Talk:Chevron Corporation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removed Standard station list

I have removed the list of Standard stations:

• Alabama: 604 Bessemer Super Hwy, Birmingham
• Alaska: 2200 West Dimond Blvd, Anchorage
• Arizona: 10444 N 32nd Street, Phoenix
• California: 1501 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco
• Florida: 7400 NW 36th Street, Miami
• Georgia: 2520 N Four Lane Hwy, Atlanta
• Hawaii: 86-038 Farrington Hwy, Waianae, Oahu
• Idaho: 3200 West State St, Boise
• Kentucky: 480 Connector Rd (@ I-75), Georgetown
• Mississippi: 800 Clay Street, Vicksburg
• Nevada: 3201 W Tropicana Ave, Las Vegas
• New Mexico: 1000 Rio Grande Blvd NW, Albuquerque
• Oregon: 10950 SE Oak Street, Milwaukie
• Texas: 6350 Camp Bowie, Fort Worth
• Utah: 5595 S Redwood Street, Taylorsville
• Washington: 3725 150th Ave SE, Bellevue

I removed the list because:

1. It was contributed by an anon user with a history of adding misinformation vandalism
2. There is a Standard station in Atlanta, GA at the intersection of Virginia Ave. and N. Highland Ave., which is inconsistent with the list
3. I don't think the list serves a purpose

-SCEhardt 21:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sent by email:

Hello Scott, I found your list of Standard Stations on Wikipedia to be useful. The list looked mostly accurate to me. There are photos of several standard stations on my website. It is true that Chevron changes the location of stations branded Standard in some states from time to time. The Standards in Washington and California have been branded thus for several years. I know that the Standard Station in Bellevue was built as a Standard Station in the 1970s. The Standard in Milwaukie, Oregon moved a few years ago from a location on ORE 99E, formerly US 99 E, to a location just off ORE 224. The Boise Standard also moved sometime in the late 1990s from a station just off I-84 near the airport to a station near the Idaho Transportation Department headquarters. I called Chevron's customer services department before visiting Las Vegas in 2004 and they gave me an address that turned out to be a boarded up gas station. I found the new Standard Station on Tropicana just west of I-15. I think that you should add the list back to the article with the caveat that these stations change from time to time. -Mark

Mark - I'm glad to hear that the list is mostly correct, however, this is not enough to warrant adding it back. I suppose I would be ok with adding a list that was verified to be 100% accurate, such as if a list were obtained from Chevron. -SCEhardT 05:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Updated refinery explosion info

I updated the refinery explosion information and sourced it. Previously, it sounded like the entire refinery had been destroyed, whereas it was actually a large explosion in a hydrocracking unit. I also couldn't find any agreement on how many injuries there were (with articles stating anywhere from almost none to over a thousand). - Flooey 15:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

American criminals categorization

Gordeonbleu states that the placement of Chevron under the American criminals category was inappropriate because only individual natural persons can be categorized as such. I do not see how this is the case. The category description states, "For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly and lawfully convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts, or else the person must have committed distinct, infamous, verifiable criminal acts but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death before trial or flight from the United States." Any corporation constitutes the test of personhood because corporations are legally defined as persons, and the category makes no specification about natural persons. In the specific case of Chevron, the legal person in question was convicted in federal court. --Jules7484 08:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your statement about corporations being legally defined as persons sounds very familiar, but the American criminals category only listed names of individuals at the time of the edit. Categorization under "Criminal corporations" would be a more relevant assignment, assuming such a category exists. Besides, aren't corporations loosely defined as persons for reasons of liability, rather than to equate them as individuals? That seems to be implied by the first line of the corporation Wikipedia article - "A corporation is a legal entity which, while being composed of natural persons, exists completely separately from them." Gordeonbleu 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

--Coolcaesar 05:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Some discrepancies

With regard to the following piece of text under critisism:

Chevron has been accused of not fulfilling its community responsibilities in Cabinda. Chevron's employees work in isolation in the Malongo terminal, which is protected by barbed wire fence and guarded gates because of security concerns. There is no interaction with the local people and the local market, because water, groceries and other commodities are imported duty free from overseas. In a survey Cabindans expressed their concern that the multi-billion oil industy has not improved their daily lives.[7]

I work on the Malongo camp, and want to just clarify: It is true that the water, groceries and other commodities are imported duty free. However this is done by the Hotel Services company called ESS. http://www.compass-group.co.uk/news/NewsItem.asp?strGuid=%7B92DA4E69-4546-4D75-9F8E-2DA481F8CBDD%7D Chevron outsources the catering etc to ESS, who in turn buys the products from overseas.

For catered functions CABGOC/Chevron has also used a Cabindan catering company called "rosies" as an alternative to ESS. There has been speculation about the food quality and other health related concerns though.

A new angolan law also states that all groceries must be labelled in portuguese, so I think some of the stock is obtained from Cabinda & Luanda.

with regard to "There is no interaction with the local people " I would say this is nonsense as of the 4000+ people in the camp, around 80% of them are local angolans. Hundreds of these travel in and out of the camp (to cabinda) on an daily basis.

about local market involvement, CVX allows vendors from Cabinda into camp on Sundays to come and sell their Art, Fruit and provide services, like haircutting and so forth. There's also a long running charity program for rebuilding the cabinda schools. In my opinion quite a lot of involvement!

Just my 2 cents... May or may not apply

I pretty much agree. Most countries in the developing world have some rules about local content (clarification to others: meaning at least a certain of your workforce has to be from that country). And strictly from an economic perspective, it's not as if all of the cooks, caterers, janitors, roughnecks, roustabouts, maintenance crew, operators, etc. are flown in from the U.S. when Angolan salaries there are probably sometimes 1/50th of U.S. expat salaries. This point can be easily proven and sourced, but I'll leave that to somebody else if there's a serious objection here.

Also, although ESS is throughout the world, they often hire local people as well. They don't need to import cooks from Europe or North America to cook the food they serve. Their food isn't exactly top-notch gourmet meals. Ufwuct 14:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

-Taospark (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just countermanded unexplained move by User:Run-D.M.Z.

There was no need to move this article to Chevron (company) when Chevron Corporation is clearly the official legal name of the company and it is commonly and widely known as such by residents of areas in which Chevron does business. See WP:NAME. If User:Run-D.M.Z. or anyone else attempts this move again without giving a good reason, I will be happy to take him or her to arbitration. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

use of unacceptable sources and material

user:NRAPA33 keeps pushing this and other info into the article:

Evironmentally Friendly

With growing environmental concern, Chevron has started to show an interest in becoming cleaner and more environmentally friendly through new research and redesigned policy. The Bay Area's Calpine Corp., Chevron Corp. and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. have taken specific steps to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases and pursue cleaner forms of energy. Oil giants BP and Chevron, for example, have addressed the topic in high-profile ad campaigns. San Ramon's Chevron, which invests in alternative energy sources and has set targets for reducing its own emissions, scored highest among U.S. oil companies. Chevron is the world's largest producer of geothermal energy, a renewable resource that harnesses the natural power of steam from the earth to generate electricity while producing almost no greenhouse emissions, and providing enough power for over 7 million homes!

here are the problems:

1. "Evironmentally" is not a word
2. "Environmentally Friendly" is not a proper section title - it is clearly and unnecessarily POV
3. the first source is utterly unusable for wikipedia. user NRAPA33 made the claim on my user page that "After reading this, it is apparent that as this article is hosted by a University and has been compiled by several scholars, it has been vetted by the scholoarly community and has been regarded as reliable, therefore making this source a reliable source.". this is pure bollocks. if you go to the main page for that user, he identifies the page as an "[sic]Idividual Web Page". it is not vetted for scholarship or anything remotely resembling same. it's just a web page some guy put up. not acceptable per WP:RS. the link to the main page: http://www.pitt.edu/~tas77/
4. the second sentence makes an assertion without any sources.
5. the third sentence points out that they advertise about being clean. sorry, that's not encyclopedic, or relevant.
6. woot! the fourth line is an actual, good, reliable, source. thus far though, it's the only one admissable.
7. the last line would be acceptable - if not for the unnecessary and unacceptable tone - it's not appropriate to go into a digression about how great geothermal is, you merely link to Geothermal energy - and we never, ever, EVER use exclamation marks within wikipedia, not within editorial article space. WP is not promotional. clean that up to standards - see WP:MOS - and then you have two usable sentences for the article.

references for the above:

Anastrophe (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of sources, reliable information, and the deletion of sections that meet standards

Recently, I pened a new section within the Chevron page about their recent efforets to 'clean up their acts' and become more environmentally frieldly. Each sentence used has been sourced and meets the required guidlines. I in no way am one sided and I certainly am not advertising for any particular oil company. In fact, I am simply trying to recognize the fact that certain companies are taking steps to better our world. Recently the addition has been delete repeatedly for these alleged reasons:

1"Environmentally is not a word." I'm sorry to disagree, but environmentally is a word, it is varified by Microsoft Word's spell checking tool, has been used several other places throughout wikipedia, try googling it, or just wikipedia search environmentally friendly and a page will indeed appear. How can all this be true if environmentally is "not a word?"

you're not paying attention. you titled the section "Evironmentally friendly". perhaps you should have used Microsoft Word's spell check when writing the section. Anastrophe (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

2)"Environmentally Friendly" is not a proper section title - it is clearly and unnecessarily POV. Although I disagree, the section title has been changed to a more descriptive name.

3) the first source is utterly unusable for wikipedia. The user states that if you go to the main page for that user, he identifies the page as an "[sic]Idividual Web Page". it is not vetted for scholarship or anything remotely resembling same. it's just a web page some guy put up. not acceptable per WP:RS. the link to the main page: http://www.pitt.edu/~tas77/. May I ask why a professor from the University of Pittsburgh is being referred to as just "some guy," and may I ask why this is considered just "an individual web page" when it is under the University of Pittsburgh's website? Also, the source is listed you can paste it to your browser and see that it exist, he makes it sound as though I created a random site to source my information from.

you're not paying attention. nowhere on that person's page does he identify himself as a professor at the University of Pittsburgh. he is, or was, a student at the university of pittsburgh according to the bio page. the page has zero credibility as a reliable source. period. of course i pasted it into my browser, i don't reject sources simply because i don't like what the URL looks like. i investigated it - with no effort at all i might add - and it is not a reliable source per WP:RS. the page you link to is indeed a random page this guy created. Anastrophe (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

4) the second sentence makes an assertion without any sources. Although I assumed it could be figured out by the flow of the three sentences sourced at the end of the third, I added the sources to each just to make it more convenient.

