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 March 31, 2006
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
|
|
95-0862768 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer |
incorporation or organization)
|
|
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 a large accelerated filer, an accelerated
filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large accelerated
filer in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer þ
|
|
Accelerated filer o |
|
Non-accelerated filer 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 68,567,483 shares of the registrants Common Stock outstanding at May 1, 2006.
TESORO CORPORATION
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2006
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
306 |
|
|
$ |
440 |
|
Receivables, less allowance for doubtful accounts |
|
|
713 |
|
|
|
718 |
|
Inventories |
|
|
1,037 |
|
|
|
953 |
|
Prepayments and other |
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Current Assets |
|
|
2,179 |
|
|
|
2,215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining |
|
|
2,901 |
|
|
|
2,850 |
|
Retail |
|
|
211 |
|
|
|
223 |
|
Corporate and other |
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,221 |
|
|
|
3,180 |
|
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization |
|
|
(751 |
) |
|
|
(713 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Property, Plant and Equipment |
|
|
2,470 |
|
|
|
2,467 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER NONCURRENT ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
89 |
|
Acquired intangibles, net |
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
Other, net |
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
207 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Noncurrent Assets |
|
|
431 |
|
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
5,080 |
|
|
$ |
5,097 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT LIABILITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
$ |
1,239 |
|
|
$ |
1,171 |
|
Accrued liabilities |
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
328 |
|
Current maturities of debt |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Current Liabilities |
|
|
1,499 |
|
|
|
1,502 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED INCOME TAXES |
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
389 |
|
OTHER LIABILITIES |
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
275 |
|
DEBT |
|
|
1,037 |
|
|
|
1,044 |
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note I) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $0.162/3; authorized 100,000,000 shares;
71,166,330 shares issued (70,850,681 in 2005) |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
809 |
|
|
|
794 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
1,138 |
|
|
|
1,102 |
|
Treasury stock, 2,652,082 common shares (1,548,568 in 2005), at cost |
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Stockholders Equity |
|
|
1,869 |
|
|
|
1,887 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity |
|
$ |
5,080 |
|
|
$ |
5,097 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
REVENUES |
|
$ |
3,877 |
|
|
$ |
3,171 |
|
COSTS AND EXPENSES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs of sales and operating expenses |
|
|
3,689 |
|
|
|
2,997 |
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
Loss on asset disposals and impairments |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
Interest and financing costs |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
Interest income and other |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS BEFORE INCOME TAXES |
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
Income tax provision |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET EARNINGS |
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET EARNINGS PER SHARE: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.63 |
|
|
$ |
0.41 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
$ |
0.40 |
|
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
68.5 |
|
|
|
66.8 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
70.6 |
|
|
|
70.1 |
|
DIVIDENDS PER SHARE |
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
¾ |
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
CASH FLOWS FROM (USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings |
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings to net cash from (used in)
operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
Amortization of debt issuance costs and discounts |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Loss on asset disposals and impairments |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation arrangements |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
Other changes in non-current assets and liabilities |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
Changes in current assets and current liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(115 |
) |
Inventories |
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
(224 |
) |
Prepayments and other |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash from (used in) operating activities |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM (USED IN) INVESTING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(81 |
) |
|
|
(64 |
) |
Proceeds from asset sales |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(80 |
) |
|
|
(64 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM (USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase of common stock |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
¾ |
|
Dividend payments |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
¾ |
|
Repayments of debt |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Proceeds from stock options exercised |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation arrangements |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash from (used in) financing activities |
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DECREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS |
|
|
(134 |
) |
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF PERIOD |
|
|
440 |
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF PERIOD |
|
$ |
306 |
|
|
$ |
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW DISCLOSURES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
Income taxes paid |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
71 |
|
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, 2005 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, 2005.
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.
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 |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Basic: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings |
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding |
|
|
68.5 |
|
|
|
66.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.63 |
|
|
$ |
0.41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings |
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding |
|
|
68.5 |
|
|
|
66.8 |
|
Dilutive effect of stock options and unvested restricted stock |
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
3.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total diluted shares |
|
|
70.6 |
|
|
|
70.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted Earnings Per Share |
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
$ |
0.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, and corporate general and administrative
expenses 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 a specific operating segment. Segment information is as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refined products |
|
$ |
3,727 |
|
|
$ |
2,953 |
|
Crude oil resales and other (a) |
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
Retail: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
197 |
|
Merchandise and other |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
Intersegment Sales from Refining to Retail |
|
|
(198 |
) |
|
|
(185 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
3,877 |
|
|
$ |
3,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining |
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
Retail (b) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Segment Operating Income |
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
Corporate and Unallocated Costs |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
Interest and Financing Costs |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
Interest Income and Other |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Before Income Taxes |
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining |
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
Retail |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Corporate |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Depreciation and Amortization |
|
$ |
60 |
|
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Expenditures (c) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining |
|
$ |
55 |
|
|
$ |
37 |
|
Retail |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
Corporate |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capital Expenditures |
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Identifiable Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining |
|
$ |
4,319 |
|
|
$ |
4,204 |
|
Retail |
|
|
217 |
|
|
|
222 |
|
Corporate |
|
|
544 |
|
|
|
671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
5,080 |
|
|
$ |
5,097 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
To balance or optimize our refinery supply requirements, we sell certain crude oil that
we purchase under our supply contracts. |
|
(b) |
|
Retail operating loss for the three months ended March 31, 2006, includes an impairment
charge of $4 million related to a pending sale of 13 retail sites. |
|
(c) |
|
Capital expenditures do not include refinery turnaround and other maintenance costs of $31
million and $34 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. |
NOTE D DEBT
8% Senior Secured Notes Due 2008
On April 17, 2006, we voluntarily prepaid the remaining $9 million outstanding principal balance of
our 8% senior secured notes at a prepayment premium of 4%. At March 31, 2006, the notes were
included in current maturities of debt in the condensed consolidated balance sheet.
