Back to GetFilings.com
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|
|
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 |
OR |
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to |
Commission File Number 1-3473
TESORO CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
95-0862768 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization) |
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.) |
|
300 Concord Plaza Drive
San Antonio, Texas
(Address of principal executive offices) |
|
78216-6999
(Zip Code) |
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
210-828-8484
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of each class |
|
Name of each exchange on which registered |
|
|
|
Common Stock,
$0.162/3
par value
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
Pacific Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K
(Section 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of registrants
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this
Form 10-K or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated
filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Act). Yes þ No o
At June 30, 2004, the aggregate market value of the voting
common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was
approximately $1,861,784,800 based upon the closing price of its
common stock on the New York Stock Exchange Composite tape. At
March 1, 2005, there were 66,461,087 shares of the
registrants common stock outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the registrants Proxy Statement pertaining to
the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by
reference into Part III hereof. The Company intends to file
such Proxy Statement no later than 120 days after the end
of the fiscal year covered by this Form 10-K.
TESORO CORPORATION
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K (including documents
incorporated by reference herein) contains statements with
respect to our expectations or beliefs as to future events.
These types of statements are forward-looking and
subject to uncertainties. See Forward-Looking
Statements on page 45.
When used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the terms
Tesoro, we, our and
us, except as otherwise indicated or as the context
otherwise indicates, refer to Tesoro Corporation and its
subsidiaries.
1
PART I
|
|
ITEMS 1. AND 2. |
BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES |
We are an independent refiner and marketer with two major
operating segments (1) refining crude oil and
other feedstocks and selling petroleum products in bulk and
wholesale markets (refining) and (2) selling
motor fuels and convenience products in the retail market
(retail). Through our refining segment, we
manufacture products, primarily gasoline and gasoline
blendstocks, jet fuel, diesel fuel and heavy fuel oils for sale
to a wide variety of commercial customers in the mid-continental
and western United States. Our retail segment distributes motor
fuels through a network of gas stations, primarily under the
Tesoro® and Mirastar® brands. See Notes C, D, E
and P in our consolidated financial statements in Item 8
for additional information on our operating segments and
properties.
We were incorporated in Delaware in 1968 under the name Tesoro
Petroleum Corporation. On November 8, 2004, our name was
changed to Tesoro Corporation. Our principal executive offices
are located at 300 Concord Plaza Drive, San Antonio, Texas
78216-6999 and our telephone number is (210) 828-8484. Our
website can be found at www.tsocorp.com. We make
available free of charge through our Internet website our annual
report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q,
current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those
reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as
soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such
material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. You may receive a
copy of our Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the
financial statements, free of charge by writing to Tesoro
Corporation, Attention: Investor Relations, 300 Concord Plaza
Drive, San Antonio, Texas 78216-6999. We submitted to
the New York Stock Exchange on June 10, 2004 our annual
certification concerning corporate governance pursuant to
Section 303A.12(a) of the New York Stock Exchange Listed
Company Manual.
REFINING
We own and operate six petroleum refineries, located in
California (California region), Alaska and
Washington (Pacific Northwest region), Hawaii
(Mid-Pacific region) and North Dakota and Utah
(Mid-Continent region), and sell refined products to
a wide variety of customers in the mid-continental and western
United States. Our refineries produce a high proportion of our
refined product sales volumes, and we purchase the remainder
from other refiners and suppliers. Our six refineries have a
combined rated crude oil capacity of 558,000 barrels per
day (bpd). We operate the largest refineries in
Hawaii and Utah, the second largest refineries in northern
California and Alaska, and the only refinery in North Dakota.
Capacity and throughput rates of crude oil and other feedstocks
by refinery are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rated | |
|
Throughput (bpd) | |
|
|
Crude Oil | |
|
| |
Refinery |
|
Capacity (bpd) | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
California(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California
|
|
|
168,000 |
|
|
|
152,800 |
|
|
|
156,400 |
|
|
|
94,600 |
|
Pacific Northwest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington
|
|
|
108,000 |
|
|
|
117,200 |
|
|
|
112,300 |
|
|
|
104,000 |
|
|
Alaska
|
|
|
72,000 |
|
|
|
57,200 |
|
|
|
48,800 |
|
|
|
53,000 |
|
Mid-Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii
|
|
|
95,000 |
|
|
|
84,500 |
|
|
|
79,700 |
|
|
|
81,900 |
|
Mid-Continent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Dakota
|
|
|
60,000 |
|
|
|
56,200 |
|
|
|
47,500 |
|
|
|
51,400 |
|
|
Utah
|
|
|
55,000 |
|
|
|
52,500 |
|
|
|
43,500 |
|
|
|
50,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Refinery(a)
|
|
|
558,000 |
|
|
|
520,400 |
|
|
|
488,200 |
|
|
|
435,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Throughput volumes in 2002 included the California refinery
since we acquired it on May 17, 2002, averaged over
365 days. Throughput for the California refinery averaged
over the 229 days we owned it in 2002 was 150,800 bpd. |
2
Major scheduled refinery maintenance (turnarounds)
temporarily reduced throughput at our California refinery in
2004, at our Alaska, North Dakota and Utah refineries in 2003
and at our California and Washington refineries in 2002. We also
reduced throughput rates at some of our refineries in 2002 and
late 2003 in response to regional and seasonal market
conditions. Throughput exceeded our Washington refinerys
rated crude oil capacity in 2003 and 2004 due to processing
other feedstocks in addition to crude oil.
Feedstock Supply. We purchase crude oil and other
feedstocks for our refineries from a diversified supply of
domestic and foreign sources through term agreements with
renewal provisions and in the spot market. Prices under the term
agreements fluctuate with market prices. We purchase
approximately 70% of our crude oil under term contracts, which
are primarily short-term agreements with market-related prices,
and we purchase the remainder in the spot market. In 2004, we
received 69% of our crude oil input from domestic sources
(including 27% from Alaskas North Slope) and 31% from
foreign sources (including 12% from Canada). Approximately 50%
of our total refining throughput was heavy crude oil in 2004,
compared with 58% in 2003 and 49% in 2002. The decrease in the
heavy crude oil that we processed in 2004, as compared to 2003,
was primarily due to scheduled and unscheduled downtime at our
California refinery. We define heavy crude oil,
which generally is sold at a discount to lighter crudes, as
Alaska North Slope or crude oil with an American Petroleum
Institute specific gravity of 32 or less. Actual throughput
volumes by feedstock type are summarized below (in thousand bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Volume | |
|
% | |
|
Volume | |
|
% | |
|
Volume | |
|
% | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
California
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heavy crude
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
84 |
% |
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
95 |
% |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
94 |
% |
|
Light crude
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other feedstocks
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pacific Northwest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heavy crude
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
51 |
% |
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
53 |
% |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
47 |
% |
|
Light crude
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
Other feedstocks
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heavy crude
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
64 |
% |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
60 |
% |
|
Light crude
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-Continent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Light crude
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
95 |
% |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
96 |
% |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
96 |
% |
|
Other feedstocks
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Refining Throughput
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heavy crude
|
|
|
259 |
|
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
284 |
|
|
|
58 |
% |
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
49 |
% |
|
Light crude
|
|
|
241 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
Other feedstocks
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
488 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
435 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
Manufactured Products. Our refining yield consists
primarily of gasoline and gasoline blendstocks, jet fuel, diesel
fuel and heavy fuel oils. We also manufacture other products,
including liquefied petroleum gas and asphalt. Our refining
yields, in volumes are summarized below (in thousand bpd):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Volume | |
|
% | |
|
Volume | |
|
% | |
|
Volume | |
|
% | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
California(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
59 |
% |
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
60 |
% |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
62 |
% |
|
Diesel fuel
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
Heavy oils, residual products, internally produced fuel and other
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pacific Northwest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
42 |
% |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
43 |
% |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
42 |
% |
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
Diesel fuel
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
Heavy oils, residual products, internally produced fuel and other
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
25 |
% |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
24 |
% |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
24 |
% |
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
Diesel fuel
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
Heavy oils, residual products, internally produced fuel and other
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-Continent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
53 |
% |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
52 |
% |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
51 |
% |
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
Diesel fuel
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
Heavy oils, residual products, internally produced fuel and other
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Refining Yield(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks
|
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
47 |
% |
|
|
239 |
|
|
|
47 |
% |
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
45 |
% |
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
Diesel fuel
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
Heavy oils, residual products, internally produced fuel and other
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
540 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
507 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Refining yield in 2002 included the California refinery since we
acquired it on May 17, 2002, averaged over 365 days.
Refining yield for the California refinery averaged over the
229 days we owned it was 160,000 bpd. |
4
Transportation and Terminals. To optimize system
logistics and secure shipping capacity, we term-charter three
U.S. flag tankers and one foreign-flag tanker, each of
which is double-hulled, to transport crude oil and refined
products. Two of our term charters expire in 2010 and the
remaining two term charters expire in 2005, one of which has a
renewal provision. We also charter several tugs and product
barges for our Hawaii and Washington operations over varying
terms ending in 2005 through 2010, with options to renew. We
charter other tankers and ocean-going barges on a short-term
basis to transport crude oil and refined products. We also
receive crude oils and ship refined products through
Tesoro-owned and third-party pipelines as further described
below.
We operate refined product terminals at our refineries and at
several other locations in California, Hawaii, Alaska,
Washington and Idaho. We also distribute products through
third-party terminals and truck racks, which are supplied by our
refineries and through purchases and exchange agreements with
other refining and marketing companies.
Refining. Our California refinery, located in Martinez on
2,206 acres about 30 miles east of San Francisco,
is a highly complex refinery with a rated crude oil capacity of
168,000 bpd. We source our California refinerys crude
oil primarily from California and Alaska, and to a lesser extent
from foreign locations. Major product upgrading units at the
refinery include fluid catalytic cracking (FCC),
fluid coking, hydrocracking, naphtha reforming, vacuum
distillation, hydrotreating and alkylation units. These units
enable the refinery to produce a high proportion of motor fuels,
including at least 90,000 bpd of cleaner-burning California
Air Resources Board (CARB) gasoline and CARB diesel,
as well as conventional gasoline and diesel. The refinery also
produces heavy fuel oils, liquefied petroleum gas and petroleum
coke.
Transportation. Our California refinery has waterborne
access through the San Francisco Bay that enables us to
receive crude oil and ship products through our marine
terminals. In addition, the refinery can receive crude oil
through a third-party marine terminal at Martinez. We also
receive California crude oils and ship refined products from the
refinery through third-party pipeline systems.
Terminals. We operate a refined product terminal at
Stockton, California, and we also distribute products by barge
from our refinery. During the second quarter of 2005, we expect
to complete construction of a trucking product terminal at our
California refinery. We also distribute products through
third-party terminals and truck racks, which are supplied by our
refinery and through purchases and exchange arrangements with
other refining and marketing companies. We also lease
approximately 500,000 barrels of storage capacity with
waterborne access in southern California.
|
|
|
Pacific Northwest Refineries |
Refining. Our Washington refinery, located in Anacortes
on the Puget Sound on 917 acres about 60 miles north
of Seattle, has a total rated crude oil capacity of
108,000 bpd. We source our Washington refinerys crude
oil primarily from Alaska, Canada and other foreign locations.
The Washington refinery also processes intermediate feedstocks,
primarily heavy vacuum gas oil, provided by some of our other
refineries and by spot-market purchases from third-party
refineries. Major product upgrading units at the refinery
include the FCC, alkylation, hydrotreating, vacuum distillation,
deasphalting and naphtha reforming units, which enable our
Washington refinery to produce a high proportion of light
products, such as gasoline (including components for CARB
gasoline), diesel and jet fuel. The refinery also produces heavy
fuel oils, liquefied petroleum gas and asphalt.
Transportation. Our Washington refinery receives Canadian
crude oil through a third-party pipeline originating in
Edmonton, Canada. We receive other crude oil through our
Washington refinerys marine terminal. Our Washington
refinery ships light products (gasoline, jet fuel and diesel)
through a third-party pipeline system, which serves western
Washington and Portland, Oregon. We also deliver gasoline and
diesel fuel through a neighboring refinerys truck rack,
and we distribute diesel fuel through a truck rack at our
5
refinery. We deliver refined products through our marine
terminal to ships and barges, and we also sell liquefied
petroleum gas and asphalt at our refinery.
Terminals. We operate refined product terminals at
Anacortes, Port Angeles and Vancouver, Washington, supplied
primarily by our Washington refinery. We also distribute
products through third-party terminals and truck racks in our
market areas, supplied by our refinery and through purchases and
exchange arrangements with other refining and marketing
companies.
Refining. Our Alaska refinery is located near Kenai on
the Cook Inlet on 488 acres approximately 70 miles
southwest of Anchorage. Our Alaska refinery processes crude oil
primarily from the Alaska Cook Inlet, Alaska North Slope and, to
a lesser extent, foreign locations. The refinery has a total
rated crude oil capacity of 72,000 bpd, and its product
upgrading units include vacuum distillation, distillate
hydrocracking, hydrotreating, naphtha reforming and light
naphtha isomerization units. Our Alaska refinery produces
gasoline and gasoline blendstocks, jet fuel, diesel fuel,
heating oil, heavy fuel oils, liquefied petroleum gas and
asphalt.
Transportation. We receive crude oil by tanker to the
Alaska refinery through our marine terminal. Through our owned
and operated 24-mile common-carrier crude pipeline, we also
receive crude oil at our marine terminal, which is connected
with some of the Cook Inlet oil fields. Our marine terminal is
also used to load refined products on tankers and barges. We
also own and operate a common-carrier petroleum products
pipeline that runs from the Alaska refinery to our terminal
facilities in Anchorage and to the Anchorage airport. This
71-mile pipeline has the capacity to transport approximately
40,000 bpd of products and allows us to transport gasoline,
diesel and jet fuel to the terminal facilities, regardless of
weather conditions. Both of our owned pipelines are subject to
regulation by various federal, state and local agencies,
including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC).
Terminals. We operate refined product terminals at Kenai
and Anchorage, which are supplied by our Alaska refinery. We
also distribute products through third-party terminals and truck
racks in our market areas, which are supplied by our refinery
and through purchases and exchange arrangements with other
refining and marketing companies.