5)the third sentence points out that they advertise about being clean. sorry, that's not encyclopedic, or relevant. I'm sorry but this is true, cited, and many have witnessed these advertisements in magazines, newspapers, and television commercials. Whether you agree or not is your opinion, but advertising for a cleaner industry is indeed showing the want for a greener company.

you're not paying attention. advertising in and of itself is evidence only of advertising. it is not evidence of being 'environmentally friendly', or of 'new policy and development'. Anastrophe (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

6)woot! the fourth line is an actual, good, reliable, source. thus far though, it's the only one admissable. I thank you for your honesty, however it is not the only reliable source. One source is from the Chevron Corporation itself, one is from an independent corporation in California and is used several times in other articles including this one, an the third is cited from the respected University of Pittsburgh. Are these not reliable?

per above. the university of pittsburgh citation is completely unacceptable. chevron corporation is a poor choice as a reliable third-party, also per WP:RS. and please pay attention - i said "thus far". i was going through the list of sources, and at that point in the list, it was the only reliable source cited, to that juncture. Anastrophe (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

7)the last line would be acceptable - if not for the unnecessary and unacceptable tone - it's not appropriate to go into a digression about how great geothermal is, you merely link to Geothermal energy - and we never, ever, EVER use exclamation marks within wikipedia, not within editorial article space. WP is not promotional. clean that up to standards - see WP:MOS - and then you have two usable sentences for the article. If I may say, I am not advertising for geothermal energy nor do I mention that its the greatest thing out there, I simply state the facts about how chevron is using this energy type to make the switch to a cleaner world as one example. Also, please check the references at the bottom, the site is right there, and able to be opned. I am aware that this is not a promotion site, and I have not promoted for anything here, I simply stated the facts. I challenge you to search for Chevron's environmntal friendliness on the web, you'll find several sources all stating similar things, but they all are showing what is being expressed in my section.

i must ask that you stop adding poorly sourced, poorly written material to this article. you are pushing a POV. i have no objection to properly noting efforts that chevron has made to be greener. i'm guessing you probably think i'm some hugely anti-big-oil, anti-corporation, left wing tree hugger, but that's not the case. what matters is that material that's added be from reliable third party sources, and not written in a promotional tone. your first few drafts have failed completely. i've tried cleaning it up to fall within acceptable standards for sourcing and quality of writing, but you keep returning to your own versions. please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

--NRAPA33 (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DWPH84 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

chevron texaco oil and gas company endowment funds

Dear Sir,

I would just like to inquire about the above subject, does it exist?, because a certain Mrs. Julie Newton of UK emailed me and was telling me that i won the funds selection. If this is true, please help me togo about it.

Thank you very much.

roberto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.138.70 (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Revenue discrepancy

The revenue shown in the chart isn't the same one as in the article (one is 204 billion, and one is 161 billion dollars). It's probably just because the data is taken from different years, but it should be fixed. So either it should be made specific that the chart is for whatever year it is, or it should be taken off.

- Akaash Mukherjee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaash Mukherjee (talk • contribs) 19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ecuador

The Ecuador section is wildly unbalanced, fails to fully tell Chevron's side of the story, and ignores the multiple United States court cases Chevron won showing the pervasive fraud behind the Ecuadorian lawsuit and the corruption in the Ecuadorian judicial system that permitted the verdict. THF (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the whole section is pretty muted, considering that it fails to mention the 9 billion gallons of toxic waste water dumped into rivers, the 16.8 million gallons of crude oil spilled from the main pipeline into the forest and the two groups of indigenous peoples, the Tetetes and the Sansahuari, wiped out by the pollution. The section currently reads like a he-says, she-says: Ecuador alleges this, Chevron refutes this, Ecuador says pay, Chevron says we ain't gonna. A more in-depth write up of the whole debacle from 1964 onwards is not going to paint Chevron in any more of a flattering light. As for corruption in the Ecuadorian judicial system, it was Chevron who fought (and won) a legal battle in 2003 to have this case heard in Ecuador rather than in the US or elsewhere... Besides, Chevron can appeal and appeal all they want - analysts have already shown that the cost of continuing to appeal is far, far less than the amount it would have to pay to settle. Keristrasza (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

When Chevron successfully asked to move the case to Ecuador in 2000, Ecuador appointed judges for life and they were politically independent. Since then, the Ecuadorean Supreme Court was unconstitutionally purged by the president, and a new constitution was written that restricts judges to four-year terms--judges are regularly threatened politically for not adhering to the leftist government's preferences.[1] Multiple US courts have found that the Ecuadorean judgment was fraudulent. That's a material fact that's not in the article, even as a lot of space is devoted to the kangaroo court's false findings. THF (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"...false findings"? I don't think that even Chevron have disputed that the pollution occurred and requires remediation. That's a "material fact" which sits at the heart of the case, and is being drowned out by all of the legal technicalities. The arguments are about the extent of liability and $$, from what I gather. Chevron accused Judge Juan Núñez of bias, which he denied but nevertheless recused himself from the case. With regard to fraud, weren't at least two of Chevron’s lawyers indicted on an allegation of "fraudulently conspiring to prove that Texaco had cleaned up waste pits" - part of the deal which Chevron says releases it from liability in Ecuador? Calling this a "kangaroo court" and quoting Chevron's (albeit legitimate) corporate and legal tactics (filing RICO suits etc.) as "proof" that they are blameless victims of "leftist" political extortion exposes a potential lack of NPOV with regard to the section. Keristrasza (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing WP:TRUTH, though Chevron is correct and the corrupt trial lawyers are incorrect. I'm not arguing for deleting the leftists' false claims from the article. I'm merely pointing out that the existing version of the article fails to tell both sides of the story and omits critical facts, and thus violates NPOV. THF (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 20:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't scenario. Texaco, NOT Chevron, probably did pollute, but, before the Chevron acquisition of Texaco, Texaco was released of any liability by the Ecuadorian state. Ecuadorian laws at the time did NOT allow private citizens to claim environmental damage. Also, the article fails to mention that the State-owned Ecuadorian company took over Texaco's Ecuadorian operations in the 90s and has, since then, operated with an environmental record much worse than that of Texaco's in Ecuador in rhe 80s. The people suing Chevron are now trying to get the big, bad American company to pay for the Ecuadorian government's SNAFUs. And, I agree with THF, the corrupt trial lawyers have managed to convince a group of Ecuadorians to support them in their attempt to extort Chevron. Daylightdemon (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Updates: History Section

Hello, my name is Justin Higgs. I am a member of Chevron’s public affairs group. I wanted to reach out to the Wikipedia community in order to request some updates to the Chevron Wikipedia page. We would like to update the History section of the Chevron Wikipedia page to accurately represent new developments and historical items. Please see below for our proposed updates. We hope you’ll consider these suggestions in the spirit intended—to improve the overall quality of this entry based on objective data.

Update 1: History (Paragraph 3)

Company Name and Dates

Current Copy: Chevron Corporation was originally known as Standard Oil of California, or SoCal, and was formed amid the antitrust breakup of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil company in 1911. It was one of the "Seven Sisters" that dominated the world oil industry in the early 20th century.

Recommended Copy: Chevron Corporation was originally known as Standard Oil Co. (California) and was formed amid the antitrust breakup of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil company in 1911. It was one of the "Seven Sisters" that dominated the world oil industry in the early 20th century. In 1926, the company was renamed Standard Oil Co. of California or Socal.

Support/Rationale: The company name information and dates are incorrect. The company wasn’t named Socal until 1926. Edited for clarity and provided accurate information. (Sources: SFGate, Google timeline of Standard Oil announcements)

Ghawar Oil Field

Current Copy: In the early 1950s, SoCal discovered the world's largest oil field (Ghawar) in Saudi Arabia.

Recommended Copy: In 1948, SoCal discovered the world's largest oil field (Ghawar) in Saudi Arabia.

Support/Rationale: Change date to be more specific, the Ghawar Field was discovered in 1948. (Source: GeoExPro)

Update 2: History (Paragraph 6)

Dynegy

Current Copy: In June 1992, Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE: DYN) was created from the merger of Chevron's former natural gas and natural gas liquids business with Dynegy's predecessor, NGC Corp. (formerly NYSE: NGL).

Recommended Copy: In January 1996, NGC (formerly NYSE: NGL) and Chevron announced plans to merge Chevron’s natural gas and natural gas liquids business with NGC. On May 23, 1996, the companies reached an agreement in principle to merge their business. Under the agreement, Chevron transferred its natural gas gathering, operating and marketing operation to NGC in exchange for a roughly 25 percent equity stake in NGC. On August 30, shareholders approved the deal creating North America’s largest natural gas and gas liquids wholesaler. In 1998, NGC Corporation was renamed Dynegy (NYSE:DYN).

Support/Rationale: The current date and chronology are incorrect. (Sources: Funding Universe, East Bay Business Journal, NYTimes)

Dynegy Stock Sale

Current Copy: However, Chevron in 2007 sold its 19 percent (at the time) common stock investment in the company for approximately $940 million, resulting in a gain of $680 million.

Recommended Copy: However, Chevron in May 2007 sold its roughly 12 percent (at the time) Class A common stock in the company for approximately $985 million, resulting in a gain of $680 million.

Support/Rationale: The information is incorrect and incomplete. (Sources: TheStreet, NYTimes)

Update 3: History (Paragraph 7)

Texaco Acquisition

Current Copy: In 2001, Chevron Corporation acquired Texaco to form ChevronTexaco.

Recommended Copy: On October 15, 2000 Chevron announced it would acquire Texaco (NYSE: TX) creating the second largest oil company in the United States and the world’s fourth-largest publically traded oil company with a combined market value of approximately $95 billion. On October 9, 2001, the shareholders of Chevron and Texaco voted to approve the merger creating ChevronTexaco. The deal was valued at $45 billion.

Support/Rationale: The current information is incomplete. Provided additional acquisition information. (Sources: TheStreet, BBC, SFGate)

Update 4: History (Paragraph 8)

Unocal Acquisition

Current Copy: On August 19, 2005, Chevron acquired the Unocal Corporation.

Recommended Copy: On April 4, 2005, Chevron announced it planned to purchase Unocal Corporation (NYSE: UCL) for $18.4 billion increasing the company’s petroleum and natural gas reserves by about 15 percent. On August 10, 2005, Unocal Corporation shareholders approved Chevron’s acquisition of the company. The deal was valued at $18 billion.

Support/Rationale: The current date is incorrect. Unocal shareholders approved the acquisition on August 10, 2005, not on August 19, 2005. Provided additional acquisition information. (Sources: SFGate, Washington Post)

Reconciling with Unocal Entry

Current Copy: On mid-2007, Chevron Corporation sold all Conoco stations in Mississippi to the Texaco brand a process to be complete at the end of 2007.

Recommendation: Delete copy.

Support/Rationale: Information is incorrect. The correct information is located on the Unocal Wikipedia entry [2] and the Union 76 Wikipedia entry [3]. Both entries are more relevant locations for this content. (Source: LA Times)

Update 5: History (Paragraph 10)

Atlas Energy Acquisition

Current Copy: In November 9, 2010, Chevron Corp. (NYSE:CVX) acquired Pennsylvania based Atlas Energy Inc. (NASDAQ:ATLS) for $3.2 billion in cash and additional $1.1 billion in existing debt owed by Atlas.

Recommended Copy: On November 9, 2010, Chevron Corp. announced it would acquire Pennsylvania based Atlas Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: ATLS) for $3.2 billion in cash and an additional $1.1 billion in existing debt owed by Atlas. On February 18, 2011, the shareholders of Atlas energy voted to approve the merger. The deal was valued at $4.3 billion.

Support/Rationale: Deleted NYSE: CVX since it is provided earlier in the entry. Provided additional acquisition information. (Sources: NYTimes Dealbook, official merger announcement, announcement of merger completion, Bloomberg)

Chevron justinh (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: Hello Wiki community. I posted proposed changes three weeks ago and haven't heard from anyone. Just want to give the community another chance to comment before I make the changes. Thanks.

Chevron justinh (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits: Hello Wiki community. In an effort to add additional information and correct factual inaccuracies, the edits listed above were made on May 2, 2011. All edits cite independent third-party sources.

Chevron justinh (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Updates

Hey all, Justin with Chevron again. I wanted to request/make additional updates to the following sections. Please see below for the proposed updates. Any thoughts or questions, please let me know.

Update 1: Overview (Paragraph 1)

Current Copy: Chevron employs approximately 67,000 people worldwide (of which 27,000 are U.S.-based) and had approximately 12 billion barrels (1.9 km³) of oil-equivalent net proved reserves at December 31, 2003. Daily production in 2003 was 2.5 million net oil-equivalent barrels (400,000 m³) per day. The company has a worldwide marketing network in 84 countries with approximately 24,000 retail sites, including those of affiliate companies. The company also has interests in 13 power generating assets in the United States, Asia, and Europe. Chevron also has gas stations in Western Canada.

