This is not complicated in my opinion.
Exxon says they needed a pipeline to cost effectively pump the gas and oil. Generally, when the market price of oil and gas is low, the company has no incentive to develop more costly undeveloped properties. When the price of oil and gas goes up, higher cost properties can become cost effective.
If Alaska wanted the property developed years ago, they could have allowed for the pipeline. They did not do this.
Alaska also had the opportunity to take the action they are taking now years ago. They did not do this.
Exxon's past actions are consistent with general business practices. They will want to control a potential resource for as long as possible and practical even if they have no immediate plans of developing the property. A common response to that is to force action, as Alaska is currently doing. Now, the state has leverage and can force development with no conditions. This is just business. There is nothing heroic being done on the part of Irwin. He is just lighting a fire under Exxon's ass. Sometimes you have to do that, no big deal.
Exxon is currently acting consistent with what you or anyone should expect. If you think they lack credibility it is because you attribute motives to their actions that don't exist. Exxon wants to make money, with oil at $125 they will be able to do it at Point Thomson at $50 perhaps they could not.
Quote:
Exxon drilling led to discovery of Point Thomson's gas and oil reserves in 1977. But the company hasn't developed the field because of the lack of a gas pipeline and the field's extreme subsurface pressure, which would require tougher, costlier wells to control, Exxon managers say.
Irwin, in his decision, said Exxon and other leaseholders have looked to "warehouse" Point Thomson while concentrating on projects elsewhere in the world.
|
Quote:
Exxon, the top leaseholder in the 106,201-acre field, in February offered a $1.3 billion drilling plan in hopes of halting the state's legal effort to break up the field and possibly lease the acreage to other companies.
Exxon managers touted the plan as an "unconditional commitment" to start producing from the field.
|
http://www.adn.com/oil/story/384213.html
Your post here was a nice try, but failed to prove your point in my view.