Refining. Our 95,000 bpd Hawaii refinery is located
at Kapolei on 131 acres about 22 miles west of
Honolulu. We supply the Hawaii refinery with crude oil primarily
from Alaska, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and other foreign
sources. Major product upgrading units include the vacuum
distillation, hydrocracking, hydrotreating, visbreaking and
naphtha reforming units. The Hawaii refinery produces gasoline
and gasoline blendstocks, jet fuel, diesel fuel, heavy fuel
oils, liquefied petroleum gas and asphalt.
Transportation. We transport crude oil to Hawaii by
tankers, which discharge through our single-point mooring
terminal, 1.5 miles offshore from our refinery. Three
underwater pipelines from the single-point mooring terminal
allow crude oil and products to be transferred to and from the
refinerys storage tanks. We distribute refined products to
customers on the island of Oahu through owned and third-party
pipeline systems. Our product pipelines also connect the Hawaii
refinery to Barbers Point Harbor, 2.5 miles away.
Terminals. We also distribute products from our refinery
to customers through third-party terminals at Honolulu
International Airport and Honolulu Harbor and by barge to
Tesoro-owned and third-party terminal facilities on the islands
of Oahu, Maui, Kauai and Hawaii.
Refining. Our 60,000 bpd North Dakota refinery is
located near Mandan on 960 acres. We supply our North
Dakota refinery primarily with Williston Basin sweet crude oil.
The refinery also can access other
6
supplies, including Canadian crude oil. Major product upgrading
units at the refinery include the FCC, naphtha reforming,
hydrotreating and alkylation units. The North Dakota refinery
produces gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel.
Transportation. We own a crude oil pipeline system,
consisting of over 700 miles of pipeline that delivers all
of the crude oil supply to our North Dakota refinery. Our crude
oil pipeline system gathers crude oil from the Williston Basin
and adjacent production areas in North Dakota and Montana and
transports it to our refinery and to other regional points where
there is additional demand. Our crude oil pipeline system is a
common carrier subject to regulation by various federal, state
and local agencies, including the FERC. We distribute
approximately 85% of our refinerys production through a
third-party product pipeline system which serves various areas
from Bismarck, North Dakota to Minneapolis, Minnesota. All
gasoline and distillate products from our refinery, with the
exception of railroad-spec diesel fuel, can be shipped through
that pipeline to third-party terminals.
Terminals. Our terminal at the North Dakota refinery
connects to a third-party product pipeline system and terminals
located in North Dakota and Minnesota. We distribute products
from our refinery to customers primarily through these
third-party terminals.
Offtake Agreements. In connection with the 2001
acquisition of the North Dakota refinery, we entered into
certain offtake agreements with BP plc (BP) for a
portion of our refined products. We sold an average of
14,000 bpd of refined products in 2004 under these offtake
agreements. In 2004, BP received approximately 66% of the
committed product under these offtake agreements through the
Minneapolis/ St. Paul terminal with the remainder distributed
through terminals at Moorhead and Sauk Centre, Minnesota. The
offtake agreements, as amended, for the Moorhead and Sauk Centre
terminals expire in September 2005. The offtake agreement for
the Minneapolis/ St. Paul terminal expires in September 2006
with declining volumes in each of the last two years, and
volumes may be reduced further under certain conditions. We do
not anticipate that expiration of any of these offtake
agreements will have a material impact on our refinery
operations.
Refining. Our 55,000 bpd Utah refinery is located in
Salt Lake City on 145 acres. Our Utah refinery processes
crude oils primarily from Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and, to a
lesser extent, crude oil and syncrude from Canada. Major product
upgrading units include the FCC, naphtha reforming, alkylation
and the newly completed hydrotreating unit. The Utah refinery
produces gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel.
Transportation. Our Utah refinery receives crude oil
primarily by third-party pipelines from fields in Utah,
Colorado, Wyoming and Canada. We distribute the refinerys
production through a system of both owned and third-party
terminals and third-party pipeline connections, primarily in
Utah, Idaho and eastern Washington, with some product delivered
in Nevada and Wyoming.
Terminals. In addition to sales at the refinery, we
distribute products to customers through a third-party pipeline
to the two terminals we own at Boise and Burley, Idaho and to
two third-party terminals in Pocatello, Idaho and Pasco,
Washington.
|
|
|
Wholesale Marketing and Product Distribution |
We sell refined products including gasoline and gasoline
blendstocks, jet fuel, diesel fuel, heavy oil and residual
products in both the bulk and wholesale markets. In addition, we
sell products that we manufacture and products purchased or
received on exchange from third parties. Exchange agreements
provide for the delivery of Tesoros refined products
primarily to third-party terminals in exchange for delivery of
refined
7
products from the third parties at specific locations. These
arrangements help to optimize our refinery supply requirements.
Our refined product sales, including intersegment sales to our
retail operations, consisted of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002(a) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Product Sales (thousand bpd)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
264 |
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
Diesel fuel
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
Heavy oils, residual products and other
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Product Sales
|
|
|
604 |
|
|
|
557 |
|
|
|
545 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
Sales volumes for 2002 include amounts for the California
operations since their acquisition on May 17, 2002,
averaged over 365 days. |
Gasoline and Gasoline Blendstocks. We sell gasoline and
gasoline blendstocks in both the bulk and wholesale markets in
the mid-continental and western United States. The demand for
gasoline is seasonal in many of our markets, with lowest demand
during the winter months. We also sell gasoline to wholesale
customers and bulk end-users (including several major oil
companies) under various supply agreements. Gasoline also is
delivered to refiners and marketers in exchange for product
received at other locations in our markets. We sell, at
wholesale, to unbranded distributors and high-volume retailers,
and we distribute product through Tesoro-owned and third-party
terminals and truck racks.
Jet Fuel. We supply commercial jet fuel to passenger and
cargo airlines at airports in Alaska, Hawaii, California,
Washington, Utah and other western states. We also supply jet
fuel to the U.S. military in certain of our markets.
Diesel Fuel. We sell our diesel fuel production primarily
on a wholesale basis for marine, transportation, industrial and
agricultural use, as well as for home heating. We sell lesser
amounts to end-users through marine terminals and for power
generation in Hawaii and Washington. Diesel fuel production by
refiners in our market areas is generally in balance with
demand. As a result of variations in seasonal demand, we ship
diesel fuel to or from our Alaska and Hawaii operations.
Heavy Fuel Oils and Residual Products. We sell heavy fuel
oils to other refineries, electric power producers and marine
and industrial end-users. Our refineries supply substantially
all of the marine fuels that we sell through leased facilities
at Port Angeles and Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon,
and through owned and leased facilities in Alaska and Hawaii. We
sell our asphalt for paving materials in Hawaii, Alaska and
Washington. In Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, demand for
asphalt is seasonal because mild weather conditions are needed
for highway construction. Our California refinery produces
petroleum coke that we sell to industrial end-users.
Sales of Purchased Products. In the normal course of
business to meet local market demands, we purchase refined
products manufactured by others for resale to our customers. We
purchase these products, primarily gasoline, jet fuel, diesel
fuel and industrial and marine fuel blendstocks, mainly in the
spot market. We conduct our gasoline and diesel fuel purchase
and resale activity primarily on the U.S. West Coast. Our
jet fuel activity primarily consists of supplying markets in
Alaska, California and Hawaii. We also purchase a lesser amount
of gasoline and other products that are sold outside of our
refineries local markets.
RETAIL
Through our network of retail stations, we sell gasoline and
diesel fuel in the mid-continental and western United States.
The demand for gasoline is seasonal in a majority of our
markets, with highest demand for gasoline during the summer
driving season. We sell gasoline and diesel to retail customers
through company-operated sites and agreements with third-party
branded distributors (or jobber/dealers). As of
December 31, 2004, our retail segment included a network of
506 branded retail stations (under the Tesoro® and
Mirastar® brands), comprising 214 company-operated
retail gasoline stations and 292 jobber/dealer stations.
8
Our retail network provides a committed outlet for a portion of
the motor fuels produced by our refineries. Most of our
company-operated Tesoro® stations include 2-Go Tesoro®
brand convenience stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise
items. The following table summarizes our retail operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Number of Branded Retail Stations (end of period)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tesoro®
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
Jobber/dealer
|
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
359 |
|
Mirastar®
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
Total Branded Retail Stations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated(a)
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
234 |
|
|
Jobber/dealer(b)
|
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
506 |
|
|
|
557 |
|
|
|
593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Number of Branded Stations (during year)(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
229 |
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
Jobber/dealer
|
|
|
316 |
|
|
|
346 |
|
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Average Retail Stations
|
|
|
538 |
|
|
|
575 |
|
|
|
679 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Fuel Volume (millions of gallons)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated
|
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
309 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
Jobber/dealer
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
259 |
|
|
|
372 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Fuel Volumes
|
|
|
510 |
|
|
|
568 |
|
|
|
790 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Fuel Volume Per Month Per Station (thousands of
gallons)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
|
Jobber/dealer
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
Total stations
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
Fuel Revenues (in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated
|
|
$ |
566 |
|
|
$ |
519 |
|
|
$ |
594 |
|
|
Jobber/dealer
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
278 |
|
|
|
326 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Fuel Revenues
|
|
$ |
863 |
|
|
$ |
797 |
|
|
$ |
920 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Merchandise and Other Revenues (in millions)
|
|
$ |
131 |
|
|
$ |
121 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
Merchandise Margin
|
|
|
28 |
% |
|
|
27 |
% |
|
|
27 |
% |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Company-operated stations included 43 in Washington, 39 in Utah,
33 in Hawaii, 29 in Alaska and 70 in several other western and
mid-continental states at December 31, 2004. |
|
(b) |
|
At December 31, 2004, the jobber/dealer stations included
70 in Alaska, 66 in North Dakota, 55 in Utah, 32 in Washington,
24 in Idaho, 14 in California and 31 in several other western
states. |
|
(c) |
|
The average number of company-operated stations in 2002 included
70 stations in northern California that were purchased in May
2002 (with our California refinery) and sold in December 2002.
The average number of jobber/dealer stations in 2002 included
150 BP/Amoco branded independent jobber/dealer stations
acquired in the Mid-Continent acquisition that did not rebrand
to Tesoro®. |
9
COMPETITION AND OTHER
The petroleum industry is highly competitive in all phases,
including the purchase of crude oil and the marketing of refined
petroleum products. The industry also competes with other
industries that supply the energy and fuel requirements of
industrial, commercial and individual consumers. In recent
years, consolidation in the refining and marketing industry has
reduced the number of competitors; however, it has not reduced
overall competition. We compete with a number of major
integrated oil companies and other companies that have greater
financial and other resources. These competitors have a greater
ability to bear the economic risks inherent in all phases of the
industry. In addition, unlike many of our competitors, we do not
produce crude oil for use in our refining operations, and we are
not as large as many of our competitors who may have a
competitive advantage when negotiating with crude oil producers.
Our California and Washington refineries compete with several
refineries on the U.S. West Coast, including refineries
that have greater economies of scale. Our Hawaii refinery
competes primarily with one other refinery in Hawaii, owned by a
major integrated oil company, that also is located at Kapolei
and has a rated crude oil capacity of 54,000 bpd.
Historically, the other refinery produces lower volumes of jet
fuel than our Hawaii refinery. The Alaska refinery competes
primarily with other refineries in Alaska and on the
U.S. West Coast. Our refining competition in Alaska
includes two refineries near Fairbanks and a refinery near
Valdez. We estimate that the other Alaska refineries have a
combined capacity to process approximately 270,000 bpd of
crude oil. After processing Alaska North Slope crude oil and
removing the higher-value products, these refiners are
permitted, because of their direct connection to the Trans
Alaska Pipeline System, to return the remainder of the processed
crude oil into the pipeline system as return oil in
consideration for a fee, thereby eliminating their need to
transport and market lower-value products that are not in demand
in Alaska. Our Alaska refinery is not connected to the Trans
Alaska Pipeline System, and we, therefore, cannot return our
lower-value products to that pipeline system. Our North Dakota
refinery is the only refinery in North Dakota. Refineries in
Wyoming, Montana, the Midwest and the United States Gulf Coast
region are the primary competitors with our North Dakota
refinery. Our Utah refinery is the largest of five refineries
located in Utah. We estimate that these other refineries have a
combined capacity to process approximately 107,500 bpd of
crude oil. These five refineries collectively supply a high
proportion of the gasoline and distillate products consumed in
the states of Utah and Idaho, with additional supplies provided
from refineries in surrounding states.
Our jet fuel sales in Alaska are concentrated in Anchorage,
where we are one of the principal suppliers to the Anchorage
International Airport, a major hub for air cargo traffic between
manufacturing regions in the Far East and markets in the United
States and Europe. In Hawaii, jet fuel sales are concentrated in
Honolulu, where we are the principal supplier to the Honolulu
International Airport. We also serve four airports on other
islands in Hawaii. In Washington, jet fuel sales are
concentrated at the Seattle/Tacoma International Airport. We
also supply jet fuel to customers in Portland, Oregon; Los
Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, California; Las
Vegas and Reno, Nevada; and Phoenix, Arizona. Other refiners and
marketers compete for sales at all of these airports. In Utah,
our jet fuel sales are concentrated in Salt Lake City, and we
also supply jet fuel to customers in Boise, Burley and
Pocatello, Idaho. The North Dakota refinery supplies jet fuel to
customers in Minneapolis/St. Paul and Moorhead, Minnesota
and in Bismarck and Jamestown, North Dakota. We compete with
other suppliers for U.S. military contracts in Alaska,
Hawaii and North Dakota. Both the Alaska and Hawaii markets
periodically require additional jet fuel supplies from outside
the state to meet demand.
We sell our diesel fuel production primarily on a wholesale
basis, competing with other refiners and marketers in all of our
market areas. Refined products from foreign sources, including
Canada, also compete for distillate customers in our market
areas.
We sell gasoline in Alaska, California, Hawaii, North Dakota,
Utah, Washington and other western and mid-continental states
through a network of company-operated retail stations and
branded and unbranded jobber/dealers. Competitive factors that
affect retail marketing include price, station appearance,
location and brand awareness. Our retail marketing operations
compete with other independent marketing companies, integrated
oil companies and high-volume retailers.
