Home            Blog
Showing posts with label mergers acquisitions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mergers acquisitions. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Successful negotiation tactic used for electric power In India


Finding the Right Process in India

EDITED BY PON_STAFF ON  / CRISIS NEGOTIATIONS
In 1995, a new government came into power in the Indian state of Maharashtra and canceled a 20-year power purchase agreement with the Dabhol Power Company, a joint-venture formed by Enron, General Electric, and Bechtel. Claiming that the deal was improper and even illegal, the government declared publicly that it would not renegotiate.
When the government recognized that it had no other options to secure power, it began to soften its position. But if renegotiations were to take place, the parties would need a process that would preserve the government’s dignity and prestige. Ultimately, the government chose to appoint a “review panel” consisting of disinterested energy experts to reexamine the project. The panel met with Dabhol representatives and project critics, and then submitted a proposal to the government that contained the terms of a renegotiated electricity supply agreement that both sides accepted.
The use of an expert panel to conduct what amounted to a renegotiation, in lieu of face-to-face discussions between the two sides, served to protect governmental dignity. The panel’s independent status also assured the public that the renegotiated agreement protected Indian interests.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Joint Gains in Negotiation


Crafting Joint Gains in Negotiation

 / NEGOTIATION SKILLS
While you might choose many processes for conducting your negotiations, we recommend the following three steps of a mutual-gains approach:
1. Identify and clarify interests. 
  • Some portion of your discussion should be dedicated simply to identifying your and the other side’s interests on the various issues being negotiated. Try recording interests on flip-charts, a whiteboard, or a shared computer for all to see. During this stage, parties should avoid making judgments about what the other side expresses. Instead, focus on asking clarifying questions to ensure that you fully understand each other’s interests.
2. Brainstorm possible value-creating opportunities.
  • Once you’ve made a complete list of interests, it’s time to brainstorm various options based on these interests. Ground rules are essential for brainstorming to be fruitful. For example, to boost creativity and minimize self-censorship, parties should agree to record all ideas without criticism or evaluation.
3. Evaluate options

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

CRS finds US production grew outside federally controlled areas


CRS finds US production grew outside federally controlled areas

03/05/2013
3
Facebook
3
Twitter
0
LinkedIn
6
Share
While US oil and gas production has climbed to its highest level in 2 decades, all of the growth since 2007 has occurred outside federally controlled areas where production actually declined, a recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found.
“Private sector investment and new technologies are driving increases in oil and gas production,” said US Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy and Power Subcommittee, which released the Feb. 28 CRS analysis on Mar. 5.
“Where the states have been in charge, we have seen energy development boom in a safe and responsible way, but under federal control we have seen a sharp decline in production,” he declared. “A web of red tape and a backlog of delayed permits are blocking important energy production opportunities on federal lands.”
All of the fiscal 2007-12 US crude oil production increase took place outside nonfederal areas onshore and offshore, and the federal share of total domestic crude output fell by about seven percentage points during that period, the report said.
US gas production has grown by 4 tcf/year since 2007 as output grew by 40% on state and private land and fell by about 33% on federal onshore and offshore areas, it added.
Congress may consider two different proposals to increase oil and gas production from federally issued leases, according to the report’s executive summary.
Nonproduction fee
It noted that some members have proposed a $4/acre annual fee on nonproducing tracts which they believe are not being developed in a timely fashion. US Sec. of the Interior Ken Salazar imposed higher federal offshore lease rents in 2009 to discourage holding unused leases and to move more tracts into production if possible, it said.
Other members of Congress may propose legislation to streamline federal oil and gas drilling permit application processing, the report continued. It said that a review mandated by the 2005 Energy Policy Act found the average time it took producers and the US Bureau of Land Management to process a federal drilling permit application climbed from 218 days in fiscal 2006 to 307 days in 2011.
“The difference, however, is that in 2006 it took BLM an average of 127 days to process an [application], while in 2011 it took BLM 71 days,” CRS said in its report. “In 2006, the industry took an average of 91 days to complete [a drilling permit application], but in 2011, [it] took 236 days. BLM stated, in its fiscal 2012 and 2013 budget justifications, that overall processing times per [application] have increased because of the complexity of the process.”
“As [gasoline] prices continue to rise past $4/gal, American families are looking to Washington for solutions to help provide relief at the pump,” Whitfield said. “Expanding oil production on federal lands offers a real opportunity to help increase domestic supplies and stabilize prices as well as boost federal revenues.”
Contact Nick Snow at nicks@pennwell.com.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

A recent study of selfishness in negotiation has interesting results


The Dictator Game: Justifying Selfishness in Negotiation

 / MEETING FACILITATION
In a recent study of selfishness in negotiation, Fei Song of York University and C. Brian Cadsby and Tristan Morris of the University of Guelph had participants play the “dictator game,” adapted from experimental economics literature. In this game, Party A is given a sum of money to allocate between himself and Party B. Because Party B has no power, Party A’s allocation goes into effect without debate. The dictator game captures the essence of negotiations in contexts with an extreme power differential.
Song and her colleagues compared the behavior of people who played the role of Party A on their own versus those who made the allocation decision as part of a two-person team. The authors also compared how males and females behaved in the role of Party A. Male participants were significantly more selfish when they represented a team than when they acted alone; female participants were less influenced by whether they represented only themselves or a two-person team.
The results for males were broadly consistent with past research by Professor Kristina A. Diekmann of the University of Utah, which showed that negotiators are more selfish when they can attribute selfish behavior to their group rather than to themselves. As David Messick of Northwestern University has observed, football coaches don’t justify the decision to take a new position by saying, “I want more money.” Rather, they tend to say, “I need to protect the financial interests of my family.” Obviously, the two statements mean more of less the same thing.
Song and her colleagues raise the possibility that female negotiators are less influenced by the social context of representing a group. These results shine new light on claiming behavior as it relates to gender and whether negotiators act alone or as part of a team. Specifically, when negotiators begin to reference their family, department, or team, they may be about to claim more than their fair share of the pie.