e10vq
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-Q
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ |
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005
OR
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . .
Commission File Number 1-3473
TESORO CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
95-0862768
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.) |
300 Concord Plaza Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78216-6999
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
210-828-8484
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for
such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Exchange Act).
Yes þ No o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined
in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No þ
There were 68,854,903 shares of the registrants Common Stock outstanding at November 1, 2005.
TESORO CORPORATION
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
TESORO CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)
(Dollars in millions except per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
657 |
|
|
$ |
185 |
|
Receivables, less allowance for doubtful accounts |
|
|
831 |
|
|
|
528 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
876 |
|
|
|
616 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Current Assets |
|
|
2,481 |
|
|
|
1,393 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining |
|
|
2,734 |
|
|
|
2,603 |
|
Retail |
|
|
223 |
|
|
|
225 |
|
Corporate and other |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,054 |
|
|
|
2,894 |
|
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization |
|
|
(670 |
) |
|
|
(590 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Property, Plant and Equipment |
|
|
2,384 |
|
|
|
2,304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER NONCURRENT ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
Acquired intangibles, net |
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
Other, net |
|
|
167 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
377 |
|
|
|
378 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
5,242 |
|
|
$ |
4,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
1,245 |
|
|
$ |
687 |
|
Accrued liabilities |
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
303 |
|
Current maturities of debt |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Current Liabilities |
|
|
1,667 |
|
|
|
993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED INCOME TAXES |
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
293 |
|
OTHER LIABILITIES |
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
247 |
|
DEBT |
|
|
1,132 |
|
|
|
1,2l5 |
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note H) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $0.162/3; authorized 100,000,000 shares;
70,814,008 shares issued (68,261,949 in 2004) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
787 |
|
|
|
718 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
1,040 |
|
|
|
609 |
|
Treasury stock, 1,351,858 common shares (1,438,524 in 2004), at cost |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Stockholders Equity |
|
|
1,831 |
|
|
|
1,327 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity |
|
$ |
5,242 |
|
|
$ |
4,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.
3
TESORO CORPORATION
CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(In millions except per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
5,017 |
|
|
$ |
3,288 |
|
|
$ |
12,221 |
|
|
$ |
8,873 |
|
COSTS AND EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs of sales and operating expenses |
|
|
4,536 |
|
|
|
3,053 |
|
|
|
11,134 |
|
|
|
7,967 |
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
108 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
Loss on asset disposals and impairments |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
392 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
807 |
|
|
|
683 |
|
Interest and financing costs |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
(139 |
) |
Interest income and other |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
719 |
|
|
|
547 |
|
Income tax provision |
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET EARNINGS |
|
$ |
226 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
438 |
|
|
$ |
328 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET EARNINGS PER SHARE: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
3.29 |
|
|
$ |
0.98 |
|
|
$ |
6.45 |
|
|
$ |
5.02 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
3.20 |
|
|
$ |
0.93 |
|
|
$ |
6.23 |
|
|
$ |
4.79 |
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
68.7 |
|
|
|
65.6 |
|
|
|
67.9 |
|
|
|
65.3 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
70.7 |
|
|
|
69.5 |
|
|
|
70.3 |
|
|
|
68.5 |
|
DIVIDENDS PER SHARE |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.
4
TESORO CORPORATION
CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM (USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings |
|
$ |
438 |
|
|
$ |
328 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash from
operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
Amortization of debt issuance costs and discounts |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Write-off of unamortized debt issuance costs and discount |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Loss on asset disposals and impairments |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation arrangements |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Other changes in non-current assets and liabilities |
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Changes in current assets and current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
(303 |
) |
|
|
(176 |
) |
Inventories |
|
|
(260 |
) |
|
|
(176 |
) |
Prepayments and other |
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities |
|
|
689 |
|
|
|
416 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash from operating activities |
|
|
694 |
|
|
|
621 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM (USED IN) INVESTING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(170 |
) |
|
|
(86 |
) |
Other |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(167 |
) |
|
|
(85 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM (USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments of debt |
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
|
(400 |
) |
Proceeds from stock options exercised |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation arrangements |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Dividend payments |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Financing costs and other |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS |
|
|
472 |
|
|
|
131 |
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF PERIOD |
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF PERIOD |
|
$ |
657 |
|
|
$ |
208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW DISCLOSURES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest |
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
93 |
|
Income taxes paid |
|
$ |
180 |
|
|
$ |
49 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.
5
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
NOTE A BASIS OF PRESENTATION
The interim condensed consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of Tesoro Corporation
(Tesoro) and its subsidiaries have been prepared by management without audit according to the
rules and regulations of the SEC. The accompanying financial statements reflect all adjustments
that, in the opinion of management, are necessary for a fair presentation of results for the
periods presented. Such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. The consolidated balance
sheet at December 31, 2004 has been condensed from the audited consolidated financial statements at
that date. Certain information and notes normally included in financial statements prepared in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S.
GAAP) have been condensed or omitted pursuant to the SECs rules and regulations. However,
management believes that the disclosures presented herein are adequate to make the information not
misleading. The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements and notes should be read
in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto contained in our Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.
We prepare our condensed consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP, which
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets
and liabilities and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial
statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the periods. We review our
estimates on an ongoing basis, based on currently available information. Changes in facts and
circumstances may result in revised estimates and actual results could differ from those estimates.
The results of operations for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of results for the
full year. We have reclassified certain previously reported amounts to conform to the 2005
presentation. During 2005, we began to allocate certain information technology costs, previously
reported as selling, general and administrative expenses, to costs of sales and operating expenses
in order to better reflect costs directly attributable to our segment operations (see Note C).
NOTE B EARNINGS PER SHARE
We compute basic earnings per share by dividing net earnings by the weighted average number of
common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share include the effects of
potentially dilutive shares, principally common stock options and unvested restricted stock
outstanding during the period. Earnings per share calculations are presented below (in millions
except per share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Basic: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings |
|
$ |
226 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
438 |
|
|
$ |
328 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding |
|
|
68.7 |
|
|
|
65.6 |
|
|
|
67.9 |
|
|
|
65.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
3.29 |
|
|
$ |
0.98 |
|
|
$ |
6.45 |
|
|
$ |
5.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings |
|
$ |
226 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
438 |
|
|
$ |
328 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding |
|
|
68.7 |
|
|
|
65.6 |
|
|
|
67.9 |
|
|
|
65.3 |
|
Dilutive effect of stock options and unvested restricted stock |
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
3.9 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total diluted shares |
|
|
70.7 |
|
|
|
69.5 |
|
|
|
70.3 |
|
|
|
68.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
3.20 |
|
|
$ |
0.93 |
|
|
$ |
6.23 |
|
|
$ |
4.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
NOTE C OPERATING SEGMENTS
We are an independent refiner and marketer of petroleum products and derive revenues from two
operating segments, refining and retail. We evaluate the performance of our segments and allocate
resources based primarily on segment operating income. Segment operating income includes those
revenues and expenses that are directly attributable to management of the respective segment.
Intersegment sales from refining to retail are made at prevailing market rates. Income taxes,
interest and financing costs, interest income and other, corporate general and administrative
expenses, and loss on asset disposals and impairments are excluded from segment operating income.
Identifiable assets are those assets utilized by the segment. Corporate assets are principally
cash and other assets that are not associated with an operating segment. Segment information is as
follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refined products |
|
$ |
4,775 |
|
|
$ |
3,113 |
|
|
$ |
11,552 |
|
|
$ |
8,440 |
|
Crude oil resales and other (a) |
|
|
187 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
518 |
|
|
|
278 |
|
Retail: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
237 |
|
|
|
720 |
|
|
|
646 |
|
Merchandise and other |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
Intersegment Sales from Refining to Retail |
|
|
(270 |
) |
|
|
(217 |
) |
|
|
(676 |
) |
|
|
(590 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
5,017 |
|
|
$ |
3,288 |
|
|
$ |
12,221 |
|
|
$ |
8,873 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining (b) |
|
$ |
436 |
|
|
$ |
187 |
|
|
$ |
952 |
|
|
$ |
766 |
|
Retail (b) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Segment Operating Income |
|
|
428 |
|
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
926 |
|
|
|
761 |
|
Corporate and Unallocated Costs (b) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
(74 |
) |
Loss on Asset Disposals and Impairments |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
392 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
807 |
|
|
|
683 |
|
Interest and Financing Costs |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
(139 |
) |
Interest Income and Other |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Before Income Taxes |
|
$ |
367 |
|
|
$ |
108 |
|
|
$ |
719 |
|
|
$ |
547 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining |
|
$ |
37 |
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
109 |
|
|
$ |
93 |
|
Retail |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Corporate |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Depreciation and Amortization |
|
$ |
44 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
128 |
|
|
$ |
111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Expenditures (c) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining |
|
$ |
49 |
|
|
$ |
38 |
|
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
$ |
81 |
|
Retail |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Corporate |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capital Expenditures |
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
40 |
|
|
$ |
170 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Identifiable Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining |
|
$ |
4,186 |
|
|
$ |
3,544 |
|
Retail |
|
|
241 |
|
|
|
241 |
|
Corporate |
|
|
815 |
|
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
5,242 |
|
|
$ |
4,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
To balance or optimize our refinery supply requirements, we sell certain crude oil that
we purchase under our supply contracts. |
|
(b) |
|
For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005, we allocated certain information
technology costs totaling $9 million and $23 million, respectively, from corporate and
unallocated costs to segment operating income. The costs allocated to the refining segment
and retail segment totaled $8 million and $1 million, respectively, for the three months
ended September 30, 2005 and $19 million and $4 million, respectively, for the nine months
ended September 30, 2005. |
|
(c) |
|
Capital expenditures do not include refinery turnaround and other major maintenance costs of
$4 million and $20 million
for the three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $51 million and $24
million for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. |
NOTE D CAPITALIZATION
In October 2005, we commenced offers to purchase (tender offers) our $375 million principal
amount outstanding of 8% senior secured notes due 2008, $211 million principal amount outstanding
of 95/8% senior subordinated notes due 2008 and $429 million principal amount
outstanding of 95/8% senior subordinated notes due 2012. In conjunction with
the tender offers, we also commenced consent solicitations to eliminate substantially all the
covenants and certain events of default in the indentures governing the senior notes. In November
2005, we commenced the private placement of a $900 million unsecured notes offering, with proceeds
to be used to refinance the senior notes subject to the tender offers. The remaining balance of
the outstanding senior notes, tender premiums and associated fees and accrued interest will be paid
with cash on-hand. The tender offers are contingent upon our receipt of at least a majority of the
principal amount of each series of the senior notes, as well as the successful completion of the
proposed financing.
We expect that if both the tender offers and the new proposed notes offering are successful, we
will reduce our interest expense and extend the maturity dates on our debt. We would also incur a
pretax charge in the 2005 fourth quarter of approximately $100 million for expenses associated
with the tender, which includes the write-off of unamortized debt issuance and discount costs
totaling approximately $19 million.
Senior Secured Term Loans
In April 2005, we voluntarily prepaid the remaining $96 million outstanding principal balance of
our senior secured term loans at a prepayment premium of 1%. The prepayment resulted in a pretax
charge during the 2005 second quarter of approximately $3 million, consisting of the write-off of
unamortized debt issuance costs and the 1% prepayment premium.
Credit Agreement
In May 2005, we amended our credit agreement to extend the term by one year to June 2008 and reduce
letter of credit fees and revolver borrowing interest. The credit agreement currently provides for
borrowings (including letters of credit) up to the lesser of the agreements total capacity, $750
million as amended, or the amount of a periodically adjusted borrowing base ($1.8 billion as of
September 30, 2005), consisting of Tesoros eligible cash and cash equivalents, receivables and
petroleum inventories, as defined. As of September 30, 2005, we had no borrowings and $278 million
in letters of credit outstanding under the revolving credit facility, resulting in total unused
credit availability of $472 million or 63% of the eligible borrowing base. Borrowings under the
revolving credit facility bear interest at either a base rate (6.75% at September 30, 2005) or a
eurodollar rate (3.87% at September 30, 2005), plus an applicable margin. The applicable margin at
September 30, 2005 was 1.50% in the case of the eurodollar rate, but
8
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
varies based on credit facility availability. Letters of credit outstanding under the revolving
credit facility incur fees at an annual rate tied to the eurodollar rate applicable margin (1.50%
at September 30, 2005).