10
GOVERNMENT REGULATION AND LEGISLATION
|
|
|
Environmental Controls and Expenditures |
All of our operations, like those of other companies engaged in
similar businesses, are subject to extensive and frequently
changing federal, state, regional and local laws, regulations
and ordinances relating to the protection of the environment,
including those governing emissions or discharges to the air and
water, the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes
and the remediation of contamination. While we believe our
facilities are in substantial compliance with current
requirements, our facilities will continue during 2005 and over
the next several years to be engaged in meeting new requirements
promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the states and local jurisdictions in
which we operate as described below.
Changes in fuel manufacturing standards, including those related
to gasoline and diesel fuel sulfur concentrations, also affect
our operations. EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act
require reductions in the sulfur content in gasoline, which
began January 1, 2004. To meet the revised gasoline
standard, we spent approximately $11 million in 2004, and
we currently estimate we will make additional capital
improvements of approximately $37 million through 2009.
This will permit each of our six refineries to produce gasoline
meeting the sulfur limits imposed by the EPA.
EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act also require
reductions in the sulfur content in diesel fuel manufactured for
on-road consumption. In general, the new on-road diesel fuel
standards will become effective on June 1, 2006. In May
2004, the EPA issued a rule regarding the sulfur content of
non-road diesel fuel. The requirements to reduce non-road diesel
sulfur content will become effective in phases between 2007 and
2010. We have not determined if we will invest the capital
necessary to manufacture low sulfur diesel for the non-road
market in Alaska, and we are continuing to evaluate potential
projects to manufacture additional non-road low sulfur diesel at
our Hawaii refinery. Our California, Washington and North Dakota
refineries will not require additional capital spending for
non-road low sulfur diesel. We spent $31 million in 2004 to
meet low sulfur diesel standards, and based on our latest
engineering estimates, we expect to spend approximately
$45 million in additional capital improvements through 2006.
To comply with the Maximum Achievable Control Technologies
standard for petroleum refineries (Refinery
MACT II), we spent $20 million during 2004,
primarily to complete the installation of new emission control
equipment at our North Dakota refinery. We expect to spend
approximately $17 million in additional capital
improvements in 2006 at our Washington refinery.
In connection with our 2001 acquisition of our North Dakota and
Utah refineries, we assumed the sellers obligations and
liabilities under a consent decree among the United States, BP
Exploration and Oil Co. (BP), Amoco Oil Company and
Atlantic Richfield Company. BP entered into this consent decree
for both the North Dakota and Utah refineries for various
alleged violations. As the owner of these refineries, we are
required to address issues, including leak detection and repair,
flaring protection and sulfur recovery unit optimization. We
currently estimate that we will spend $5 million over the
next three years to comply with this consent decree. We also
agreed to indemnify the sellers for all losses of any kind
incurred in connection with the consent decree.
In connection with the 2002 acquisition of our California
refinery, subject to certain conditions, we assumed the
sellers obligations pursuant to settlement efforts with
the EPA concerning the Section 114 refinery enforcement
initiative under the Clean Air Act, except for any potential
monetary penalties, which the seller retains. We believe these
obligations will not have a material impact on our financial
position or results of operations.
We will need to spend additional capital at the California
refinery for reconfiguring and replacing above-ground storage
tank systems and upgrading piping within the refinery. For these
related projects at our California refinery, we spent
$10 million during 2004, and we estimate that we may spend
an additional $90 million through 2010. This cost estimate
is subject to further review and analysis.
11
Conditions may develop that cause increases or decreases in
future expenditures for our various sites, including, but not
limited to, our refineries, tank farms, retail gasoline stations
(operating and closed locations) and petroleum product
terminals, and for compliance with the Clean Air Act and other
federal, state and local requirements. We cannot currently
determine the amounts of such future expenditures.
|
|
|
Oil Spill Prevention and Response |
We operate in environmentally sensitive coastal waters, where
tanker, pipeline and refined product transportation operations
are closely regulated by federal, state and local agencies and
monitored by environmental interest groups. The transportation
of crude oil and refined product over water involves risk and
subjects us to the provisions of the Federal Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 and related state regulations, which require that most
oil refining, transport and storage companies maintain and
update various oil spill prevention and oil spill contingency
plans. We have submitted these plans and received federal and
state approvals necessary to comply with the Federal Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 and related regulations. Our oil spill
prevention plans and procedures are frequently reviewed and
modified to prevent oil and product releases and to minimize
potential impacts should a release occur.
We currently charter tankers to ship crude oil from foreign and
domestic sources to our California, Mid-Pacific and Pacific
Northwest refineries. The Federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990
requires, as a condition of operation, that we demonstrate the
capability to respond to the worst case discharge to
the maximum extent practicable. As an example, the State of
Alaska requires us to provide spill-response capability to
contain or control and cleanup amounts equal to
50,000 barrels of crude oil for a tanker carrying fewer
than 500,000 barrels and 300,000 barrels for a tanker
carrying more than 500,000 barrels. To meet these
requirements, we have entered into contracts with various
parties to provide spill response services. We have entered into
spill-response agreements with (1) Cook Inlet Spill
Prevention and Response, Incorporated (for which we fund
approximately 65% of expenditures) and Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company for spill-response services in Alaska, (2) Clean
Islands Council for response services throughout the State of
Hawaii, and (3) Clean Sound Incorporated for response
actions associated with the Puget Sound, Washington operations.
In addition, for larger spill contingency capabilities, we have
entered into contracts with Marine Spill Response Corporation
for Hawaii, the San Francisco Bay and Puget Sound. We
believe these contracts, and those with other regional
spill-response organizations that are in place on a location by
location basis, provide the additional services necessary to
meet spill-response requirements established by state and
federal law.
Our crude oil pipeline system in North Dakota and our pipeline
systems in Alaska are common carriers subject to regulation by
various federal, state and local agencies, including the FERC
under the Interstate Commerce Act. The Interstate Commerce Act
provides that, to be lawful, the rates of common carrier
petroleum pipelines must be just and reasonable and
not unduly discriminatory.
The intrastate operations of our crude oil pipeline system are
subject to regulation by the North Dakota Public Services
Commission. The intrastate operations of our Alaska pipelines
are subject to regulation by the Alaska Public Utilities
Commission. Like the FERC, the state regulatory authorities
require that we notify shippers of proposed intrastate tariff
increases and they have an opportunity to protest the increases.
The North Dakota Public Services Commission also files with the
state authorities copies of interstate tariff charges filed with
the FERC. In addition to challenges to new or proposed rates,
challenges to intrastate rates that have already become
effective are permitted by complaint of an interested person or
by independent action of the appropriate regulatory authority.
EMPLOYEES
At December 31, 2004, we had approximately
3,640 full-time employees. Approximately 1,060 of our
employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements with
terms expiring on January 31, 2006. We consider our
relations with our employees to be satisfactory.
12
PROPERTIES
Our principal properties are described above under the captions
Refining and Retail. In addition, we own
feedstock and refined product storage facilities at our refinery
and terminal locations. We believe that our properties and
facilities are generally adequate for our operations and that
our facilities are maintained in a good state of repair. We are
the lessee under a number of cancelable and non-cancelable
leases for certain properties, including office facilities,
retail facilities, ship charters and equipment used in the
storage, transportation and production of feedstocks and refined
products. See Notes F and P in our consolidated financial
statements in Item 8.
We conduct our retail business under the Tesoro®, Tesoro
Alaska®, Mirastar®, and 2-Go Tesoro® brands. Our
retail marketing system under these brands includes 506 branded
retail stations, of which 214 are company-operated.
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT
The following is a list of the Companys executive
officers, their ages and their positions with the Company at
March 1, 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Age | |
|
Position |
|
Position Held Since | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Bruce A. Smith
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief
Executive Officer |
|
|
June 1996 |
|
William J. Finnerty
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
Executive Vice President, Operations |
|
|
January 2005 |
|
Everett D. Lewis
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
Executive Vice President, Corporate Strategic Planning |
|
|
January 2005 |
|
Gregory A. Wright
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
December 2003 |
|
W. Eugene Burden
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
Senior Vice President, External Affairs |
|
|
November 2004 |
|
Claude A. Flagg
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
Senior Vice President, Supply & Optimization |
|
|
February 2005 |
|
J. William Haywood
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
Senior Vice President, Refining |
|
|
March 2005 |
|
Joseph M. Monroe
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
Senior Vice President, Business Integration and Analysis |
|
|
February 2005 |
|
Stephen L. Wormington
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
Senior Vice President, Performance Management |
|
|
February 2005 |
|
Susan A. Lerette
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
Vice President, Human Resources and Communications |
|
|
May 2004 |
|
Charles S. Parrish
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |
|
|
March 2005 |
|
Otto C. Schwethelm
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
Vice President and Controller |
|
|
February 2003 |
|
G. Scott Spendlove
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
Vice President, Finance and Treasurer |
|
|
May 2003 |
|
There are no family relationships among the officers listed, and
there are no arrangements or understandings pursuant to which
any of them were elected as officers. Officers are elected
annually by the board of directors at their first meeting
following the annual meeting of stockholders. The term of each
office runs until the corresponding meeting of the board of
directors in the next year or until a successor has been elected
or qualified.
13
Tesoros executive officers have been employed by Tesoro or
its subsidiaries in an executive capacity for at least the past
five years, except for those named below who have had the
business experience indicated during that period. Positions,
unless otherwise specified, are with Tesoro.
William J. Finnerty was named Executive Vice President,
Operations in January 2005. Prior to that, he served as Senior
Vice President, Supply and Distribution of Tesoro Refining and
Marketing Company beginning in February 2004. He joined Tesoro
in December 2003 as Vice President, Crude Oil and Logistics, of
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company. Prior to joining Tesoro,
Mr. Finnerty served as Vice President, Trading North
America Crude, for ChevronTexaco from October 2001 to November
2003. From May 2001 to October 2001, he served as Vice
President, Texaco Oil Trading and Transport Company. From June
2000 to May 2001, Mr. Finnerty was Senior Vice President,
Trading and Operations for Equiva Trading Company. He was Vice
President, Crude Oil for Equiva Trading Company from March 1998
to June 2000.
Everett D. Lewis was named Executive Vice President,
Corporate Strategic Planning in January 2005. Prior to that, he
served as Senior Vice President, Corporate Strategic Planning
beginning in November 2004. Mr. Lewis served as Senior Vice
President, Planning and Optimization from February 2003 to
November 2004 and Senior Vice President, Planning and Risk
Management from April 2001 to February 2003. He served as Senior
Vice President of Strategic Projects from March 1999 to April
2001.
W. Eugene Burden was named Senior Vice President,
External Affairs in November 2004. Prior to that, he served as
Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Government Relations
from June 2002 to November 2004, President of Tesoro Alaska
Company from February 2001 to June 2002, and Senior Vice
President and President, Northwest Region of Tesoro Refining and
Marketing Company from September 2001 until June 2002.
Mr. Burden served as Senior Vice President, Government
Relations of Tesoro Petroleum Companies, Inc. from September
1999 to February 2001.
Claude A. Flagg was named Senior Vice President, Supply
and Optimization in February 2005. He joined Tesoro in January
2005 as Senior Vice President, Planning and Optimization. Prior
to joining Tesoro, he served as General Manager of Supply
Optimization at Shell Oil Products U.S. from January 2003
to December 2004. From May 2002 to January 2003, Mr. Flagg
was General Manager of Supply Optimization at Equilon
Enterprises, LLC. He was General Manager of Equilon Enterprises,
LLCs Bay/ Valley Refining Complex from April 1999 to May
2002.
J. William Haywood was named Senior Vice President,
Refining in March 2005. He joined Tesoro in May 2002 as Senior
Vice President and also became President of the California
Region of Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company in September
2002. Prior to joining Tesoro, Mr. Haywood served as
Regional Vice President of Ultramar Diamond Shamrock
Corporation, responsible for California refineries from
September 2000 to May 2002. From September 1997 to September
2000, Mr. Haywood was General Manager of Ultramar Diamond
Shamrocks Wilmington refinery near Los Angeles.
Joseph M. Monroe was named Senior Vice President,
Business Integration and Analysis in February 2005. Prior to
that, he served as Senior Vice President, Organizational
Effectiveness beginning in November 2004. From February 2004 to
November 2004, he served as Senior Vice President, Strategic
Planning and Business Development of Tesoro Petroleum Companies,
Inc. From May 2002 to February 2004, Mr. Monroe served as
Senior Vice President, Supply and Distribution, of Tesoro
Refining and Marketing Company. Prior to joining Tesoro, he was
Vice President, Pipelines and Terminals of Unocal Corporation
and President of Unocal Pipeline Company from January 1999
through May 2002.
Susan A. Lerette was named Vice President, Human
Resources and Communications in May 2004. Prior to that, she
served as Vice President, Communications from April 2001 to May
2004. She was Director, Investor Relations from April 1999 to
April 2001.
Charles S. Parrish was named Vice President, General
Counsel and Secretary in March 2005. Prior to that, he served as
Vice President, Assistant General Counsel and Secretary
beginning in November 2004. Mr. Parrish served as Vice
President, Assistant General Counsel of Tesoro Petroleum
Companies, Inc. from March 2003 to November 2004. From 1995
through March 2003, he served numerous roles in the
Companys
14
legal department, primarily focused on matters related to the
Companys capital structure and Securities Act reporting.
Otto C. Schwethelm was named Vice President and
Controller in February 2003. From September 2002 to February
2003, Mr. Schwethelm served as Vice President and
Operations Controller. Prior to that, he served as Vice
President, Shared Services of Tesoro Petroleum Companies, Inc.
from December 2001 to September 2002. From November 1999 to
December 2001, Mr. Schwethelm was Vice President,
Development and Business Analysis.