Credit Agreement
Our 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 ($1.7 billion as of March 31, 2006), consisting of Tesoros eligible cash
and cash equivalents, receivables and petroleum inventories, as defined. As of March 31, 2006, we
had no borrowings and $179 million in letters of credit outstanding under the revolving credit
facility, resulting in total unused credit availability of $571 million, or 76% of the eligible
borrowing base. Borrowings under the revolving credit facility bear interest at either a base rate
(7.75% at March 31, 2006) or a eurodollar rate (4.83% at March 31, 2006), plus an applicable
margin. The applicable margin at March 31, 2006 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 March 31, 2006).
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 1.25% to 1.38%.
As of March 31, 2006, we had $88 million in letters of credit outstanding under this agreement.
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 March 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
8
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
NOTE E STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
Common Stock Repurchase Program
In November 2005, our Board of Directors authorized a $200 million share repurchase program. Under
the program, we will repurchase our common stock from time to time in the open market. Purchases
will depend on price, market conditions and other factors. During the quarter ended March 31,
2006, we repurchased 1.1 million shares of common stock for $71 million under the program, or an
average cost per share of $62.71. As of March 31, 2006, approximately $115 million remained
available for future repurchases under the program.
Cash Dividends
On May 2, 2006, our Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend on common stock of $0.10
per share, payable on June 15, 2006 to shareholders of record on June 1, 2006. In March 2006, we
paid a quarterly cash dividend on common stock of $0.10 per share.
Authorized Shares of Common Stock
On May 3, 2006 at our 2006 Annual Meeting, our shareholders approved an increase in the number of
authorized shares of common stock from 100 million to 200 million. The additional 100 million
authorized shares of common stock have the same rights and privileges as the shares previously
authorized.
NOTE F INVENTORIES
Components of inventories were as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Crude oil and refined products, at LIFO cost |
|
$ |
965 |
|
|
$ |
882 |
|
Oxygenates and by-products, at the lower of FIFO cost or market |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Merchandise |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
Materials and supplies |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Inventories |
|
$ |
1,037 |
|
|
$ |
953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories valued at LIFO cost were less than replacement cost by approximately $815 million and
$687 million, at March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, respectively.
9
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
NOTE G 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 2006, during the three months ended March 31, 2006 we voluntarily contributed $6
million to improve the funded status of the plan. The components of pension and other
postretirement benefit expense included in the condensed statements of consolidated operations for
the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 were (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement |
|
|
|
Pension Benefits |
|
|
Benefits |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Service Cost |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
Interest Cost |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Expected return on plan assets |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
Recognized net actuarial loss |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
Curtailments and settlements |
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Periodic Benefit Expense |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE H STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
Tesoro follows the fair value method of accounting for stock-based compensation prescribed by
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment.
Total compensation expense for all stock-based awards for the three months ended March 31, 2006
and 2005 totaled $6 million and $9 million, respectively, including $1 million for each of the
three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 for our outstanding phantom stock options. The first
quarter of 2005 included stock-based compensation totaling $5 million associated with the
termination and retirement of certain executive officers. The excess income tax benefits realized
from tax deductions associated with option exercises totaled $6 million and $10 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
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 three months ended March 31, 2006, we granted
526,260 options with a weighted-average exercise price of $67.35. These options become exercisable
after one year in 33% annual increments and expire ten years from the date of grant. Total
compensation cost recognized for all outstanding stock options for the three months ended March 31,
2006 and 2005 totaled $3 million and $7 million, respectively. Total unrecognized compensation
cost related to non-vested stock options totaled $28 million as of March 31, 2006, which is
expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.3 years. A summary of our
outstanding and exercisable options as of March 31, 2006 is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average |
|
Remaining |
|
Intrinsic Value |
|
|
Shares |
|
Exercise Price |
|
Contractual Term |
|
(In Millions) |
Options
Outstanding |
|
|
4,310,921 |
|
|
$ |
24.07 |
|
|
6.7 years |
|
$ |
191 |
|
Options Exercisable |
|
|
2,695,421 |
|
|
$ |
14.00 |
|
|
5.5 years |
|
$ |
146 |
|
Restricted Stock
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 three months ended March 31, 2006, we issued 63,050 shares of
restricted stock with a weighted-average grant-date fair
10
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
value of $66.61. These restricted shares vest in annual increments ratably over three years,
assuming continued employment at the vesting dates. Total compensation cost recognized for our
outstanding restricted stock for both the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 totaled $1
million. Total unrecognized compensation cost related to our non-vested restricted stock totaled
$12 million as of March 31, 2006, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period
of 1.9 years. As of March 31, 2006 we had 605,155 shares of restricted stock outstanding at a
weighted-average grant-date fair value of $25.44.
