Along with a possibility of creating a large job market here in the U.S. with upwards of 600,000 people needing to operate this endeavor, we could take back our economy. The con for this is that it is still too new for us to determine what it can do to the land around where the fracking is taking place. There have been reports of water contamination as well as earthquakes due to displacing tectonic plates. There needs to be a more conclusive study done in order to determine whether or not oil and gas companies should be allowed to engage in fracking. At this time, I could not conclusively say yes or no to allowing fracking in the U.S. 2.
Therefore, holding the Murphy Oil company responsible for their contribution in the matter was the initial response to rectifying their losses. However, at first their case was rejected mainly due to prejudice ideals of those in their local government, but in the end they were able to appeal with the 5th Circuit's federal appeals court, but eventually led nowhere. Per Maleske, ",the case looked likely to bring legal certainty to the climate change litigation realm. Either it would add to the growing pressure against oil and gas companies to cut emissions, or it would lead to a circuit split with the 2nd Circuit, which had allowed state and public plaintiffs to proceed with similar claims in Connecticut v. AEP, and nudge the issue closer to the Supreme Court. (Maleske, M. 2010 Inside Counsel)" This case and others like it would surely start a huge liability case influx to other energy and oil companies worldwide.
Goldstein’s success in his initial performance led him to take a different approach in 1996. Instead of being a passive investor and simply waiting for discounts to close naturally he decided to take a more active role and become the catalyst to close the discounts. As an active investor Goldstein’s objective was to convince enough shareholders of the fund that closing the discount was in their best interests and that electing him to represent the fund was the best way to achieve this goal. Gaining enough influence over the shareholders to gain control of the strategy used was very difficult as managers of the fund would oppose most initiatives put forth by Goldstein as it was typically against their interests. However, if everything came together appropriately, Goldstein could forcibly close the discount and earn an exceptional return when he has free reign over the fund’s strategy.
The corporation could be having difficulty to persuade investors to buy shares of their stock, or they have internal problems that have not been solve by the company. During this time period, I think diamond mining companies having a tough break in mining diamonds. Some of the factors that can cause this tough break are: weather, economy, and consumer desires. Another problem to consider is the location of where the company is producing the diamonds.
Additionally, the continuously increasing steel prices leading to higher production costs and impacting product’s margin. Other players initiated price war (price differential of 5 to 10 % of Fortis discounted prices) while Fortis refused to continuously cut its prices, which caused Fortis to lose market share to its competitors. Increasing price sensitiveness of Fortis customers, decreasing market share coupled with low production utilization (70%) is increasing more and more pressure on Fortis to lower prices. In addition to its standard “4-8-14” discount, Fortis can apply price-flex strategy in order to selectively meet lower competitor prices. Question 3) Fortis marketing strategy focuses on value-added service to customers.
There would have been no issues of relocation for financial purposes if the “unfriendly merger” between Pillsbury (owner of Green Giant) and Grand Metropolitan Company had not taken place. The following facts created the issue: the merger between Pillsbury(Green Giant) and Grand Metropolitan Company; and the necessity of increasing profits at the division to help pay off debt arising from the unfriendly merger. The issue is as follows: Green Giant had two distinct paths it could take to decide the most economical manner in which they could increase profits so that severe career implications that Grand Metrolpolitan alluded too would not take place. The first choice is to move Green Giant’s Plant to Mexico, uprooting their operations in Salinas, California to have cheaper labor and utilizing the economic doctrine of comparative advantage. The second choice is for Green Giant to stay in Salinas so individuals are not laid off and deal with executives “light but firm hand upon” career implications due to Green Giant not substantically and quickly increase profits.
In the demand side, Methanex’s revenue was exposed to the fluctuation of the demand for methanol, since Methanex only produced methanol. This situation was more serious in the supply side, where the price the “raw material”, natural gas was subject to fluctuating prices, interruptions to supply lines and international policies and regulations governing imports and exports. In last decades, some plants in New Zealand and Egypt had to shut down temporally for fluctuating price of natural gas or political issues. The options for Methanex to solve/relieve these issues include: • Using derivatives on natural gas and methanol to hedge the risk from price fluctuation • Expanding the market in China to explore opportunities in both demand and supply sides • Exploring opportunities in areas where long-term contacts on demand (in methanol) or supply (in natural gas) instead of focusing only on the richness in natural gas reserve • Expanding new products lines to reduce the risk from strongly relying on a single product. It could also make use of the idle resources (plants, machines, etc.)
Canadian government chose not to sell their oil across the seas despite those years being amongst the most expensive for oil prices on record. Instead the Canadian government has deliberated a very dull plan (as it has proved to be) which consisted of Alberta not being able to take part in the national trade, but instead supplying the whole Canada with oil, by a price lower than the one of the market. As a result, Alberta lost an immense amount of wealth which could have been acquired through the process of oil sales. Consequently, the workers could no longer get paid and therefore were discharged from their workplace, ceasing the production. In the meantime while Canada was out of the oil market, a Norway has became an oil dominated exporter.
This is a foreign direct investment when a parent company starts a new venture. The Government won’t step in because they see this as a positive position in underdeveloped countries. It will create jobs, knowledge, and technology is gained to boost the country's human capital (as cited by Investopedia et al., 2007). General Electric is a parent company; therefore this will be a long-term reputable business that will create jobs. General Electric didn’t always favor joint ventures.
Case analysis on Aston-Blair,Inc Background of the case: Aston-Blair was the large U.S producer of precious metal alloys and other specialized alloys for commercial and industrial use, but suffered big losses in the first quarter of 1991. Except the external problems that are economics slowdown and declining price of gold due to the air strike against Iraq, the CEO of Aston-Blair, Wynn Aston felt one of the internal problem which caused the firm’s poor performance is improper forecasting. Aston asked Casey,Vice precident of marketing,and Trott,Vice pricident of corporate planning to reexamine the company’s procedures for forecasting sales. Task force: Casey and Trott decided to form a task force to investigate the forecasting problem and put Michael Bacon who is a special assistant to Trott, in charge of the task force. Besides Bacon, there are 2 members,Reiss and Holt, came from Corporate planning, Bodin,came from Sales division,Meir,came from Economic forecasting, and 3 product managers came from Market division,they are Ratliff,Paulson and Kolinsky.