Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Citgo puts refinery stake up for sale
Houston Chronicle ^ | Aug. 16, 2006 | TOM FOWLER

Posted on 08/17/2006 6:01:12 AM PDT by thackney

Lyondell Chemical and Venezuelan government-controlled Citgo appear to be closer to ending their joint ownership of a Houston refinery.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said Tuesday that Petroleos de Venezuela, the state-run oil company that controls Citgo, would sell its 41.25 percent stake in the refinery for $2.2 billion, or $1.3 billion after debt, interest and taxes.

A Lyondell spokesman said Tuesday that no agreement had been reached, but the Houston-based company had said previously it planned to buy out Citgo's stake in the 268,000-barrel-a-day oil refinery.

"The proceeds from the sale will go to the company's shareholder, the Venezuelan government," Ramirez told Bloomberg News in Caracas on Tuesday, adding that the funds will be earmarked for infrastructure projects. "The sale was approved on Friday."

Houston-based Marathon Oil Corp. offered more than $5 billion for the refinery earlier this year, helping set the sale price for Citgo's stake, according to a statement from Petroleos de Venezuela, also known as PDVSA. A spokesman for Marathon declined comment.

The price PDVSA claims Lyondell is paying for its stake is the equivalent of about $20,000 per barrel of oil processing capacity, a record for a U.S. refinery, Natexis Bleichroeder analyst Roger Read told Bloomberg.

That's double the rate top U.S. refiner Valero Energy paid with its $7.9 billion purchase of Premcor, which closed in September.

The southeast Houston refinery started operations in 1918 under the Sinclair Refining Co. name but has changed owners over the years. The Citgo-Lyondell partnership was formed in 1993.

The refinery was upgraded in 1997 to better handle heavy crude, a move that made it one of the top refineries in the country because of its ability to handle the harder-to-process oils, said George Morris, an energy expert at investment bank Petrie Parkman & Co. in Houston. Morris noted that the value of the refinery based on what it reported in free cash flow last year would put it at about $3 billion, but it's widely believed the long-term supply contract it had with PDVSA for oil in recent times made its operating costs higher.

In filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Lyondell reported that from 2000 to 2004 the supply agreement was actually advantageous to the refinery because the price was below market prices. Since the fourth quarter of 2004 and throughout 2005, however, the agreement put its oil costs above market prices.

In a news release Tuesday, PDVSA said it provided oil at a price about $2.09 below market prices between 1994 and 2004, leading to losses of up to $705 million.

Citgo has said it planned to divest itself of assets in North America. This includes its stakes in the Colonial and Explorer pipelines, and two asphalt plants. Citgo said recently it will stop selling gasoline in 10 states and parts of four others.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: citgo; energy; houston; oil; refinery; refining; venezuela

1 posted on 08/17/2006 6:01:12 AM PDT by thackney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Lyondell confirms deal for Citgo stake in refinery
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/4122589.html
Aug. 17, 2006, 1:12AM

Lyondell Chemical has confirmed it is buying Citgo's 41.25 percent interest in the Lyondell-Citgo refinery in Houston for about $2.1 billion, including debt.

The refinery will continue to buy up to 230,000 barrels of oil a day from Petróleos de Venezuela, the state-owned oil company that controls Citgo, but under a new contract based on market prices.

Since late 2004, the refinery had been paying above-market prices for oil from PDVSA based on terms of a contract first negotiated in 1993.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez announced the deal on Tuesday, but at the time Lyondell officials said a final agreement had not been reached.

"This acquisition, coupled with a new market-based crude oil contract, unlocks the true value of this unique asset and contributes significantly to shareholder value," Lyondell President and CEO Dan Smith said.

The refinery will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Lyondell.

Lyondell noted full ownership of the refinery would have increased the company's net income for the first six months of 2006 from $450 million to $640 million, or from $1.74 to $2.47 a share.

tom.fowler@chron.com


2 posted on 08/17/2006 6:03:02 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
but it's widely believed the long-term supply contract it had with PDVSA for oil in recent times made its operating costs higher.

