CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Crisis Management

Crisis Management

Introduction

In this section the attachments among the crisis stages proposed by Mitroff (1988;1994), the crisis characteristics addressed by Chengalur-Smith et al. (1999), will be discussed. Following is the summary of the enquired urgent situation Events of the TCO Oil Refinery Company

Summary of the Investigated Crisis Events of the TCO Oil Refinery Company

Crisis Case

Description of the Case

Potential violation of the equitable Trade proceed of Taiwan

In 2001, TCO was described to the equitable Trade Commission of Taiwan for unlawfully ascribing a gas position a US$10,000 to US$20,000 security deposit when a gas position demanded to form an coalition with it in alignment to be its long-term contracting gas retailer. If the gas station violated the contract with TCO by selling products from TCO's competing oil refinery companies, its security deposit would be confiscated. The gas position owners considered this requirement illegal since it contravened the cipher of equitable Trade Act of Taiwan, which was enacted to avert any companies from utilising their superior market power to come by awkward advantages from its retailers and end customers. Because of this event, TCO's public image was damaged, since the owners of its potential contracting gas stations and its end customers perceived it as a monopoly who constantly acquired unreasonable benefits, and some of them turned to TCO's competitors. Although the Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan finally considered TCO's policy of charging security deposit a reasonable action to respond to market competition, TCO suffered a loss of customers and a slow-down in the increase of contracting gas stations.

Warning of violation of the Fair Trade proceed from the equitable Trade Commission of Taiwan

TCO was officially alerted by the equitable Trade charge of Taiwan due to its promise violation of the equitable Trade proceed in January 2003. The Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan discovered that TCO seemed to have allied with the other two major gas providers in Taiwan to raise gas prices together for three times in the last two seasons of 2002. the Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan considered the increase of gas prices inappropriate, since the it was over the increase in TCO's production costs. In addition, TCO's alliance with the two gas providers was considered a potential monopolistic action, which was what the Fair Trade Act of Taiwan aimed to prevent or eliminate. The Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan determined that such action would cause damage to public interests and the rights of consumers to purchase goods at fair prices. As a result, the Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan issued official warning to all the three companies to urge them to stop the indicated action. Because of this event, TCO's public image was damaged, since the owners of its potential contracting gas stations and its end customers perceived it as a monopoly who constantly acquired unreasonable benefits.

Gas blast misfortune at a well site of oil reserve containers

A gas explosion occurred on the top of an oil reserve tank at a well site located in Swan County when an engineer was ...