2006 Long-Term Stock Appreciation Rights Plan
In February 2006, our Board of Directors approved the 2006 Long-Term Stock Appreciation Rights Plan
(the SAR Plan). The SAR Plan permits the grant of stock appreciation rights (SARs) to key
managers and other employees of Tesoro. A SAR granted under the SAR Plan entitles an employee to
receive cash in an amount equal to the excess of the fair market value of one share of common stock
on the date of exercise over the grant price of the SAR. Unless otherwise specified, all SARs
under the SAR Plan vest ratably during a three-year period following the date of grant. The term
of a SAR granted under the SAR Plan shall be determined by the Compensation Committee provided that
no SAR shall be exercisable on or after the tenth anniversary date of its grant. In February 2006,
we granted 314,110 SARs at 100% of the fair value of Tesoros common stock on the grant date of
$66.61 per share. The fair value of each SAR is estimated at the end of each reporting period
using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. Total compensation expense for our outstanding SARs
totaled approximately $1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006.
NOTE I 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 March 31, 2006, our accruals for environmental expenses
totaled $29 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 first quarter of 2006, 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, alleged that Tesoro offered eleven batches of gasoline for sale in California
that did not meet CARBs gasoline exhaust
11
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
emission limits. In January 2006, we executed a Settlement Agreement and Release with CARB and
paid a civil penalty of $325,000 to resolve this matter.
We have completed an investigation of environmental conditions at certain active wastewater
treatment units at our California refinery. This investigation was 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. We are not certain if the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board will require further investigation. A reserve
for this matter is included in the environmental accruals referenced above.
On October 24, 2005, we received an 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 have investigated 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. A reserve for our response to the NOV is
included in the environmental accruals referenced above.
On February 28, 2006, we received an offer of settlement from the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. The District has offered to settle 28 NOVs issued to Tesoro from January 2004 to
September 2004 for $275,000. The NOVs allege violations of various air quality requirements at the
California refinery. A reserve for the settlement of the NOVs is included in the 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, the 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 including soil and groundwater conditions at
the refinery will exceed the $50 million indemnity. We expect to be reimbursed for excess
liabilities under certain environmental insurance policies that provide $140 million of coverage in
excess of the $50 million indemnity. Because of Toscos indemnification and the environmental
insurance policies, we have not established a reserve for these defined environmental liabilities
arising
12
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
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 in the sulfur content in gasoline.
Our California, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska and North Dakota refineries will not require additional
capital spending to meet the low sulfur gasoline standards. We currently estimate we will make
capital improvements of approximately $8 million at our Utah refinery from 2008 through 2009, that
will permit the Utah refinery 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 $71 million in capital
improvements through 2007, approximately $9 million of which was spent during the 2006 first
quarter. Included in the estimate are capital projects to manufacture ultra-low sulfur diesel at
our Alaska refinery, for which we expect to spend approximately $53 million through 2007. We
spent approximately $2 million during the 2006 first quarter. These cost 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 diesel fuel standards.
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,
we 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 November 2005, the
13
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Consent Decree was entered by 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 we will make
capital improvements of approximately $30 million through 2010 to satisfy the requirements of the
Consent Decree. This cost estimate is subject to further review and analysis.
During the fourth quarter of 2005, we received approval by the Hearing Board for the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District to modify our existing fluid coker unit to a delayed coker at our
California refinery which is designed to (i) lower emissions and (ii) increase overall efficiency
by lowering operating costs. We negotiated the terms and conditions of the Second Conditional
Abatement Order with the District in response to the January 2005 mechanical failure of one of our
boilers at the California refinery. We previously estimated that we would spend approximately $275
million through the fourth quarter of 2007 for this project. We spent $10 million in the 2006
first quarter and $3 million in 2005. However, during the design
phase for this project, we decided to utilize a
different delayed coker technology, and given current trends in engineering, labor and
material costs on similar projects within the industry, we now expect
costs for this project to increase by approximately 50%. This cost estimate is subject to further review and analysis.
We will spend additional capital at the California refinery for reconfiguring and replacing
above-ground storage tank systems and upgrading piping within the refinery. We currently estimate
that we will spend approximately $109 million from 2006 through 2010, $4 million of which was spent
during the 2006 first quarter. 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.
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 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
14
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
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 March 2006. 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 March 2006.
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 J NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
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. The inventory could be raw materials, work-in-process or finished goods. The
provisions of this EITF issue also 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. We adopted the provisions of EITF Issue No. 04-13 on January 1, 2006 for new
arrangements entered into, and modifications or renewals of existing arrangements, which did not
have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations. Prior to our adoption
of EITF Issue No. 04-13, we had entered into a limited number of refined product purchases and
sales transactions with the same counterparty which were reported on a gross basis in revenues and
costs of sales and operating expenses in the condensed statements of consolidated operations.
Refined product sales and purchases associated with these arrangements reported on a gross basis
totaled $146 million and $159 million, respectively, for the three months ended March 31, 2005.
SFAS No. 154
In May 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued SFAS No. 154, Accounting Changes and
Error Corrections which replaces Accounting Principles Board (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 became effective for changes in accounting principle
made in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005. We adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 154
as of January 1, 2006, which had no impact on our financial position or results of operations.
15
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 27 for a
discussion of the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected
in these statements.
BUSINESS STRATEGY AND OVERVIEW
Our strategy is to create a value-added refining and marketing business that has (i)
economies of scale, (ii) a low-cost structure, (iii) effective management information systems and
(iv) outstanding employees focused on business excellence in a global market, that can provide
stockholders with competitive returns in any economic environment.