Hmm...

3 posted on 08/17/2006 6:03:43 AM PDT by coconutt2000 (NO MORE PEACE FOR OIL!!! DOWN WITH TYRANTS, TERRORISTS, AND TIMIDCRATS!!!! (3-T's For World Peace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

Since late 2004, the refinery had been paying above-market prices for oil from PDVSA based on terms of a contract first negotiated in 1993.


4 posted on 08/17/2006 6:07:41 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thackney
It appears the Lyondell paid a high price for CITGO's share of this refinery in order to lock-in a favorable crude oil contract from the Ven's. If so, that is really dumb. Once the Ven's have the money, they will just change the crude oil contract. The only way around that is to hold some of the purchase price in escrow, or otherwise tie it up subject to performance on the crude oil contract. It is doubtful the Ven's would accept that.
5 posted on 08/17/2006 6:08:14 AM PDT by LOC1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Forget that. Nationalize it and give Hugo zip.

He'll only use any money from a sale to buy more weapons to attack us or kill his own people with.


6 posted on 08/17/2006 6:11:32 AM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

It sounds like Chavez needs money and Lyondell is getting a pretty good deal.


7 posted on 08/17/2006 6:15:42 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok

We have a constitution in this country that prohibits confiscation of private property.


8 posted on 08/17/2006 6:52:19 AM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: thackney

goofy US gasoline laws are ripping off US motorists.
this story is evidence.

US motorists pay now
Congress pays in November


9 posted on 08/17/2006 6:57:30 AM PDT by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greasepaint

someone needs to walk by...trip on the sidewalk..and sue for billions.....that's how we do it in America


10 posted on 08/17/2006 7:17:17 AM PDT by Youngman442002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GeorgefromGeorgia
We have a constitution in this country that prohibits confiscation of private property.

You mean this?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Based on the Kelo decision they can sieze it and determine that the "just compensation" is $1.

He'll sue, but it can be tied up in court for years.  In the meantime declare a state of emergency exists within the boundaries of that site and turn it over to the military to run.

It's not a serious suggestion, by the way, just venting.  I know it would be a bad thing and I also know that our courts would rule in favor of the blood sucking marxist dictator and against our President in a heart beat.

11 posted on 08/17/2006 7:25:38 AM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: thackney

About time......

Their PR ability is dead and they are no longer welcome in this country.


12 posted on 08/17/2006 7:27:43 AM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
It sounds like Chavez needs money

No, he is bugging out of the U.S. as quickly as he can.

You can bet that he will be converting to euro's and making sure that none of his assets can be touched by U.S. regulators.

He will then ratchet up his little war against everything American and really come to the fore as our biggest pain in the butt.

13 posted on 08/17/2006 7:31:51 AM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok
I personally have been involved in condemnation cases, and the property owners were entitled to a jury trial on the issue of compensation. I have always found the compensation granted to be generally at fair market value or higher.

I was appalled at the Kelo decision, which appeared to widen the government right to condemn private property. Several states are enacting law or constitutional amendments to prevent anything like Kelo. That is a good thing.
14 posted on 08/17/2006 8:06:35 AM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GeorgefromGeorgia

Public domain, supreme court...if it for the higher good.


15 posted on 08/17/2006 8:07:03 AM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GeorgefromGeorgia
We have a constitution in this country that prohibits confiscation of private property.

If you believe that is an absolute rule, then start a campaign to return to the Nazis the assets seized from them by the US govenrment in 1941-1942.

16 posted on 08/17/2006 12:35:41 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

We are not at war with Venezuela.


17 posted on 08/17/2006 12:58:53 PM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GeorgefromGeorgia
We are not at war with Venezuela.

That isn't entirely clear at this point.

18 posted on 08/18/2006 2:08:43 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PAR35
That certainly could change. Chavez is an erratic megalomaniac.
19 posted on 08/18/2006 8:29:50 AM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson