 PM PDT by RightWhale (withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
"Our board has made the decision that we have to win this bid," he said.

Doesn't sound like a aboard interested in creating shareholder value.

36 posted on 07/13/2005 10:05:50 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska
I predict Chevron will sweeten its offer for Unocal to move very close to the CNOOC...Game, set, and match to Chevron.

Bad news for Chevron shareholders. No way Unocal is worth 18.5 billion.

37 posted on 07/13/2005 10:16:57 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DJtex
Unocal has no monopoly on anything. They are simply an efficient player in the oil markets.

That's going to change if Unocal gets nationalized by China. Do you really want a foreign government to run a great American company into the ground?

Governmnet ownership of commercial enterprises is socalism, whether it's by your own government or by someone else's.

38 posted on 07/13/2005 10:20:33 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
Hadn't heard that. But I think Saudi prince Alwaleed owns a majority or significant part of Citibank

I checked Citigroup's latest proxy statement. No investor owns more than 5%, so you can feel a little better.

39 posted on 07/13/2005 10:34:11 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Interesting. Is Citicorp a separate entity?


40 posted on 07/13/2005 10:39:27 PM PDT by F15Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I'm not sure Unocal is worth $18.5 billion based on their proved reserves of oil and gas. But the amount of additional oil and gas that's likely to be discovered on their leased acreage is much harder to estimate. Chevron and CNOOC may believe that there's much more oil & gas to be found in Unocal's properties, and if that turns out to be correct then Unocal could be worth $25 billion. That kind of information isn't readily available in SEC reports, so I can't estimate how much more oil & gas will be found. But I have a high regard for Chevron's management, so there's probably a substantial amount of undiscovered "black gold" on Unocal's properties.


41 posted on 07/14/2005 5:04:14 PM PDT by carl in alaska (Hey John Kerry...we don't do this just for "entertainment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
Interesting. Is Citicorp a separate entity?

Citicorp merged with Travelers to form Citigroup a few years back.

Maybe the Saudi prince had a large stake before the merger. You can check by looking up old proxy statements.

You can get them online at www.sec.gov.

42 posted on 07/14/2005 5:13:13 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: carl in alaska
I'm not sure Unocal is worth $18.5 billion based on their proved reserves of oil and gas.

I agree. No oil company is valued based on proven reserves alone. You've got to take into account potential reserves, as well as the other businesses the company operates in. Stock market investors generally do that. And no, you cant estimate the value of potential reserves from SEC filings alone, but there are other sources, like the US Geological Survey.

The stock market definitely thinks Chevron is overpaying. They announced their bid on April 4. On that day stock opened at $59.08. It closed at 56.74. The next day it continued to drop to 55.44. That's a drop of 6.6% in just 2 days of trading, right after an announcment. That's no statistical fluke.

Obviously investors think the original bid was too high. And now Chevron wants an even higher bid? Bad news for Chevron shareholders.

43 posted on 07/14/2005 6:29:29 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: crushelits
And in other news.......

A Chinese military official says Beijing will use nuclear weapons against the U.S. if the Americans attack the Asian nation in a fight over Taiwan.

"If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing, according to the Financial Times.

Yeah, let's keep selling them the rope they'll use to hang us with.

44 posted on 07/14/2005 6:34:16 PM PDT by airborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Thanks. Maybe he's just one of the bigger holders, just not the percentage I thought.


45 posted on 07/14/2005 7:27:50 PM PDT by F15Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson