Despite agreeing on many of the basic facts and analysis, I was amazed that these speakers could reach opposite conclusions. I believe the answer lies in how you choose to define what state interests must be protected. In my opinion, the answer to what is best for Alaska includes several components such as employment of Alaskans in Alaska, that the state shares in the financial savings accrued in the merger, and reasonable assurances that spirited competition in the exploration and development of North Slope oil and gas will continue into the future. Shrouded by complicated data and guided by an implacable economic model, the Administration seeks to define Alaska's best interest in the narrow context of antitrust law. Determining that the merger would diminish competition on the North Slope, the Administration's narrow focus, suggested by its model, requires BP to sell approximately half of Arco's exploration and production assets and a portion of its transportation assets to two new operators.
Competition is restored and the antitrust laws are satisfied.
End of the inquiry. I could not disagree more. Neither the Administration or BP has said much on this point and what little they have said is distressing. This is all well and good. The Administration's analysis reaches a different conclusion.