Our goals are focused on: (i) operating our facilities in a safe, reliable, and environmentally
responsible way; (ii) improving profitability by achieving greater operational and administrative
efficiencies; and (iii) using excess cash flows from operations in a balanced way to create further
shareholder value.
Our 2006 capital budget is approximately $670 million (including refinery turnaround and
other maintenance costs of approximately $105 million). Our Board of Directors has approved the
following three significant strategic capital projects which we expect to be substantially complete
in 2007:
|
|
|
The modification of our existing fluid coker unit to a delayed coker unit at our
California refinery which is designed to lower emissions and increase overall efficiency by
lowering operating costs. We previously expected to spend approximately $275 million
through the fourth quarter of 2007 for this project, of which we have spent $13 million
through the first quarter of 2006. However, during the design phase for this project, we
decided to utilize a different delayed coker technology, and given current trends
in engineering, labor and material costs on similar projects within the industry, we now
expect costs for this project to increase by approximately 50%. |
|
|
|
|
A 25,000 barrels per day (bpd) delayed coker unit
at our Washington refinery that will
allow us to process a larger proportion of lower-cost heavy crude oils or manufacture a
larger percentage of higher-value products. We previously expected to spend approximately
$250 million through the fourth quarter of 2007 for this project, of which we have spent $6
million through the 2006 first quarter. However, during the design phase for this
project, we decided to utilize a different delayed coker technology,
and given current trends in engineering, labor and material costs on similar projects within the
industry, we now expect costs for this project to increase by
approximately 50%. |
|
|
|
|
A 10,000 bpd diesel desulfurizer unit at our Alaska refinery which will allow us to
manufacture ultra-low sulfur diesel. We expect to spend approximately $55 million through
the 2007 second quarter for this project of which we spent $5 million through the 2006
first quarter. |
All cost
estimates are subject to further review and analysis. Despite the
estimated increases in overall capital expenditures for our two
delayed coker projects, we expect our capital expenditures during the
remainder of 2006 to approximate $507 million (excluding refinery
turnaround and other maintenance costs of approximately $74
million).
In November 2005, our Board of Directors authorized a $200 million share repurchase program.
During the 2006 first quarter, we repurchased 1.1 million shares of common stock for $71 million.
Since the inception of the program, we have repurchased 1.4 million shares of common stock for $85
million through March 31, 2006. During April 2006, we repurchased an additional 198,900 shares of
common stock under the program at a cost of $14 million.
The fundamentals of the refining industry remain strong on both a worldwide and a domestic level.
Continued high demand growth in developing areas such as India and China, coupled with reduced
surplus production capacity within OPEC, have lead to high prices for crude and petroleum products.
In the U.S., refining margins remain above historical levels, in spite of an unusually warm
winter, in part due to the following:
|
|
|
higher than normal industry maintenance during the first part of the year reflecting
turnarounds which were postponed in 2005 due to hurricanes Katrina and Rita; |
16
|
|
|
the continued downtime at three refineries damaged by the hurricanes and other incidents; and |
|
|
|
|
the introduction at the beginning of the year of new, lower sulfur requirements for gasoline. |
The outlook for the second quarter also remains strong due to continued demand growth and the
introduction of MTBE free gasoline and ultra-low sulfur diesel.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2006 COMPARED WITH THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31, 2005
Summary
Our net earnings were $43 million ($0.63 per basic share and $0.61 per diluted share) for the three
months ended March 31, 2006 (2006 Quarter), compared with net earnings of $28 million ($0.41 per
basic share and $0.40 per diluted share) for the three months ended March 31, 2005 (2005
Quarter). The increase in net earnings during the 2006 Quarter was primarily due to higher
throughput levels, lower interest expense as a result of debt reduction and refinancing in 2005 and
decreased corporate general and administrative expenses. Net earnings for the 2005 Quarter
included charges for executive termination and retirement costs of $6 million aftertax or $0.09 per
share. 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.