G. Scott Spendlove has served as Vice President,
Finance and Treasurer since May 2003 and as Vice President,
Finance from January 2002 to May 2003. Prior to joining Tesoro
in 2002, he served as Vice President, Corporate Planning and
Investor Relations of Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation from
December 1999 to December 2001.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REGISTRANT
The following is a list of the Companys Board of Directors:
|
|
|
Bruce A. Smith |
|
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tesoro
Corporation |
|
Steven H. Grapstein |
|
Lead Director of Tesoro Corporation; Chief Executive Officer of
Kuo Investment Company |
|
Robert W. Goldman |
|
Vice President, Finance for World Petroleum Council; Retired
Chief Financial Officer of Conoco, Inc. |
|
William J. Johnson |
|
Petroleum Consultant; President of JonLoc Inc. |
|
A. Maurice Myers |
|
Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Waste
Management Inc. |
|
Donald H. Schmude |
|
Retired Vice President of Texaco and President and Chief
Executive Officer of Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc. |
|
Patrick J. Ward |
|
Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Caltex Petroleum Corporation |
RISK FACTORS
|
|
|
The volatility of crude oil prices, refined product prices
and natural gas and electrical power prices may have a material
adverse effect on our cash flow and results of
operations. |
Our earnings and cash flows from our refining and wholesale
marketing operations depend on a number of factors, including
fixed and variable expenses (including the cost of refinery
feedstocks) and the margin above those expenses at which we are
able to sell refined products. In recent years, the prices of
crude oil and refined products have fluctuated substantially.
These prices depend on numerous factors beyond our control,
including the demand for crude oil, gasoline and other refined
products, which are subject to, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in the economy and the level of foreign and domestic
production of crude oil and refined products; |
|
|
|
threatened or actual terrorist incidents, acts of war, and other
worldwide political conditions; |
|
|
|
availability of crude oil and refined products and the
infrastructure to transport crude oil and refined products; |
|
|
|
weather conditions, earthquakes or other natural disasters; |
|
|
|
government regulations; and |
|
|
|
local factors, including market conditions and the level of
operations of other refineries in our markets. |
15
Prices for refined products are influenced by the commodity
price of crude oil. Generally, an increase or decrease in the
price of crude oil affects the price of gasoline and other
refined products. However, the timing of the relative movement
of the prices, as well as the overall change in product prices,
can reduce profit margins and could have a significant impact on
our refining and wholesale marketing operations, earnings and
cash flow. Also, crude oil supply contracts are generally term
contracts with market-responsive pricing provisions. We purchase
our refinery feedstocks before manufacturing and selling the
refined products. Price level changes during the period between
purchasing feedstocks and selling the manufactured refined
products from these feedstocks could have a significant effect
on our financial results. We also purchase refined products
manufactured by others for sale to our customers. Price level
changes during the periods between purchasing and selling these
products also could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations.
Volatile prices for natural gas and electrical power used by our
refineries and other operations have affected manufacturing and
operating costs. Natural gas and electricity prices have been
and will continue to be affected by supply and demand for fuel
and utility services in both local and regional markets.
|
|
|
Our business is impacted by risks inherent in petroleum
refining operations. |
The operation of refineries, pipelines and product terminals is
inherently subject to spills, discharges or other releases of
petroleum or hazardous substances. If any of these events had
previously occurred or occurs in the future in connection with
any of our refineries, pipelines or product terminals, or in
connection with any facilities to which we sent wastes or
by-products for treatment or disposal, other than events for
which we are indemnified, we could be liable for all costs and
penalties associated with their remediation under federal, state
and local environmental laws or common law, and could be liable
for property damage to third parties caused by contamination
from releases and spills. The penalties and clean-up costs that
we may have to pay for releases or spills, or the amounts that
we may have to pay to third parties for damage to their
property, could be significant and the payment of these amounts
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations.
We operate in environmentally sensitive coastal waters, where
tanker, pipeline and refined product transportation operations
are closely regulated by federal, state and local agencies and
monitored by environmental interest groups. Our California,
Mid-Pacific and Pacific Northwest refineries import crude oil
feedstocks by tanker. Transportation of crude oil and refined
products over water involves inherent risk and subjects us to
the provisions of the Federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and
state laws in California, Hawaii, Washington and Alaska. Among
other things, these laws require us to demonstrate in some
situations our capacity to respond to a worst case
discharge to the maximum extent possible. We have
contracted with various spill response service companies in the
areas in which we transport crude oil and refined products to
meet the requirements of the Federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990
and state laws. However, there may be accidents involving
tankers transporting crude oil or refined products, and response
services may not respond to a worst case discharge
in a manner that will adequately contain that discharge, or we
may be subject to liability in connection with a discharge.
|
|
|
The dangers inherent in our operations and the potential
limits on insurance coverage could expose us to potentially
significant liability costs. |
Our operations are subject to hazards and risks inherent in
refining operations and in transporting and storing crude oil
and refined products, such as fires, natural disasters,
explosions, pipeline ruptures and spills and mechanical failure
of equipment at our or third-party facilities, any of which can
result in personal injury claims and other damage to our
properties and the properties of others. In addition, we operate
six petroleum refineries, any of which could experience a major
accident, be damaged by severe weather or other natural
disaster, or otherwise be forced to shut down. Any such
unplanned shutdown could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition and results of operations. We do
not maintain insurance coverage against all potential losses,
and we could suffer losses for uninsurable or uninsured risks or
in amounts in excess of existing insurance coverage. The
occurrence of an event that is not fully covered by insurance
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition and results of operations.
16
|
|
|
Our operations are subject to general environmental risks,
expenses and liabilities which could affect our results of
operations. |
From time to time we have been, and presently are, subject to
litigation and investigations with respect to environmental and
related matters, including product liability claims related to
the oxygenate MTBE. We may become involved in further litigation
or other proceedings, or we may be held responsible in any
existing or future litigation or proceedings, the costs of which
could be material.
We have in the past operated service stations with underground
storage tanks in various jurisdictions, and currently operate
service stations that have underground storage tanks in
18 states in the mid-continental and western United States.
Federal and state regulations and legislation govern the storage
tanks, and compliance with these requirements can be costly. The
operation of underground storage tanks also poses certain other
risks, including damages associated with soil and groundwater
contamination. Leaks from underground storage tanks which may
occur at one or more of our service stations, or which may have
occurred at our previously operated service stations, may impact
soil or groundwater and could result in fines or civil liability
for us.
Consistent with the experience of other U.S. refineries,
environmental laws and regulations have raised operating costs
and require significant capital investments at our refineries.
We believe that existing physical facilities at our refineries
are substantially adequate to maintain compliance with existing
applicable laws and regulatory requirements. However,
potentially material expenditures could be required in the
future. For example, we may be required to comply with evolving
environmental, health and safety laws, regulations or
requirements that may be adopted or imposed in the future. We
also may be required to address information or conditions that
may be discovered in the future and that require a response.
|
|
|
If we are unable to maintain an adequate supply of
feedstocks, our results of operations may be adversely
affected. |
We may not continue to have an adequate supply of feedstocks,
primarily crude oil, available to our six refineries to sustain
our current level of refining operations. If additional crude
oil becomes necessary at one or more of our refineries, we
intend to implement available alternatives that are most
advantageous under then prevailing conditions. Implementation of
some alternatives could require the consent or cooperation of
third parties and other considerations beyond our control. In
particular, the North Dakota refinery is completely dependent
upon the delivery of crude oil through our crude oil pipeline
system. If outside events cause an inadequate supply of crude
oil, or if our crude oil pipeline system transports lower
volumes of crude oil, our anticipated revenues could decrease.
If we are unable to obtain supplemental crude oil volumes, or
are only able to obtain these volumes at uneconomic prices, our
results of operations could be adversely affected.
|
|
|
We are subject to interruptions of supply and increased
costs as a result of our reliance on third-party transportation
of crude oil and refined products. |
Our Washington refinery receives all of its Canadian crude oil
and delivers a high proportion of its gasoline, diesel and jet
fuel through third-party pipelines. Our Hawaii and Alaska
refineries receive most of their crude oil and transport a
substantial portion of refined products through ships and
barges. Our Utah refinery receives substantially all of its
crude oil and delivers substantially all of its products through
third-party pipelines. Our North Dakota refinery delivers
substantially all of its products through a third-party pipeline
system. Our California refinery receives approximately half of
its crude oil through pipelines and the balance through marine
vessels. Substantially all of our California refinerys
production is delivered through third-party pipelines, ships and
barges. In addition to environmental risks discussed above, we
could experience an interruption of supply or an increased cost
to deliver refined products to market if the ability of the
pipelines or vessels to transport crude oil or refined products
is upset because of accidents, governmental regulation or
third-party action. A prolonged upset of the ability of a
pipeline or vessels to transport crude oil or product could have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition
and results of operations.
17
|
|
|
Our debt instruments impose restrictions on us that may
adversely affect our ability to operate our business. |
Our ability to comply with the specified financial covenants of
our credit agreement as they currently exist or as they may be
amended, may be affected by many events beyond our control and
our future operating results may not allow us to comply with the
covenants, or in the event of a default, to remedy that default.
Our failure to comply with those financial covenants or to
comply with the other restrictions contained in our credit
agreement could result in a default, which could cause that
indebtedness (and by reason of cross-default provisions,
indebtedness under the indentures governing our senior secured
and senior subordinated notes and other indebtedness) to become
immediately due and payable. If we are unable to repay those
amounts, the lenders under our credit agreement could proceed
against the collateral granted to them to secure that
indebtedness. If those lenders accelerate the payment of the
credit agreement, we may not be able to pay that indebtedness
immediately and continue to operate our business.
In addition, the indentures for our senior secured and senior
subordinated notes contain other covenants that restrict, among
other things, our ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
pay dividends and other distributions with respect to our
capital stock and purchase, redeem or retire our capital stock; |
|
|
|
incur additional indebtedness and issue preferred stock; |
|
|
|
sell assets unless the proceeds from those sales are used to
repay debt or are reinvested in our business; |
|
|
|
incur liens on assets to secure certain debt; |
|
|
|
engage in certain business activities; |
|
|
|
engage in certain mergers or consolidations and transfers of
assets; and |
|
|
|
enter into transactions with affiliates. |
|
|
|
Terrorist attacks and threats or actual war may negatively
impact our business. |
Our business is affected by general economic conditions and
fluctuations in consumer confidence and spending, which can
decline as a result of numerous factors outside of our control,
such as actual or threatened terrorist attacks and acts of war.
Terrorist attacks in the United States, as well as events
occurring in response to or in connection with them, including
future terrorist attacks against U.S. targets, rumors or
threats of war, actual conflicts involving the United States or
its allies, or military or trade disruptions impacting our
suppliers or our customers or energy markets generally, may
adversely impact our operations. As a result, there could be
delays or losses in the delivery of supplies and raw materials
to us, delays in our delivery of refined products, decreased
sales of our products (especially sales to our customers that
purchase jet fuel) and extension of time for payment of accounts
receivable from our customers (especially our customers in the
airline industry). Strategic targets such as energy-related
assets (which could include refineries such as ours) may be at
greater risk of future terrorist attacks than other targets in
the United States. These occurrences could significantly impact
energy prices, including prices for our crude oil and refined
products, and have a material adverse impact on the margins from
our refining and wholesale marketing operations. In addition,
disruption or significant increases in energy prices could
result in government-imposed price controls. Any one of, or a
combination of, these occurrences could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations.
|
|
|
Our operating results are seasonal and generally are lower
in the first and fourth quarters of the year. |
Demand for gasoline is higher during the spring and summer
months than during the winter months in most of our markets due
to seasonal increases in highway traffic. As a result, our
operating results for the first and fourth quarters are
generally lower than for those in the second and third quarters.
18
|
|
ITEM 3. |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
In the ordinary course of business, we become party to or
otherwise involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings and
governmental investigations, including environmental, regulatory
and other matters. Large and sometimes unspecified damages or
penalties may be sought from us in some matters and some matters
may require years for us to resolve. We cannot provide assurance
that an adverse resolution of one or more of the matters
described below during a future reporting period will not have a
material adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations in future periods. However, on the basis of existing
information, we believe that the resolution of these matters,
individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations.
In November 2003, we filed suit in Contra Costa County Superior
Court against Tosco Corporation alleging that Tosco
misrepresented, concealed and failed to disclose certain
environmental conditions at our California refinery. The court
granted Toscos motion to compel arbitration of our claims
for these certain additional environmental conditions. In the
arbitration proceedings we initiated against Tosco in December
2003, we are also seeking a determination that Tosco is liable
for investigation and remediation of these certain additional
environmental conditions, the amount of which is currently
unknown and therefore a reserve has not been established. In
response to our arbitration claims, Tosco filed counterclaims in
the Contra Costa Superior Court action alleging that we are
contractually responsible for certain environmental liabilities
at the California refinery, including certain liabilities
arising from operations at the California refinery before August
2000. In February 2005, the parties agreed to stay the
arbitration proceedings for a period of 90 days to pursue
settlement discussions. In the event we are unable to reach
settlement, we intend to vigorously prosecute our claims against
Tosco and to oppose Toscos claims against us, although we
cannot provide assurance that we will prevail. For further
information related to these claims, see Note P in our
consolidated financial statements in Item 8.
As previously disclosed, we were a defendant in seven pending
cases alleging MTBE contamination in groundwater. During the
2004 fourth quarter, we were named as a defendant in seven
additional pending cases, of which we obtained a dismissal
without prejudice in four of these cases in February 2005. The
plaintiffs in each of the remaining 10 pending cases, all in
California, are generally water providers, governmental
authorities and private well owners alleging that refiners and
suppliers of gasoline containing MTBE are liable for
manufacturing or distributing a defective product. We are being
sued as a refiner, supplier and marketer of gasoline containing
MTBE along with other refining industry companies. The suits
generally seek individual, unquantified compensatory and
punitive damages and attorneys fees, but we cannot
estimate the amount or likelihood of the ultimate resolution of
these matters at this time, and accordingly, we have not
established a reserve for these cases. We believe we have
defenses to these claims and intend to vigorously defend the
lawsuits.
As previously reported, on February 10, 2004, we received a
Notice of Violation (NOV) from the Northwest Air
Pollution Authority (NWAPA) for alleged violations
of an air permit at our Washington refinery. The NWAPA alleged
that the refinery emitted sulfur oxides in excess of the
permitted allowable limit. NWAPA and Tesoro settled this matter
during the 2004 fourth quarter by completion of the installation
of certain emission monitoring equipment at the refinery and
without the imposition of a monetary penalty. NWAPA withdrew
the NOV.