Recommended Copy: Chevron employs approximately 62,000 people worldwide of which approximately 30,000 are employed in U.S. operations. As of December 31, 2010, Chevron had 10.545 billion barrels of oil-equivalent net proved reserves. Daily production in 2010 was 2.763 million net oil-equivalent barrels per day. The company has a worldwide marketing network in 84 countries with approximately 19,550 retail sites, including those of affiliate companies. The company also has interests in 13 power generating assets in the United States and Asia. Chevron also has gas stations in Western Canada.

Support/Rationale: Current information is incorrect and outdated. Provided recent data (Source: [4] SEC)

Update 2: Overview (Paragraph 3)

Current Copy: Chevron is the owner of the Standard Oil trademark in 16 states in the western and southeastern U.S. To maintain ownership of the mark, the company owns and operates one Standard-branded Chevron station in each state of the area. Chevron also owns the trademark rights to Texaco brand gasoline. Chevron's network of wholesalers supplies Texaco fuels.

Recommended Copy: Chevron is the owner of the Standard Oil trademark in 16 states in the western and southeastern U.S. To maintain ownership of the mark, the company owns and operates one Standard-branded Chevron station in each state of the area. Additionally, Chevron owns the trademark rights to Texaco and CalTex fuel and lubricant products.

Support/Rationale: The current information is incomplete. Provided accurate information sourced from filed Trademarks. (Sources: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Serial Numbers 78800163 (Texaco Trademark), 73333228 (Texaco Trademark) and 75551101 (CalTex Trademark) Here are links to the three relevant USPTO entries:Reg. Num. 3158772, Reg. Num. 1209440, Reg. Num. 2493037)

Chevron justinh (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in History section

The first one-and-a-half paragraphs of the History section claim that Chevron is descended from a California company called "Pacific Coast Oil Company", founded in 1879.

The third paragraph claims that Chevron began in 1911 when Standard Oil was broken up.

These appear to be contradictory claims. Perhaps they fit together somehow -- but if they do, there are no clues on this page to explain how. One possible theory: Maybe the Pacific Coast Oil Company was founded in 1879, then PCOC changed its name to "Standard Oil" at a later date, and then in 1911 that company was broken up, and one piece became Chevron. Another possible theory: Pacific Coast Oil Company was a totally separate company from Chevron for many years, and then sometime after 1911 Chevron purchased PCOC -- or vice-versa. Could someone please clarify and rewrite these paragraphs?

If PCOC is just a tiny company that Chevron purchased at a later date, then I don't think it belongs in the History section at all. By analogy, the page on Microsoft states that Microsoft was founded in 1975. Even if Microsoft in the 1990s purchased a small company that had been founded in 1960, we don't say "Microsoft was founded in 1960". In other words, the History section should tell the history of Chevron, not the history of other companies that it may have purchased during its lifetime. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 04:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I have deleted the two paragraphs in question. These two paragraphs discuss the history of the "Pacific Coast Oil Company" and of the "Texas Fuel Company", but since this page does not explain how these companies are connected to Chevron, nor are they ever mentioned again on the entire page, and since this history appears to contradict the rest of the History section, they add confusion but no information. If someone believes they belong on this page, please rewrite them to address the issues raised above. But it appears that these do not discuss Chevron history, but rather the history of other companies that Chevron eventually bought out, and such histories belong on their own pages, not here. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Way to go. That was a really smart deletion (I'm being sarcastic)---you could have figured out the relationship between PCOC and Standard Oil in about three minutes by typing "pacific coast oil company chevron" into Google. The third link that comes up is to the relevant corporate history page on CHEVRON'S WEBSITE. I'm restoring and clarifying the text. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Updates/Edits-Shipping

Update 1: Overview (Paragraph 5)

Current Copy: Chevron Shipping Company is a wholly owned subsidiary company which handles the maritime transport operation for Chevron Corporation.

Recommended Copy: Chevron Shipping Company (CSC) is a wholly owned subsidiary company which provides the maritime transport operations, marine consulting services and marine risk management services for Chevron Corporation.

Support/Rationale: Citation: The CSC description was incomplete. Provided additional detail. (Sources: [5], [6])

Update 2: Overview (Paragraph 5)

Current Copy: The fleet comprises crude oil and product tankers, as well as three gas tankers operated by Chevron Shipping for other companies. The fleet is divided into two sections: The US fleet transports oil products from Chevron refineries to customers in the US. The ships are manned by US citizens and are flagged in the US. The International fleet vessels are flagged in the Bahamas and have officers and crews from many different nations.

Recommended Copy: The CSC operated fleet comprises crude oil and product tankers, crude lightering ships and liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers. The fleet is divided into two sections: The US fleet consists of four product tankers which transport oil product between Chevron refineries and oil products from Chevron refineries to US supply terminals. The ships are manned by US citizens and are flagged in the US. The International fleet vessels are primarily flagged in the Bahamas and have officers and crews from many different nations.

Support/Rationale We have we have clarified the number and types of tankers owned by Chevron and their roles. (Sources: Chevron Corporation, Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Form 10-K, 2/24/11, accessed at [7], [8])

Update 3: Overview (Paragraph 5)

Current Copy: The largest ships are 308,000 tonne VLCCs. The job of the international fleet is to transport crude oil from the oilfields to the refineries. The international fleet mans two LPG tankers and one LNG tanker.

Recommended Copy: The largest ships are 320,000 tonne Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) which carry two million barrels of crude oil. The job of the international fleet is to transport crude oil from the oilfields to the refineries. The international fleet mans one LNG tanker.

Support/Rationale: We have clarified the definition of VLCC capacities. (Sources: [9], Wikipedia page on Oil Tankers which cites: Hayler, William B.; Keever, John M. (2003). American Merchant Seaman's Manual. Cornell Maritime Pr. ISBN 0-87033-549-9 [10])

Update 4: Overview (Paragraph 6)

Current Copy: Chevron ships originally had names beginning with "Chevron", such as the Chevron Washington and Chevron South America, or were named after former or serving directors of the company. Samuel Ginn, William E Crain, and most notably Condoleezza Rice were amongst those honored, but the ship named after Rice was subsequently renamed as Altair Voyager.[26] All the ships were renamed in 2001 to reflect the corporate merger with Texaco. Ships in the international fleet are all named after celestial bodies or constellations, such as Orion Voyager and Altair Voyager, and the American ships are named after the states in the country, as in Washington Voyager and Colorado Voyager.

Recommended Copy: Chevron ships historically had names beginning with "Chevron", such as the Chevron Washington and Chevron South America, or were named after former or serving directors of the company. Samuel Ginn, William E Crain, Kenneth Derr, Richard Matzke and most notably Condoleezza Rice were amongst those honored, but the ship named after Rice was subsequently renamed as Altair Voyager.[26] All the ships were renamed in 2001 following the corporate merger with Texaco. Ships in the international fleet are all named after celestial bodies or constellations, such as Orion Voyager and Altair Voyager and Capricorn Voyager. The US flagged ships are named after the states in the country, as in Washington Voyager and Colorado Voyager, Mississippi Voyager, Oregon Voyager and the California Voyager.

Support/Rationale: Clarified current copy and added additional details regarding ship names. (Sources: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16])

Chevron justinh (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits: The edits referenced above were made on August 26, 2011. Chevron justinh (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Updates

Justin with Chevron again. Please see below for the proposed updates. Any thoughts or questions, please let me know

Update 1: Alternative Energy (Paragraph 1)

Current Copy: The company is developing technology for alternative energy, including fuel cells, photovoltaics, advanced batteries, and hydrogen fuel for transport and power.

Recommended Copy: The company is developing alternative energy sources, including geothermal, solar, wind, biofuel, fuel cells, photovoltaics, advanced and hydrogen fuel for transport and power technologies through Chevron Energy Solutions and Chevron Technology Ventures. The company plans to spend at least $2 billion on renewable power ventures and research between 2010 and 2013.

In addition to developing its own technologies, Chevron has cut its energy use by a third since 1992 by utilizing hydrogen fuel cells and solar panels at its facilities.

Support/Rationale: The description is incomplete. Provided additional information. (Sources: [17], [18], [19]). Chevron no longer works on “advanced batteries.” See: Joe Carrol, “Chevron Sells Hybrid Battery Stake to Bosch, Samsung,” Bloomberg, 7/13/09, Accessed at [20]

Update 2: Alternative Energy (new paragraph)

Geothermal

Current Copy: n/a

Recommended Copy: Chevron is the world’s largest producer of geothermal energy. The company’s geothermal operations are primarily located in Southeast Asia where steam from underground deposits of boiling water is tapped and piped to the surface to turn generators, producing 1,273 MW of electricity.

Chevron operates numerous geothermal wells in Indonesia, helping to provide power to Jakarta and the surrounding area, and plans to potentially open a 200 MW geothermal facility in South Sumatra. In the Philippines, Chevron also operates geothermal wells at Tiwi field in Albay province, the Makiling-Banahaw field in Laguna and Quezon provinces.

Support/Rationale: Geothermal isn’t currently included in the alternative energy section. (Sources: [21], [22], [23], [24])

Update 3: Alternative Energy (Paragraph 2)

Electric Vehicles

Current Copy: Chevron may be squelching all access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline.[27] This culminated in a lawsuit against Panasonic and Toyota over production of the EV-95 battery used in the RAV4 EV[citation needed].

However, with the Lithium-ion battery, it appears there will be plenty of gas and electricity for all interested parties for the foreseeable future. Chevron owns Ovonics, the leading producer of Lithium Ion Batteries. Ovonics was purchased by Chevron-Texaco in 2001, reportedly so Chevron-Texaco could expand their business into the emerging hybrid market. But, some in the alternative energy field see an ulterior motive, so Chevron-Texaco can suppress the development of Lithium Ion Batteries. They feel this way because Ovonics has shown little interest in selling Lithium Ion Batteries to electric vehicle enthusiasts since purchasing the company.[28] Nevertheless, Ovonics does continue to work with commercial manufacturers.

Recommended Copy: Chevron Technology Ventures once held the patent for a certain type of nickel metal hydride battery (NiMH), and also had at 50% stake - with Energy Conservation Devices (ECD) holding the other 50% - in Cobasys, a company which produced Lithium Ion Batteries. In 2009, both Chevron and Energy Conservation Devices sold their stakes in Cobasys to SB LiMotive Co. Ltd and today, neither Chevron nor Energy Conservation Devices have any relationship with Cobasys. Chevron no longer holds the patent for NiMH technology, the rights to which are held between Energy Conservation Devices and SB LiMotive as a result of the Cobasys sale.

Chevron was once rumored to be limiting access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline. This culminated in a lawsuit against Panasonic and Toyota over production of the EV-95 battery used in the RAV4 EV.

However, with the Lithium-ion battery, it appears there will be plenty of gas and electricity for all interested parties for the foreseeable future. Chevron once owned a minority share of Energy Conservation Devices, the leading producer of Lithium Ion Batteries. Chevron-Texaco purchased a stake in an ECD subsidiary from GM in 2001, reportedly so Chevron-Texaco could expand their business into the emerging hybrid market. But, some in the alternative energy field see an ulterior motive, so Chevron-Texaco can suppress the development of Lithium Ion Batteries. They feel this way because ECD has shown little interest in selling Lithium Ion Batteries to electric vehicle enthusiasts since Chevron became a partial owner. Nevertheless, ECD does continue to work with commercial manufacturers.

