At a minimum, the federal government’s intervention in the proposed purchase of L.A.-based Atlantic Richfield Co. by BP Amoco has further delayed the deal’s closing and raised the specter of further concessions that will result in the acquisition being less financially attractive than first envisioned. And if the U.S. District Court isn’t sympathetic to BP Amoco’s case, it could cause the British oil giant to reconsider the whole deal, though such a move would be very expensive.
Does the Federal Trade Commission really have a case? Perhaps, but the two central issues at hand whether the merger would leave BP dominating oil production on Alaska’s North Slope or having an unfair advantage in futures contracts are both murky and contestable. Antitrust cases should ultimately come down to bottom-line considerations, and in that regard, it would be tough to prove that the Arco-BP deal would reshape the industry to the point where consumers would notice any difference at the pumps.
And what about other recent blockbuster mergers, most notably in the technology and communications arenas, that could be argued as having similar anti-competitive ramifications? What about the maze of partnerships among TV networks, cable channels, and telecommunications companies that are quickly reshaping the world’s economy? Doesn’t their consolidating control of the marketplace represent an even greater threat?
Of course it does. But it’s politically incorrect these days to take on the likes of America Online, Time Warner and Viacom. The one exception was the massive Microsoft case, but that didn’t involve a merger and covered business practices so egregious that it was hard for Washington to ignore.
That’s hardly the case with BP, which has been anxious to cut a deal with federal regulators. Citing sources close to the oil giant, the Wall Street Journal reported last week that BP had offered to sell the equivalent of Arco’s entire Alaskan production so that the deal would result in no net gain. The company also was willing to divest a portion of its huge pipeline and oil-storage operations in Cushing, Okla., which the government says would allow BP to manipulate the price of futures contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
BP said both overtures were rebuffed perhaps, it is argued, because the FTC has become less interested in handling antitrust issues through negotiated settlements.
And why is that? It’s instructive to look toward Capitol Hill, where Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have complained to the FTC about the proposed deal on the grounds that it would affect oil prices. It’s also helpful to remember that California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is determined to prove a massive conspiracy among the major oil companies that has the state’s motorists paying more for gasoline. Needless to say, Lockyer opposes the merger as well and why not? What better way to gain traction in the nebulous world of gasoline pricing than to suggest that the merging of two big oil companies would only make matters worse?
Never mind that BP was willing to deal. And never mind that Lockyer, Boxer and Wyden have little evidence to support their pricing theories. All of which should serve as an important reminder about the hazards of buying up companies especially within politically exposed industries.