We are continuing to negotiate a settlement of approximately
70 NOVs issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District. The NOVs allege various violations of air quality
requirements at the California refinery between May 2002 and
February 2004. We have established reserves for this matter
which are not material and we believe that the resolution of
this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial position or results of operations.
During the first quarter of 2005, we began settlement
discussions with the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) concerning an NOV we received in October
2004. The NOV, issued by CARB, alleges we offered for sale
eleven batches of gasoline in California that did not meet
CARBs gasoline exhaust emission limits. As of
December 31, 2004, we could not estimate the amount of any
penalties that might be associated with this NOV and
accordingly, we did not establish a reserve for this matter. We
disagree with factual allegations in
19
the NOV and believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter
with CARB will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial position or results of operations.
On March 3, 2005 we finalized a settlement with the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District and the Contra Costa County
District Attorneys office concerning three NOVs we
received in March 2004 in response to odor incidents at our
California refinery. We have agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$225,000 to resolve this matter.
|
|
ITEM 4. |
SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS |
None.
PART II
|
|
ITEM 5. |
MARKET FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED
STOCKHOLDER MATTERS |
Our common stock is listed under the symbol TSO on
the New York Stock Exchange and the Pacific Exchange. The high
and low sales prices for our common stock on the New York Stock
Exchange during 2004 and 2003 are summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quarters Ended |
|
High | |
|
Low | |
|
High | |
|
Low | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
March 31
|
|
$ |
19.35 |
|
|
$ |
14.00 |
|
|
$ |
7.44 |
|
|
$ |
3.38 |
|
June 30
|
|
$ |
27.75 |
|
|
$ |
17.75 |
|
|
$ |
8.55 |
|
|
$ |
6.45 |
|
September 30
|
|
$ |
31.70 |
|
|
$ |
21.76 |
|
|
$ |
9.42 |
|
|
$ |
6.65 |
|
December 31
|
|
$ |
34.65 |
|
|
$ |
27.75 |
|
|
$ |
15.12 |
|
|
$ |
8.56 |
|
At March 1, 2005, there were approximately
2,244 holders of record of our 66,461,087 outstanding
shares of common stock. We have not paid dividends on our common
stock since 1986 and have no present plans to pay dividends on
our common stock. For information regarding restrictions on
future dividend payments and stock repurchases, see
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations in Item 7 and Notes F and G
in our consolidated financial statements in Item 8.
The 2005 annual meeting of stockholders will be held at
8:00 A.M. Mountain Standard Time on Wednesday, May 4,
2005, at The Boulders, 34631 North Tom Darlington Drive,
Phoenix, Arizona. Holders of common stock of record at the close
of business on March 14, 2005 are entitled to notice of and
to vote at the annual meeting.
20
The following table summarizes, as of December 31, 2004,
certain information regarding equity compensation to our
employees, officers, directors and other persons under our
equity compensation plans.
Equity Compensation Plan Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available for | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future Issuance under | |
|
|
Number of Securities to be | |
|
Weighted-Average Exercise | |
|
Equity Compensation | |
|
|
Issued upon Exercise of | |
|
Price of Outstanding | |
|
Plans (Excluding | |
|
|
Outstanding Options, | |
|
Options, Warrants | |
|
Securities Reflected in | |
Plan Category |
|
Warrants and Rights | |
|
and Rights | |
|
the Second Column) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
|
|
|
5,529,960 |
|
|
$ |
13.56 |
|
|
|
1,735,352 |
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders(a)
|
|
|
356,550 |
|
|
$ |
10.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
5,886,510 |
|
|
$ |
13.35 |
|
|
|
1,735,352 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
The Key Employee Stock Option Plan was approved by our board of
directors in November 1999 and provided for stock option grants
to eligible employees who are not our executive officers. The
options expire ten years after the date of grant. Our board of
directors has suspended any future grants under this plan. |
|
|
ITEM 6. |
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA |
The following table sets forth certain selected consolidated
financial and operating data of Tesoro as of the end of and for
each of the five years in the period ended December 31,
2004. The selected consolidated financial information presented
below has been derived from our historical financial statements.
Our financial results include the post-acquisition results of
our California operations since mid-May 2002 and our
Mid-Continent operations since September 2001. The following
table should be read in conjunction with Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations in Item 7 and our consolidated financial
statements in Item 8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Dollars in millions except per share amounts) | |
Statement of Operations Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues
|
|
$ |
12,262 |
|
|
$ |
8,846 |
|
|
$ |
7,119 |
|
|
$ |
5,182 |
|
|
$ |
5,067 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Earnings (Loss)(a)
|
|
$ |
328 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
73 |
|
Preferred Dividend Requirements(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Earnings (Loss) Applicable to Common Stock
|
|
$ |
328 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
(117 |
) |
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
$ |
61 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Earnings (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$ |
5.01 |
|
|
$ |
1.18 |
|
|
$ |
(1.93 |
) |
|
$ |
2.26 |
|
|
$ |
1.96 |
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$ |
4.76 |
|
|
$ |
1.17 |
|
|
$ |
(1.93 |
) |
|
$ |
2.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.75 |
|
Weighted Shares Outstanding (millions):(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
65.5 |
|
|
|
64.6 |
|
|
|
60.5 |
|
|
|
36.2 |
|
|
|
31.2 |
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
68.9 |
|
|
|
65.1 |
|
|
|
60.5 |
|
|
|
41.9 |
|
|
|
41.8 |
|
(table continued on following page)
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Dollars in millions except per share amounts) | |
Balance Sheet Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Assets
|
|
$ |
1,393 |
|
|
$ |
1,024 |
|
|
$ |
1,054 |
|
|
$ |
878 |
|
|
$ |
630 |
|
Property, Plant and Equipment, Net
|
|
$ |
2,304 |
|
|
$ |
2,252 |
|
|
$ |
2,303 |
|
|
$ |
1,522 |
|
|
$ |
781 |
|
Total Assets
|
|
$ |
4,075 |
|
|
$ |
3,661 |
|
|
$ |
3,759 |
|
|
$ |
2,662 |
|
|
$ |
1,544 |
|
Current Liabilities
|
|
$ |
993 |
|
|
$ |
687 |
|
|
$ |
608 |
|
|
$ |
539 |
|
|
$ |
382 |
|
Total Debt(c)
|
|
$ |
1,218 |
|
|
$ |
1,609 |
|
|
$ |
1,977 |
|
|
$ |
1,147 |
|
|
$ |
311 |
|
Stockholders Equity(b)(d)
|
|
$ |
1,327 |
|
|
$ |
965 |
|
|
$ |
888 |
|
|
$ |
757 |
|
|
$ |
670 |
|
Current Ratio
|
|
|
1.4:1 |
|
|
|
1.5:1 |
|
|
|
1.7:1 |
|
|
|
1.6:1 |
|
|
|
1.6:1 |
|
Working Capital
|
|
$ |
401 |
|
|
$ |
337 |
|
|
$ |
446 |
|
|
$ |
339 |
|
|
$ |
248 |
|
Total Debt to Capitalization(b)(c)
|
|
|
48 |
% |
|
|
62 |
% |
|
|
69 |
% |
|
|
60 |
% |
|
|
32 |
% |
Common Stock Outstanding (millions of shares)(b)(d)
|
|
|
66.8 |
|
|
|
64.8 |
|
|
|
64.6 |
|
|
|
41.4 |
|
|
|
30.9 |
|
Book Value Per Common Share
|
|
$ |
19.87 |
|
|
$ |
14.89 |
|
|
$ |
13.74 |
|
|
$ |
18.28 |
|
|
$ |
16.39 |
|
|
Cash Flows From (Used In)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Activities
|
|
$ |
685 |
|
|
$ |
447 |
|
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
214 |
|
|
$ |
90 |
|
Investing Activities
|
|
|
(174 |
) |
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
(941 |
) |
|
|
(976 |
) |
|
|
(88 |
) |
Financing Activities(b)(c)
|
|
|
(403 |
) |
|
|
(410 |
) |
|
|
941 |
|
|
|
800 |
|
|
|
(130 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
$ |
108 |
|
|
$ |
(33 |
) |
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
$ |
38 |
|
|
$ |
(128 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Expenditures(e)
|
|
$ |
179 |
|
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
$ |
204 |
|
|
$ |
210 |
|
|
$ |
94 |
|
|
Operating Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining Throughput (thousand barrels per day)(f)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California
|
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pacific Northwest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
Alaska
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
Mid-Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
Mid-Continent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Dakota
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Refining Throughput
|
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
488 |
|
|
|
435 |
|
|
|
290 |
|
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining Yield (thousand barrels per day)(f)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks
|
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
239 |
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
Diesel fuel
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
Heavy oils, residual products, internally produced fuel and other
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Refining Yield
|
|
|
540 |
|
|
|
507 |
|
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(table continued on following page)
22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Product Sales (thousand barrels per day)(f)(g)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
264 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
Diesel fuel
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
Heavy oils, residual products and other
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Product Sales
|
|
|
604 |
|
|
|
557 |
|
|
|
545 |
|
|
|
376 |
|
|
|
323 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retail Fuel Sales (millions of gallons)
|
|
|
510 |
|
|
|
568 |
|
|
|
790 |
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
Number of Branded Retail Stations (end of period)
|
|
|
506 |
|
|
|
557 |
|
|
|
593 |
|
|
|
677 |
|
|
|
276 |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
For the periods 2004, 2003 and 2002, we incurred various
charges, including debt prepayment and refinancing costs,
retirement benefits and losses on asset sales, that affect the
comparability for each of the five years in the period ended
December 31, 2004. For information related to these
charges, see Results of Operations in
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations in Item 7. In 2001, we incurred
charges of $7 million aftertax ($0.17 per share) for
financing fees and integration costs, primarily associated with
the acquisition of our Mid-Continent refineries. |
|
(b) |
|
Our mandatory convertible preferred stock automatically
converted into 10.35 million shares of common stock in July
2001, which eliminated our $12 million annual preferred
dividend requirement. During 2002, we completed a public
offering of 23 million common shares to partially fund the
acquisition of the California refinery. |
|
(c) |
|
During 2004, we voluntarily prepaid the remaining
$297.5 million outstanding principal balance of the
9% senior subordinated notes and $100 million of our
senior secured term loans. During 2003, we replaced our previous
credit facility by entering into a new credit agreement, and
issued $200 million senior secured term loans due 2008 and
$375 million of 8% senior secured notes due 2008.
During 2002, we issued $450 million in principal amount of
95/8% senior
subordinated notes due 2012 and two 10-year junior subordinated
notes with face amounts totaling $150 million, and amended
and restated our previous credit facility, primarily to fund the
acquisition of the California refinery. In 2001, we issued
$215 million of
95/8% senior
subordinated notes due 2008 and entered into our previous credit
facility, primarily to finance the acquisitions of the
Mid-Continent refineries. |
|
(d) |
|
We have not paid dividends on our common stock since 1986. |
|
(e) |
|
Capital expenditures exclude amounts for major acquisitions in
the refining and retail segments during 2002 and 2001, and for
refinery turnaround spending and other major maintenance costs. |
|
(f) |
|
Volumes for 2002 include amounts from the California refinery
since we acquired it on May 17, 2002, averaged over
365 days. Throughput and yield for the California refinery
averaged over the 229 days of operation that we owned it
were 151 thousand barrels per day (Mbpd) and
160 Mbpd, respectively. Volumes for 2001 include amounts
from the Mid-Continent operations since we acquired them on
September 6, 2001, averaged over 365 days. Throughput
and yield for these refineries averaged over the 117 days
that we owned them in 2001 were 105 Mbpd and 109 Mbpd,
respectively. |
|
(g) |
|
Sources of total refined product sales include products
manufactured at the refineries and products purchased from third
parties. |
23
|
|
ITEM 7. |
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL
CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS |
Those statements in this section that are not historical in
nature should be deemed forward-looking statements that are
inherently uncertain. See Forward-Looking Statements
on page 45 and Risk Factors on page 15 for
a discussion of the factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially from those projected in these statements.
BUSINESS STRATEGY AND OVERVIEW
Our strategy is to create a geographically-focused, value-added
refining and marketing business that has (i) economies of
scale, (ii) a low-cost structure, (iii) superior
management information systems and (iv) outstanding
employees focused on business excellence in a global market,
with the objective to provide stockholders with competitive
returns in any economic environment. Beginning in 1998, we
entered into a series of acquisitions and strategic initiatives
that transformed our competitive position, the composition and
geographical focus of our assets and our financial and operating
results. We expanded our refining capacity from 72,000 bpd
to 558,000 bpd through the acquisition of our Hawaii and
Washington refineries in 1998, our North Dakota and Utah
refineries in 2001 and our California refinery in 2002. To focus
on our refining and marketing business, we sold our oil and gas
exploration and production assets in 1999 and our marine
services assets in December 2003.
For 2004, our goals were focused on: (i) improving
profitability by achieving greater efficiencies; (ii) using
cash flows from operations to further reduce debt; and
(iii) allocating capital and turnaround spending to
(a) maintain safe, reliable operations meeting EPA Clean
Air Act standards, (b) high return, low cost projects and
(c) further development of systems and people. During 2004,
we achieved the following significant results relative to our
2004 goals, which are further described below under
Results of Operations and Capital Resources
and Liquidity:
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income improved by $378 million to
$713 million compared to 2003, reflecting improved
reliability, throughput and higher product margins, together
with capturing business improvement initiatives. |
|
|
|
We used cash flows from operations to prepay both our
$297.5 million outstanding principal balance of the
9% senior subordinated notes due 2008 and $100 million
of our then outstanding $197.5 million senior secured term
loans, resulting in annual pretax interest savings of
approximately $34 million. Our debt to capitalization ratio
was reduced to 48% at year-end, compared to 62% at the end
of 2003. |
|
|
|
Our capital and turnaround spending totaled $229 million,
of which $64 million was for Clean Air projects and
$64 million was for reliability and safety projects. |
During 2005, we will continue to focus on the goals established
for 2004. In addition, our 2005 executive incentive compensation
program includes two financial goals: to realize
$62 million of operating income improvements through
business improvement initiatives and to achieve earnings of at
least $3.85 per diluted share.