Support/Rationale: This section is out of date, vague, and factually inaccurate. We have re-written the section to be as factually accurate and up-to-date as possible, while retaining the original subject matter. There is no company called “Ovonics.” The company referenced in the entry as Ovonics is actually Energy Conservation Devices. Chevron has never owned ECD, it has held – at the high water mark – a 50% interest in several ECD subsidiaries. (Sources: Energy Conservation Devices, Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K, 2001 - 2010; Accessed at [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34])

Update 4: Alternative Energy (Paragraph 4)

Biofuels

Current Copy: Chevron is investing $300M USD a year into alternative fuel sources, and has created a biofuels business unit.[29][30]

Chevron and US-DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) announced that they had entered into a collaborative agreement to produce biofuels from algae. Chevron and NREL scientists would develop algae strains that can be economically harvested and processed into transportation fuels, such as jet fuel.[31]

Recommended Copy: Chevron Technology Ventures (CTV) is investing between $300M and $400M USD a year into alternative fuel sources and environmentally sustainable technologies. CTV contains a biofuels business unit.

In 2007, Chevron and US-DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) announced that they had entered into a collaborative agreement to produce biofuels from algae. Chevron and NREL scientists would develop algae strains that can be economically harvested and processed into transportation fuels, such as jet fuel

In 2008 Chevron and Weyerhaeuser Company jointly created Catchlight Energy LLC which researches the conversion of cellulose-based biomass into biofuels.

Between 2006 and 2011 Chevron contributed up to $12 million to a strategic research alliance with the Georgia Institute of Technology to develop cellulosic biofuels and to create a process to convert biomass like wood or switchgrass into fuels.

Additionally, Chevron holds a 22% ownership stake in Galveston Bay Biodiesel LP, which produces up to 110 million gallons of renewable biodiesel fuel a year.

Support/Rationale: Information is incomplete. Provided additional information. (Sources: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39])

Update 5: Alternative energy (Paragraph 6)

Solar

Current Copy: Chevron has invested in Solar Power such as the 500 kW Solarmine photovoltaic solar project in Fellows, California, as well as the 1000 kW concentrated photovoltaic solar field in Questa, New Mexico.

Recommended Copy: Chevron is exploring the possibility of powering its operations with solar energy. In 2010, the company announced Project Brightfield, an effort to identify solar technologies capable of powering Chevron’s facilities. Set on 8 acres of land which once held a refinery, Project Brightfield consists of 7,700 solar panels using advanced photovoltaic technologies from seven companies, which Chevron is evaluating for large scale use.

Chevron has invested in Solar Power such as the 500 kW Solarmine photovoltaic solar project in Fellows, California, as well as the 1000 kW concentrated photovoltaic solar field in Questa, New Mexico.

In Questa, Chevron Technology Ventures and Chevron Mining have built a 1 megawatt solar farm on the site of a former mine. The concentrating photovoltaic solar facility generates 1-megatwatt of power, enough to power the town of Questa. The 20 acre Questa facility is comprised of 173 solar arrays which use Fresnel lenses to focus sunlight on small, highly efficient photovoltaic cells.

Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), one of the largest energy service companies in the US, helps customers increase energy efficiency, reduce energy use and integrate distributed renewable power. CES projects are expected to save more than $1 billion in energy costs for customers and reduce GHG by more than 3 million metric tons.

Support/Rationale: Information is incomplete. Provided additional information. (Sources: [40], [41], [42], [43])

Chevron justinh (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Justin. Please have a look at the solar section addition you made. It seems quite "fluffed out" to me but perhaps I am mistaken. Aren't the first three paragraphs pretty much about the same thing--the New Mexico solar farm? And the final paragraph seems more like something from a Chevron website than notable for an encyclopedia. Also, you state, "In addition to developing its own technologies, Chevron has cut its energy use by a third since 1992 by utilizing hydrogen fuel cells and solar panels at its facilities." but I did not see that in the refs provided though it would be easy to miss. It woul help if you would put the source for such a statement directly following your fact rather than provide several refs at the end of a paragraph. Gandydancer (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Updates Made

The updates outlined directly above were made today.

Chevron justinh (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Upstream Additions

Hello all, Justin with Chevron again. As you have seen, we're working with the Wiki community to ensure accuracy and complete information about the company and its operations. Accordingly, the page currently lacks complete information about the company's major capital projects and upstream operations. In an effort to greater expand on some of the Chevron's key upstream work, we'd like propose the following additions to the page. We hope you’ll consider these suggestions in the spirit intended—to improve the overall quality of this entry based on objective data. Please let us know what you think.

Upstream Addition: Kazakhstan

Proposed Copy: Chevron is the largest private oil producer in Kazakhstan and is involved in two of the largest projects in the country, Tengiz and Karachaganak, which together produce 831,000 barrels of oil and 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day.

The Tengiz project was developed as part of a 40-year joint venture with ExxonMobil, KazMunayGas and LukArco: Chevron is the major stakeholder in project. The operation recently expanded its sour gas injection and second generation plant facilities to increase production and recovery levels.

The Karachaganak Field in northwest Kazakhstan is one of the world's largest oil and gas condensate reserves. Chevron has a 20 percent nonoperated working interest in the field. In 2010, total daily production from the Karachaganak Field averaged 220,000 barrels of liquids (39,000 net) and 840 million cubic feet of natural gas (149 million net).

Chevron has expanded its investment in Kazakhstan in recent years. In 2010, Chevron invested in a multi-billion dollar expansion of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium pipeline. The company is the largest private shareholder in the project. The pipeline connects in Kazakhstan with marine terminals in Russia.

Support/Rationale: Sources: [44], [45], [46], [47]

Upstream Addition: Gulf of Mexico

Proposed Copy: Chevron is one of the leading producers in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Key producing assets include Tahiti and Blind Faith, the company's deepest operated offshore production facility. Two major capital projects—Jack/St. Malo and Big Foot—reached final investment decision in 2010.

Blind Faith, which began production in 2008 is located in 6500 feet of water and is capable of producing up to 65,000 barrels of oil and 55 million cubic feet of natural gas each day. Blind Faith is named after Eric Clapton’s short lived band of the same name.

Chevron’s Tahiti project began operations in 2009 after Chevron spent $4.7 billion developing the project following the discovery of the Tahiti field in 2002. The Tahiti project has total estimated recoverables of 400-500 million barrels of oil and gas equivalent and can produce up to 125,000 barrels of oil and 70 million cubic feet of gas a day. The Tahiti field is located almost 200 miles from New Orleans and is located in 4,100 feet of water.

In 2010, Chevron sanctioned development plans for Big Foot, located in approximately 5,200 feet of water about 225 miles south of New Orleans. The Big Foot project may produce up to 75,000 barrels of oil and 25 million cubic feet of natural gas per day once it begins operations in 2014

Also in 2010, Chevron sanctioned the Jack/St. Malo project, the company’s first operated project located in the Lower Tertiary trend in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The Jack and St. Malo fields are located within 25 miles of each other in the Gulf of Mexico, about 280 miles southwest of New Orleans in water depths of 7,000 feet. The initial development of the project will require an investment of approximately $7.5 billion. It will be comprised of three subsea centers tied back to a hub production facility with a capacity of 170,000 barrels of oil and 42.5 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.

In 2009, Chevron announced an oil discovery at the Buckskin prospect in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico about 190 miles southeast of Houston. The well is located in approximately 6,920 feet of water and was drilled to a depth of 29,404 feet. In 2011, the company announced an oil discovery at the Moccasin prospect in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The well is located approximately 216 miles off the Louisiana coast in 6,759 feet of water and was drilled to a depth of 31,545 feet.

In addition to its deepwater Gulf of Mexico activities, Chevron is one of the largest producers of oil and natural gas on the Gulf of Mexico shelf.

Support/Rationale: Sources: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]

Chevron justinh (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking-in regarding proposed updates

It has been a week and I haven’t received any feedback from the community. I wanted to check-in one last time before making these additions. Please let me know if you have any thoughts. If I do not hear anything from the community regarding the edits proposed above, I will look to make the additions early next week. Thanks,

Chevron justinh (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The additions referenced and outlined above were made today. Chevron justinh (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Additions

Hello all, Justin with Chevron again. I'd like to propose adding the following information on Chevron's upstream business in Africa- Angola and Nigeria and the company's downstream operations (currently lacking on the page). As always, these suggested additions are intended to improve the quality of the Chevron entry using objective third-party data. Please let us know what you think.

Upstream Addition: Nigeria

Proposed Copy: Chevron is the third-largest oil producer in Nigeria and one of the largest private investors operating in Nigeria.

In the onshore and near-offshore regions of the Niger Delta, Chevron operates under a joint venture with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation. Chevron operates and holds a 40 percent interest in 13 concessions spread over approximately 2.2 million acres (8,900 sq. km) in the region. In addition to these concessions, Chevron operated projects in this region feature the Escravos Gas Plant and the Escravos Gas-To -Liquids Project.

Chevron also has extensive interests in deepwater Nigeria where the company holds interests ranging from about 20 percent, up to 100 percent, in 10 deepwater blocks. Chevron’s interests in the deepwater are highlighted by the Agbami development which is based on one of Nigeria's largest deepwater discoveries and the company’s non-operated interest in the Usan project.

In 2010, Chevron created the multi-million dollar Niger Delta Partnership Initiative Foundation to address the socioeconomic challenges facing the area.

Support/Rational: Sources: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]

Upstream Addition: Angola

Proposed Copy: Chevron is one of Angola’s top petroleum producers investing billions of dollars in major energy projects focused on oil production and gas commercialization for domestic and export markets.

The company has interests in four concessions in Angola, two of which the company operates located offshore Cabinda province.

Among its largest offshore assets are the Benguela Belize–Lobito Tomboco platform, the Tombua–Landana development, and the Mafumeira Norte project. In addition, Chevron is a partner in the multi-billion dollar 5.2 million-metric-ton-per-year liquefied natural gas plant located near the coastal city of Soyo, Zaire province.

Chevron is Angola’s largest foreign oil industry employer with over 3,000 Angolan employees – about 90 percent of the company’s workforce in the country including many local professional and supervisory roles at Chevron in Angola.

Support/Rationale: Sources: [61], [62], [63], [64]

Downstream Addition: Downstream and Chemicals

Proposed Copy: Chevron’s downstream operations manufacture and sell products such as fuels, lubricants, additives and petrochemicals. The company’s most significant areas of operations are the west coast of North America, the U.S. Gulf Coast, Southeast Asia, South Korea, Australia and South Africa. Products are sold through a network of approximately 20,000 retail stations. Chevron’s chemicals business includes 50% ownership in the Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, which manufactures petrochemicals, and the Chevron Oronite Company which develops, manufactures and sells fuel and lubricant additives.

Downstream Addition: Refinery Locations

Proposed Copy: Chevron owns and operates five active refineries in the United States, one in Cape Town, South Africa and one in Burnaby, British Columbia. Chevron is the non-operating partner in seven joint venture refineries, located in Australia, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, South Korea, and New Zealand.

Chevron’s United States refineries are located in Gulf and Western states:

• Pascagoula, Miss.
• Salt Lake City, Utah
• Kapolei, Hawaii
• El Segundo, Calif.
• Richmond, Calif.

Chevron also owns an asphalt refinery in Perth Amboy, New Jersey; however, since early 2008 that refinery has primarily operated as a terminal.

Support/Rationale: Sources: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]

Downstream Addition: 'Refinery Capacity

Proposed Copy: In 2010, Chevron processed 1.9 million barrels of crude oil per day and averaged 3.1 million barrels per day of in sales of refined products like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

Support/Rationale: Sources: [72], [73], [74]

It has been roughly ten days and I haven’t received any feedback from the community on the page additions proposed above. I wanted to check-in one last time before making these additions. Please let me know if you have any thoughts. Otherwise, I will look to make the additions soon. Thanks,

Chevron justinh (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

These additions were made today.Chevron justinh (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Updates: Board of Directors

Hello, my name is Justin Higgs from Chevron again. I wanted to request/make additional updates to the Board of Directors section of the Chevron Wikipedia page to accurately represent the current Board. Please see below for our proposed updates.