Refining Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
(Dollars in millions except per barrel amounts) |
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refined products (a) |
|
$ |
3,727 |
|
|
$ |
2,953 |
|
Crude oil resales and other |
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
3,830 |
|
|
$ |
3,128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining Throughput (thousand barrels per day) (b) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California |
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
149 |
|
Pacific Northwest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington |
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
Alaska |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
Mid-Pacific |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii |
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
Mid-Continent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Dakota |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
Utah |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Refining Throughput |
|
|
497 |
|
|
|
477 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Heavy Crude Oil of Total Refining Throughput (c) |
|
|
49 |
% |
|
|
55 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yield (thousand barrels per day) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks |
|
|
234 |
|
|
|
223 |
|
Jet fuel |
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
Diesel fuel |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
Heavy oils, residual products, internally produced fuel and other |
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Yield |
|
|
517 |
|
|
|
495 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
(Dollars in millions except per barrel amounts) |
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Refining Margin ($/throughput barrel) (d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin |
|
$ |
13.26 |
|
|
$ |
16.58 |
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation and amortization |
|
$ |
6.06 |
|
|
$ |
5.54 |
|
Pacific Northwest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin |
|
$ |
7.20 |
|
|
$ |
4.57 |
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation and amortization |
|
$ |
3.18 |
|
|
$ |
3.20 |
|
Mid-Pacific |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin |
|
$ |
3.23 |
|
|
$ |
4.04 |
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation and amortization |
|
$ |
1.56 |
|
|
$ |
1.67 |
|
Mid-Continent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin |
|
$ |
8.17 |
|
|
$ |
5.08 |
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation and amortization |
|
$ |
3.18 |
|
|
$ |
2.69 |
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin |
|
$ |
8.52 |
|
|
$ |
8.37 |
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation and amortization |
|
$ |
3.77 |
|
|
$ |
3.55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin (after inventory changes) (e) |
|
$ |
395 |
|
|
$ |
367 |
|
Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing costs |
|
|
169 |
|
|
|
153 |
|
Other operating expenses |
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Depreciation and amortization (f) |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
Loss on asset disposals and impairments |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income |
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales (thousand barrels per day) (a) (g) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks |
|
|
271 |
|
|
|
267 |
|
Jet fuel |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
Diesel fuel |
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
Heavy oils, residual products and other |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Product Sales |
|
|
569 |
|
|
|
555 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales Margin ($/barrel) (g) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average sales price |
|
$ |
73.36 |
|
|
$ |
59.09 |
|
Average costs of sales |
|
|
65.78 |
|
|
|
51.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales Margin |
|
$ |
7.58 |
|
|
$ |
7.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Includes intersegment sales to our retail segment, at prices which approximate market of
$198 million and $185 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005,
respectively. |
|
(b) |
|
We experienced reduced throughput during scheduled maintenance turnarounds at the California
refinery during the 2006 and 2005 first quarters and the Washington refinery during the 2005
first quarter. |
|
(c) |
|
We define heavy crude oil as Alaska North Slope or crude oil with an American Petroleum
Institute specific gravity of 32 degrees 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 |
18
|
|
|
|
|
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
$1.11 and $0.73 for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. |
|
(g) |
|
Sources of total product sales include products manufactured at the refineries and products
purchased from third parties. Total product sales margin includes margins on sales of
manufactured and purchased products and the effects of inventory changes. |
Three Months Ended March 31, 2006 Compared with Three Months Ended March 31, 2005.
Operating income from our refining segment was $125 million in the 2006 Quarter compared to $132
million for the 2005 Quarter. The $7 million decrease in our operating income was primarily due
to lower industry refining margins on the U.S. west coast and increased operating expenses, partly
offset by slightly higher total gross refining margins and throughput. Total gross refining
margins increased to $8.52 per barrel in the 2006 Quarter, compared to $8.37 per barrel in the
2005 Quarter. Our total gross refining margins increased despite lower industry refining margins
in the 2006 Quarter as compared to the 2005 Quarter in all of our regions except for the
Mid-Continent region. Industry margins on the U.S. west coast were negatively impacted during the
2006 Quarter as a result of heavy rains impacting demand and record high industry throughput and
gasoline production resulting in higher average inventory levels for finished products. Industry
margins on a national basis increased during the 2006 Quarter compared to the 2005 Quarter
primarily due to the continued increased demand for finished products due to improved economic
fundamentals worldwide, higher than normal industry maintenance during the 2006 Quarter which was
postponed in 2005 due to hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the impact of more stringent sulfur
requirements for gasoline at the beginning of the year.
Gross refining margins at our California refinery decreased to $13.26 per barrel in the 2006
Quarter from $16.58 per barrel in the 2005 Quarter. In addition to the factors discussed above,
gross refining margins at our California refinery were impacted by a scheduled maintenance
turnaround during the 2006 Quarter. As a result of the turnaround, we manufactured a higher
percentage of lower-valued heavy products. Despite lower gross refining margins in our California
and Mid-Pacific regions, our total gross refining margin increased year-over-year due to
significant improvements in our Pacific Northwest and Mid-Continent regions. Gross refining
margins in our Pacific Northwest region increased to $7.20 per barrel in the 2006 Quarter from
$4.57 per barrel in the 2005 Quarter and in our Mid-Continent region gross refining margins
increased to $8.17 per barrel in the 2006 Quarter from $5.08 per barrel in the 2005 Quarter. The
year-over-year improvement in gross refining margins in our Pacific Northwest region was primarily
due to the negative impacts during the 2005 Quarter of a scheduled maintenance turnaround of the
crude and naphtha reforming units and unscheduled downtime due to outages of certain processing
equipment at our Washington refinery. The 2005 turnaround resulted in the Washington refinery
processing higher cost blendstocks instead of crude oil. In our Mid-Continent region, refining
margins were negatively impacted during the 2005 Quarter as our Utah refinery experienced higher
crude oil costs due to Canadian production constraints and depressed market fundamentals in the
Salt Lake City area.
Total refining throughput averaged 497 thousand barrels per day (Mbpd) in the 2006 Quarter
compared to 477 Mbpd during the 2005 Quarter. The increase in refining throughput is primarily a
result of experiencing less scheduled and unscheduled downtime during the 2006 Quarter. During the
2006 Quarter, we experienced a scheduled maintenance turnaround at our California refinery. We
also experienced reduced throughput at our Alaska refinery during the 2006 Quarter as a result of
the grounding of our time-chartered vessel which impacted our supply of feedstocks to the refinery.
As described above, in the 2005 Quarter we experienced scheduled major maintenance turnarounds and
other unscheduled downtime at both our California and Washington refineries.