24
Several factors during 2004 positively impacted industry
margins, including improved economic fundamentals in the U.S.
and Far East, heavy refining industry turnaround activity in the
western U.S. during the 2004 first quarter and recent changes in
product specifications. Increased demand and below average
inventory levels for finished products resulted in significantly
higher than average industry margins in all of our refining
regions. Overall, industry margins during 2004 in our market
areas averaged above our five-year average (January 1, 1999
through December 31, 2003). We determine our
five-year average by comparing prices for gasoline,
diesel fuel, jet fuel and heavy fuel oils products to crude oil
prices in our market areas, with volumes weighted according to
our typical refinery yields. Our net earnings for 2004 also
benefited from lower interest expense as a result of debt
reduction and refinancing during 2003 and additional debt
prepayments during 2004.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Our net earnings for 2004 were $328 million ($5.01 per
basic share and $4.76 per diluted share), compared with net
earnings of $76 million ($1.18 per basic share and
$1.17 per diluted share) for 2003. The significant increase
in net earnings during 2004 was primarily due to (i) higher
refined product margins, (ii) increased throughput levels,
(iii) lower interest expense as a result of debt reduction
and refinancing in 2003 and additional debt prepayments during
2004, and (iv) our continued focus on capturing business
improvement initiatives. Net earnings for 2004 included debt
prepayment and financing costs of $14 million aftertax, or
$0.20 per share. Our 2004 results also included charges for
executive retirement costs of $1 million aftertax, or
$0.01 per share. Net earnings for 2003 included the
write-off of unamortized debt issuance costs of $23 million
aftertax, or $0.35 per share. Our 2003 results also
included losses on the sale of our marine services assets and
certain retail asset impairments of $6 million aftertax, or
$0.09 per share, voluntary early retirement benefits and
severance costs of $6 million aftertax, or $0.09 per
share, and a charge related to the termination of our funded
executive security plan of $5.5 million aftertax, or
$0.08 per share.
Our net earnings for 2003 were $76 million ($1.18 per
basic share and $1.17 per diluted share), compared with a
net loss of $117 million ($1.93 per basic and diluted
share) for 2002. Net earnings for 2003 were primarily the result
of improved product margins and the full-year contribution at
our California refinery operations. In 2002, charges for bridge
financing fees, associated with the acquisition of the
California refinery, totaled $8 million aftertax, or
$0.14 per share. Our 2002 results also included losses on
asset sales and impairment of goodwill, which totaled
$5 million aftertax, or $0.08 per share, and severance
and integration costs of $5 million aftertax, or
$0.08 per share. In 2002, our income tax refund claims
reduced previously recognized income tax credits by
$6 million, or $0.10 per share, and a LIFO inventory
liquidation resulted in decreased costs of sales of
$3 million aftertax, or $0.05 per share.
A discussion and analysis of the factors contributing to our
results of operations is presented below. The accompanying
consolidated financial statements in Item 8, together with
the following information, are intended to provide investors
with a reasonable basis for assessing our historical operations,
but should not serve as the only criteria for predicting our
future performance.
25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Dollars in millions except per | |
|
|
barrel amounts) | |
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refined products(a)
|
|
$ |
11,633 |
|
|
$ |
8,098 |
|
|
$ |
6,426 |
|
|
Crude oil resales and other
|
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
335 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues
|
|
$ |
12,052 |
|
|
$ |
8,468 |
|
|
$ |
6,761 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining Throughput (thousand barrels per day)(b)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California(c)
|
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
Pacific Northwest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
Alaska
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
Mid-Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
Mid-Continent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Dakota
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
Utah
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Refining Throughput
|
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
488 |
|
|
|
435 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Heavy Crude Oil of Total Refining Throughput(d)
|
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
58 |
% |
|
|
49 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yield (thousand barrels per day)(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks
|
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
239 |
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
Jet Fuel
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
Diesel Fuel
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
Heavy oils, residual products, internally produced fuel and other
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Yield
|
|
|
540 |
|
|
|
507 |
|
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining Margin ($/throughput barrel)(e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin
|
|
$ |
13.98 |
|
|
$ |
9.63 |
|
|
$ |
6.41 |
|
|
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation and amortization
|
|
$ |
5.07 |
|
|
$ |
4.41 |
|
|
$ |
4.17 |
|
|
Pacific Northwest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin
|
|
$ |
7.99 |
|
|
$ |
6.19 |
|
|
$ |
4.09 |
|
|
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation and amortization
|
|
$ |
2.38 |
|
|
$ |
2.26 |
|
|
$ |
2.05 |
|
|
Mid-Pacific
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin
|
|
$ |
5.30 |
|
|
$ |
3.30 |
|
|
$ |
2.85 |
|
|
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation and amortization
|
|
$ |
1.51 |
|
|
$ |
1.39 |
|
|
$ |
1.39 |
|
|
Mid-Continent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin
|
|
$ |
7.02 |
|
|
$ |
5.68 |
|
|
$ |
4.17 |
|
|
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation and amortization
|
|
$ |
2.28 |
|
|
$ |
2.52 |
|
|
$ |
2.22 |
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin
|
|
$ |
9.12 |
|
|
$ |
6.73 |
|
|
$ |
4.38 |
|
|
|
Manufacturing cost before depreciation and amortization
|
|
$ |
3.01 |
|
|
$ |
2.85 |
|
|
$ |
2.43 |
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Dollars in millions except per | |
|
|
barrel amounts) | |
Segment Operating Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross refining margin (after inventory changes)(c)(f)
|
|
$ |
1,706 |
|
|
$ |
1,196 |
|
|
$ |
699 |
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manufacturing costs
|
|
|
573 |
|
|
|
509 |
|
|
|
386 |
|
|
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization(g)
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income
|
|
$ |
840 |
|
|
$ |
411 |
|
|
$ |
73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales (thousand barrels per day)(a)(h)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gasoline and gasoline blendstocks
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
264 |
|
|
Jet fuel
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
Diesel fuel
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
Heavy oils, residual products and other
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Product Sales
|
|
|
604 |
|
|
|
557 |
|
|
|
545 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales Margin ($/barrel)(h)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average sales price
|
|
$ |
52.65 |
|
|
$ |
39.81 |
|
|
$ |
32.25 |
|
|
Average costs of sales
|
|
|
44.74 |
|
|
|
33.99 |
|
|
|
28.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Sales Margin
|
|
$ |
7.91 |
|
|
$ |
5.82 |
|
|
$ |
3.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Includes intersegment sales to our retail segment, at prices
which approximate market, of $785 million,
$696 million and $826 million in 2004, 2003 and 2002,
respectively. |
|
(b) |
|
We experienced reduced throughput during planned major
maintenance turnarounds for the following refineries: the
California refinery during 2004; the Alaska, North Dakota and
Utah refineries during 2003; and the California and Washington
refineries during 2002. |
|
(c) |
|
Volumes and margins for 2002 include amounts for the California
operations since acquisition on May 17, 2002, averaged over
365 days. Throughput and yield for the California refinery
averaged over the 229 days of operation were
151 thousand barrels per day (Mbpd) and
160 Mbpd, respectively. |
|
(d) |
|
We define heavy crude oil as Alaska North Slope or
crude oil with an American Petroleum Institute specific gravity
of 32 or less. |
|
(e) |
|
Management uses gross refining margin per barrel to evaluate
performance, allocate resources and compare profitability to
other companies in the industry. Gross refining margin per
barrel is calculated by dividing gross refining margin by total
refining throughput and may not be calculated similarly by other
companies. Management uses manufacturing costs per barrel to
evaluate the efficiency of refinery operations and allocate
resources. Manufacturing costs per barrel may not be comparable
to similarly titled measures used by other companies. Investors
and analysts use these financial measures to help analyze and
compare companies in the industry on the basis of operating
performance. These financial measures should not be considered
as alternatives to segment operating income, revenues, costs of
sales and operating expenses or any other measure of financial
performance presented in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. |
|
(f) |
|
Gross refining margin is calculated as revenues less costs of
feedstocks, purchased products, transportation and distribution.
Gross refining margin approximates total refining segment
throughput times gross refining margin per barrel, adjusted for
changes in refined product inventory due to selling a volume and
mix of product that is different than actual volumes
manufactured. Gross refining margin also includes the effect of
intersegment sales to the retail segment at prices which
approximate market. In addition, during 2002, certain inventory
quantities were reduced resulting in the liquidation of
applicable LIFO |
27
|
|
|
|
|
inventory quantities carried at lower costs. This reduction in
LIFO inventory decreased costs of sales by approximately
$5 million and decreased our net loss by $3 million in
2002. |
|
(g) |
|
Includes manufacturing depreciation and amortization per
throughput barrel of approximately $0.61, $0.59 and $0.56 for
2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. |
|
(h) |
|
Sources of total product sales include products manufactured at
the refineries and products purchased from third parties. Total
product sales margin includes margins on sales of manufactured
and purchased products and the effects of inventory changes. |
2004 Compared to 2003 Operating income from
our refining segment increased to $840 million in 2004
compared to $411 million in 2003. The $429 million
increase in our operating income primarily resulted from
significantly higher refined product margins, combined with
higher throughput levels and product sales volumes. Our total
gross refining margin per barrel increased 36% to $9.12 per
barrel in 2004 compared to $6.73 per barrel in 2003,
reflecting higher per-barrel refining margins in all of our
regions. Industry margins on a national basis improved primarily
due to increased demand and below average inventory levels for
finished products. Improved economic fundamentals in the
U.S. and Far East resulted in increased demand and margins
for finished products and reduced finished product inventory
levels. Heavy refining industry turnaround activity in the
PADD V region during the first quarter of 2004 reduced
finished product inventory levels on the U.S. West Coast.
Furthermore, U.S. West Coast gasoline supplies tightened in
part due to the elimination of the oxygenate MTBE. Margins were
lower in all of our refining regions excluding California for
the fourth quarter of 2004, compared to the third quarter,
primarily due to lower seasonal demand for refined products and
higher average crude oil prices. While refining margins in the
California region increased during the fourth quarter as
compared to the third quarter, we were unable to fully capture
these margins due to scheduled downtime at the California
refinery as discussed below.
On an aggregate basis, our total gross refining margins
increased from $1.2 billion in 2003 to $1.7 billion in
2004, reflecting higher per-barrel gross refining margins in all
of our regions and higher total refining throughput volumes.
Total refining throughput averaged 520 Mbpd in 2004, an
increase of 32 Mbpd or 7% from 2003, despite scheduled
turnarounds at our California refinery, which were completed
during the 2004 fourth quarter, and unscheduled downtime in the
2004 first quarter due to a short-term power outage and
accelerated maintenance of the hydrogen plant. Primarily due to
the scheduled and unscheduled downtime at the California
refinery, the percentage of lower cost heavy crude oil that we
processed of total refining throughput decreased from 58% in
2003 to 50% in 2004. We estimate that our refining operating
income would have been approximately $65 million higher
during the 2004 fourth quarter, and approximately
$34 million higher during the 2004 third quarter had the
California refinery been fully operational. In addition, our
refining margins at our Pacific Northwest refineries were
negatively impacted during the 2004 third and fourth quarters as
the increased differential between light and heavy crude oil
depressed the margins for heavy fuel oils. In 2003, our Alaska,
North Dakota and Utah refineries experienced reduced throughput
during planned major maintenance turnarounds.
Revenues from sales of refined products increased 43% to
$11.6 billion in 2004, from $8.1 billion in 2003,
primarily due to significantly higher average product sales
prices and slightly higher product sales volumes. Our average
product prices increased 32% to $52.65 per barrel and total
product sales increased by 8% to average 604 Mbpd in 2004
from 2003. Costs of sales also increased primarily due to higher
average feedstock prices and slightly higher product sales
volumes as compared with 2003. Expenses, excluding depreciation
and amortization, increased to $736 million in 2004, from
$665 million in 2003, primarily due to increased
maintenance, utilities and employee costs of approximately
$57 million. We estimate that the scheduled turnarounds at
our California refinery described above resulted in additional
operating expenses of approximately $10 million in 2004,
included in the estimated $65 million of lower refining
operating income described above.
Refining throughput and yields in 2005 will be affected by
scheduled major maintenance turnarounds at our California and
Washington refineries in the first quarter and the Hawaii
refinery in the second quarter. In addition, refining throughput
was reduced during January 2005 due to unscheduled downtime at
our California refinery. We estimate that our refining operating
income was impacted negatively by approximately $8 million.
We currently expect total refining throughput to average
approximately 520 to 525 Mbpd in 2005.
28
2003 Compared to 2002 Operating income from
our refining segment was $411 million in 2003 compared to
$73 million in 2002. Our results for 2003 included a
complete year of operating income from the California refinery
acquired in mid-May 2002. The California operations contributed
approximately $214 million to our refining operating income
during 2003 compared to approximately $37 million during
2002.
Our total gross refining margin increased from $699 million
($4.38 per barrel) in 2002 to $1.2 billion
($6.73 per barrel) in 2003, reflecting higher per-barrel
gross refining margins in all of our regions and additional
throughput volumes from the California refinery, which added an
additional 61 Mbpd to our total refining throughput in 2003
compared to 2002. Furthermore, U.S. West Coast gasoline
supplies tightened partially due to changes in gasoline
specifications related to the phase-out of MTBE in California.
Our Pacific Northwest margins also improved compared to 2002
when, during the first quarter, the Washington refinery was in a
major maintenance turnaround and its heavy oil conversion
project was being completed. The percentage of lower cost heavy
crude oil that we processed of total refining throughput
increased from 49% in 2002 to 58% in 2003, primarily reflecting
the additional throughput from the California refinery and
completion of our heavy oil conversion project at our Washington
refinery. Industry margins on a national basis remained volatile
during 2003; however, they improved compared to 2002, primarily
due to increased demand and below average inventory levels for
finished products. The cold winter in 2003 increased demand and
margins for distillates during the first quarter. Also,
maintenance and operating problems at several other refineries
in the industry reduced overall industry finished product
inventory levels in 2003. During 2002, the refining industry in
our market areas experienced the lowest refined product margins
since 1998. Margins were lower in all of our refining regions
for the fourth quarter of 2003, compared to the third quarter,
due to low seasonal demand for refined products and rapidly
rising crude oil prices.