The credit agreement allows up to $250 million in letters of credit outside the credit agreement
for crude oil purchases from non-U.S. vendors. In September 2005, we entered into a separate
letters of credit agreement that provides up to $165 million in letters of credit for the purchase
of foreign crude oil. The agreement is secured by our petroleum inventories supported by letters
of credit issued under the agreement and will remain in effect until terminated by either party.
Letters of credit outstanding under this agreement incur fees at an annual rate of 1.50% while
secured or 1.62% while unsecured. As of September 30, 2005, we had $88 million in letters of
credit outstanding under this agreement.
Common Stock Repurchase Program
In November 2005, our Board of Directors authorized a $200 million share repurchase program, which
represents approximately 5% of our common stock then outstanding. Under the program, we will
repurchase our common stock from time to time in the open market and through privately negotiated
transactions. Purchases will depend on price, market conditions and other factors.
Cash Dividends
On November 1, 2005, our Board of Directors increased the quarterly cash dividend on common stock
to $0.10 per share, payable on December 15, 2005 to shareholders of record on December 1, 2005.
In both June and September 2005, we paid a quarterly cash dividend on common stock of $0.05 per
share.
Capitalized Interest
We capitalize interest as part of the cost of major projects during extended construction periods.
Capitalized interest, which is a reduction to interest and financing costs in the condensed
statements of consolidated operations, totaled $2 million and $1 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $6 million and $3 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
NOTE E INVENTORIES
Components of inventories were as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Crude oil and refined products, at LIFO cost |
|
$ |
809 |
|
|
$ |
560 |
|
Oxygenates and by-products, at the lower of FIFO cost or market |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Merchandise |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Materials and supplies |
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Inventories |
|
$ |
876 |
|
|
$ |
616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories valued at LIFO cost were less than replacement cost by approximately $1.1 billion and
$385 million, at September 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively.
9
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
NOTE F PENSION AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT BENEFITS
Tesoro sponsors defined benefit pension plans, including a funded employee retirement plan, an
unfunded executive security plan and an unfunded non-employee director retirement plan. Although
Tesoro has no minimum required contribution obligation to its pension plan under applicable laws
and regulations in 2005, during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 we voluntarily
contributed $15 million and $25 million, respectively, to improve the funded status of the plan.
The components of pension benefit expense included in the condensed statements of consolidated
operations were (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Service Cost |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
Interest Cost |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Recognized net actuarial loss |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Curtailments and settlements |
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Periodic Benefit Expense |
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The components of other postretirement benefit expense, primarily for health insurance,
included in the condensed statements of consolidated operations were (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Service Cost |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
Interest Cost |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Periodic Benefit Expense |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE G STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
Effective January 1, 2004, we adopted the preferable fair value method of accounting for
stock-based compensation, as prescribed in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No.
123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. We selected the modified prospective method of
adoption described in SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation Transition and
Disclosure. On January 1, 2005 we adopted SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment,
which is a revision of SFAS No. 123, and supersedes APB Opinion No. 25. Among other items, SFAS
No. 123 (Revised 2004) eliminates the use of APB Opinion No. 25 and the intrinsic value method of
accounting, and requires companies to recognize the cost of employee services received in exchange
for awards of equity instruments, based on the grant date fair value of those awards, in the
financial statements. On January 1, 2005, we adopted the fair value method for our outstanding
phantom stock options resulting in a one-time cumulative effect aftertax charge of approximately
$0.2 million. These awards were previously valued using the intrinsic value method prescribed in
APB Opinion No. 25. Total compensation expense for all stock-based awards for the three months and
nine months ended September 30, 2005 totaled $9 million and $24 million, respectively, including $5
million and $9 million for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2005, respectively,
for our outstanding phantom stock options. The first quarter of 2005 included stock-based
compensation charges totaling $5 million associated with the termination and retirement of certain
executive officers.
Stock Options
We amortize the estimated fair value of our stock options granted over the vesting period using the
straight-line method. The fair value of each option was estimated on the date of grant using the
Black-Scholes option-pricing model. During the nine months ended September 30, 2005, we granted 804,030 options with a weighted
average exercise price of $34.02. These options become exercisable generally after one year in 33%
annual increments and
10
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
expire ten years from the date of grant. Total compensation cost recognized for all outstanding
stock options for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 totaled $3 million and $12
million, respectively. Total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested stock options
totaled $18 million as of September 30, 2005, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted
average period of 2.1 years. A summary of our outstanding and exercisable options as of September
30, 2005 is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average |
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
Intrinsic Value |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Exercise Price |
|
|
Contractual Term |
|
|
(In Millions) |
|
Options
Outstanding |
|
|
4,056,415 |
|
|
$ |
17.75 |
|
|
6.6 years |
|
$ |
201 |
|
Options Exercisable |
|
|
2,527,947 |
|
|
$ |
12.73 |
|
|
5.3 years |
|
$ |
138 |
|
Restricted Stock
Pursuant to our Amended and Restated Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan, we may grant restricted
shares of our common stock to eligible employees subject to certain terms and conditions. We
amortize the estimated fair value of our restricted stock granted over the vesting period using the
straight-line method. The fair value of each restricted share on the date of grant is equal to its
fair market price. During the nine months ended September 30, 2005, we issued 104,000 shares of
restricted stock with a weighted-average grant-date fair value of $33.23. These restricted shares
vest in annual increments ratably over three years beginning in 2006, assuming continued employment
at the vesting dates. Total compensation cost recognized for our outstanding restricted stock for
the three and nine months ended September 30, 2005 totaled $1 million and $3 million, respectively.
Total unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested restricted stock totaled $10 million as
of September 30, 2005, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.2
years. As of September 30, 2005 we had 626,770 shares of restricted stock outstanding at a
weighted-average grant date fair value of $20.75. Effective January 1, 2005 in connection with the
requirements of SFAS No. 123, we eliminated unearned compensation of $11 million against additional
paid-in capital and common stock in the December 31, 2004 condensed consolidated balance sheet.
NOTE H COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
We are a party to various litigation and contingent loss situations, including environmental and
income tax matters, arising in the ordinary course of business. Where required, we have made
accruals in accordance with SFAS No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, in order to provide for
these matters. We cannot predict the ultimate effects of these matters with certainty, and we have
made related accruals based on our best estimates, subject to future developments. We believe that
the outcome of these matters will not result in a material adverse effect on our liquidity and
consolidated financial position, although the resolution of certain of these matters could have a
material adverse impact on interim or annual results of operations.
Tesoro is subject to audits by federal, state and local taxing authorities in the normal course of
business. It is possible that tax audits could result in claims against Tesoro in excess of
recorded liabilities. We believe, however, that when these matters are resolved, they will not
materially affect Tesoros consolidated financial position or results of operations.
Tesoro is subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. These
laws, which change frequently, regulate the discharge of materials into the environment and may
require us to remove or mitigate the environmental effects of the disposal or release of petroleum
or chemical substances at various sites, install additional controls, or make other modifications
or changes in use for certain emission sources.
Environmental Liabilities
We are currently involved in remedial responses and have incurred and expect to continue to incur
cleanup expenditures associated with environmental matters at a number of sites, including certain
of our previously owned properties. At September 30, 2005, our accruals for environmental expenses
totaled approximately $33 million. Our accruals for environmental expenses include retained
liabilities for previously owned or operated properties, refining,
11
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
pipeline and terminal operations and retail service stations. We believe these accruals are
adequate, based on currently available information, including the participation of other parties or
former owners in remediation action.
During the third quarter of 2005, we continued settlement discussions with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) concerning a notice of violation (NOV) we received in October 2004. The
NOV, issued by CARB, alleges that Tesoro offered eleven batches of gasoline for sale in California
that did not meet CARBs gasoline exhaust emission limits. We disagree with factual allegations in
the NOV and estimate the amount of any penalties that might be associated with this NOV will not
exceed $650,000. A reserve for the settlement of the NOV is included in the $33 million of
environmental accruals referenced above.
In January 2005, we received two NOVs from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District has alleged we violated certain air quality emission limits as
a result of a mechanical failure of one of our boilers at our California refinery on January 12,
2005. A reserve for the settlement of the NOVs is included in the $33 million of environmental
accruals referenced above. We believe the resolution of these NOVs will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.
During the third quarter of 2005, we reached a settlement with the EPA concerning the June 8, 2004
pipeline release of approximately 400 barrels of crude oil in Oliver County, North Dakota by
agreeing to pay a civil penalty of $94,500, which is included in the $33 million of environmental
accruals referenced above.
We have undertaken an investigation of environmental conditions at certain active wastewater
treatment units at our California refinery. This investigation is driven by an order from the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board that names us as well as two previous owners of
the California refinery. The cost estimate for the active wastewater units investigation is
approximately $1 million. A reserve for this matter is included in the $33 million of
environmental accruals referenced above.
Other Environmental Matters
In the ordinary course of business, we become party to or otherwise involved in lawsuits,
administrative proceedings and governmental investigations, including environmental, regulatory and
other matters. Large and sometimes unspecified damages or penalties may be sought from us in some
matters for which the likelihood of loss may be reasonably possible but the amount of loss is not
currently estimable, and some matters may require years for us to resolve. As a result, we have
not established reserves for these matters. On the basis of existing information, we believe that
the resolution of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse
effect on our financial position or results of operations. However, we cannot provide assurance
that an adverse resolution of one or more of the matters described below during a future reporting
period will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations
in future periods.
We are a defendant, along with other manufacturing, supply and marketing defendants, in ten pending
cases alleging MTBE contamination in groundwater. The defendants are being sued for having
manufactured MTBE and having manufactured, supplied and distributed gasoline containing MTBE. The
plaintiffs, all in California, are generally water providers, governmental authorities and private
well owners alleging in part that defendants are liable for manufacturing or distributing a
defective product. The suits generally seek individual, unquantified compensatory and punitive
damages and attorneys fees, but we cannot estimate the amount or the likelihood of the ultimate
resolution of these matters at this time, and accordingly have not established a reserve for these
cases. We believe we have defenses to these claims and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits.
Soil and groundwater conditions at our California refinery may require substantial expenditures
over time. In connection with our acquisition of the California refinery from Ultramar, Inc. in
May 2002, Ultramar assigned certain of its rights and obligations that Ultramar had acquired from
Tosco Corporation in August of 2000. Tosco assumed responsibility and contractually indemnified us
for up to $50 million for certain environmental liabilities arising from operations at the refinery
prior to August of 2000, which are identified prior to August 31, 2010 (Pre-Acquisition
Operations). Based on existing information, we currently estimate that the known environmental
liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations are approximately $41 million, including soil
and groundwater conditions at the
12
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
refinery in connection with various projects and including those required by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board and other government agencies. If we incur remediation
liabilities in excess of the defined environmental liabilities for Pre-Acquisition Operations
indemnified by Tosco, we expect to be reimbursed for such excess liabilities under certain
environmental insurance policies. The policies provide $140 million of coverage in excess of the
$50 million indemnity covering the defined environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition
Operations. Because of Toscos indemnification and the environmental insurance policies, we have
not established a reserve for these defined environmental liabilities arising out of the
Pre-Acquisition Operations. In December 2003, we initiated arbitration proceedings against Tosco
seeking damages, indemnity and a declaration that Tosco is responsible for the defined
environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations at our California refinery.