Revenues from sales of refined products increased 23% to $3.7 billion in the 2006 Quarter, from
$3.0 billion in the 2005 Quarter, primarily due to significantly higher average product sales
prices combined with slightly higher product sales volumes. Our average product prices increased
24% to $73.36 per barrel, reflecting the continued strength in market fundamentals. Total product
sales averaged 569 Mbpd in the 2006 Quarter, an increase of 14 Mbpd from the 2005 Quarter. Our
average costs of sales increased 28% to $65.78 per barrel during the 2006 Quarter reflecting
19
significantly higher average feedstock prices. Expenses, excluding depreciation and amortization,
increased to $216 million in the 2006 Quarter, compared with $200 million in the 2005 Quarter,
primarily due to higher utilities of $15 million. Depreciation and amortization increased to $54
million in the 2006 Quarter, compared to $35 million in the 2005 Quarter. During the fourth
quarter of 2005, we shortened the estimated lives of the fluid coker unit and certain tanks at our
California refinery and recorded asset retirement obligations. The shortened asset lives and
recorded asset retirement obligations resulted in additional depreciation of $11 million during
the 2006 Quarter and will increase depreciation in 2006 by approximately $45 million. The
increase in depreciation and amortization also reflects increasing capital expenditures.
Retail Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
(Dollars in millions except per gallon amounts) |
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel |
|
$ |
213 |
|
|
$ |
197 |
|
Merchandise and other |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues |
|
$ |
245 |
|
|
$ |
228 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Sales (millions of gallons) |
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
Fuel Margin ($/gallon) (a) |
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
Merchandise Margin (in millions) |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
Merchandise Margin (percent of sales) |
|
|
25 |
% |
|
|
25 |
% |
Average Number of Stations (during the period) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated |
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
Branded jobber/dealer |
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
291 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Average Retail Stations |
|
|
473 |
|
|
|
506 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Margins |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel (b) |
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
Merchandise and other non-fuel margin |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross margins |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Loss on asset disposals and impairments |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Loss |
|
$ |
(12 |
) |
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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
volumes 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 March 31, 2006 Compared with Three Months Ended March 31, 2005.
Operating loss for our retail segment was $12 million in the 2006 Quarter, compared to an operating
loss of $11 million in the 2005 Quarter. The 2006 Quarter included an impairment of $4 million for
the pending sale of 13 retail sites located in the Pacific Northwest. The sale is expected to be
completed during the 2006 second quarter. Total gross margins increased to $24 million during the
2006 Quarter from $21 million in the 2005 Quarter reflecting higher fuel margins per gallon
partially offset by lower sales volumes. Fuel margin increased to $0.15 per gallon in the 2006
Quarter compared to $0.12 per
20
gallon. Total gallons sold decreased to 99 million from 111 million, reflecting the decrease in
average station count to 473 in the 2006 Quarter from 506 in the 2005 Quarter. The decrease in
average station count reflects our continued rationalization of retail assets.
Revenues on fuel sales increased to $213 million in the 2006 Quarter, from $197 million in the 2005
Quarter, reflecting increased sales prices, partly offset by lower sales volumes. Costs of sales
increased in the 2006 Quarter due to higher average prices of purchased fuel, partly offset by
lower sales volumes.
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses totaled $40 million in the 2006 Quarter, compared to
$54 million in the 2005 Quarter. The decrease was due to charges totaling $11 million for the
termination and retirement of certain executive officers during the 2005 Quarter and lower contract labor expenses of $7 million,
partially offset by higher employee expenses of $4 million.
Interest and Financing Costs
Interest and financing costs amounted to $20 million in the 2006 Quarter, compared to $32 million
in the 2005 Quarter. The decrease during the 2006 Quarter was primarily due to lower interest
expense associated with debt reduction during 2005 totaling $191 million and the refinancing of our
8% senior secured notes and 95/8% senior subordinated notes.
Interest Income and Other
Interest income and other amounted to $10 million in the 2006 Quarter, compared to $1 million in
the 2005 Quarter. The increase during the 2006 Quarter is due to a significant increase in
invested cash balances and a gain of $5 million associated with the sale of our leased corporate
headquarters by a limited partnership in which we were a 50% limited partner.
Income Tax Provision
The income tax provision totaled $28 million in the 2006 Quarter, compared to $19 million in the
2005 Quarter, reflecting higher earnings before income taxes. The combined federal and state
effective income tax rate was 39% and 40% for the 2006 and 2005 Quarters, respectively.
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 27 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 first quarter of 2006 with $306 million of cash and
cash equivalents, no borrowings, and $571 million in available borrowing capacity under our $750
million revolving credit agreement after $179 million in outstanding letters of credit. We also
have a separate letters of credit agreement of which we had $77 million available after $88 million
in outstanding letters of credit as of March 31, 2006. We believe available capital resources will
be adequate to meet our capital expenditures, working capital and debt service requirements.
21
Capitalization
Our capital structure at March 31, 2006 was comprised of the following (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Debt, including current maturities: |
|
|
|
|
Credit Agreement Revolving Credit Facility |
|
$ |
¾ |
|
61/4% Senior Notes Due 2012 |
|
|
450 |
|
65/8% Senior Notes Due 2015 |
|
|
450 |
|
8% Senior Secured Notes Due 2008 |
|
|
9 |
|
95/8% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2012 |
|
|
14 |
|
Junior subordinated notes due 2012 |
|
|
95 |
|
Capital lease obligations |
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt |
|
|
1,049 |
|
Stockholders equity |
|
|
1,869 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capitalization |
|
$ |
2,918 |
|
|
|
|
|
At both March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, our debt to capitalization ratio was 36%.
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.