Current Copy

As of January 2010:

• John Watson (Chairman & CEO)
• Samuel Armacost
• Linnet F. Deily
• Robert Denham
• Robert James Eaton
• Sam Ginn
• Franklyn Jenifer
• Sam Nunn
• Donald Rice
• Peter Robertson
• Charles Shoemate
• Ronald Sugar
• Carl Ware

As of May 25, 2011

• John S. Watson (Chairman & CEO)
• George L. Kirkland (Vice Chairman)
• Linnet F. Deily
• Robert E. Denham
• Robert J. Eaton
• Chuck Hagel
• Enrique Hernandez Jr.
• Donald B. Rice
• Kevin W. Sharer
• Charles R. Shoemate
• John G. Stumpf
• Ronald D. Sugar
• Carl Ware

'Support/Rationale

Chevron justinh (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource

Spill Casts Pall Over Brazil Oil Patch November 26, 2011 by John Lyons ...

An oil leak at a Chevron Corp. deep-water well off the Rio de Janeiro coast this month has provoked local outrage and investigations of the U.S. company. It also has become a messy reminder that Brazil's bid to reach prosperity through oil may be costlier—and more challenging—than many here expected. The early November leak at Brazil's Frade oil field was plugged successfully after spewing 2,400 barrels of crude into the sea—a fraction of the estimated 4.9 million barrels that gushed into Gulf of Mexico last year when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded at a BP PLC well.

141.218.36.43 (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the Frade oil field in Santos Basin? 99.181.134.134 (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See Deepwater Horizon oil spill and BP plc. 99.181.134.134 (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The incident occured in the Campos Basin.

Chevron justinh (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Upstream Addition: Australia

All- one additional upstream update to propose. Please let me know what you think.

Proposed Copy: Chevron is the largest holder of natural gas resources in Australia and is leading the development of the Gorgon Project, the largest single-resource project in Australia.

The $43 billion Gorgon Project was started in 2010 and is expected to be brought online in 2014. The Gorgon project includes the construction of a 15 million tonne per annum Liquefied Natural Gas plant on Barrow Island and a domestic gas plant with the capacity to provide 300 terajoules per day to supply gas to Western Australia. The Gorgon Project will be one of the most greenhouse gas efficient LNG developments in the world, due largely to its global scale CO2 injection project that will sequester naturally occurring CO2 in the gas from the Gorgon and Jansz reservoirs.

In September 2011, Chevron announced that it would proceed with the Wheatstone liquefied natural gas development in West Australia. The foundation phase of the Wheatstone Project is estimated to cost $29 billion and consists of two LNG processing trains with a combined capacity of 8.9 million tons per annum, a domestic gas plant and associated offshore infrastructure. During peak construction, the Gorgon and Wheatstone Projects together, will create an estimated 16,500 direct and indirect jobs.

LChevron is a long time participant in Australia’s North West Shelf Venture which runs five offshore liquefied natural gas facilities in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The last section of the North West Shelf project to be completed began producing natural gas in 2008. The entire Northwest Shelf Venture produces up to 16.3 million tons of liquefied natural gas a year.

LChevron is also a joint venture participant in the Browse gas development. The project is operated by Australian energy company, Woodside Petroleum. The Browse project would tap three fields, Torosa, Brecknock and Calliance which are estimated to have combined reserves of approximately 13 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 280 million barrels of condensate. The project is expected to come online between 2013 and 2015.

Support/Rationale: Sources: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84]

Chevron justinh (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The above referenced addition was added today. Chevron justinh (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Property tax lawsuit in Contra Costa County, California

I removed the section Property tax lawsuit in Contra Costa County, California (last edit before removal) as it doesn't appear to be that notable. Companies get is plenty of lawsuits over property valuation and other such assessments. Since the article is quite long and I find the event to be not notable. I removed it. Cheers, --Patrick (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

More Proposed Additions

Hello all, Justin with Chevron again. I'd like to propose adding the following information on important Chevron base business operations. As always, these suggested additions are intended to improve the quality of the Chevron entry using objective third-party data. Please let us know what you think.

Upstream Addition: United States of America: Marcellus Shale

Proposed Copy: In February of 2011, Chevron purchased Atlas Energy Inc. for $3.2 billion, obtaining gas leases for 486,000 acres in the Marcellus Shale and 623,000 net acres of Utica Shale. Three months later, Chevron acquired drilling and development rights for another 228,000 acres in the Marcellus Shale from Chief Oil & Gas LLC and Tug Hill, Inc. The Marcellus Shale is a rock formation underlying Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York, as well as Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. It is one of the most prolific sources of natural gas in the United States. According to reports, Marcellus contains 410.3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of the 2,543 Tcf of technically recoverable shale gas in the United States. In Pennsylvania, Marcellus natural gas development generated $11.2 billion in value added, contributed $1.1 billion in state and local tax revenues, and supported nearly 140,000 jobs. Improvements in two drilling techniques – hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling – make shale gas accessible and affordable to develop.

Support/Rationale: Sources:[85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]

Upstream Addition: United States of America: Permian Basin

Proposed Copy: The Permian Basin is approximately 250 miles wide and 300 miles long, located in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. The Permian Basin has the second largest oil reserves in the United States, after Alaska. Through its legacy companies like Texaco, Gulf, Getty, Skelly Unocal and Pure, Chevron has been a significant presence in the Permian Basin for more than 85 years. Chevron currently opperates apx. 11,000 oil and natural gas wells in hundreds of fields across the region. Chevron’s net daily production from the Permian Basin is more than 115,000 barrels of oil equivalent, comprised of 55 percent oil, 34 percent natural gas and 11 percent natural gas liquids. With four million acres, largely acquired through the purchase of Gulf Oil and Texaco, Chevron is the fourth largest producer in the Basin. The Permian Basin is a very significant asset in Chevron’s North America portfolio both financially and for the development of new technology. The Permian Basin has become a celebrated laboratory, out of which industry experience and knowledge is being shared around the world. In February of 2011, Chevron celebrated the production of its 5 billionth barrel of Permian Basin oil.

Support/Rationale: Sources: [93] [94] [95]

Upstream Addition: United States of America: San Joaquin Valley

Proposed Copy: The San Joaquin Valley comprises the southern two-thirds of the Central Valley of California, situated between the Sierra Nevada mountain range on the east, the Diablo and Temblor Ranges to the west, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. Chevron has operated in the San Joaquin Valley for more than a century, specifically the Kern River Oil Field and the Coalinga Field, which contain heavy crude oil.

The Kern Oil Field, just outside Bakersfield, California, is a “supergiant” field, having produced more than 2 billion barrels of oil in over 100 years. With new enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technology, Chevron believes it can extract considerably more than the estimated remaining half a billion barrels of reserves. In the Kern Field, Chevron uses steam-flooding, a process by which high-temperature steam is injected into a reservoir, making the oil less viscous and driving it to production wells. Heat induced swelling of the oil also aids in releasing it from the reservoir rock.

In Kern River, Chevron has developed a work efficiency program called iField. iField is a 3-D map of the surface, complete with oil wells, structures, vehicles, and people, all updated in real time. The program amasses information from across the San Joaquin Valley fields and allows workers to optimize operations, data architectures, and make it easier to introduce new technologies.

In October of 2011, a 29-megawatt thermal solar-to-steam facility was launched in the Coalinga Field to make extraction even cleaner and more efficient. Instead of burning natural gas to heat the crude, Chevron Technology Ventures designed a system that aims more than 7,600 mirrors to a receiver atop a solar tower that then converts the concentrated sunlight to produce the necessary steam for injection into the ground. The project covers more than 100 acres and is the largest of its kind in the world.

Support/Rationale: Sources: [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]

Chevron justinh (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC) These additions were made today. Chevron justinh (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

the additions are basically OK, though they needed some copy-editing to reduce wordiness, and the over-use of the company name. See my edits. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Section 6.4- Environmental Damage in Ecuador Edit Request

Hello all- I hope this note finds you well. I write to seek an update to section 6.4 of this page. The section, “Environmental Damage in Ecuador,” as currently written, lacks objectivity and is factually incomplete. We seek, in the spirit improving this entry, to provide additional information and context that will benefit this page and Wiki community as a whole. My proposed edits, as always, cite third-party sources and are factual in tone and substance. I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to working with the community to further improve this page. I have posted the text of the proposed entry on a user Sandbox that can be found here: [106]

Chevron justinh (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No need to be formal in your request, and thanks for patiently waiting. At first glance:

• The proposed version at User:Saraorsi/sandbox is long. Remember, it's a section in a longer article. Feel free to be pithy and terse with the language, and leave out details that only matter to lawyers and judges. Think: just the bare facts to convey the story to a non-specialist reader. If you choose to make major edits, make a ==REV 2== section lower down in the sandbox, with an additional References section.
• As a reader, I see:

• The proposed text seems argumentative and nearly as WP:UNDUE as the original. "The likes of", etc.
• The proposed text cites a majority of court documents. Wikipedia does not deem testimony in court to be as reliable as an independent third party. See WP:42. Basically, testimony is a primary source. Court rulings cited from court documents are also primary sources; best to cite independent sources. By excluding news reports from the time, the proposed text will have a tendency to be more biased in both directions (plaintiff/defendant).

• Inline citation style: in future, please wikify refs as shown in the examples I've fixed up.
• Recommendation:

• Step 1a, b, c: Create (versions of) a tighter, less detailed, broader strokes, less POV 2nd version of the proposed text, reducing dependence on court transcripts, increasing use of independent reliable sources, and avoiding cherry-picked opinion or editorial sources.
• Future step 2: After that smaller 2nd version is done, consider merging/harmonizing text from current article, to a 3rd, "harmonized" version, in a 3rd section.

Keep in mind what a rational, reasonable person would take away from reading everything from all court documents, all press releases, all news articles. They, and we, would summarize the minimum agreed-upon reliably-sourced facts, and make note of reliably-sourced conflicts of opinion about those facts or events. --Lexein (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I will need time to become more familiar with the subject--at a particularly busy time of the year for many of us. Please keep that in mind as there should be no reason to rush this edit through. A glance at the proposed edit is rather mind-boggling. I've seen similar edits that are meant to obscure the facts of what has actually transpired, though of course it could be that one more familiar with the facts does not find the info too involved at all... Considering that Chevron stated the court finding was, "the product of fraud (and) contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence" it would be expected that the company rep here on WP would propose an edit that represented their desired way of seeing the entire disaster and the resulting lawsuits. Gandydancer (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have spent several hours to familiarize myself with this environmental disaster. I've never worked on an article where it was acceptable for a controversial section of a corporation article to be completely rewritten as the corporate rep has done in this case. I think that it should go without saying that this is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia. I find the rewrite a brazen attempt to bias our readers to the Chevron viewpoint rather than an unbiased telling of this unfolding incident. This paid editor has gotten rid of the Independent, the BBC, Reuters, and CBS and replaced them with court documents and Forbes saying, "...as currently written, lacks objectivity and is factually incomplete. We seek, in the spirit improving this entry, to provide additional information and context that will benefit this page and Wiki community as a whole. My proposed edits, as always, cite third-party sources and are factual in tone and substance." Very disturbing... Gandydancer (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I should note here that I was not quite as appalled as Gandydancer, because this largish change was drafted and requested, rather than imposed. Plenty of time to steer the draft toward WP:NPOV. I would of course have been outraged if Chevron or representation had hauled off and made the proposed changes to the article without drafting first. As it is, the proposal, and the willingness to give the Wikipedia COI edit procedure a decent go, is a bit of a breath of fresh air, and as such is appreciated (considering the alternative), and is why I wasn't yelling bloody murder in my 26 Dec reply. That said, achieving NPOV in an article is often difficult, especially when several kinds of stakes are so high, or seem to be, to the involved parties. The best we all can do is try, with light heart and gentle approach (quoth Lexein, the editor with a rep for literally cursing out edits he disagrees with) ;) --Lexein (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the feedback. Trying to do things the right way. Chevron justinh (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to both Wiki editors that weighed-in on my request; I appreciate the time spent reviewing the language and the feedback you provided. After reviewing your feedback, I have taken some time to revise my proposed edits. The revised version, now truncated and more thoroughly citing third-party sources per your request, can be found immediately below my original proposed edits, here: User:Saraorsi/sandbox

Again, I appreciate your time and attention to this request. I continue to strive to work through the Wiki process in a transparent fashion to bring this important section of the Chevron page up to date and make it more complete. It is my hope that you see value in the information and material I’ve highlighted on the sandbox page and will consider incorporating some or all into section 6.4.