In November 2003, we filed suit in Contra Costa County Superior Court against Tosco alleging that
Tosco misrepresented, concealed and failed to disclose certain additional environmental conditions
at our California refinery. The court granted Toscos motion to compel arbitration of our claims
for these certain additional environmental conditions. In the arbitration proceedings we initiated
against Tosco in December 2003, we are also seeking a determination that Tosco is liable for
investigation and remediation of these certain additional environmental conditions, the amount of
which is currently unknown and therefore a reserve has not been established, and which may not be
covered by the $50 million indemnity for the defined environmental liabilities arising from
Pre-Acquisition Operations. In response to our arbitration claims, Tosco filed counterclaims in
the Contra Costa County Superior Court action alleging that we are contractually responsible for
additional environmental liabilities at our California refinery, including the defined environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations. In
February 2005, the parties agreed to stay the arbitration proceedings to pursue settlement
discussions.
In June 2005, the parties agreed in principle to settle their claims, including the defined
environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations and certain additional
environmental conditions, both discussed above, pending negotiation and execution of a final
written settlement agreement. In the event we are unable to finalize the settlement, we intend to
vigorously prosecute our claims against Tosco and to oppose Toscos claims against us, although we
cannot provide assurance that we will prevail.
Environmental Capital Expenditures
EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act require reductions beginning January 1, 2004 in the
sulfur content in gasoline. To meet the revised gasoline standard, we currently estimate we will
make capital improvements of approximately $36 million from 2005 through 2009, approximately $20
million of which was spent during the first nine months of 2005. This will permit each of our six
refineries to produce gasoline meeting the sulfur limits imposed by the EPA.
EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act also require reductions in the sulfur content in
diesel fuel manufactured for on-road consumption. In general, the new on-road diesel fuel
standards will become effective on June 1, 2006. In May 2004, the EPA issued a rule regarding the
sulfur content of non-road diesel fuel. The requirements to reduce non-road diesel sulfur content
will become effective in phases between 2007 and 2010. Based on our latest engineering estimates,
to meet the revised diesel fuel standards, we expect to spend approximately $108 million in capital
improvements from 2005 through 2007 for this project, approximately $24 million of which was spent
during the first nine months of 2005. Included in the estimate are capital projects to manufacture
additional quantities of low sulfur diesel at our Alaska refinery, for which we expect to spend
approximately $48 million through 2007. Also included in the estimate is a capital project to
manufacture additional low sulfur diesel at our Hawaii refinery, for which we expect to spend
approximately $4 million through 2006. These costs estimates are subject to further review and
analysis. Our California, Washington and North Dakota refineries will not require additional
capital spending to meet the new non-road diesel fuel standards.
We expect to spend approximately $17 million in capital improvements from 2005 through 2006 at our
Washington refinery to comply with the Maximum Achievable Control Technologies standard for
petroleum refineries (Refinery MACT II), approximately $12 million of which was spent during the
first nine months of 2005.
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
In connection with our 2001 acquisition of our North Dakota and Utah refineries, Tesoro assumed the
sellers obligations and liabilities under a consent decree among the United States, BP Exploration
and Oil Co. (BP), Amoco Oil Company and Atlantic Richfield Company. BP entered into this consent
decree for both the North Dakota and Utah refineries for various alleged violations. As the owner
of these refineries, Tesoro is required to address issues that include leak detection and repair,
flaring protection, and sulfur recovery unit optimization. We currently estimate we will spend $5
million over the next three years to comply with this consent decree. We also agreed to indemnify
the sellers for all losses of any kind incurred in connection with the consent decree.
In connection with the 2002 acquisition of our California refinery, subject to certain conditions,
Tesoro also assumed the sellers obligations pursuant to settlement efforts with the EPA concerning
the Section 114 refinery enforcement initiative under the Clean Air Act, except for any potential
monetary penalties, which the seller retains. In June 2005, a settlement agreement was lodged with
the District Court for the Western District of Texas in which we agreed to undertake projects at
our California refinery to reduce air emissions. We currently estimate that we will spend
approximately $34 million between 2005 and 2010 to satisfy the requirements of the settlement
agreement. This cost estimate is subject to further review and analysis.
During the second quarter of 2005, the Hearing Board for the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District entered a Stipulated Conditional Order of Abatement with Tesoro concerning emissions from
our California refinery coker. We negotiated the terms and conditions of the order with the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District in response to the January 12, 2005 mechanical failure of one
of our boilers at our California refinery. The order requires us to evaluate technologies to
install emission control equipment as a backup to the boiler fueled by the coker. We anticipate
seeking the approval of the Hearing Board during the fourth quarter to pursue a capital project to
meet the conditions of the order by modifying our existing fluid coker unit to a delayed coker.
Dependent upon approval by the Hearing Board, we currently estimate that we will spend
approximately $275 million through 2007 for this project. This cost estimate is subject to further
review and analysis.
We will need to spend additional capital at the California refinery for reconfiguring and replacing
above-ground storage tank systems and upgrading piping within the refinery. For these related
projects at our California refinery, we estimate that we may spend $100 million from 2005 through
2010, approximately $11 million of which was spent during the first nine months of 2005. This cost
estimate is subject to further review and analysis.
Conditions may develop that cause increases or decreases in future expenditures for our various
sites, including, but not limited to, our refineries, tank farms, retail gasoline stations
(operating and closed locations) and petroleum product terminals, and for compliance with the Clean
Air Act and other federal, state and local requirements. We cannot currently determine the amounts
of such future expenditures.
Other
Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) had asserted claims against other refining companies for
infringement of patents related to the production of certain reformulated gasoline similar to
grades of gasoline produced by our California refinery. We did not pay or accrue liabilities for
patent royalties related to our California refinerys production, since the U.S. Patent Office and
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had been evaluating the validity of those patents. We previously
had entered into a license agreement with Unocal providing for payments of royalties on
California-grade summertime gasoline produced at our Washington refinery. Recently, Chevron
Corporation acquired Unocal and agreed to an order from the FTC requiring that it cease all efforts
to enforce rights under those patents and license agreements. Chevron has now notified Tesoro that
it will not seek to recover any further royalties or infringement damages relating to the patents.
Claims Against Third-Parties
Beginning in the early 1980s, Tesoro Hawaii Corporation, Tesoro Alaska Company and other fuel
suppliers entered into a series of long-term, fixed-price fuel supply contracts with the U.S.
Defense Energy Support Center (DESC). Each of the contracts contained a provision for price
adjustments by the DESC. The federal acquisition regulations control how prices may be adjusted,
and we and many other suppliers have filed in separate suits in the Court of
14
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Federal Claims contesting the DESCs price adjustments prior to 1999. We and the other suppliers
seek recovery of approximately $3 billion in underpayment for fuel. Our share of that underpayment
totals approximately $165 million, plus interest. We alleged that the DESCs price adjustments
violated federal regulations by not adjusting the sales price of fuel based on changes to each
suppliers established prices or costs, as the Court of Federal Claims had held in prior rulings on
similar contracts. The Court of Federal Claims granted partial summary judgment in our favor on
that issue, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed and ruled that DESCs
prices did not need to be tied to changes in a specific suppliers prices or costs. We have also
asserted other grounds to challenge the DESC contract pricing formulas, and we are evaluating our
position with respect to further litigation on those additional grounds. We cannot predict the
outcome of these further actions.
In 1996, Tesoro Alaska Company filed a protest of the intrastate rates charged for the
transportation of its crude oil through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Our protest
asserted that the TAPS intrastate rates were excessive and should be reduced. The Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA) considered our protest of the intrastate rates for the years 1997
through 2000. The RCA set just and reasonable final rates for the years 1997 through 2000, and
held that we are entitled to receive approximately $52 million in refunds, including interest
through the expected conclusion of appeals in December 2007. The RCAs ruling is currently on
appeal in the Alaska courts, and we cannot give any assurances of when or whether we will prevail
in the appeal.
In 2002, the RCA rejected the TAPS Carriers proposed intrastate rate increases for 2001-2003 and
maintained the permanent rate of $1.96 to the Valdez Marine Terminal. That ruling is currently on
appeal to the Alaska Superior Court, and the TAPS Carriers did not move to prevent the rate
decrease. The rate decrease has been in effect since June 2003. If the RCAs decision is upheld
on appeal, we could be entitled to refunds resulting from our shipments from January 2001 through
mid-June 2003. If the RCAs decision is not upheld on appeal, we could have to pay additional
shipping charges resulting from our shipments from mid-June 2003 through September 2005. We cannot
give any assurances of when or whether we will prevail in the appeal. We also believe that, should
we not prevail on appeal, the amount of additional shipping charges cannot reasonably be estimated
since it is not possible to estimate the permanent rate which the RCA could set, and the appellate
courts approve, for each year. In addition, depending upon the level of such rates, there is a
reasonable possibility that any refunds for the period January 2001 through mid-June 2003 could
offset some or all of any repayments due for the period mid-June 2003 through September 2005.
In July 2005, the TAPS Carriers filed a proceeding at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), seeking to have the FERC assume jurisdiction over future rates for intrastate
transportation on TAPS. We have filed a protest in that proceeding, which has now been
consolidated with another FERC proceeding seeking to set just and reasonable rates for future
interstate transportation on TAPS. If the TAPS carriers should prevail, then the rates charged for
all shipments of Alaska North Slope crude oil on TAPS could be revised by the FERC, but any FERC
changes to rates for intrastate transportation of crude oil supplies for our Alaska refinery should
be prospective only and should not affect prior intrastate rates, refunds or repayments.
NOTE I NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
SFAS No. 123 Revised 2004
In January 2005, we adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment,
which is a revision of SFAS No. 123, and supersedes APB Opinion No. 25. Our adoption of SFAS No.
123 (Revised 2004) did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of
operations. See Note G regarding the requirements and effects of adopting SFAS No. 123 (Revised
2004).
SFAS No. 153
In December 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 153, Exchanges
of Nonmonetary Assets An Amendment of APB Opinion No. 29, Accounting for Nonmonetary
Transactions. SFAS No. 153 eliminates the exception from fair value measurement for nonmonetary
exchanges of similar productive assets in paragraph 21(b) of APB Opinion No. 29, Accounting for
Nonmonetary Transactions, and replaces it with an exception for exchanges that do not have
commercial substance. SFAS No. 153 specifies that a nonmonetary exchange
15
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
has commercial substance if the future cash flows of the entity are expected to change
significantly as a result of the exchange. We adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 153 on July 1,
2005, which had no impact on our financial position or results of operations.
EITF Issue No. 04-13
In September 2005, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) reached a consensus on EITF Issue No.
04-13, Accounting for Purchases and Sales of Inventory with the Same Counterparty. EITF Issue
No. 04-13 requires that two or more exchange transactions involving inventory with the same
counterparty entered into in contemplation of one another should be reported net in the statement
of operations. We have entered into a limited number of refined product purchases and sales
transactions with the same counterparty as described in EITF Issue No. 04-13 which have been
reported on a gross basis in revenues and costs of sales and operating expenses in the condensed
statements of consolidated operations. Refined product sales associated with these arrangements
totaled $140 million and $154 million for the three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004,
respectively, and $474 million and $426 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and
2004, respectively. Related purchases of refined products totaled $151 million and $155 million
for the three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and $469 million and $430
million for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Further, the
provisions of this EITF issue require the exchange of finished goods for raw materials or
work-in-process inventories within the same line of business to be accounted for at fair value if
the fair value is determinable within reasonable limits and the transaction has commercial
substance as described in SFAS No. 153. Tesoro has historically not exchanged finished goods for
raw materials and therefore, we believe this provision of the EITF issue will not have a material
impact on our financial position or results of operations. EITF Issue No. 04-13 is effective for
new arrangements entered into for reporting periods beginning after March 15, 2006, and to all inventory transactions entered into prior to
March 15, 2006 that are completed after December 15, 2006. We believe adoption of this standard
will not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.
FIN No. 47
In March 2005, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 47, Accounting for Conditional Asset
Retirement Obligations (FIN 47) which is an interpretation of SFAS No. 143, Accounting for
Asset Retirement Obligations. FIN 47 requires recognition of a liability for the fair value of a
conditional asset retirement obligation if the fair value of the liability can be reasonably
estimated, even though uncertainty exists about the timing and/or method of settlement. FIN 47
also clarifies when an entity would have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the fair
value of an asset retirement obligation under SFAS No. 143. FIN 47 is effective as of December 31,
2005. We are currently evaluating this standard, although we believe it will not have a material
impact on our financial position or results of operations.