Credit Agreement
Our 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 ($1.7 billion as of March 31, 2006), consisting of Tesoros eligible cash
and cash equivalents, receivables and petroleum inventories, as defined. As of March 31, 2006, we
had no borrowings and $179 million in letters of credit outstanding under the revolving credit
facility, resulting in total unused credit availability of $571 million, or 76% of the eligible
borrowing base. Borrowings under the revolving credit facility bear interest at either a base rate
(7.75% at March 31, 2006) or a eurodollar rate (4.83% at March 31, 2006), plus an applicable
margin. The applicable margin at March 31, 2006 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 March 31, 2006).
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 1.25% to 1.38%.
As of March 31, 2006, we had $88 million in letters of credit outstanding under this agreement.
8% Senior Secured Notes Due 2008
On April 17, 2006, we voluntarily prepaid the remaining $9 million outstanding principal balance of
our 8% senior secured notes at a prepayment premium of 4%.
Common Stock Repurchase Program
In November 2005, our Board of Directors authorized a $200 million share repurchase program.
Under the program, we will repurchase our common stock from time to time in the open market.
Purchases will depend on price, market conditions and other factors. During the 2006 Quarter, we
repurchased 1.1 million shares of common stock under the program for $71 million, or an average
cost per share of $62.71. As of March 31, 2006, $115 million remained available for
future repurchases under the program. During April 2006, we repurchased an additional 198,900
shares of common stock under the program at a cost of $14 million.
22
Cash Flow Summary
Components of our cash flows are set forth below (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Cash Flows From (Used In): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Activities |
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
(57 |
) |
Investing Activities |
|
|
(80 |
) |
|
|
(64 |
) |
Financing Activities |
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
$ |
(134 |
) |
|
$ |
(96 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash from operating activities during the 2006 Quarter totaled $16 million, compared to $57
million used in operating activities in the 2005 Quarter. The increase was primarily due to
increased earnings, higher depreciation and amortization, and lower working capital requirements.
Net cash used in investing activities of $80 million in the 2006 Quarter was primarily for capital
expenditures. Net cash used in financing activities primarily reflects repurchases of our common
stock totaling $72 million (including $71 million associated with the common stock repurchase
program). During the 2006 Quarter, we did not borrow or make repayments under the revolving credit
facility. Working capital decreased to $680 million at March 31, 2006 compared to $713 million at
year-end 2005, primarily as a result of the decrease in cash and cash equivalents, partially offset
by an increase in inventory values.
Historical EBITDA
EBITDA represents earnings before interest and financing costs, interest income, income
taxes, and depreciation and amortization. We present EBITDA because we believe some investors and
analysts use EBITDA to help analyze our cash flow including our ability to satisfy 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 by management 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 (used in) operating activities was (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Net Cash From (Used in) Operating Activities |
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
(57 |
) |
Changes in Assets and Liabilities |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
Excess Tax Benefits from Stock-Based Compensation Arrangements |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Deferred Income Taxes |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Stock-Based Compensation |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Loss on Asset Disposals and Impairments |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Amortization and Write-off of Debt Issuance Costs and Discounts |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
Depreciation and Amortization |
|
|
(60 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Earnings |
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
Add Income Tax Provision |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Less Interest Income and Other |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Add Interest and Financing Costs |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
Add Depreciation and Amortization |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
Add Gain on Partnership Sale |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
¾ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA |
|
$ |
146 |
|
|
$ |
119 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23
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 2006 Quarter, our capital expenditures, including accruals, totaled $58 million
(excluding refinery turnaround and other maintenance costs of $31 million), and included $21
million for clean air, clean fuels and other environmental projects, $10 million for the delayed
coker modification at our California refinery, $11 million for other refinery improvements at our
California refinery and $4 million for the delayed coker unit at our Washington refinery. Refinery
turnaround and other maintenance costs consisted primarily of the scheduled turnaround at our
California refinery which was completed during the 2006 Quarter.
Despite the estimated increases in overall capital expenditures for our two delayed coker projects,
we expect our capital expenditures during the remainder of 2006 to approximate $507 million
(excluding refinery turnaround and other major maintenance costs of approximately $74 million).
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 March 31, 2006, our accruals for environmental expenses
totaled $29 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 first quarter of 2006, 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, alleged that Tesoro offered eleven batches of gasoline for sale in California
that did not meet CARBs gasoline exhaust emission limits. In January 2006, we executed a
Settlement Agreement and Release with CARB and paid a civil penalty of $325,000 to resolve this
matter.
We have completed an investigation of environmental conditions at certain active wastewater
treatment units at our California refinery. This investigation was 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. We are not certain if the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board will require further investigation. A reserve for this matter is included in the environmental accruals referenced above.
On October 24, 2005, we received an 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 have investigated 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. A
reserve for our response to the NOV is included in the environmental accruals
referenced above.
On February 28, 2006, we received an offer of settlement from the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. The District has offered to settle 28 NOVs issued to Tesoro from January 2004 to
September 2004 for $275,000. The NOVs allege violations of various air quality requirements at the
California refinery. A reserve for the settlement of the NOVs is included in the environmental accruals referenced above.
24
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, the 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 including soil and groundwater conditions at the refinery
will exceed the $50 million indemnity. We expect to be reimbursed for excess liabilities under
certain environmental insurance policies that provide $140 million of coverage in excess of the $50
million indemnity. 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.
25
Environmental Capital Expenditures
EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act require reductions in the sulfur content in gasoline.