Chevron justinh (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

justinh - again, no need for formality, we're all just plain old editors around here, and a few administrators. Thanks for the update. (In future, can you please briefly comment ("Saw yr cmt. More l8r. --CJ") that you've seen our comments? We do understand that company and rep attention to Wikipedia articles can be intermittent and even calendar-driven, and that internal-authorization processes (if I may boldly surmise) can take time. My point here is that we hope that WP:COI/PR editors can devote some minutes each day for a week or fortnight to see an article update discussion through, so that all that data, and all those sources we've come up to speed on, remain fresh in our minds... ). Now I'm off to read the updated draft. --Lexein (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner; bumped into the holidays and before I knew it, it was late January. This is important and I’ll certainly be more engaged (less formally) moving forward. Chevron justinh (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Read it. REV2 is improved in independent sourcing and length, but still some bias:

• purportedly on behalf of residents of the Oriente. Who says "purported"? Chevron? A pundit? Certainly not the Court, and it's not going to be Wikipedia. Were the people of the Oriente region of Ecuador the plaintiffs or not?
• I see pretty heavy emphasis on the countersuit.
• I see lots of Chevron's position, but no plaintiff positions from the existing article. That's pretty weighted. If positions are going to be included, all sides should be included with even weight, otherwise we'll just strip it all back to the bare facts of the cases. That would put Chevron on the back foot, because of the conclusions that a rational reader might jump to: "they wouldn't have been sued if they hadn't done something wrong" and "of course they're countersuing, because they lost." Better to actually include the spectrum of positions, concisely. Or consider only grumbling a little if another editor includes them.

This is not final. Recommendations later, after more deeply vetting sources. --Lexein (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

(de-interlaced CJ's responses from within my comment --Lexein (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)) I absolutely understand where you’re coming from in terms of the use of the word “purported.” It is only included in the entry because it is actually in dispute. There’s evidence that shows that many of the plaintiffs’ signatures were forged. Also, others are known to live outside of the former concession (oil producing region). Courts in the U.S. often use terms like supposed or purported when discussing the “plaintiffs.” That said, I agree and am completely fine with that type of language being scrubbed. Chevron justinh (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As you have likely seen through your attention to my comments, the entry is currently outdated and doesn’t include (m)any recent developments, aside from the 2011 Ecuador verdict. My effort here is to work with you to balance the entry, make it more factually accurate and bring it up to date. I’m in no way saying that their positions and contentions shouldn’t be included in the section. My ask is simply that it is done in a balanced fashion that strips away any hyperbole, editorializing and statements that aren’t backed by credible third-party sources. Lastly, it is my hope that the plaintiffs’ and their affiliates are held to the same standards that Chevron is in editing and contributing to this page/entry. I would draw your attention to two disturbing documents that we uncovered through discovery proceedings in the United States. These documents demonstrate that the plaintiffs’team, lead by their lead U.S. attorney, Steven Donziger, were/are secretly editing this page and also using surrogates to make favorable changes. [107] [108]

Chevron justinh (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Appreciate your time! I'll check back soon. Chevron justinh (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, I moved your replies out from inside my (single) comment. Here are the inline citations:

"Purported" - glad you understand we don't include such qualifying language unless an independent reliable source states it. It has been difficult for me to find sources which aren't either echoing press releases or strongly siding with Chevron or plaintiffs. This quandary means the section will suffer in length and depth: I predict there may only be a small amount of undisputably reliably sourced content about this ongoing multiphase court battle. We have a maxim: when in doubt, leave it out.

We do take conflict of interest editing seriously. Getting partisans to mellow out and just write articles to Wikipedia standards is a long and storied battle on its own. I imagine whatever the result turns out to be in the article, it will be given intense scrutiny by all interested parties, rest assured; this is one reason I'm pushing for maximum neutrality (best possible balance) now, so there's a clean foundation later. Still working, be patient. It may be a few days. --Lexein (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for your time; I appreciate your attention to this article. Chevron justinh (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Checking in to see where things stand. Again, I appreciate your time. Chevron justinh (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of this article needs some works. I would like to mention some issues butt probably there are more.

• Operations. The current structure (some in the 'Overview' (by my understanding there should be no section in Wikipedai article called 'Overview') and 'Upstream' and 'Downstream' sections) is too fragmented into country-based subsections and even more. I would propose to follow the example of the BP article and create one 'Operations' sections which is divided into subsections 'Operations by location' and 'Operations by activity'. 'Operations by location' should consist of two subsections: 'United States' as the major part of operations and 'Other countries'. 'Operations by activity' should consist of three subsections: 'Upstream', 'Downstream', and 'Alternative energy' which should provide the summary of these fields without being too country-specific.
• Corporate affairs. Should combine some information from 'Overview', 'Organization overview', and 'Board of directors'.
• Controversies. Needs better organizing as at the moment this is a messy laundry list. Maybe we should divide this into separate subsections such as 'Environmental record', 'Industrial accidents', and 'Political record' (again, similar to the current BP article)? In this case, the current 'New policy and development' section should be incorporated into these new sections.
• Marketing brands. I don't think that that kind of list does not belong to the article. Brands may be mentioned (in the 'Downstream' section) but not in the form of list.

These just preliminary thoughts and all comments are welcome. So far, I did not go through the whole content which should be done after proper structure is in place. Beagel (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Beagel, I am sure you are aware of the recent article published on ZDNet by Violet Blue entitled "Big Oil's Wikipedia cleanup: A brand management experiment out of control". In that piece, it suggests that Chevron employee Justin Higgs has been contributing to this article for years. Your reaction seems to have been to archive the discussions related to Higgs' changes and suggest that the article be re-structured. I believe you made a similar suggestion about re-structuring the BP article. Surely the thing to do in both cases would be to have a thorough review of the sections written by these oil company employees, before doing anything else? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is looking bad and actually the whole article as a whole should be reviewed. Checking one part of the article to be kosher and leaving problems in other parts unnoticed does not make a sense. It is not important who wrote what but you have to remove everything what does not belong here, then remove everything per Tony1's redundancy which does not help increase the quality of the article, and then look what is missing and add it. Simple as that. But you can't do this without a proper structure of the article. Yes, I know that some people are talking about reviewing these articles more than week. It is ironical that notwithstanding enormous time which was spent for arguing how import is to review these edits, in reality there has been no attempts to find and fix the problems. If all these efforts which are made to complain about the problem which should be fixed had been spent for actual works with these articles there probably remained nothing to continue to blame about. Also you complain that I archived the talk page entries; well, yes I fixed the autoarchiving code for MiszaBot because the talk page with 24 sections, some of them from 2005) is not manageable. All entries are archived properly, so I don't understand what is the problem? Concerning what I have suggested or done at the BP's talk page, you are welcome to check it out yourself. This is not a topic for this talk page as this article is about Chevron and not BP. Beagel (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of proposals made by user Chevron justinh

Per This discussion I have reviewed proposals made by user:Chevron justinh at the articles talk page since March 2011.

Proposals from 31 March 2011 (History)

• Chevron Corporation was originally known as Standard Oil Co. (California) and was formed amid the antitrust breakup of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil company in 1911. It was one of the "Seven Sisters" that dominated the world oil industry in the early 20th century. In 1926, the company was renamed Standard Oil Co. of California or Socal.

  Factual correction of names and years (e.g. name Socal was not used until 1926) which were incorrectly present in the previous version.

• In 1948, SoCal discovered the world's largest oil field (Ghawar) in Saudi Arabia.

  Correction the year of discovery the Ghawar field which was in the previous version incorrect.

• In January 1996, NGC (formerly NYSE: NGL) and Chevron announced plans to merge Chevron’s natural gas and natural gas liquids business with NGC. On May 23, 1996, the companies reached an agreement in principle to merge their business. Under the agreement, Chevron transferred its natural gas gathering, operating and marketing operation to NGC in exchange for a roughly 25 percent equity stake in NGC. On August 30, shareholders approved the deal creating North America’s largest natural gas and gas liquids wholesaler. In 1998, NGC Corporation was renamed Dynegy (NYSE:DYN).

  Correcting dates but at the same time introducing too much details which does not needed in the company's main article. Therefore the current paragraph (In January 1996, NGC (formerly NYSE: NGL) and Chevron announced plans to merge Chevron's natural gas and natural gas liquids business with NGC.[13] On May 23, 1996, the companies reached an agreement in principle to merge their business. Under the agreement, Chevron transferred its natural gas gathering, operating and marketing operation to NGC in exchange for a roughly 25 percent equity stake in NGC. On August 30, shareholders approved the deal creating North America's largest natural gas and gas liquids wholesaler.[14] In 1998, NGC Corporation was renamed Dynegy (NYSE: DYN).[15][16]) needs some copyediting and trimming (cutting probably to max two sentences).

• However, Chevron in May 2007 sold its roughly 12 percent (at the time) Class A common stock in the company for approximately $985 million, resulting in a gain of $680 million.

  Correction of factual percent and price figures.

* On October 15, 2000 Chevron announced it would acquire Texaco (NYSE: TX) creating the second largest oil company in the United States and the world’s fourth-largest publically traded oil company with a combined market value of approximately $95 billion. On October 9, 2001, the shareholders of Chevron and Texaco voted to approve the merger creating ChevronTexaco. The deal was valued at $45 billion.

• Information about the Chevron and Texaco merger was expanded. Factually correct but maybe needs some copyediting for trimming.

• On April 4, 2005, Chevron announced it planned to purchase Unocal Corporation (NYSE: UCL) for $18.4 billion increasing the company’s petroleum and natural gas reserves by about 15 percent. On August 10, 2005, Unocal Corporation shareholders approved Chevron’s acquisition of the company. The deal was valued at $18 billion.

  Correction of the incorrect date and expanding the information. Factually correct but maybe needs some copyediting for trimming.

• Removal of the text On mid-2007, Chevron Corporation sold all Conoco stations in Mississippi to the Texaco brand a process to be complete at the end of 2007 as incorrect.

  In addition, seems to be quite minor detail as this was actually done 10 years before by Unocal which was that time an independent company. Therefore this information does not belong here but in Unocal article.

• On November 9, 2010, Chevron Corp. announced it would acquire Pennsylvania based Atlas Energy Inc. (NASDAQ: ATLS) for $3.2 billion in cash and an additional $1.1 billion in existing debt owed by Atlas. On February 18, 2011, the shareholders of Atlas energy voted to approve the merger. The deal was valued at $4.3 billion.

  Information about the acquisition was expanded. Factually correct but maybe needs some copyediting for trimming.