SFAS No. 154
In May 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections which
replaces APB Opinion No. 20, Accounting Changes and SFAS No. 3, Reporting Accounting Changes in
Interim Financial Statements. SFAS No. 154 requires retrospective application of a voluntary
change in accounting principle, unless it is impracticable to do so. This statement carries
forward without change the guidance in APB Opinion No. 20 for reporting the correction of an error
in previously issued financial statements and a change in accounting estimate. SFAS No. 154 is
effective for changes in accounting principle made in fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2005.
16
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Those statements in this section that are not historical in nature should be deemed forward-looking
statements that are inherently uncertain. See Forward-Looking Statements on page 30 for a
discussion of the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected
in these statements.
BUSINESS STRATEGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Our strategy is to create a geographically-focused, value-added refining and marketing
business that has (i) economies of scale, (ii) a low-cost structure, (iii) superior management
information systems and (iv) outstanding employees focused on business excellence in a global
market, with the objective to provide stockholders with competitive returns in any economic
environment.
Our goals are three-fold. First, to operate our facilities in a safe, reliable, and
environmentally responsible way. Second, improve profitability by achieving greater operational
and administrative efficiencies. Third, use excess cash flows from operations in a balanced way to
create further shareholder value. In addition to these goals, our 2005 executive incentive
compensation program includes two financial goals: (i) realize $62 million of operating income
improvements through business improvement initiatives and (ii) achieve earnings of at least $3.85
per diluted share. During the first nine months of 2005, we achieved earnings of $6.23 per diluted
share, which includes the realization of approximately $56 million of operating income through
business improvement initiatives. The majority of the operating income improvements came as a
result of the diversification of our crude oil purchases, together with yield improvements.
Our Board of Directors has approved certain high return and strategic capital projects, including
installing a 25,000 barrel per day coker unit at our Washington refinery and a 10,000 barrel per
day diesel desulfurizer unit at our Alaska refinery. Based upon our recent economic analysis, we
increased the capacity of the planned coker unit at our Washington refinery from the previously
announced 15,000 barrels per day to 25,000 barrels per day. The coker unit will allow our
Washington refinery to process a larger proportion of lower-cost heavy crude oils and manufacture a
larger percentage of higher-value products. We expect to spend approximately $250 million through
the fourth quarter of 2007 for this project, of which we anticipate spending $12 million in 2005,
$110 million in 2006 and the remainder in 2007. The diesel desulfurizer unit, which will allow us
to manufacture additional quantities of low sulfur diesel at our Alaska refinery, will require us
to spend approximately $45 million through the 2007 second quarter, of which we anticipate spending
$5 million in 2005, $33 million in 2006 and the remainder in 2007. These cost estimates are
subject to further review and analysis.
In November 2005, our Board of Directors approved the 2006 capital budget, which is currently
estimated to be $565 million (excluding refinery turnaround and other major maintenance costs of
approximately $105 million). The 2006 capital budget includes the modification of our existing
fluid coker unit to a delayed coker unit at our California refinery which will (i) lower emissions
as required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (see Environmental and Other) and
(ii) increase the overall efficiency of the refinery by lowering operating costs. Dependent upon
approval by the Hearing Board of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, we currently expect
to spend approximately $275 million for this project, of which we anticipate spending $2 million in
2005, $135 million in 2006 and the remainder in 2007. This cost estimate is subject to further
review and analysis.
In October 2005, we commenced offers to purchase (tender offers) our $375 million principal
amount outstanding of 8% senior secured notes due 2008, $211 million principal amount outstanding
of 95/8% senior subordinated notes due 2008 and $429 million principal amount
outstanding of 95/8% senior subordinated notes due 2012. In conjunction with
the tender offers, we also commenced consent solicitations to eliminate substantially all the
covenants and certain events of default in the indentures governing the senior notes. In November
2005, we commenced the private placement of a $900 million unsecured notes offering, with proceeds
to be used to refinance the senior notes subject to the tender offers. The remaining balance of
the outstanding senior notes, tender premiums and associated fees and accrued interest will be paid
with cash on-hand. The tender offers are contingent upon our receipt of at least a majority of the
principal amount of each series of the senior notes, as well as the successful completion of the
proposed financing.
We expect that if both the tender offers and the new proposed notes offering are successful, we
will reduce our interest expense and extend the maturity dates on our debt. We would also incur a
pretax charge in the 2005 fourth quarter of approximately $100 million for expenses associated with
the tender, which includes the write-off of unamortized debt issuance and discount costs totaling
approximately $19 million.
17
In November 2005, our Board of Directors authorized a $200 million share repurchase program, which
represents approximately 5% of our common stock then outstanding. Under the program, we will
repurchase our common stock from time to time in the open market and through privately negotiated
transactions. Purchases will depend on price, market conditions and other factors.
On November 1, 2005, our Board of Directors increased the quarterly cash dividend on common stock
to $0.10 per share, payable on December 15, 2005 to shareholders of record on December 1, 2005. In
both June and September 2005, we paid a quarterly cash dividend on common stock of $0.05 per share.
Industry refining margins remained strong during the third quarter of 2005 and improved as compared
to the second quarter of 2005. Factors positively impacting industry refining margins during the
first nine months of 2005 included:
|
|
|
continued increased demand due to improved economic fundamentals worldwide, however,
record high product prices caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita reduced U.S. demand in
September; |
|
|
|
|
tight finished product inventories and concern over adequate refining capacity to meet
demand growth; |
|
|
|
|
the active hurricane season during the 2005 third quarter, including production and
supply disruptions on the U.S. Gulf Coast caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita; |
|
|
|
|
heavy refining industry turnaround activity in the western U.S. primarily during the first quarter; |
|
|
|
|
unplanned refining industry downtime on the U.S. West Coast during the 2005 third quarter; and |
|
|
|
|
the 2004 changes in product specifications related to sulfur reductions in gasoline and
the elimination of MTBE. |
During the first nine months of 2005, these factors resulted in industry margins exceeding the
first nine months five-year average in all of our refining regions. The five-year average
includes October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2004, excluding the period from October 1, 2001
through September 30, 2002 due to that periods anomalous market conditions. We determine our
five-year average by comparing prices for gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and heavy fuel oils
products to crude oil prices in our market areas, with volumes weighted according to our typical
refinery yields.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 COMPARED WITH THREE AND
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
Summary
Our net earnings were $226 million ($3.29 per basic share and $3.20 per diluted share) for the
three months ended September 30, 2005 (2005 Quarter), compared with net earnings of $65 million
($0.98 per basic share and $0.93 per diluted share) for the three months ended September 30, 2004
(2004 Quarter). For the year-to-date periods, our net earnings were $438 million ($6.45 per
basic share and $6.23 per diluted share) for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 (2005
Period), compared with net earnings of $328 million ($5.02 per basic share and $4.79 per diluted
share) for the nine months ended September 30, 2004 (2004 Period). The increase in net earnings
during the 2005 Quarter and 2005 Period was primarily due to (i) higher refined product margins,
(ii) increased throughput levels, (iii) progress on achieving our operating income improvement
initiatives and (iv) lower interest expense associated with debt reduction during 2004 and 2005.
Net earnings for the 2005 Period included charges for executive termination and retirement costs of
$6 million aftertax ($0.08 per share) and debt prepayment costs totaling $2 million aftertax ($0.03
per share). In the 2004 Quarter and 2004 Period, net earnings included debt prepayment and
financing costs of $12 million aftertax ($0.18 per share) and $14 million aftertax ($0.20 per
share), respectively. A discussion and analysis of the factors contributing to our results of
operations is presented below. The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements,
together with the following information, are intended to provide investors with a reasonable basis
for assessing our historical operations, but should not serve as the only criteria for predicting
our future performance.
18
Refining Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
(Dollars in millions except per barrel amounts) |
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refined products (a) |
|
$ |
4,775 |
|
|
$ |
3,113 |
|
|
$ |
11,552 |
|
|
$ |
8,440 |
|
Crude oil resales and other |
|
|
187 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
518 |
|
|
|
278 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
4,962 |
|
|
$ |
3,232 |
|
|
$ |
12,070 |
|
|
$ |
8,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining Throughput (thousand barrels per day) (b) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California |
|
|
169 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
Pacific Northwest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
Alaska |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
Mid-Pacific |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
Mid-Continent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Dakota |
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
Utah |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Refining Throughput |
|
|
559 |
|
|
|
535 |
|
|
|
526 |
|
|
|
523 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Heavy Crude Oil of Total Refinery Throughput (c) |
|
|
46 |
% |
|
|
45 |
% |
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
51 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yield (thousand barrels per day) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks |
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
Jet fuel |
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
Diesel fuel |
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
Heavy oils, residual products, internally produced
fuel
and other |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Yield |
|
|
578 |
|
|
|
553 |
|
|
|
545 |
|
|
|
542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining Margin ($/throughput barrel) (d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin |
|
$ |
20.51 |
|
|
$ |
11.61 |
|
|
$ |
18.88 |
|
|
$ |
14.16 |
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation
and amortization |
|
$ |
5.33 |
|
|
$ |
5.06 |
|
|
$ |
5.39 |
|
|
$ |
4.77 |
|
Pacific Northwest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin |
|
$ |
12.87 |
|
|
$ |
7.95 |
|
|
$ |
10.33 |
|
|
$ |
8.83 |
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation
and amortization |
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
|
$ |
2.29 |
|
|
$ |
2.67 |
|
|
$ |
2.33 |
|
Mid-Pacific |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin |
|
$ |
5.60 |
|
|
$ |
5.07 |
|
|
$ |
5.39 |
|
|
$ |
5.75 |
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation
and amortization |
|
$ |
1.75 |
|
|
$ |
1.55 |
|
|
$ |
1.94 |
|
|
$ |
1.44 |
|
Mid-Continent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin |
|
$ |
11.98 |
|
|
$ |
6.68 |
|
|
$ |
9.26 |
|
|
$ |
7.90 |
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation
and amortization |
|
$ |
2.55 |
|
|
$ |
2.23 |
|
|
$ |
2.57 |
|
|
$ |
2.22 |
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin |
|
$ |
13.87 |
|
|
$ |
8.27 |
|
|
$ |
12.02 |
|
|
$ |
9.73 |
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation
and amortization |
|
$ |
3.25 |
|
|
$ |
2.96 |
|
|
$ |
3.38 |
|
|
$ |
2.89 |
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
(Dollars in millions except per barrel amounts) |
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Segment Operating Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin (after inventory changes) (e) |
|
$ |
696 |
|
|
$ |
403 |
|
|
$ |
1,703 |
|
|
$ |
1,390 |
|
Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing costs |
|
|
167 |
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
485 |
|
|
|
414 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
Depreciation and amortization (f) |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income |
|
$ |
436 |
|
|
$ |
187 |
|
|
$ |
952 |
|
|
$ |
766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales (thousand barrels per day) (a) (g) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks |
|
|
310 |
|
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
Jet fuel |
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
Diesel fuel |
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
Heavy oils, residual products and other |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Product Sales |
|
|
650 |
|
|
|
614 |
|
|
|
611 |
|
|
|
596 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales Margin ($/barrel) (g) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average sales price |
|
$ |
79.98 |
|
|
$ |
55.11 |
|
|
$ |
69.30 |
|
|
$ |
51.68 |
|
Average costs of sales |
|
|
67.79 |
|
|
|
47.41 |
|
|
|
58.88 |
|
|
|
42.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales Margin |
|
$ |
12.19 |
|
|
$ |
7.70 |
|
|
$ |
10.42 |
|
|
$ |
8.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Includes intersegment sales to our retail segment at prices which approximate market of
$270 million and $217 million for the three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004,
respectively, and $676 million and $590 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2005
and 2004, respectively. |
|
(b) |
|
We experienced reduced throughput during scheduled major maintenance turnarounds for the
following refineries and periods: the Hawaii refinery during the 2005 second quarter; the
California and Washington refineries during the 2005 first quarter; and the California
refinery during the 2004 third quarter. Throughput was also reduced at our California and
Washington refineries during the 2005 first quarter due to unscheduled downtime. |
|
(c) |
|
We define heavy crude oil as Alaska North Slope or crude oil with an American Petroleum
Institute specific gravity of 32 or less. |
|
(d) |
|
Management uses gross refining margin per barrel to evaluate performance, allocate resources
and compare profitability to other companies in the industry. Gross refining margin per
barrel is calculated by dividing gross refining margin before inventory changes by total
refining throughput and may not be calculated similarly by other companies. Management uses
manufacturing costs per barrel to evaluate the efficiency of refinery operations and allocate
resources. Manufacturing costs per barrel may not be comparable to similarly titled measures
used by other companies. Investors and analysts use these financial measures to help analyze
and compare companies in the industry on the basis of operating performance. These financial
measures should not be considered as alternatives to segment operating income, revenues,
costs of sales and operating expenses or any other measure of financial performance presented
in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. |
|
(e) |
|
Gross refining margin is calculated as revenues less costs of feedstocks, purchased
products, transportation and distribution. Gross refining margin approximates total refining
segment throughput times gross refining margin per barrel, adjusted for changes in refined
product inventory due to selling a volume and mix of product that is different than actual
volumes manufactured. Gross refining margin also includes the effect of intersegment sales
to the retail segment at prices which approximate market. |
|
(f) |
|
Includes manufacturing depreciation and amortization per throughput barrel of approximately
$0.64 and $0.54 for the three months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, and
$0.68 and $0.57 for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. |
|
(g) |
|
Sources of total product sales included products manufactured at the refineries and products
purchased from third parties. Total product sales margin included margins on sales of
manufactured and purchased products and the effects of inventory changes. |
Three Months Ended September 30, 2005 Compared with Three Months Ended September 30, 2004.
