Elroy, that depends on the intent of the signed contracts. Apparently the contracts are good, but if there was a blunder and Chevron knew, then crossing their fingers and hoping the royalty mistake slipped through was not a contract and the other party could reasonably argue that both parties knew damn well that there was supposed to be a limit to the royalty-free quantity.
But that's for lawyers to argue.
<Chevron and its partners, Devon Energy and Statoil ASA of Norway, have six leases in the Jack oil field, about 175 miles off the coast of Louisiana. Two of the leases allow the companies to avoid royalties on as much as 87.5 million barrels of oil per lease.
The benefit, known as royalty relief, was supposed to be halted if the price of oil climbed above $36 a barrel. But that restriction was omitted on all leases signed in 1998 and 1999, including the two held by Chevron and its partners.>
If some impoverished widow inadvertently signed a contract with me in which her dopey lawyer had forgotten to include an aspect that we both thought should be in there, I wouldn't enforce that aspect of the contract just because it was to my advantage.
Okay, so it's the big, wealthy, bossy, over-bearing, eminent-domain government. That doesn't make it ethical. That government represents LOTS of impoverished widows.
Stopping Chevron bidding on new leases seems a dopey idea [if they won't renegotiate or hand back or whatever it is the government wants]. All that means is that Chevron won't be a high-bidder and the oil will go at a cheaper price. Which seems stupid. A double blunder by the government.
Mqurice |