Beagel (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal from 30 June 2011 (Board of Directors)

• Updating the list of Board of Directors.

  Factually correct. However, I don't think that the full list of directors belongs to Wikipedia (per WP:NOTDIRECTORY). I think that only most notable directors should be mentioned and in the form of prose, not list. However, the list was added long before Justin's edits, so it was only update proposed by him side.

Beagel (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals from 21 July 2011 (Overview)

• Chevron employs approximately 62,000 people worldwide of which approximately 30,000 are employed in U.S. operations. As of December 31, 2010, Chevron had 10.545 billion barrels of oil-equivalent net proved reserves. Daily production in 2010 was 2.763 million net oil-equivalent barrels per day. The company has a worldwide marketing network in 84 countries with approximately 19,550 retail sites, including those of affiliate companies. The company also has interests in 13 power generating assets in the United States and Asia. Chevron also has gas stations in Western Canada.

  Factual update of the number of employees and reserves. No change in the previous text structure.

• Chevron is the owner of the Standard Oil trademark in 16 states in the western and southeastern U.S. To maintain ownership of the mark, the company owns and operates one Standard-branded Chevron station in each state of the area. Additionally, Chevron owns the trademark rights to Texaco and CalTex fuel and lubricant products.

  Expanding the information about trade marks. The previous text was: Chevron is the owner of the Standard Oil trademark in 16 states in the western and southeastern U.S. To maintain ownership of the mark, the company owns and operates one Standard-branded Chevron station in each state of the area. Chevron also owns the trademark rights to Texaco brand gasoline. Chevron's network of wholesalers supplies Texaco fuels. In general, it could be left as that if the related section 'Marketing brands' (which is a list) will be removed.

Beagel (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals from 22 August 2011 (Chevron Shipping Company)

• Chevron Shipping Company (CSC) is a wholly owned subsidiary company which provides the maritime transport operations, marine consulting services and marine risk management services for Chevron Corporation.
• The CSC operated fleet comprises crude oil and product tankers, crude lightering ships and liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers. The fleet is divided into two sections: The US fleet consists of four product tankers which transport oil product between Chevron refineries and oil products from Chevron refineries to US supply terminals. The ships are manned by US citizens and are flagged in the US. The International fleet vessels are primarily flagged in the Bahamas and have officers and crews from many different nations.
• The largest ships are 320,000 tonne Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) which carry two million barrels of crude oil. The job of the international fleet is to transport crude oil from the oilfields to the refineries. The international fleet mans one LNG tanker.
• Chevron ships historically had names beginning with "Chevron", such as the Chevron Washington and Chevron South America, or were named after former or serving directors of the company. Samuel Ginn, William E Crain, Kenneth Derr, Richard Matzke and most notably Condoleezza Rice were amongst those honored, but the ship named after Rice was subsequently renamed as Altair Voyager.[26] All the ships were renamed in 2001 following the corporate merger with Texaco. Ships in the international fleet are all named after celestial bodies or constellations, such as Orion Voyager and Altair Voyager and Capricorn Voyager. The US flagged ships are named after the states in the country, as in Washington Voyager and Colorado Voyager, Mississippi Voyager, Oregon Voyager and the California Voyager.

• Expanded previous text about Chevron Shipping Company and its fleet. Seems to be factually correct. However, all this information currently presented in two paragraphs seems to have undue weight, too detailed for this article and should be trimmed probably to two sentence. It should be also moved into the new *Operations' section. I propose also to create a separate article Chevron Shipping Company where this information could be used.

Beagel (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals from 15 September 2011 (Alternative energy)

• The company is developing alternative energy sources, including geothermal, solar, wind, biofuel, fuel cells, photovoltaics, advanced and hydrogen fuel for transport and power technologies through Chevron Energy Solutions and Chevron Technology Ventures. The company plans to spend at least $2 billion on renewable power ventures and research between 2010 and 2013. In addition to developing its own technologies, Chevron has cut its energy use by a third since 1992 by utilizing hydrogen fuel cells and solar panels at its facilities.

  This text replaced the previous sentence which said: The company is developing technology for alternative energy, including fuel cells, photovoltaics, advanced batteries, and hydrogen fuel for transport and power. The new text is potentially too promotional. Although based on factual data, by my understanding it needs some trimming and copyediting for tone. It would be probably useful if there will be data saying which percentage accounts renewable energy in Chevron's total operations.

• Chevron is the world’s largest producer of geothermal energy. The company’s geothermal operations are primarily located in Southeast Asia where steam from underground deposits of boiling water is tapped and piped to the surface to turn generators, producing 1,273 MW of electricity. Chevron operates numerous geothermal wells in Indonesia, helping to provide power to Jakarta and the surrounding area, and plans to potentially open a 200 MW geothermal facility in South Sumatra. In the Philippines, Chevron also operates geothermal wells at Tiwi field in Albay province, the Makiling-Banahaw field in Laguna and Quezon provinces.

  New subsection which was missing in the previous version. This subsection about geothermal power is certainly needed; however, the comment concerning the previous proposals applies also here (trimming and editing for tone). In addition, the claim that Chevron is the world’s largest producer of geothermal energy needs its own reference to be verified.

• Chevron Technology Ventures once held the patent for a certain type of nickel metal hydride battery (NiMH), and also had at 50% stake - with Energy Conservation Devices (ECD) holding the other 50% - in Cobasys, a company which produced Lithium Ion Batteries. In 2009, both Chevron and Energy Conservation Devices sold their stakes in Cobasys to SB LiMotive Co. Ltd and today, neither Chevron nor Energy Conservation Devices have any relationship with Cobasys. Chevron no longer holds the patent for NiMH technology, the rights to which are held between Energy Conservation Devices and SB LiMotive as a result of the Cobasys sale.
• Chevron was once rumored to be limiting access to large NiMH batteries through its control of patent licenses in order to remove a competitor to gasoline. This culminated in a lawsuit against Panasonic and Toyota over production of the EV-95 battery used in the RAV4 EV.
• However, with the Lithium-ion battery, it appears there will be plenty of gas and electricity for all interested parties for the foreseeable future. Chevron once owned a minority share of Energy Conservation Devices, the leading producer of Lithium Ion Batteries. Chevron-Texaco purchased a stake in an ECD subsidiary from GM in 2001, reportedly so Chevron-Texaco could expand their business into the emerging hybrid market. But, some in the alternative energy field see an ulterior motive, so Chevron-Texaco can suppress the development of Lithium Ion Batteries. They feel this way because ECD has shown little interest in selling Lithium Ion Batteries to electric vehicle enthusiasts since Chevron became a partial owner. Nevertheless, ECD does continue to work with commercial manufacturers.

  these three paragraphs replaced the previous text which was factually incorrect. However, as I said in the separated section here, this text is problematic and does not belong in the alternative energy section. It seems to be some kind of mix of some historical ownerships and controversies without any current activities related to the electric vehicles. After some trimming and cleaning up some historical facts should be moved into the 'History' section (and maybe something into the 'Controversies' section).

• Chevron Technology Ventures (CTV) is investing between $300M and $400M USD a year into alternative fuel sources and environmentally sustainable technologies. CTV contains a biofuels business unit.
• In 2007, Chevron and US-DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) announced that they had entered into a collaborative agreement to produce biofuels from algae. Chevron and NREL scientists would develop algae strains that can be economically harvested and processed into transportation fuels, such as jet fuel
• In 2008 Chevron and Weyerhaeuser Company jointly created Catchlight Energy LLC which researches the conversion of cellulose-based biomass into biofuels.
• Between 2006 and 2011 Chevron contributed up to $12 million to a strategic research alliance with the Georgia Institute of Technology to develop cellulosic biofuels and to create a process to convert biomass like wood or switchgrass into fuels.
• Additionally, Chevron holds a 22% ownership stake in Galveston Bay Biodiesel LP, which produces up to 110 million gallons of renewable biodiesel fuel a year.

  Proposed text expanded the previous text. It seems to be factually correct but probably needs some trimming.

• Chevron is exploring the possibility of powering its operations with solar energy. In 2010, the company announced Project Brightfield, an effort to identify solar technologies capable of powering Chevron’s facilities. Set on 8 acres of land which once held a refinery, Project Brightfield consists of 7,700 solar panels using advanced photovoltaic technologies from seven companies, which Chevron is evaluating for large scale use.
• Chevron has invested in Solar Power such as the 500 kW Solarmine photovoltaic solar project in Fellows, California, as well as the 1000 kW concentrated photovoltaic solar field in Questa, New Mexico.
• In Questa, Chevron Technology Ventures and Chevron Mining have built a 1 megawatt solar farm on the site of a former mine. The concentrating photovoltaic solar facility generates 1-megatwatt of power, enough to power the town of Questa. The 20 acre Questa facility is comprised of 173 solar arrays which use Fresnel lenses to focus sunlight on small, highly efficient photovoltaic cells.
• Chevron Energy Solutions (CES), one of the largest energy service companies in the US, helps customers increase energy efficiency, reduce energy use and integrate distributed renewable power. CES projects are expected to save more than $1 billion in energy costs for customers and reduce GHG by more than 3 million metric tons.

  Proposed text expanded the previous text. By my understanding it is one of the most problematic proposals as too promotional. Sentence CES projects are expected to save more than $1 billion in energy costs for customers and reduce GHG by more than 3 million metric tons. is an example of that kind of promotion which most of renewable energy developers like to use but which is not encyclopaedic and does not belong to Wikipeadia. User Gandydancer has commented that "It seems quite "fluffed out"" and I agree with this opinion. This subsection needs cleanup and copyediting to remove the promotional tone and also some tightening of the text could be useful.

Beagel (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals from 3 November 2011 (Kazakhstan and Gulf of Mexico)

• Chevron is the largest private oil producer in Kazakhstan and is involved in two of the largest projects in the country, Tengiz and Karachaganak, which together produce 831,000 barrels of oil and 1.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day.
• The Tengiz project was developed as part of a 40-year joint venture with ExxonMobil, KazMunayGas and LukArco: Chevron is the major stakeholder in project. The operation recently expanded its sour gas injection and second generation plant facilities to increase production and recovery levels.
• The Karachaganak Field in northwest Kazakhstan is one of the world's largest oil and gas condensate reserves. Chevron has a 20 percent nonoperated working interest in the field. In 2010, total daily production from the Karachaganak Field averaged 220,000 barrels of liquids (39,000 net) and 840 million cubic feet of natural gas (149 million net).
• Chevron has expanded its investment in Kazakhstan in recent years. In 2010, Chevron invested in a multi-billion dollar expansion of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium pipeline. The company is the largest private shareholder in the project. The pipeline connects in Kazakhstan with marine terminals in Russia.

  This is a new text. As Chevron plays an important role in the Kazakhtstan's oil and gas projects, this addition is justified. However, I think again that some trimming is needed. There is no need to describe Tengiz and Karachaganak projects as these oild fields have their own articles. Also sentence Chevron has expanded its investment in Kazakhstan in recent years. does not have any added value to the article. In the future, as I proposed here, the current structure should be changed and I don't see a need to fragment the article by country subsections (to be grouped into the United States subsection and Other countries subsection).