Operating income from our refining segment was $436 million in the 2005 Quarter compared to $187
million for the 2004 Quarter. The $249 million increase in our operating income was primarily due
to significantly higher gross refining margins, combined with higher throughput levels and product
sales volumes, partially offset by higher operating expenses. Total gross refining margins
increased 68% to $13.87 per barrel in the 2005 Quarter, compared to $8.27 per barrel in the 2004
Quarter. All of our refining regions experienced higher per-barrel gross refining margins in the
2005 Quarter, particularly in our California region where refining margins increased 77% to $20.51
per barrel in the 2005 Quarter from $11.61 per barrel in the 2004 Quarter. Industry margins on a
national basis increased significantly during the 2005 Quarter primarily due to the
20
continued increased demand for finished products due to improved economic fundamentals worldwide
and an active hurricane season, including production and supply disruptions on the U.S. Gulf Coast
caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. However, U.S. demand for finished products declined during
September due to record high product prices caused by the hurricanes. Industry margins were also
impacted by unplanned refining industry downtime on the U.S. West Coast.
On an aggregate basis, our total gross refining margins increased from $403 million in the 2004
Quarter to $696 million in the 2005 Quarter, reflecting higher per-barrel refining margins and
increased throughput. Total refining throughput averaged 559 thousand barrels per day (Mbpd)
compared to 535 Mbpd during the 2004 Quarter. During the 2005 Quarter, we achieved record high
total quarterly refining throughput, which reflects improved operating efficiencies due to
scheduled major maintenance turnarounds at our three largest refineries during the first half of
2005. In the 2004 Quarter, our California refinery experienced reduced throughput during a
scheduled major maintenance turnaround. We estimate that our refining operating income was reduced
by approximately $34 million as a result of the scheduled downtime at our California refinery
during the 2004 Quarter.
Revenues from sales of refined products increased 55% to $4.8 billion in the 2005 Quarter, from
$3.1 billion in the 2004 Quarter, primarily due to significantly higher average product sales
prices combined with higher product sales volumes. Our average product prices increased 45% to
$79.98 per barrel, reflecting the continued strength in market fundamentals and the effects of the
active hurricane season. Total product sales averaged 650 Mbpd in the 2005 Quarter, an increase
of 36 Mbpd from the 2004 Quarter. Our average costs of sales increased 43% to $67.79 per barrel
during the 2005 Quarter reflecting significantly higher average feedstock prices. Expenses,
excluding depreciation and amortization, increased to $223 million in the 2005 Quarter, compared
with $186 million in the 2004 Quarter, primarily due to increased utilities of $10 million, higher
insurance costs of $9 million due to the hurricanes on the U.S. Gulf Coast, and higher maintenance
and employee costs of $6 million. Expenses also included the allocation of certain information
technology costs totaling $8 million that were previously classified as corporate and unallocated
costs. Depreciation and amortization increased to $37 million in the 2005 Quarter, compared to
$30 million in the 2004 Quarter reflecting increasing capital expenditures.
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005 Compared with Nine Months Ended September 30, 2004. Operating
income from our refining segment was $952 million in the 2005 Period compared to $766 million for
the 2004 Period. The $186 million increase in our operating income was primarily due to higher
gross refining margins, partly offset by higher operating expenses. Total gross refining margins
increased 24% to $12.02 per barrel in the 2005 Period compared to $9.73 per barrel in the 2004
Period. All of our refining regions experienced higher per-barrel gross refining margins during
the 2005 Period, with the exception of our Mid-Pacific region which had a scheduled major
maintenance turnaround during the 2005 second quarter. Industry margins on a national basis
improved during the 2005 Period compared to the 2004 Period, primarily due to the continued
increased demand for finished products due to improved economic fundamentals worldwide, an active
hurricane season and higher than normal industry maintenance particularly in the western United
States during the first half of 2005. However, U.S. demand for finished products declined during
September due to record high product prices caused by the hurricanes. Industry margins were also
impacted by unplanned industry downtime on the U.S. West Coast during the 2005 Quarter. Despite
the strength of industry refining margins on a national basis, we were unable to achieve more of
these stronger margins during the first six months of 2005 due to scheduled major maintenance
turnarounds at our California, Washington and Hawaii refineries and other unscheduled downtime. In
addition, our gross refining margins in our Pacific Northwest region during the first half of 2005
were negatively impacted as the increased differential between light and heavy crude oil depressed
the margins for heavy fuel oils. In our Mid-Continent region, our Utah refinery was negatively
impacted by certain factors primarily during the 2005 first quarter, including higher crude oil
costs due to Canadian production constraints and depressed market fundamentals in the Salt Lake
City area due to record high first quarter refined product production in PADD IV.
On an aggregate basis, our total gross refining margins increased from $1.4 billion in the 2004
Period to $1.7 billion in the 2005 Period, reflecting higher per-barrel gross refining margins as
described above. Total refining throughput remained flat at 526 Mbpd in the 2005 Period compared to
523 Mbpd during the 2004 Period, despite the scheduled major maintenance turnarounds at our
California, Washington and Hawaii refineries and other unscheduled downtime during the first half
of 2005. We estimate that our refining operating income was reduced by approximately $75 million
as a result of both the scheduled and unscheduled downtime at our California and Washington
refineries during the 2005 first quarter. In the 2004 third quarter, our California refinery
experienced reduced throughput during a scheduled major maintenance turnaround. We estimate that
our refining operating income was reduced by approximately $34 million as a result of the scheduled
downtime at our California refinery during the 2004 Quarter.
21
Revenues from sales of refined products increased 38% to $11.6 billion in the 2005 Period, from
$8.4 billion in the 2004 Period, primarily due to significantly higher average product sales
prices combined with slightly higher product sales volumes. Our average product prices increased
34% to $69.30 per barrel reflecting the continued strength in market fundamentals and the active
hurricane season. Total product sales averaged 611 Mbpd in the 2005 Period, an increase of 15
Mbpd from the 2004 Period. Our average costs of sales increased 37% to $58.88 per barrel during
the 2005 Period, reflecting significantly higher average feedstock prices and increased purchases
of refined products due to scheduled and unscheduled downtime at certain refineries. Expenses,
excluding depreciation and amortization, increased to $642 million in the 2005 Period, compared
with $531 million in the 2004 Period, primarily due to higher utilities of $28 million, higher
maintenance and employee costs of $27 million and increased insurance costs of $13 million
primarily due to the hurricanes on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Expenses included the allocation of
certain information technology costs totaling $19 million that were previously classified as
corporate and unallocated costs. Depreciation and amortization increased to $109 million in the
2005 Period, compared to $93 million in the 2004 Period reflecting increasing capital
expenditures.
Retail Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
(Dollars in millions except per gallon amounts) |
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
$ |
285 |
|
|
$ |
237 |
|
|
$ |
720 |
|
|
$ |
646 |
|
Merchandise and other |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
325 |
|
|
$ |
273 |
|
|
$ |
827 |
|
|
$ |
745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Sales (millions of gallons) |
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
349 |
|
|
|
388 |
|
Fuel Margin ($/gallon) (a) |
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
$ |
0.13 |
|
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
Merchandise Margin (in millions) |
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
Merchandise Margin (percent of sales) |
|
|
26 |
% |
|
|
28 |
% |
|
|
26 |
% |
|
|
27 |
% |
Average Number of Stations (during the period) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated |
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
223 |
|
Branded jobber/dealer |
|
|
278 |
|
|
|
315 |
|
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Average Retail Stations |
|
|
490 |
|
|
|
537 |
|
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
543 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Margins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel (b) |
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
$ |
56 |
|
Merchandise and other non-fuel margin |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross margins |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss) |
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(26 |
) |
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Management uses fuel margin per gallon to compare profitability to other companies in the
industry. Fuel margin per gallon is calculated by dividing fuel gross margin by fuel sales
volume and may not be calculated similarly by other companies. Investors and analysts use
fuel margin per gallon to help analyze and compare companies in the industry on the basis of
operating performance. This financial measure should not be considered as an alternative to
segment operating income and revenues or any other measure of financial performance presented
in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. |
|
(b) |
|
Includes the effect of intersegment purchases from our refining segment at prices which
approximate market. |
Three Months Ended September 30, 2005 Compared with Three Months Ended September 30, 2004.
Operating loss for our retail segment was $8 million in the 2005 Quarter, compared to operating
income of $1 million in the 2004 Quarter. Total gross margins decreased to $26 million during the
2005 Quarter from $31 million in the 2004 Quarter reflecting lower fuel margins per gallon combined
with lower sales volumes. Fuel margin decreased to $0.12 per gallon in the 2005 Quarter compared
to $0.15 per gallon in the 2004 Quarter as retail gasoline prices lagged higher wholesale prices.
Total gallons
22
sold decreased to 121 million from 136 million, reflecting the decrease in average station count to
490 in the 2005 Quarter from 537 in the 2004 Quarter. The decrease in average station count
reflects our continued rationalization of retail assets in our non-core markets.
Revenues on fuel sales increased to $285 million in the 2005 Quarter, from $237 million in the 2004
Quarter, reflecting increased sales prices, partly offset by lower sales volumes. Costs of sales
increased in the 2005 Quarter due to higher average prices of purchased fuel, partly offset by
lower sales volumes. Expenses, excluding depreciation and amortization, for the 2005 Quarter
included the allocation of certain information technology costs of $1 million that were previously
classified as corporate and unallocated costs.
Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005 Compared with Nine Months Ended September 30, 2004.
Operating loss for our retail segment was $26 million in the 2005 Period, compared to an operating
loss of $5 million in the 2004 Period. Total gross margins decreased to $74 million during the
2005 Period from $85 million in the 2004 Period reflecting lower fuel margins per gallon and lower
sales volumes. Fuel margin decreased to $0.13 per gallon in the 2005 Period compared to $0.15 per
gallon in the 2004 Period as retail gasoline prices lagged higher wholesale prices. Total gallons
sold decreased to 349 million from 388 million, reflecting the decrease in average station count to
498 in the 2005 Period from 543 in the 2004 Period. The decrease in average station count reflects
our continued rationalization of retail assets in our non-core markets.