Revenues from sales of refined products increased 26% to
$8.1 billion in 2003, from $6.4 billion in 2002, due
to increased sales volumes from the California refinery and
higher average product sales prices. Total product sales
averaged 557 Mbpd in 2003, as compared to 545 Mbpd in
2002, and average product prices increased 23% to
$39.81 per barrel. Costs of sales also increased due to the
additional volumes from the California refinery and higher
average prices for refinery feedstocks and purchased product
supplies compared with 2002.
Expenses, excluding depreciation, increased to $665 million
in 2003, from $522 million in 2002, primarily due to
additional operating expenses of approximately $123 million
from the California refinery and increased costs for utilities,
revenue-based taxes and performance bonus expense. Depreciation
and amortization increased to $120 million, primarily due
to operating the California refinery for the full year.
29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Dollars in millions except | |
|
|
per gallon amounts) | |
Revenues(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
$ |
863 |
|
|
$ |
797 |
|
|
$ |
920 |
|
|
Merchandise and other
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues
|
|
$ |
994 |
|
|
$ |
918 |
|
|
$ |
1,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel Sales (millions of gallons)(a)
|
|
|
510 |
|
|
|
568 |
|
|
|
790 |
|
Fuel Margin ($/gallon)(b)
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
0.18 |
|
|
$ |
0.12 |
|
Merchandise Margin (in millions)(a)
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
Merchandise Margin (percent of sales)
|
|
|
28 |
% |
|
|
27 |
% |
|
|
27 |
% |
Average Number of Stations (during the period)(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company-operated
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
229 |
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
Branded jobber/ dealer
|
|
|
316 |
|
|
|
346 |
|
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Average Retail Stations
|
|
|
538 |
|
|
|
575 |
|
|
|
679 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Margins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel(c)
|
|
$ |
79 |
|
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
|
Merchandise and other non-fuel margin
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross margins
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss)
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
In December 2002, we sold 70 company-operated stations that
were acquired in May 2002 with the California refinery. In 2002,
150 BP/Amoco branded independent jobber/ dealer stations
acquired in the Mid-Continent acquisition did not rebrand to
Tesoro®. |
|
(b) |
|
Management uses fuel margin per gallon to compare profitability
to other companies in the industry. Fuel margin per gallon is
calculated by dividing fuel gross margin by fuel sales volumes
and may not be calculated similarly by other companies.
Investors and analysts use fuel margin per gallon to help
analyze and compare companies in the industry on the basis of
operating performance. This financial measure should not be
considered as an alternative to segment operating income and
revenues or any other financial measure of financial performance
presented in accordance with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America. |
|
(c) |
|
Includes the effect of intersegment purchases from our refining
segment at prices which approximate market. |
2004 Compared to 2003 The operating loss for
our retail segment was $2 million in 2004 compared to
operating income of $16 million in 2003. Total gross
margins decreased to $118 million during 2004 from
$136 million in 2003, reflecting lower fuel margins per
gallon and lower sales volumes. Fuel margin decreased to
$0.16 per gallon in 2004 from $0.18 per gallon in
2003, reflecting higher average prices of purchased fuel. Total
gallons sold decreased to 510 million from
568 million, reflecting the decrease in average station
count to 538 in 2004 from 575 in 2003 due to our continued
rationalization of retail assets.
30
Revenues on fuel sales increased to $863 million in 2004
from $797 million in 2003, reflecting increased sales
prices, primarily offset by lower sales volumes. Costs of sales
increased in 2004 due to higher average prices of purchased
fuel, partly offset by lower sales volumes. Operating, selling,
general and administrative expenses remained flat in 2004, as
compared to 2003.
2003 Compared to 2002 Operating income for
our retail segment improved by $28 million to
$16 million in 2003, compared to an operating loss of
$12 million in 2002. Total gross margins were
$136 million in 2003 compared to $135 million in 2002
reflecting higher fuel margin per gallon, largely offset by
lower sales volumes. Fuel margin increased to $0.18 per
gallon in 2003 from $0.12 per gallon in 2002, reflecting
increased demand, lower inventories and our efforts to improve
operations. Total gallons sold decreased to 568 million,
reflecting the decrease in average station count to 575 in 2003
from 679 in 2002. The decrease primarily was due to selling
70 company-operated stations in December 2002 (acquired
with the California refinery in mid-May 2002) and the fact that
150 BP/Amoco branded independent jobber/ dealer stations
(included in the 2001 acquisition of the Mid-Continent refining
and retail assets) did not rebrand to the Tesoro® brand.
Revenues on fuel sales decreased to $797 million in 2003,
from $920 million in 2002, reflecting lower sales volumes
from fewer stations, partly offset by increased sales prices.
Costs of sales also decreased in 2003 due to lower sales
volumes, partly offset by higher prices of purchased fuel. The
decrease in operating, selling, general and administrative
expenses to $101 million in 2003 from $130 million in
2002 reflects our initiatives to reduce expenses and the
decrease in average station count.
In December 2003, we sold substantially all of the physical
assets of marine services. Operating income increased to
$6 million during 2003 from $2 million in 2002,
reflecting higher sales volume and margins, and lower operating
expenses. These operations depended largely on the volume of oil
and gas drilling, workover, construction and seismic activity in
the Gulf of Mexico. See Note D and Note E in our
consolidated financial statements in Item 8 for information
related to our sale of marine services in 2003 and summarized
financial information, respectively.
|
|
|
Selling, General and Administrative Expenses |
Selling, general and administrative expenses of
$152 million in 2004 increased from $138 million in
2003. The increase was primarily due to an additional
$20 million for stock-based and other incentive-based
compensation, as well as higher professional fees of
approximately $11 million for projects related to driving
business excellence. During 2003, we incurred charges totaling
$17 million for voluntary early retirement benefits,
severance costs and the termination of our funded executive
security plan. During the fourth quarter of 2004, we expensed
$2 million associated with the announced retirement of
certain executive officers. The 2005 first quarter will include
charges totaling approximately $10 million, primarily
related to the termination of certain executive officers. See
Notes A and O of the consolidated financial statements in
Item 8 for further information regarding the adoption of
the fair value method of accounting for stock options during
2004 and other stock-based awards granted in 2004.
Selling, general and administrative expenses of
$138 million in 2003 increased from $133 million in
2002. The increase was due to retirement and plan termination
charges, as discussed above, totaling $17 million.
Excluding these charges, we reduced selling, general and
administrative expenses by approximately $12 million,
through our cost reduction initiatives. This reduction in
expense was net of employees performance bonuses in 2003,
which were not awarded in 2002.
|
|
|
Loss on Asset Sales and Impairments |
The loss on asset sales and impairments of $14 million in
2004 consisted primarily of the write-off of certain refinery
assets that were replaced in connection with the California
refinery turnaround of $8 million and the impairment of
certain retail assets. During 2003, the loss on asset sales and
impairments of $17 million consisted primarily of the loss
on the sale of marine services assets of $8 million, the
write-off of certain
31
refinery assets that were replaced, and the impairment of
certain retail assets. During 2002, the loss on asset sales and
impairments of $8 million consisted primarily of losses on
the sale of retail stations and an impairment of retail
goodwill. See Note D in our consolidated financial
statements in Item 8.
|
|
|
Interest and Financing Costs |
Interest and financing costs were $167 million in 2004
compared to $212 million in 2003. The $45 million
decrease in 2004 was due primarily to lower interest expense
associated with debt reduction during 2004 and 2003 totaling
$778 million. The decrease was also due to the write-off of
$36 million of unamortized debt issuance costs in 2003 in
connection with the replacement of our previous credit facility
and voluntary prepayments of other debt. The decrease during
2004 was partly offset by debt prepayment and financing costs
totaling $23 million, primarily associated with our
voluntary debt prepayments totaling $397.5 million.
Interest and financing costs were $212 million in 2003
compared to $163 million in 2002. The increase was due
primarily to the write-off of $36 million of unamortized
debt issuance costs, as discussed above, as well as interest on
additional debt that we incurred in May 2002 to finance the
acquisition of our California refinery.
|
|
|
Income Tax Provision (Benefit) |
The income tax provision amounted to $219 million in 2004
compared to $47 million in 2003. The increase reflects
significantly higher earnings before income taxes. The income
tax benefit of $64 million in 2002 reflects the pretax loss
for 2002. The combined federal and state effective income tax
rates were approximately 40%, 38% and 35% in 2004, 2003 and
2002, respectively. The increase in our federal and state
effective income tax rate during 2004 was primarily due to a
change in California state tax law, which eliminated an
investment tax credit that had been available in previous years.
In 2002, we elected to carry back net operating losses to
recover income taxes paid in previous years; however, the refund
of those taxes resulted in the loss of certain tax credits. The
expiration of these credits, along with other adjustments to our
estimated liabilities, resulted in a reduced tax benefit of
approximately $6 million in 2002.
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY
We operate in an environment where our capital resources and
liquidity are impacted by changes in the price of crude oil and
refined petroleum products, availability of trade credit, market
uncertainty and a variety of additional factors beyond our
control. These risks include, among others, the level of
consumer product demand, weather conditions, fluctuations in
seasonal demand, governmental regulations, worldwide
geo-political conditions and overall market and economic
conditions. See Forward-Looking Statements on
page 45 and Risk Factors on page 15 for
further information related to risks and other factors. Future
capital expenditures, as well as borrowings under our credit
agreement and other sources of capital, may be affected by these
conditions.
Our primary sources of liquidity have been cash flows from
operations and borrowing availability under revolving lines of
credit. We ended 2004 with $185 million of cash and cash
equivalents, no borrowings under our revolving credit facility,
and $409 million in available borrowing capacity under our
credit agreement after $341 million in outstanding letters
of credit. Our letters of credit outstanding at
December 31, 2004 increased from $232 million at the
end of 2003 due to increased foreign crude oil purchases and
higher average feedstock prices. We prepaid our
$297.5 million outstanding principal balance of our
9% senior subordinated notes and $100 million of our
then outstanding $197.5 million senior secured term loans
during 2004. The prepayments will result in annual pretax
interest savings of approximately $34 million. Since May
2002, including the debt prepayments during 2004, we have
reduced debt by nearly $900 million, decreasing our debt to
capitalization ratio from 69% at June 30, 2002 to 48% at
December 31, 2004. We believe available capital resources
will be adequate to meet our capital expenditures, working
capital and debt service requirements.
32
Our capital structure at December 31, 2004 was comprised of
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt, including current maturities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Agreement Revolving Credit Facility
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Senior Secured Term Loans
|
|
|
97.0 |
|
|
8% Senior Secured Notes Due 2008
|
|
|
372.3 |
|
|
95/8% Senior
Subordinated Notes Due 2012
|
|
|
429.0 |
|
|
95/8% Senior
Subordinated Notes Due 2008
|
|
|
211.0 |
|
|
Junior subordinated notes due 2012
|
|
|
83.2 |
|
|
Capital lease obligations and other
|
|
|
25.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
1,218.3 |
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
1,327.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capitalization
|
|
$ |
2,545.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2004, our debt to capitalization ratio was
48%, compared to 62% at year-end 2003, reflecting voluntary
prepayments and scheduled payments of debt totaling
$401 million and net earnings of $328 million during
2004.
Our credit agreement, senior secured term loans and senior notes
impose various restrictions and covenants as described below
that could potentially limit our ability to respond to market
conditions, raise additional debt or equity capital, or take
advantage of business opportunities.
In September 2004, we amended our credit agreement to
(i) increase its capacity an additional $100 million
to $750 million, (ii) modify the amount of permitted
restricted payments and subordinated debt repayments and
(iii) reduce the applicable margins on revolver borrowings.
In addition, the amendment provides the flexibility to obtain up
to $250 million in letters of credit outside of the credit
agreement for foreign crude oil purchases. The credit agreement
was previously amended in May 2004 to increase its capacity by
$150 million to $650 million and to extend the term by
one year to June 2007.
The credit agreement currently provides for borrowings
(including letters of credit) up to the lesser of the
agreements total capacity, $750 million as amended,
or the amount of a periodically adjusted borrowing base
($813 million as of December 31, 2004), consisting of
Tesoros eligible cash and cash equivalents, receivables
and petroleum inventories, as defined. As of December 31,
2004, we had no borrowings and $341 million in letters of
credit outstanding under the revolving credit facility,
resulting in total unused credit availability of
$409 million, or 55% of the eligible borrowing base.
Borrowings under the revolving credit facility bear interest at
either a base rate (5.25% at December 31, 2004) or a
eurodollar rate (2.49% at December 31, 2004), plus an
applicable margin. The applicable margins at December 31,
2004 were 0.25% in the case of the base rate and 2.00% in the
case of the eurodollar rate and vary based on credit facility
availability. Letters of credit outstanding under the revolving
credit facility incur fees at an annual rate tied to the
eurodollar rate applicable margin, in the range of 1.75% to
2.00% at December 31, 2004.
The credit agreement contains covenants and conditions that,
among other things, limit our ability to pay cash dividends,
incur indebtedness, create liens and make investments. Tesoro is
also required to maintain specified levels of fixed charge
coverage and tangible net worth. We are not required to maintain
the fixed charge coverage ratio if unused credit availability
exceeds 15% of the eligible borrowing base. The credit agreement
is guaranteed by substantially all of Tesoros active
subsidiaries and is secured by substantially all of
Tesoros cash and cash equivalents, petroleum inventories
and receivables.
33
|
|
|
Senior Secured Term Loans |
In April 2003, we entered into $200 million senior secured
term loans and in September 2004, we voluntarily prepaid
$100 million of our senior secured term loans at a
prepayment premium of 3%. The prepayment resulted in a pretax
charge during 2004 of $5 million, comprising
$3 million for the 3% prepayment premium and
$2 million for the write-off of unamortized debt issuance
costs. As a result of the prepayment, the term loan will mature
in October 2007, prior to its original maturity date of April
2008. Principal payments of the term loans are repaid in
quarterly installments of $500,000 through April 2007, and the
remaining principal payments of $48 million and
$44 million are payable in July 2007 and October 2007,
respectively. The term loans are subject to optional redemption
by Tesoro at premiums of 3% through April 14, 2005, 1% from
April 15, 2005 to April 14, 2006, and at par
thereafter.