• Chevron is one of the leading producers in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Key producing assets include Tahiti and Blind Faith, the company's deepest operated offshore production facility. Two major capital projects—Jack/St. Malo and Big Foot—reached final investment decision in 2010.
• Blind Faith, which began production in 2008 is located in 6500 feet of water and is capable of producing up to 65,000 barrels of oil and 55 million cubic feet of natural gas each day. Blind Faith is named after Eric Clapton’s short lived band of the same name.
• Chevron’s Tahiti project began operations in 2009 after Chevron spent $4.7 billion developing the project following the discovery of the Tahiti field in 2002. The Tahiti project has total estimated recoverables of 400-500 million barrels of oil and gas equivalent and can produce up to 125,000 barrels of oil and 70 million cubic feet of gas a day. The Tahiti field is located almost 200 miles from New Orleans and is located in 4,100 feet of water.
• In 2010, Chevron sanctioned development plans for Big Foot, located in approximately 5,200 feet of water about 225 miles south of New Orleans. The Big Foot project may produce up to 75,000 barrels of oil and 25 million cubic feet of natural gas per day once it begins operations in 2014
• Also in 2010, Chevron sanctioned the Jack/St. Malo project, the company’s first operated project located in the Lower Tertiary trend in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The Jack and St. Malo fields are located within 25 miles of each other in the Gulf of Mexico, about 280 miles southwest of New Orleans in water depths of 7,000 feet. The initial development of the project will require an investment of approximately $7.5 billion. It will be comprised of three subsea centers tied back to a hub production facility with a capacity of 170,000 barrels of oil and 42.5 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.
• In 2009, Chevron announced an oil discovery at the Buckskin prospect in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico about 190 miles southeast of Houston. The well is located in approximately 6,920 feet of water and was drilled to a depth of 29,404 feet. In 2011, the company announced an oil discovery at the Moccasin prospect in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The well is located approximately 216 miles off the Louisiana coast in 6,759 feet of water and was drilled to a depth of 31,545 feet.
• In addition to its deepwater Gulf of Mexico activities, Chevron is one of the largest producers of oil and natural gas on the Gulf of Mexico shelf.

  This is a new text. It is factually correct. However, I think that we should trim it as not every oilfield should be named and described here.

Beagel (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals from 29 November 2011 (Nigeria, Angola and downstream)

• Chevron is the third-largest oil producer in Nigeria and one of the largest private investors operating in Nigeria.
• In the onshore and near-offshore regions of the Niger Delta, Chevron operates under a joint venture with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation. Chevron operates and holds a 40 percent interest in 13 concessions spread over approximately 2.2 million acres (8,900 sq. km) in the region. In addition to these concessions, Chevron operated projects in this region feature the Escravos Gas Plant and the Escravos Gas-To -Liquids Project.
• Chevron also has extensive interests in deepwater Nigeria where the company holds interests ranging from about 20 percent, up to 100 percent, in 10 deepwater blocks. Chevron’s interests in the deepwater are highlighted by the Agbami development which is based on one of Nigeria's largest deepwater discoveries and the company’s non-operated interest in the Usan project.
• In 2010, Chevron created the multi-million dollar Niger Delta Partnership Initiative Foundation to address the socioeconomic challenges facing the area.

  Again, a new subsection which previously was missed. Seems to factually correct but as was said on comments for 3 November 2011 proposals, it needs trimming and cutting down. The claim being third largest producer in Nigeria needs a third party verification. Information about the Niger Delta Partnership Initiative Foundation does not belong to the 'Upstream' section and should be probably included in 'Social initiatives' or similar section which is not created yet.

• Chevron is one of Angola’s top petroleum producers investing billions of dollars in major energy projects focused on oil production and gas commercialization for domestic and export markets.
• The company has interests in four concessions in Angola, two of which the company operates located offshore Cabinda province.
• Among its largest offshore assets are the Benguela Belize–Lobito Tomboco platform, the Tombua–Landana development, and the Mafumeira Norte project. In addition, Chevron is a partner in the multi-billion dollar 5.2 million-metric-ton-per-year liquefied natural gas plant located near the coastal city of Soyo, Zaire province.
• Chevron is Angola’s largest foreign oil industry employer with over 3,000 Angolan employees – about 90 percent of the company’s workforce in the country including many local professional and supervisory roles at Chevron in Angola.

  Same comments as for Nigeria. If there are separate articles (e.g. Angola LNG), link to there instead of describing here. Trimming and copyediting is needed. Chevron is Angola’s largest foreign oil industry employer with over 3,000 Angolan employees – about 90 percent of the company’s workforce in the country including many local professional and supervisory roles at Chevron in Angola. is an example of corporate promotion which is not suitable for Wikipedia.

• Chevron’s downstream operations manufacture and sell products such as fuels, lubricants, additives and petrochemicals. The company’s most significant areas of operations are the west coast of North America, the U.S. Gulf Coast, Southeast Asia, South Korea, Australia and South Africa. Products are sold through a network of approximately 20,000 retail stations. Chevron’s chemicals business includes 50% ownership in the Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, which manufactures petrochemicals, and the Chevron Oronite Company which develops, manufactures and sells fuel and lubricant additives.

  New text. Factually correct but needs copyediting and trimming.

• Chevron owns and operates five active refineries in the United States, one in Cape Town, South Africa and one in Burnaby, British Columbia. Chevron is the non-operating partner in seven joint venture refineries, located in Australia, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, South Korea, and New Zealand.
• Chevron’s United States refineries are located in Gulf and Western states:
  • Pascagoula, Miss.
  • Salt Lake City, Utah
  • Kapolei, Hawaii
  • El Segundo, Calif.
  • Richmond, Calif.
• Chevron also owns an asphalt refinery in Perth Amboy, New Jersey; however, since early 2008 that refinery has primarily operated as a terminal.

  New text. While I agree that most important/significant refineries should be mentioned, I think that this addition has undue weight.

• In 2010, Chevron processed 1.9 million barrels of crude oil per day and averaged 3.1 million barrels per day of in sales of refined products like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

  New text, factually correct. Seems to be useful addition.

Beagel (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals from 1 December 2011 (Australia)

• Chevron is the largest holder of natural gas resources in Australia and is leading the development of the Gorgon Project, the largest single-resource project in Australia.
• The $43 billion Gorgon Project was started in 2010 and is expected to be brought online in 2014. The Gorgon project includes the construction of a 15 million tonne per annum Liquefied Natural Gas plant on Barrow Island and a domestic gas plant with the capacity to provide 300 terajoules per day to supply gas to Western Australia. The Gorgon Project will be one of the most greenhouse gas efficient LNG developments in the world, due largely to its global scale CO2 injection project that will sequester naturally occurring CO2 in the gas from the Gorgon and Jansz reservoirs.
• In September 2011, Chevron announced that it would proceed with the Wheatstone liquefied natural gas development in West Australia. The foundation phase of the Wheatstone Project is estimated to cost $29 billion and consists of two LNG processing trains with a combined capacity of 8.9 million tons per annum, a domestic gas plant and associated offshore infrastructure. During peak construction, the Gorgon and Wheatstone Projects together, will create an estimated 16,500 direct and indirect jobs.
• Chevron is a long time participant in Australia’s North West Shelf Venture which runs five offshore liquefied natural gas facilities in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The last section of the North West Shelf project to be completed began producing natural gas in 2008. The entire Northwest Shelf Venture produces up to 16.3 million tons of liquefied natural gas a year.
• Chevron is also a joint venture participant in the Browse gas development. The project is operated by Australian energy company, Woodside Petroleum. The Browse project would tap three fields, Torosa, Brecknock and Calliance which are estimated to have combined reserves of approximately 13 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 280 million barrels of condensate. The project is expected to come online between 2013 and 2015.

  New text. Again, in general it is useful but needs serious trimming. Information about projects if it is possible to link the specific article, should not be added here. Needs third party verification for "Chevron is the largest holder of natural gas resources in Australia"

Beagel (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals from 27 January 2012 (U.S. operations)

• In February of 2011, Chevron purchased Atlas Energy Inc. for $3.2 billion, obtaining gas leases for 486,000 acres in the Marcellus Shale and 623,000 net acres of Utica Shale. Three months later, Chevron acquired drilling and development rights for another 228,000 acres in the Marcellus Shale from Chief Oil & Gas LLC and Tug Hill, Inc. The Marcellus Shale is a rock formation underlying Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York, as well as Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. It is one of the most prolific sources of natural gas in the United States. According to reports, Marcellus contains 410.3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of the 2,543 Tcf of technically recoverable shale gas in the United States. In Pennsylvania, Marcellus natural gas development generated $11.2 billion in value added, contributed $1.1 billion in state and local tax revenues, and supported nearly 140,000 jobs. Improvements in two drilling techniques – hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling – make shale gas accessible and affordable to develop.

  New text. Marcellius Shale should be mentioned in the article, of course, but again, the text is too detailed, to long and includes details which should be provided in specific articles. Historical dates should be moved into the 'History' section.

• The Permian Basin is approximately 250 miles wide and 300 miles long, located in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. The Permian Basin has the second largest oil reserves in the United States, after Alaska. Through its legacy companies like Texaco, Gulf, Getty, Skelly Unocal and Pure, Chevron has been a significant presence in the Permian Basin for more than 85 years. Chevron currently opperates apx. 11,000 oil and natural gas wells in hundreds of fields across the region. Chevron’s net daily production from the Permian Basin is more than 115,000 barrels of oil equivalent, comprised of 55 percent oil, 34 percent natural gas and 11 percent natural gas liquids. With four million acres, largely acquired through the purchase of Gulf Oil and Texaco, Chevron is the fourth largest producer in the Basin. The Permian Basin is a very significant asset in Chevron’s North America portfolio both financially and for the development of new technology. The Permian Basin has become a celebrated laboratory, out of which industry experience and knowledge is being shared around the world. In February of 2011, Chevron celebrated the production of its 5 billionth barrel of Permian Basin oil.

  New text. Same comment azs for Marcellus Shale.

• The San Joaquin Valley comprises the southern two-thirds of the Central Valley of California, situated between the Sierra Nevada mountain range on the east, the Diablo and Temblor Ranges to the west, and the Tehachapi Mountains to the south. Chevron has operated in the San Joaquin Valley for more than a century, specifically the Kern River Oil Field and the Coalinga Field, which contain heavy crude oil.
• The Kern Oil Field, just outside Bakersfield, California, is a “supergiant” field, having produced more than 2 billion barrels of oil in over 100 years. With new enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technology, Chevron believes it can extract considerably more than the estimated remaining half a billion barrels of reserves. In the Kern Field, Chevron uses steam-flooding, a process by which high-temperature steam is injected into a reservoir, making the oil less viscous and driving it to production wells. Heat induced swelling of the oil also aids in releasing it from the reservoir rock.
• In Kern River, Chevron has developed a work efficiency program called iField. iField is a 3-D map of the surface, complete with oil wells, structures, vehicles, and people, all updated in real time. The program amasses information from across the San Joaquin Valley fields and allows workers to optimize operations, data architectures, and make it easier to introduce new technologies.
• In October of 2011, a 29-megawatt thermal solar-to-steam facility was launched in the Coalinga Field to make extraction even cleaner and more efficient. Instead of burning natural gas to heat the crude, Chevron Technology Ventures designed a system that aims more than 7,600 mirrors to a receiver atop a solar tower that then converts the concentrated sunlight to produce the necessary steam for injection into the ground. The project covers more than 100 acres and is the largest of its kind in the world.

  New text. Same comment as for previous proposals. User DGG wrote: the additions are basically OK, though they needed some copy-editing fto reduce wordiness, and the over-use of the company name. In addition, I would like to say that it iField is a notable invention it should be mentioned n some other place in the article. If it is not notable, it does not belong here. Information about the thermal solar-to-steam facility should be moved into the 'Solar energy' section.

Beagel (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals from 20 December 2012 and 30 January 2013 (Environmental damage in Ecuador)

Changes about the 'Environmental damage in Ecuador' were proposed and discussed but by my understanding not implemented. As the discussion is available above in this section, I do not copy it here. These proposals were vetted by user Lexein and several comments are made at the talk page but I can't find his/her final review. However, agree with concerns expressed by Gandydancer and Lexein. Beagel (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)