Revenues on fuel sales increased to $720 million in the 2005 Period, from $646 million in the 2004
Period, reflecting increased sales prices, partly offset by lower sales volumes. Costs of sales
increased in the 2005 Period due to higher average prices of purchased fuel, partly offset by lower
sales volumes. Expenses, excluding depreciation and amortization, for the 2005 Period included the
allocation of certain information technology costs of $4 million that were previously
classified as corporate and unallocated costs and higher insurance costs of $2 million.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses totaled $41 million and $143 million for the 2005
Quarter and 2005 Period, respectively, compared to $38 million and $108 million in the 2004 Quarter
and 2004 Period, respectively. Certain information technology costs, previously reported as
selling, general and administrative expenses, were allocated to costs of sales and operating
expenses totaling $9 million and $23 million during the 2005 Quarter and 2005 Period, respectively
(see Notes A and C of the condensed consolidated financial statements). The increase during the
2005 Quarter was primarily due to increased employee and contract labor expenses of $8 million and
increased stock-based compensation expenses of $5 million. The increase during the 2005 Period was
primarily due to increased employee and contract labor expenses of $29 million, charges for the
termination and retirement of certain executive officers of $11 million and additional stock-based
compensation expenses of $10 million. The increase in employee and contract labor expenses during
2005 primarily reflects costs associated with implementing and supporting systems and process
improvements.
Interest and Financing Costs
Interest and financing costs decreased by $25 million and $45 million in the 2005 Quarter and 2005
Period, respectively. The decreases were primarily due to lower interest expense associated with
debt reduction totaling $401 million during 2004 and $99 million during the 2005 Period. The 2005
Period included prepayment charges of $3 million in connection with the voluntary prepayment of our
senior secured term loans. The 2004 Quarter and 2004 Period included charges of $21 million and
$23 million, respectively, primarily associated with our voluntary debt prepayments.
Income Tax Provision
The income tax provision totaled $141 million and $281 million for the 2005 Quarter and 2005
Period, respectively, compared to $43 million and $219 million for the 2004 Quarter and 2004
Period, respectively, reflecting higher earnings before income taxes. The combined federal and
state effective income tax rate was 39% and 40% for the 2005 Period and 2004 Period, respectively.
EMPLOYEES
We have extended the collective bargaining agreements covering represented employees at our
refineries to terms expiring on January 31, 2009.
23
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY
Overview
We operate in an environment where our capital resources and liquidity are impacted by changes in
the price of crude oil and refined petroleum products, availability of trade credit, market
uncertainty and a variety of additional factors beyond our control. These risks include, among
others, the level of consumer product demand, weather conditions, fluctuations in seasonal demand,
governmental regulations, worldwide geo-political conditions and overall market and economic
conditions. See Forward-Looking Statements on page 30 for further information related to risks
and other factors. Future capital expenditures, as well as borrowings under our credit agreement
and other sources of capital, may be affected by these conditions.
Our primary sources of liquidity have been cash flows from operations and borrowing availability
under revolving lines of credit. We ended the third quarter of 2005 with $657 million of cash and
cash equivalents, no borrowings under our revolving credit facility, and $472 million in available
borrowing capacity under our credit agreement after $278 million in outstanding letters of credit.
We also have a separate letters of credit agreement in which we have $77 million available for
additional letters of credit after $88 million in outstanding letters of credit as of September 30,
2005. In April 2005, we voluntarily prepaid the remaining $96 million outstanding principal
balance of our senior secured term loans. The prepayment will result in annual pretax interest
savings of approximately $8 million. We believe available capital resources will be adequate to
meet our capital expenditures, working capital and debt service requirements.
In October 2005, we commenced offers to purchase (tender offers) our $375 million principal
amount outstanding of 8% senior secured notes due 2008, $211 million principal amount outstanding
of 95/8% senior subordinated notes due 2008 and $429 million principal amount
outstanding of 95/8% senior subordinated notes due 2012. In conjunction with
the tender offers, we also commenced consent solicitations to eliminate substantially all the
covenants and certain events of default in the indentures governing the senior notes. In November
2005, we commenced the private placement of a $900 million unsecured notes offering, with proceeds
to be used to refinance the senior notes subject to the tender offers. The remaining balance of
the outstanding senior notes, tender premiums and associated fees and accrued interest will be paid
with cash on-hand. The tender offers are contingent upon our receipt of at least a majority of the
principal amount of each series of the senior notes, as well as the successful completion of the
proposed financing.
We expect that if both the tender offers and the new proposed notes offering are successful, we
will reduce our interest expense and extend the maturity dates on our debt. We would also incur a
pretax charge in the 2005 fourth quarter of approximately $100 million for expenses associated with
the tender, which includes the write-off of unamortized debt issuance and discount costs totaling
approximately $19 million.
Capitalization
Our capital structure at September 30, 2005 was comprised of the following (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Debt, including current maturities: |
|
|
|
|
Credit Agreement Revolving Credit Facility |
|
$ |
¾ |
|
8% Senior Secured Notes Due 2008 |
|
|
373 |
|
9-5/8% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2012 |
|
|
429 |
|
9-5/8% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2008 |
|
|
211 |
|
Junior subordinated notes due 2012 |
|
|
90 |
|
Capital lease obligations and other |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt |
|
|
1,135 |
|
Stockholders equity |
|
|
1,831 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capitalization |
|
$ |
2,966 |
|
|
|
|
|
At September 30, 2005, our debt to capitalization ratio was 38% compared with 48% at year-end
2004, reflecting net earnings of $438 million during the 2005 Period, the $96 million voluntary
prepayment of our senior secured term loans and an increase in additional paid-in capital of $69
million during the 2005 Period primarily due to stock options exercised.
Our credit agreement and senior notes impose various restrictions and covenants on us that could
potentially limit our ability to respond to market conditions, raise additional debt or equity
capital, or take advantage of business opportunities.
24
Senior Secured Term Loans
In April 2005, we voluntarily prepaid the remaining $96 million outstanding principal balance of
our senior secured term loans at a prepayment premium of 1%. The prepayment resulted in a pretax
charge during the 2005 second quarter of $3 million, consisting of the write-off of unamortized
debt issuance costs and the 1% prepayment premium.
Credit Agreement
In May 2005, we amended our credit agreement to extend the term by one year to June 2008 and reduce
letter of credit fees and revolver borrowing interest. The credit agreement currently provides for
borrowings (including letters of credit) up to the lesser of the agreements total capacity, $750
million as amended, or the amount of a periodically adjusted borrowing base ($1.8 billion as of
September 30, 2005), consisting of Tesoros eligible cash and cash equivalents, receivables and
petroleum inventories, as defined. As of September 30, 2005, we had no borrowings and $278 million
in letters of credit outstanding under the revolving credit facility, resulting in total unused
credit availability of $472 million, or 63% of the eligible borrowing base. Borrowings under the
revolving credit facility bear interest at either a base rate (6.75% at September 30, 2005) or a
eurodollar rate (3.87% at September 30, 2005), plus an applicable margin. The applicable margin at
September 30, 2005 was 1.50% in the case of the eurodollar rate, but varies based on credit
facility availability. Letters of credit outstanding under the revolving credit facility incur
fees at an annual rate tied to the eurodollar rate applicable margin (1.50% at September 30, 2005).
The credit agreement allows up to $250 million in letters of credit outside the credit agreement
for crude oil purchases from non-U.S. vendors. In September 2005, we entered into a separate
letters of credit agreement that provides up to $165 million in letters of credit for the purchase
of foreign crude oil. The agreement is secured by our petroleum inventories supported by letters
of credit issued under the agreement and will remain in effect until terminated by either party.
Letters of credit outstanding under this agreement incur fees at an annual rate of 1.50% while
secured or 1.62% while unsecured. As of September 30, 2005, we had $88 million in letters of
credit outstanding under this agreement.
Common Stock Repurchase Program
In November 2005, our Board of Directors authorized a $200 million share repurchase program,
which represents approximately 5% of our common stock then outstanding. Under the program, we will
repurchase our common stock from time to time in the open market and through privately negotiated
transactions. Purchases will depend on price, market conditions and other factors.
Cash Flow Summary
Components of our cash flows are set forth below (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Cash Flows From (Used In): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Activities |
|
$ |
694 |
|
|
$ |
621 |
|
Investing Activities |
|
|
(167 |
) |
|
|
(85 |
) |
Financing Activities |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
$ |
472 |
|
|
$ |
131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash from operating activities during the 2005 Period totaled $694 million, compared to $621
million provided from operating activities in the 2004 Period. The increase was primarily due to
increased earnings, partly offset by increased working capital requirements. Net cash used in
investing activities of $167 million in the 2005 Period was primarily for capital expenditures.
Net cash used in financing activities primarily reflects our voluntary prepayment of the senior
secured term loans during the 2005 second quarter, partially offset by cash proceeds and income tax
benefits provided from exercised stock options. Gross borrowings and repayments under the
revolving credit facility each amounted to $463 million during the 2005 Period. Working capital
increased to $814 million at September 30, 2005 compared to $400 million at year-end 2004,
primarily as a result of the $472 million increase in cash and cash equivalents.
25
Historical EBITDA
EBITDA represents earnings before interest and financing costs, interest income and other, income
taxes, and depreciation and amortization. We present EBITDA because we believe some investors and
analysts use EBITDA to help analyze our liquidity including our ability to satisfy principal and
interest obligations with respect to our indebtedness and to use cash for other purposes, including
capital expenditures. EBITDA is also used by some investors and analysts to analyze and compare
companies on the basis of operating performance. EBITDA is also used for internal analysis and as
a component of the fixed charge coverage financial covenant in our credit agreement. EBITDA should
not be considered as an alternative to net earnings, earnings before income taxes, cash flows from
operating activities or any other measure of financial performance presented in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. EBITDA may not be
comparable to similarly titled measures used by other entities. Our historical EBITDA reconciled
to net cash from operating activities was (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
Nine Months Ended |
|
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
September 30, |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Net Cash From Operating Activities |
|
$ |
609 |
|
|
$ |
230 |
|
|
$ |
694 |
|
|
$ |
621 |
|
Changes in Assets and Liabilities |
|
|
(308 |
) |
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(56 |
) |
Excess Tax Benefits from Stock-Based
Compensation Arrangements |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Deferred Income Taxes |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
(93 |
) |
Stock-Based Compensation |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Loss on Asset Disposals and Impairments |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
Write-off of Unamortized Debt Issuance Costs |
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Amortization of Debt Issuance Costs and Discounts |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
Depreciation and Amortization |
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(128 |
) |
|
|
(111 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Earnings |
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
438 |
|
|
|
328 |
|
Add Income Tax Provision |
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
219 |
|
Less Interest Income and Other |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
Add Interest and Financing Costs |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
392 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
807 |
|
|
|
683 |
|
Add Depreciation and Amortization |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA |
|
$ |
436 |
|
|
$ |
197 |
|
|
$ |
935 |
|
|
$ |
794 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical EBITDA as presented above differs from EBITDA as defined under our credit agreement.
The primary differences are non-cash postretirement benefit costs and loss on asset disposals and
impairments, which are added to net earnings under the credit agreement EBITDA calculations.
Capital Expenditures and Refinery Turnaround Spending
During the 2005 Period, our capital expenditures totaled $170 million, which included clean air,
clean fuels and other environmental projects of $78 million, refinery improvements at our
California refinery of $37 million (excluding environmental projects) and corporate capital
expenditures totaling $33 million. We spent $51 million during the 2005 Period for refinery
turnaround and other major maintenance costs, primarily for the scheduled turnarounds at our
California, Washington and Hawaii refineries which were completed during the 2005 Period.