Our California, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska and North Dakota refineries will not require additional
capital spending to meet the low sulfur gasoline standards. We currently estimate we will make
capital improvements of approximately $8 million at our Utah refinery from 2008 through 2009, that
will permit the Utah refinery 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 $71 million in capital
improvements through 2007, approximately $9 million of which was spent during the 2006 first
quarter. Included in the estimate are capital projects to manufacture ultra-low sulfur diesel at
our Alaska refinery, for which we expect to spend approximately $53 million through 2007. We spent
approximately $2 million during the 2006 first quarter. These cost 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 diesel fuel standards.
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,
we 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 November 2005, the Consent Decree was entered by
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 we will make capital
improvements of approximately $30 million through 2010 to satisfy the requirements of the Consent
Decree. This cost estimate is subject to further review and analysis.
During the fourth quarter of 2005, we received approval by the Hearing Board for the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District to modify our existing fluid coker unit to a delayed coker at our
California refinery which is designed to (i) lower emissions and (ii) increase overall efficiency
by lowering operating costs. We negotiated the terms and conditions of the Second Conditional
Abatement Order with the District in response to the January 2005 mechanical failure of one of our
boilers at the California refinery. We previously estimated that we would spend approximately $275
million through the fourth quarter of 2007 for this project. We spent $10 million in the 2006
first quarter and $3 million in 2005. However, during the design
phase for this project, we decided to utilize a
different delayed coker technology, and given current trends in engineering, labor and
material costs on similar projects within the industry, we now expect
costs for this project to increase by approximately 50%. This cost estimate is subject to further review and analysis
We will spend additional capital at the California refinery for reconfiguring and replacing
above-ground storage tank systems and upgrading piping within the refinery. We currently estimate
that we will spend approximately $109 million from 2006 through 2010, $4 million of which was spent
during the 2006 first quarter. 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.
26
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; |
|
|
|
|
weather conditions affecting our operations or the areas in which our products are marketed; and |
|
|
|
|
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.
27
ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Changes in commodity prices are our primary sources of market risk. We
have a risk management committee responsible for reviewing risks arising from transactions and
commitments related to the sale and purchase of energy commodities and making recommendations to
executive management.
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 2006 year-to-date average throughput of 497,000 bpd, would
change annualized pretax operating income by approximately $181 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 30 million barrels and 28 million barrels at March 31, 2006 and December
31, 2005, respectively. The average cost of our refinery feedstocks and refined products at March
31, 2006 was approximately $39 per barrel on a LIFO basis, compared to market prices of
approximately $74 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 2006 first quarter. Accordingly, no change in the
value of the related underlying physical asset is recorded. During the first quarter of 2006, we
settled futures and swaps positions of approximately 24 million barrels of crude oil and refined
products, which resulted in gains of $1 million. At March 31, 2006, we had open net futures
contracts and swap positions of 3 million barrels and 2 million barrels, respectively, which will
expire at various times during 2006. We recorded the fair value of our open positions, which
resulted in an unrealized mark-to-market loss of $6 million at March 31, 2006.
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
5 million barrels as of March 31, 2006, a $1.00 per-barrel change in quoted market prices of our
derivative instruments, assuming all other factors remain constant, would change the fair
28
value of our derivative instruments and pretax operating income by $5 million. As of December 31,
2005 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 $7 million.
Interest Rate Risk
At March 31, 2006 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 notes, which is based on transactions and bid quotes, was approximately $10 million less
than its carrying value at March 31, 2006. 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.
29
PART II OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
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, the 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.
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 March 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate Dollar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of |
|
|
Value of Shares That |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Purchased as |
|
|
May Yet Be |
|
|
|
Total Number |
|
|
Average Price |
|
|
Part of Publicly |
|
|
Purchased Under the |
|
|
|
of Shares |
|
|
Paid Per |
|
|
Announced Plans or |
|
|
Plans or |
|
Period |
|
Purchased* |
|
|
Share |
|
|
Programs** |
|
|
Programs* |
|
January 2006 |
|
|
30,000 |
|
|
$ |
61.19 |
|
|
|
30,000 |
|
|
$184 million |
February 2006 |
|
|
421,069 |
|
|
$ |
62.71 |
|
|
|
391,800 |
|
|
$159 million |
March 2006 |
|
|
705,000 |
|
|
$ |
62.88 |
|
|
|
705,000 |
|
|
$115 million |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
1,156,069 |
|
|
$ |
62.78 |
|
|
|
1,126,800 |
|
|
$115 million |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
All of the shares repurchased during the three-months period ended March 31, 2006 were acquired pursuant
to the stock repurchase program (see below), except for 29,269 shares acquired in February 2006, which were
surrendered to Tesoro to satisfy tax withholding obligations in connection with the vesting of restricted stock issued to certain executive officers.
|
|
** |
|
Tesoros existing stock repurchase program was publicly announced on November 3, 2005. The
program authorizes Tesoro to purchase up to $200 million aggregate purchase price of shares of
Tesoros common stock. |
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
|
3.1 |
|
Certificate of Amendment to Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Company. |
|
|
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. |
30
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: May 4, 2006
|
|
/s/ BRUCE A. SMITH |
|
|
|
|
Bruce A. Smith
|
|
|
|
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors, |
|
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
|
|
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: May 4, 2006
|
|
/s/ GREGORY A. WRIGHT |
|
|
|
|
Gregory A. Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
(Principal Financial Officer) |
|
|
31
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
|
3.1
|
|
Certificate of Amendment to
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company. |
|
|
|
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. |
32