Are we really serious about cutting costs? I bet there are tremendous savings there if independently audited. Do you trust upper management saying that's where we need to remain in a high operating and tax environment?
28 replies (most recent on top)
To Anon666 (there has to be some irony in that number ;-), EGTL is a money pit. If you think that kickback from NNPC was worth anything, how about the 1.3 billion USD, and growing, that they are refusing to pay to Chevron for OPEX in Escravos? Oh, tell us, Great Sage, that you didn't know about that...
Aside from the topic of Chevron's likely future headquarters location, Houston's Proposition 1 (LGBT types entering the bathrooms of their choosing) being defeated in the elections last night... the thing that astounded me the most was the voting results; 62% against and 38% for. I would have expected the result to be closer to 95% against the proposition. Do so many queers or liberals live in Houston or is it that because of the shamefully low voter turnout that most of the queers voted and the majority of the electorate stayed home drinking beer? What a disgrace, folks. If you didn't vote, shame on you.
Chevron will stay in Calif much longer. Houston voters just shut down the proposed law to allow male gays, bisexuals and transsexuals to enter women's restrooms.
Chevron will move out of California as soon as the CEOs wife does not want to live there anymore. An example of this (for those as old as me that can remember) is when ARCO moved from Richfield Ohio to Los Angeles because the CEOs wife didn't like Cleveland and wanted to live in California. So we will probably stay in California for a lot longer.
EGTL investment was more complex than $9B (not 12) for 30k barrels of diesel per day. We made a return on EGTL simply by spending money on it and we didn't need to produce a single barrel of diesel for it to be a positive investment. There is typically more to the story than what you see on the surface.
Rex seems to be happy with Corp relatively remote from Ops.
To 659, that very thing was done to the Beaumont refinery by CPL, and it was divested, even though it was very profitable. However, it didn't fit the flawed business model that CPL still exists to transport equity barrels for Chevron upstream and downstream. Beaumont primarily supplied XOM's refinery. This company simply doesn't make good business decisions, folks, so you can toss logic out the window. It usually comes down to a single executive with a personal passion or political agenda. Remember Kirkland and EGTL? 12 billion spent to make 30k bbls/day of diesel? Wow...
talking about "whine country" that is Houston office right now
Chevron is a cash cow for Californian Democrats. They won't want us to leave the state. They prefer to milk us for cash just enough to fill their coffers, but not enough to piss us off. I think Chevron realizes this and is maneuvering the company to surprising the Californian Democrats one day soon, when we abruptly announce one Friday afternoon at 4pm that we are moving to Houston.
Wishful thinking. As if Chevron needs to be headquartered in CA because of two old refineries. Holy crap are you business and economic morons. Calif politicians have never given CVX fair treatment. The Democrats would be proud to drive Chevron out of CA.
Richmond and El Segundo refineries can't be divested for the remediation costs involved. But, never say never. They can continue to be operated by Chevron, though. We can dismantle the refineries and turn the facilities into Fuel Depots just for storage of gasoline and fuels. The cost to operate them will be so much lower too.
They can be sold without incurring remediation costs if they continue to be operated...although it may be difficult to get someone to buy them for a high enough price to avoid a big write down upon closing of the deal because they will factor in the inevitable remission cost. You could always try to get a dumbass airline like Delta to buy them...
Richmond and El Segundo will never be divested, because the remediation costs would break the back of either Chevron or any other company foolish enough to take them on - we are married to them, and divorce is not an option. Therefore, we shall continue with our wineries in San Ramon.
The new data center is in San Antonio. HQ is not moving there. That's laughable. HQ won't move unless Richmond and El Segundo are divested, and that's not happening anyone soon because the CA gasoline market is advantaged. Employees, especially non-Corp functions, will slowly be moved to Houston (that's already been happening) and the new downtown building will eventually be built on the property Chevron already owns next to 1500.
San Antonio is close to the Texas wine country. Not near the quality of the west coast wine country. Plus San Antonio is in the Texas hill country. Did not know CVX owns land there but would be interested to know where the land is if someone knows its location.
Don't come to Texas. It is full of tumbleweed, cacti and cattle.
I hope the Californians stay where they are. We don't want you in Houston, you're ruining our friendly environment!
Because SJV is the only BU making money.
And don't forget, we have clever employees from California like Jim Beam.
Hmmm, so they pay people to move there? Must be a real glamorous place.
How about the deal Chevron has with Texas? Each Californian CVX employee gets $14,000 for relocation paid by the Texas taxpayers.
Ummm, because we have two giant refineries and an upstream business unit in California? Thousands of employees. And because the company was founded there. Taxes are only paid there on state income, not foreign. And GOM is a dying businesss. Why move???
San Antonio is possible. CVX has land there for massive servers and land is cheaper. Chevron would have more clout. Exxon is the big dog in Houston.
Can you elaborate on why you think the HQ will be moved to San Antonio? Sounds highly unlikely to me, as Chevron bought prime land next to 1500 Louisiana Street in downtown Houston to build a 50-story ivory tower.
The Corporate Office is headed to San Antonio
The stockholders will make the decision to move the HQ. The C suite will be able to stay in CA, after they are thrown out
I agree with you. The headquarters should be in Houston, and perhaps will be someday. For now, it will remain in California. That's where the big wigs have their million dollar houses and golf club memberships.
It is closer to wine country than Houston.