In May 2005, our Board of Directors approved an incremental capital spending program for 2005 of
approximately $42 million designed to capture strategic profit improvement opportunities in crude
flexibility, yield improvements and cost reductions and $13 million to study environmental projects
at our California and Alaska refineries. The capital projects include the installation of a coker
unit at our Washington refinery and a diesel desulfurizer unit at our Alaska refinery, both
projected to be completed during 2007 (see Business Strategy and Environment). During 2005, we
expect to spend $12 million for the coker unit and $5 million for the diesel desulfurizer unit.
Based on our revised capital budget, during the remainder of 2005, we expect our capital
expenditures to approximate $115 million to $125 million (excluding $12 million of other major
maintenance costs). Our estimated capital expenditures for
the remainder of 2005 include $110 million in the refining segment, including $40 million for clean
air and clean fuels
26
projects, $25 million for projects at our California refinery, and other refining projects totaling
$45 million. In the retail segment, we plan to spend $5 million during the remainder of 2005.
Our 2006 capital budget is currently estimated to be approximately $565 million (excluding refinery
turnaround and other major maintenance costs of approximately $105 million). The capital budget
includes $135 million for the delayed coker unit at our California refinery, $110 million for the
coker unit at our Washington refinery, $33 million for the diesel desulfurizer unit at our Alaska
refinery and $170 million for sustaining and environmental, health and safety projects (see
Business Strategy and Environment). During 2006, we expect to spend approximately $105 million
for refinery turnaround and other major maintenance, primarily for turnarounds at our California
refinery during the 2006 first and fourth quarters, and our Alaska and Washington refineries during
the 2006 second quarter. Our preliminary capital expenditure estimates for 2007 and 2008 are $490
million and $190 million, respectively (excluding refinery turnaround and other major maintenance
costs of approximately $50 million in 2007 and $60 million in 2008). The 2007 and 2008 capital
expenditure estimates are preliminary and subject to change, as we continue to evaluate additional
projects.
Environmental and Other
Tesoro is subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. These
laws, which change frequently, regulate the discharge of materials into the environment and may
require us to remove or mitigate the environmental effects of the disposal or release of petroleum
or chemical substances at various sites, install additional controls, or make other modifications
or changes in use for certain emission sources.
Environmental Liabilities
We are currently involved in remedial responses and have incurred and expect to continue to incur
cleanup expenditures associated with environmental matters at a number of sites, including certain
of our previously owned properties. At September 30, 2005, our accruals for environmental expenses
totaled approximately $33 million. Our accruals for environmental expenses include retained
liabilities for previously owned or operated properties, refining, pipeline and terminal operations
and retail service stations. We believe these accruals are adequate, based on currently available
information, including the participation of other parties or former owners in remediation action.
During the third quarter of 2005, we continued settlement discussions with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) concerning a notice of violation (NOV) we received in October 2004. The
NOV, issued by CARB, alleges that Tesoro offered eleven batches of gasoline for sale in California
that did not meet CARBs gasoline exhaust emission limits. We disagree with factual allegations in
the NOV and estimate the amount of any penalties that might be associated with this NOV will not
exceed $650,000. A reserve for the settlement of the NOV is included in the $33 million of
environmental accruals referenced above.
In January 2005, we received two NOVs from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District has alleged we violated certain air quality emission limits as
a result of a mechanical failure of one of our boilers at our California refinery on January 12,
2005. A reserve for the settlement of the NOVs is included in the $33 million of environmental
accruals referenced above. We believe the resolution of these NOVs will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.
During the third quarter of 2005, we reached a settlement with the EPA concerning the June 8, 2004
pipeline release of approximately 400 barrels of crude oil in Oliver County, North Dakota by
agreeing to pay a civil penalty of $94,500, which is included in the $33 million of environmental
accruals referenced above.
We have undertaken an investigation of environmental conditions at certain active wastewater
treatment units at our California refinery. This investigation is driven by an order from the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board that names us as well as two previous owners of
the California refinery. The cost estimate for the active wastewater units investigation is
approximately $1 million. A reserve for this matter is included in the $33 million of
environmental accruals referenced above.
Other Environmental Matters
In the ordinary course of business, we become party to or otherwise involved in lawsuits,
administrative proceedings and governmental investigations, including environmental, regulatory and
other matters. Large and sometimes unspecified
27
damages or penalties may be sought from us in some matters for which the likelihood of loss may be
reasonably possible but the amount of loss is not currently estimable, and some matters may require
years for us to resolve. As a result, we have not established reserves for these matters. On the
basis of existing information, we believe that the resolution of these matters, individually or in
the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations. However, we cannot provide assurance that an adverse resolution of one or more of the
matters described below during a future reporting period will not have a material adverse effect on
our financial position or results of operations in future periods.
We are a defendant, along with other manufacturing, supply and marketing defendants, in ten pending
cases alleging MTBE contamination in groundwater. The defendants are being sued for having
manufactured MTBE and having manufactured, supplied and distributed gasoline containing MTBE. The
plaintiffs, all in California, are generally water providers, governmental authorities and private
well owners alleging in part that defendants are liable for manufacturing or distributing a
defective product. The suits generally seek individual, unquantified compensatory and punitive
damages and attorneys fees, but we cannot estimate the amount or the likelihood of the ultimate
resolution of these matters at this time, and accordingly have not established a reserve for these
cases. We believe we have defenses to these claims and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits.
Soil and groundwater conditions at our California refinery may require substantial expenditures
over time. In connection with our acquisition of the California refinery from Ultramar, Inc. in
May 2002, Ultramar assigned certain of its rights and obligations that Ultramar had acquired from
Tosco Corporation in August of 2000. Tosco assumed responsibility and contractually indemnified us
for up to $50 million for certain environmental liabilities arising from operations at the refinery
prior to August of 2000, which are identified prior to August 31, 2010 (Pre-Acquisition
Operations). Based on existing information, we currently estimate that the known environmental
liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations are approximately $41 million, including soil
and groundwater conditions at the refinery in connection with various projects and including those
required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and other government agencies. If
we incur remediation liabilities in excess of the defined environmental liabilities for
Pre-Acquisition Operations indemnified by Tosco, we expect to be reimbursed for such excess
liabilities under certain environmental insurance policies. The policies provide $140 million of
coverage in excess of the $50 million indemnity covering the defined environmental liabilities
arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations. Because of Toscos indemnification and the environmental
insurance policies, we have not established a reserve for these defined environmental liabilities
arising out of the Pre-Acquisition Operations. In December 2003, we initiated arbitration
proceedings against Tosco seeking damages, indemnity and a declaration that Tosco is responsible
for the defined environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations at our California
refinery.
In November 2003, we filed suit in Contra Costa County Superior Court against Tosco alleging that
Tosco misrepresented, concealed and failed to disclose certain additional environmental conditions
at our California refinery. The court granted Toscos motion to compel arbitration of our claims
for these certain additional environmental conditions. In the arbitration proceedings we initiated
against Tosco in December 2003, we are also seeking a determination that Tosco is liable for
investigation and remediation of these certain additional environmental conditions, the amount of
which is currently unknown and therefore a reserve has not been established, and which may not be
covered by the $50 million indemnity for the defined environmental liabilities arising from
Pre-Acquisition Operations. In response to our arbitration claims, Tosco filed counterclaims in
the Contra Costa County Superior Court action alleging that we are contractually responsible for
additional environmental liabilities at our California refinery, including the defined
environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations. In February 2005, the parties
agreed to stay the arbitration proceedings for a period of 90 days to pursue settlement
discussions.
In June 2005, the parties agreed in principle to settle their claims, including the defined
environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations and certain additional
environmental conditions, both discussed above, pending negotiation and execution of a final
written settlement agreement. In the event we are unable to finalize the settlement, we intend to
vigorously prosecute our claims against Tosco and to oppose Toscos claims against us, although we
cannot provide assurance that we will prevail.
Environmental Capital Expenditures
EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act require reductions beginning January 1, 2004 in the
sulfur content in gasoline. To meet the revised gasoline standard, we currently estimate we will
make capital improvements of approximately $36
28
million from 2005 through 2009, approximately $20 million of which was spent during the first nine
months of 2005. This will permit each of our six refineries to produce gasoline meeting the sulfur
limits imposed by the EPA.
EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act also require reductions in the sulfur content in
diesel fuel manufactured for on-road consumption. In general, the new on-road diesel fuel
standards will become effective on June 1, 2006. In May 2004, the EPA issued a rule regarding the
sulfur content of non-road diesel fuel. The requirements to reduce non-road diesel sulfur content
will become effective in phases between 2007 and 2010. Based on our latest engineering estimates,
to meet the revised diesel fuel standards, we expect to spend approximately $108 million in capital
improvements from 2005 through 2007 for this project, approximately $24 million of which was spent
during the first nine months of 2005. Included in the estimate are capital projects to manufacture
additional quantities of low sulfur diesel at our Alaska refinery, for which we expect to spend
approximately $48 million through 2007. Also included in the estimate is a capital project to
manufacture additional low sulfur diesel at our Hawaii refinery, for which we expect to spend
approximately $4 million through 2006. These costs estimates are subject to further review and
analysis. Our California, Washington and North Dakota refineries will not require additional
capital spending to meet the new non-road diesel fuel standards.
We expect to spend approximately $17 million in capital improvements from 2005 through 2006 at our
Washington refinery to comply with the Maximum Achievable Control Technologies standard for
petroleum refineries (Refinery MACT II), approximately $12 million of which was spent during the
first nine months of 2005.
In connection with our 2001 acquisition of our North Dakota and Utah refineries, Tesoro assumed the
sellers obligations and liabilities under a consent decree among the United States, BP Exploration
and Oil Co. (BP), Amoco Oil Company and Atlantic Richfield Company. BP entered into this consent
decree for both the North Dakota and Utah refineries for various alleged violations. As the owner
of these refineries, Tesoro is required to address issues that include leak detection and repair,
flaring protection, and sulfur recovery unit optimization. We currently estimate we will spend $5
million over the next three years to comply with this consent decree. We also agreed to indemnify
the sellers for all losses of any kind incurred in connection with the consent decree.
In connection with the 2002 acquisition of our California refinery, subject to certain conditions,
Tesoro also assumed the sellers obligations pursuant to settlement efforts with the EPA concerning
the Section 114 refinery enforcement initiative under the Clean Air Act, except for any potential
monetary penalties, which the seller retains. In June 2005, a settlement agreement was lodged with
the District Court for the Western District of Texas in which we agreed to undertake projects at
our California refinery to reduce air emissions. We currently estimate that we will spend
approximately $34 million between 2005 and 2010 to satisfy the requirements of the settlement
agreement. This cost estimate is subject to further review and analysis.
During the second quarter of 2005, the Hearing Board for the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District entered a Stipulated Conditional Order of Abatement with Tesoro concerning emissions from
our California refinery coker. We negotiated the terms and conditions of the order with the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District in response to the January 12, 2005 mechanical failure of one
of our boilers at our California refinery. The order requires us to evaluate technologies to
install emission control equipment as a backup to the boiler fueled by the coker. We anticipate
seeking the approval of the Hearing Board during the fourth quarter to pursue a capital project to
meet the conditions of the order by modifying our existing fluid coker unit to a delayed coker.
Dependent upon approval by the Hearing Board, we currently estimate that we will spend
approximately $275 million through 2007 for this project. This cost estimate is subject to further
review and analysis.
We will need to spend additional capital at the California refinery for reconfiguring and replacing
above-ground storage tank systems and upgrading piping within the refinery. For these related
projects at our California refinery, we estimate that we may spend $100 million from 2005 through
2010, approximately $11 million of which was spent during the first nine months of 2005. This cost
estimate is subject to further review and analysis.
Conditions may develop that cause increases or decreases in future expenditures for our various
sites, including, but not limited to, our refineries, tank farms, retail gasoline stations
(operating and closed locations) and petroleum product terminals, and for compliance with the Clean
Air Act and other federal, state and local requirements. We cannot currently determine the amounts
of such future expenditures.
29
Other
Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) has asserted claims against other refining companies for
infringement of patents related to the production of certain reformulated gasoline similar to
grades of gasoline produced by our California refinery. We did not pay or accrue liabilities for
patent royalties related to our California refinerys production since the U.S. Patent Office and
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had been evaluating the validity of those patents. We had entered
into a license agreement with Unocal providing for payments of royalties on California-grade
summertime gasoline produced at our Washington refinery. Recently, Chevron Corporation acquired
and agreed to an order from the FTC requiring that it cease all efforts to enforce rights under
those patents or license agreements. Chevron has now notified Tesoro that it will not seek to
recover any royalties or infringement damages relating to the patents.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are included throughout this
Form 10-Q and relate to, among other things, expectations regarding refining margins, revenues,
cash flows, capital expenditures, turnaround expenses and other financial items. These statements
also relate to our business strategy, goals and expectations concerning our market position, future
operations, margins and profitability. We have used the words anticipate, believe, could,
estimate, expect, intend, may, plan, predict, project, will and similar terms and
phrases to identify forward-looking statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
Although we believe the assumptions upon which these forward-looking statements are based are
reasonable, any of these assumptions could prove to be inaccurate and the forward-looking
statements based on these assumptions could be incorrect. Our operations involve risks and
uncertainties, many of which are outside our control, and any one of which, or a combination of which, could materially affect our results of operations and whether the
forward-looking statements ultimately prove to be correct.
Actual results and trends in the future may differ materially from those suggested or implied by
the forward-looking statements depending on a variety of factors including, but not limited to:
|
|
|
changes in general economic conditions; |
|
|
|
|
the timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and underlying demand for our products; |
|
|
|
|
the availability and costs of crude oil, other refinery feedstocks and refined products; |
|
|
|
|
changes in our cash flow from operations; |
|
|
|
|
changes in the cost or availability of third-party vessels, pipelines and other
means of transporting feedstocks and products; |
|
|
|
|
disruptions due to equipment interruption or failure at our facilities or third-party facilities; |
|
|
|
|
actions of customers and competitors; |
|
|
|
|
changes in capital requirements or in execution of planned capital projects; |
|
|
|
|
direct or indirect effects on our business resulting from actual or threatened
terrorist incidents or acts of war; |
|
|
|
|
political developments in foreign countries; |
|
|
|
|
changes in our inventory levels and carrying costs; |
|
|
|
|
seasonal variations in demand for refined products; |
|
|
|
|
changes in fuel and utility costs for our facilities; |
|
|
|
|
state and federal environmental, economic, safety and other policies and
regulations, any changes therein, and any legal or regulatory delays or other factors
beyond our control; |
|
|
|
|
adverse rulings, judgments, or settlements in litigation or other legal or tax
matters, including
unexpected environmental remediation costs in excess of any reserves; and |
|
|
|
|
weather conditions, earthquakes or other natural disasters affecting operations. |
Many of these factors are described in greater detail in our filings with the SEC. All future
written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are
expressly qualified in their entirety by the previous
statements. We undertake no obligation to update any information contained herein or to publicly
release the results of any revisions to any forward-looking statements that may be made to reflect
events or circumstances that occur, or that we become aware of, after the date of this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q.
30
ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Changes in commodity prices and interest rates are our primary sources of market risk. We
have a risk management committee responsible for managing risks arising from transactions and
commitments related to the sale and purchase of energy commodities.
Commodity Price Risks
Our earnings and cash flows from operations depend on the margin above fixed and variable expenses
(including the costs of crude oil and other feedstocks) at which we are able to sell refined
products. The prices of crude oil and refined products have fluctuated substantially in recent
years. These prices depend on many factors, including the demand for crude oil, gasoline and other
refined products, which in turn depend on, among other factors, changes in the economy, the level
of foreign and domestic production of crude oil and refined products, worldwide geo-political
conditions, the availability of imports of crude oil and refined products, the marketing of
alternative and competing fuels and the impact of government regulations. The prices we receive
for refined products are also affected by local factors such as local market conditions and the
level of operations of other refineries in our markets.
The prices at which we sell our refined products are influenced by the commodity price of crude
oil. Generally, an increase or decrease in the price of crude oil results in a corresponding
increase or decrease in the price of gasoline and other refined products. The timing of the
relative movement of the prices, however, can impact profit margins which could significantly
affect our earnings and cash flows. In addition, the majority of our crude oil supply contracts
are short-term in nature with market-responsive pricing provisions. Our financial results can be
affected significantly by price level changes during the period between purchasing refinery
feedstocks and selling the manufactured refined products from such feedstocks. We also purchase
refined products manufactured by others for resale to our customers. Our financial results can be
affected significantly by price level changes during the periods between purchasing and selling
such products. Assuming all other factors remained constant, a $1.00 per barrel change in average
gross refining margins, based on our 2005 year-to-date average throughput of 526 Mbpd, would change
annualized pretax operating income by approximately $191 million.
We maintain inventories of crude oil, intermediate products and refined products, the values of
which are subject to fluctuations in market prices. Our inventories of refinery feedstocks and
refined products totaled 26.3 million barrels and 21.8 million barrels at September 30, 2005 and
December 31, 2004, respectively. The average cost of our refinery feedstocks and refined products
at September 30, 2005 was approximately $34 per barrel on a LIFO basis, compared to market prices
of approximately $78 per barrel. If market prices decline to a level below the average cost of
these inventories, we would be required to write down the carrying value of our inventory.
Tesoro periodically enters into non-trading derivative arrangements primarily to manage exposure to
commodity price risks associated with the purchase of crude oil and the purchase and sale of
manufactured and purchased refined products. To manage these risks, we typically enter into
exchange-traded futures and over-the-counter swaps, generally with durations of one year or less.
We mark to market our non-hedging derivative instruments and recognize the changes in their fair
values in earnings. We include the carrying amounts of our derivatives in other current assets or
accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets. We did not designate or account for any
derivative instruments as hedges during the first nine months of 2005. Accordingly, no change in
the value of the related underlying physical asset is recorded. During the third quarter of 2005,
we settled futures contracts and swap positions of approximately 23.8 million barrels of crude oil
and refined products, which resulted in losses of $30 million. During the first nine months of
2005, we recorded losses of $39 million associated with the settlement of our derivative
instruments. At September 30, 2005, we had open net futures contracts and swap positions of 2.0
million barrels and 6.2 million barrels, respectively, which will expire at various times during
2005 and the first quarter of 2006. We recorded the fair value of our open positions, which
resulted in an unrealized mark-to-market loss of $24 million at September 30, 2005.
We prepared a sensitivity analysis to estimate our exposure to market risk associated with our
derivative instruments. This analysis may differ from actual results. The fair value of each
derivative instrument was based on quoted market prices. Based on our open net short positions of
8.2 million barrels as of September 30, 2005, a $1.00 per-barrel change in quoted market prices of
our derivative instruments, assuming all other factors remain constant, would change the fair value
of our derivative instruments and pretax operating income by $8 million. As of December 31, 2004,
a $1.00 per-barrel change in quoted market prices for our derivative instruments, assuming all
other factors remain constant, would have changed the fair value of our derivative instruments and
pretax operating income by $0.7 million.
31
Interest Rate Risk
At September 30, 2005 all of our outstanding debt was at fixed rates and we had no borrowings under
our revolving credit facility, which bears interest at variable rates. The fair market value of
our senior secured notes and senior subordinated notes, which is based on transactions and bid
quotes, was approximately $69 million more than its carrying value at September 30, 2005. The fair
market values of our junior subordinated notes and capital lease obligations approximate their
carrying values.
ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
We carried out an evaluation required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and
operation of our disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Rule 13a-15(b) under the Exchange
Act as of the end of the period. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective in alerting
them on a timely basis to material information relating to the Company and required to be included
in our periodic filings under the Exchange Act. During the period covered by this report, there
have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that have materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting.
32
PART II - OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
In November 2003, we filed suit in Contra Costa County Superior Court against Tosco alleging that
Tosco misrepresented, concealed and failed to disclose certain additional environmental conditions
at our California refinery. The court granted Toscos motion to compel arbitration of our claims
for these certain additional environmental conditions. In the arbitration proceedings we initiated
against Tosco in December 2003, we are also seeking a determination that Tosco is liable for
investigation and remediation of these certain additional environmental conditions, the amount of
which is currently unknown and therefore a reserve has not been established, and which may not be
covered by the $50 million indemnity for the defined environmental liabilities arising from
Pre-Acquisition Operations. In response to our arbitration claims, Tosco filed counterclaims in
the Contra Costa County Superior Court action alleging that we are contractually responsible for
additional environmental liabilities at our California refinery, including the defined
environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations. In February 2005, the parties
agreed to stay the arbitration proceedings to pursue settlement discussions. On June 24, 2005 the
parties agreed in principle to settle their claims, including the defined environmental liabilities
arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations and certain additional environmental conditions, pending
negotiation and execution of a final written settlement agreement. In the event we are unable to
finalize the settlement, we intend to vigorously prosecute our claims against Tosco and to oppose
Toscos claims against us, although we cannot provide assurance that we will prevail.
During the second quarter of 2005, the Hearing Board for the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District entered a Stipulated Conditional Order of Abatement with Tesoro concerning emissions from
our California refinery coker. We negotiated the terms and conditions of the order with the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District in response to the January 12, 2005 mechanical failure of one
of our boilers at our California refinery. The order requires us to evaluate technologies to
install emission control equipment as a backup to the boiler fueled by the coker. We anticipate
seeking the approval of the Hearing Board during the fourth quarter to pursue a capital project to
meet the conditions of the order by modifying our existing fluid coker unit to a delayed coker.
Dependent upon approval by the Hearing Board, we currently estimate that we will spend
approximately $275 million through 2007 for this project. These costs are subject to further
review and analysis and are dependent upon approval by the Hearing Board.
During the third quarter 2005, we reached a settlement with the EPA concerning the June 8, 2004
pipeline release of approximately 400 barrels of crude oil in Oliver County, North Dakota by
agreeing to pay a civil penalty of $94,500.
On October 24, 2005, we received a notice of violation (NOV) from the EPA. The EPA alleges
certain modifications made to the fluid catalytic cracking unit at our Washington refinery prior to
our acquisition of the refinery were made without a permit in violation of the Clean Air Act. We
are investigating the allegations and believe the ultimate resolution of the NOV will not have a
material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.
ITEM 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
The table below provides a summary of all repurchases by Tesoro of its common stock during the
three-month period ended September 30, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate Dollar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of |
|
|
Value of Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Purchased as |
|
|
That May Yet Be |
|
|
|
Total Number |
|
|
Average Price Paid |
|
|
Part of Publicly |
|
|
Purchased Under the |
|
|
|
of Shares |
|
|
Per |
|
|
Announced Plans or |
|
|
Plans or |
|
Period |
|
Purchased* |
|
|
Share |
|
|
Programs** |
|
|
Programs** |
|
July 2005 |
|
|
10,488 |
|
|
$ |
48.06 |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
August 2005 |
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
September 2005 |
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
10,488 |
|
|
$ |
48.06 |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
All of the shares purchased during the three-month period ended September 30, 2005 were
surrendered to Tesoro to satisfy tax |
|
|
|
withholding obligations in connection with the vesting of restricted stock issued to certain
executive officers. |
|
** |
|
For the three-month period ended September 30, 2005,
Tesoro did not have an active publicly announced share repurchase
program. Tesoros Board of Directors authorized a
$200 million share repurchase program in November 2005. |
33
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
|
31.1 |
|
Certification by Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
31.2 |
|
Certification by Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
32.1 |
|
Certification by Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. |
|
|
32.2 |
|
Certification by Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. |
34
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TESORO
CORPORATION
|
|
Date: November 3, 2005 |
/s/
BRUCE A. SMITH
|
|
|
Bruce A. Smith |
|
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: November 3, 2005 |
/s/
GREGORY A. WRIGHT
|
|
|
Gregory A. Wright |
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |
|
35
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
|
31.1
|
|
Certification by Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
Certification by Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
32.1
|
|
Certification by Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. |
|
|
|
32.2
|
|
Certification by Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
36