The term loans contain covenants and restrictions that are less
restrictive than those in the credit agreement. The term loans
and the 8% senior secured notes, described below, are
equally secured by substantially all of the Tesoros
refining property, plant and equipment and are guaranteed by
substantially all of Tesoros active subsidiaries. The
interest rate on the term loans at December 31, 2004 was
7.99%. Borrowings under the term loans bear interest at either a
base rate (5.25% at December 31, 2004) or a eurodollar rate
(2.49% at December 31, 2004), plus an applicable margin.
The applicable margins for the term loans were 4.5% in the case
of the base rate and 5.5% in the case of the eurodollar rate at
December 31, 2004.
|
|
|
8% Senior Secured Notes Due 2008 |
In April 2003, Tesoro issued $375 million aggregate
principal amount of 8% senior secured notes due
April 15, 2008. The notes have a five-year maturity with no
sinking fund requirements and are subject to optional redemption
by Tesoro, beginning April 15, 2006, at a premium of 4%
through April 14, 2007, and at par thereafter. We have the
right to redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount at a
redemption price of 108% with proceeds from certain equity
issuances through April 15, 2006. The indenture for the
notes contains covenants and restrictions that are customary for
notes of this nature and are similar to the covenants in the
indentures for Tesoros senior subordinated notes. The
notes and the term loans are equally secured by substantially
all of Tesoros refining property, plant and equipment and
are guaranteed by substantially all of Tesoros active
subsidiaries. The notes were issued at 98.994% of par, resulting
in net proceeds of $371.2 million before debt issuance
costs. The effective interest rate on the notes is 8.25%, after
giving effect to the discount.
|
|
|
Senior Subordinated Notes |
In April 2002, we issued $450 million principal amount of
95/8% senior
subordinated notes due April 1, 2012. The notes have a
ten-year maturity with no sinking fund requirements and are
subject to optional redemption by Tesoro beginning April 1,
2007 at premiums of 4.8% through March 31, 2008, 3.2% from
April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, 1.6% from
April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, and at par thereafter.
In November 2001, we issued $215 million principal amount
of
95/8% senior
subordinated notes due November 1, 2008. The notes have a
seven-year maturity with no sinking fund requirements and are
subject to optional redemption by Tesoro beginning
November 1, 2005 at premiums of 4.8% through
October 31, 2006, 2.4% from November 1, 2006 to
October 31, 2007, and at par thereafter.
The indentures for our senior subordinated notes contain
covenants and restrictions which are customary for notes of this
nature. These covenants and restrictions limit, among other
things, our ability to:
|
|
|
|
|
pay dividends and other distributions with respect to our
capital stock and purchase, redeem or retire our capital stock; |
|
|
|
incur additional indebtedness and issue preferred stock; |
|
|
|
sell assets unless the proceeds from those sales are used to
repay debt or are reinvested in our business; |
|
|
|
incur liens on assets to secure certain debt; |
34
|
|
|
|
|
engage in certain business activities; |
|
|
|
engage in certain merger or consolidations and transfers of
assets; and |
|
|
|
enter into transactions with affiliates. |
The indentures also limit our subsidiaries ability to
create restrictions on making certain payments and
distributions. The senior subordinated notes are guaranteed by
substantially all of our active domestic subsidiaries.
|
|
|
Junior Subordinated Notes Due 2012 |
In connection with our acquisition of the California refinery,
we issued to the seller two ten-year junior subordinated notes
with face amounts aggregating $150 million. The notes
consist of: (i) a $100 million junior subordinated
note, due July 2012, which is non-interest bearing through
May 16, 2007 and carries a 7.5% interest rate thereafter,
and (ii) a $50 million junior subordinated note, due
July 2012, which bears interest at 7.47% from May 17, 2003
through May 16, 2007 and 7.5% thereafter. The junior
subordinated notes were recorded initially at a combined present
value of approximately $61 million, discounted at a rate of
15.625% and 14.375%, respectively. The discount is being
amortized over the term of the notes.
Components of our cash flows are set forth below (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Cash Flows From (Used In):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Activities
|
|
$ |
685 |
|
|
$ |
447 |
|
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
Investing Activities
|
|
|
(174 |
) |
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
(941 |
) |
|
Financing Activities
|
|
|
(403 |
) |
|
|
(410 |
) |
|
|
941 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
|
|
$ |
108 |
|
|
$ |
(33 |
) |
|
$ |
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash from operating activities during 2004 totaled
$685 million, compared to $447 million from operating
activities in 2003. The increase was primarily due to
significantly improved earnings. Net cash used in investing
activities of $174 million in 2004 was primarily for
capital expenditures. Net cash used in financing activities of
$403 million in 2004 primarily reflects the debt
prepayments made during the year. Gross borrowings and
repayments under the revolving credit facility amounted to
$112 million during 2004, all of which occurred during the
2004 first quarter. Working capital totaled $401 million at
December 31, 2004 compared to $337 million at
December 31, 2003, as a result of increases in cash and
cash equivalents, receivables and inventories, partially offset
by increases in payables, attributable to increases in sales
volumes and crude and product prices.
Net cash from operating activities during 2003 totaled
$447 million, compared to $58 million from operating
activities in 2002. The increase was primarily due to improved
earnings before depreciation and amortization, the collection of
income tax refunds and lower working capital requirements. Net
cash used in investing activities of $70 million in 2003
was primarily for capital expenditures partially offset by
proceeds from the sale of marine services assets. Net cash used
in financing activities of $410 million in 2003 was
primarily for voluntary debt prepayments under a previous term
loan, other debt repayments, and financing costs related to the
credit agreement. Gross borrowings and repayments under
revolving credit lines amounted to $1.0 billion during
2003. Working capital totaled $337 million at
December 31, 2003 compared to $446 million at
December 31, 2002, reflecting an increase in accounts
payable and accrued liabilities of $145 million, partly
offset by decreases in the current maturities of debt and income
taxes receivable. The increase in our accounts payable reflects
the decrease in early payments and prepayments on crude oil and
product purchases as a result of our increased use of letters of
credit.
Net cash from operating activities during 2002 totaled
$58 million. Net cash used in investing activities of
$941 million in 2002 included $932 million for the
acquisition of the California refinery and $204 million for
35
capital expenditures, partially offset by $207 million in
proceeds from asset sales. Net cash from financing activities of
$941 million in 2002 included net proceeds of
$245 million from our equity offering, net proceeds of
$441 million from our notes offering and borrowings of
$425 million under our previous senior secured credit
facility, partly offset by repayments of debt of
$133 million and financing costs of $37 million. Gross
borrowings and repayments under revolving credit lines amounted
to $624 million during 2002.
EBITDA represents earnings before interest and financing costs,
income taxes, and depreciation and amortization. We present
EBITDA because we believe some investors and analysts use EBITDA
to help analyze our liquidity including our ability to satisfy
principal and interest obligations with respect to our
indebtedness and to use cash for other purposes, including
capital expenditures. EBITDA is also used by some investors and
analysts to analyze and compare companies on the basis of
operating performance. EBITDA is also used for internal analysis
and as a component of the fixed charge coverage financial
covenant in our credit agreement. EBITDA should not be
considered as an alternative to net earnings (loss), earnings
(loss) before income taxes, cash flows from operating activities
or any other measure of financial performance presented in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America. EBITDA may not be comparable to
similarly titled measures used by other entities. Our annual
historical EBITDA reconciled to net cash from operating
activities was (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net Cash from Operating Activities
|
|
$ |
685.3 |
|
|
$ |
447.3 |
|
|
$ |
57.8 |
|
Changes in Assets and Liabilities
|
|
|
(45.6 |
) |
|
|
(95.1 |
) |
|
|
(5.6 |
) |
Deferred Income Taxes
|
|
|
(102.4 |
) |
|
|
(55.5 |
) |
|
|
(3.3 |
) |
Stock-based Compensation
|
|
|
(14.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on Asset Sales and Impairments
|
|
|
(14.1 |
) |
|
|
(16.9 |
) |
|
|
(8.4 |
) |
Amortization and Write-off of Debt Issuance Costs and Discounts
|
|
|
(27.0 |
) |
|
|
(55.5 |
) |
|
|
(26.8 |
) |
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
(154.1 |
) |
|
|
(148.2 |
) |
|
|
(130.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Earnings (Loss)
|
|
$ |
327.9 |
|
|
$ |
76.1 |
|
|
$ |
(117.0 |
) |
|
Add Income Tax Provision (Benefit)
|
|
|
218.7 |
|
|
|
47.0 |
|
|
|
(64.3 |
) |
|
Add Interest and Financing Costs, Net
|
|
|
166.6 |
|
|
|
211.7 |
|
|
|
162.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income (Loss)
|
|
|
713.2 |
|
|
|
334.8 |
|
|
|
(18.7 |
) |
|
Add Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
154.1 |
|
|
|
148.2 |
|
|
|
130.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBITDA
|
|
$ |
867.3 |
|
|
$ |
483.0 |
|
|
$ |
112.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical EBITDA as presented above differs from EBITDA as
defined under our credit agreement. The primary differences are
non-cash postretirement benefit costs and loss on asset sales
and impairments, which are added to net earnings (loss) under
the credit agreement EBITDA calculations.
|
|
|
Capital Expenditures and Refinery Turnaround
Spending |
Our capital expenditures and refinery turnaround spending
totaled $229 million during 2004, compared to
$152 million in 2003 as discussed below.
During 2004, our capital expenditures (excluding refinery
turnaround and other major maintenance costs), totaled
$179 million, primarily for various clean air, clean fuels
and other environmental projects of $83 million and
refinery improvements at our California refinery of
$56 million, which included control systems modernization
totaling $12 million. Other capital spending was primarily
for various refinery
36
improvements. See Environmental and Other below for
additional information regarding capital spending for our clean
air, clean fuels and other environmental projects.
Based on our latest estimate, we expect our capital expenditures
to total approximately $225 to $235 million in 2005
(excluding refinery turnaround and other major maintenance costs
of approximately $55 million). The capital budget for the
refining segment is $185 million, including
$85 million for clean air and clean fuel projects,
$25 million for control systems modernization and tank
reconstruction projects at the California refinery, and other
refining projects totaling $75 million. Our retail capital
budget is $15 million for 2005. We expect to fund the 2005
capital spending program from cash flows from operations.
|
|
|
Refinery Turnaround and Other Major Maintenance |
During 2004, we spent $50 million for refinery turnarounds
and other major maintenance, including $46 million for our
scheduled refinery turnarounds. We expect to spend approximately
$55 million in 2005 for refinery turnarounds and other
major maintenance, including $48 million for scheduled
refinery turnarounds primarily at our California, Washington and
Hawaii refineries. Based on our latest estimates, we expect our
annual spending for refinery turnarounds to be as follows (in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refinery |
|
Actual | |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
California
|
|
$ |
42 |
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
Washington
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
Alaska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Hawaii
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
North Dakota
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
46 |
|
|
$ |
48 |
|
|
$ |
63 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
19 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have numerous contractual commitments for purchases of crude
oil feedstocks, services associated with the operation of our
refineries, debt service, pension obligations and leases (see
Notes F, N and P in our consolidated financial statements
in Item 8). We also have contractual commitments for
capital spending requirements related primarily to refinery
improvements and environmental projects.
The following table summarizes our annual contractual
commitments as of December 31, 2004 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual Obligation |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
Thereafter | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Long-term debt obligations(1)
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
198 |
|
|
$ |
674 |
|
|
$ |
53 |
|
|
$ |
710 |
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
Operating lease obligations(2)
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
Purchase obligations(3)
|
|
|
2,989 |
|
|
|
388 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term obligations(4)
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
Capital expenditure obligations
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected pension contributions(5)
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Contractual Obligations
|
|
$ |
3,402 |
|
|
$ |
671 |
|
|
$ |
363 |
|
|
$ |
798 |
|
|
$ |
156 |
|
|
$ |
953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes maturities of principal and estimated interest
payments, excluding capital lease obligations. Interest on our
floating-rate debt was estimated using the stated interest rate
at December 31, 2004. |
37
|
|
|
Amounts and timing may be different from our estimated
commitments due to potential voluntary debt prepayments and
interest rate fluctuations. |
|
(2) |
Represents our future minimum lease commitments for operating
leases. Lease commitments for 2005 include lease arrangements
with initial terms of less than one year. |
|
(3) |
Represents an estimate of our contractual purchase commitments
for the supply of crude oil feedstocks, with remaining terms
ranging from three months to 2 years. Prices under these
term agreements fluctuate with market-responsive pricing
provisions. To estimate our annual commitments under these
contracts, we estimated crude oil prices using actual market
prices, ranging from $29 per barrel to $42 per barrel,
as of December 31, 2004, and volumes based on the
contracts minimum purchase requirements. We also purchase
additional crude oil feedstocks under short-term renewable
contracts and in the spot market, which are not included in the
table above. |
|
(4) |
Represents long-term commitments to purchase services, including
chemical supplies and power. These purchase obligations are
based on the contracts minimum volume requirements. We
estimated our commitments to purchase power at our California
refinery, which has variable pricing provisions, using estimated
future market prices. Actual purchases of electricity at our
California refinery typically exceed the required minimum
volumes. These commitments also include annual lease payments of
$6 million through 2010 for a deactivated MTBE plant at our
California refinery. |
|
(5) |
Amounts are subject to change based on the performance of the
assets in the plan, the discount rate used to determine the
obligation, and other actuarial assumptions. See Critical
Accounting Policies for further information related to our
pension plan. We are unable to project benefit contributions
beyond 2009. |
We lease our corporate headquarters from a limited partnership
in which we own a 50% limited interest. The initial term of the
lease is through 2014 with two five-year renewal options. Our
lease payments and operating costs paid to the partnership
totaled $3.3 million, $3.2 million and
$3.1 million in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively, and our
future lease commitments are included in operating leases in the
table above. We account for our interest in the partnership
using the equity method of accounting. As such, we do not
include the partnerships assets, primarily land and
buildings, totaling approximately $17 million and debt of
approximately $13 million, in our consolidated financial
statements.
Tesoro is subject to extensive federal, state and local
environmental laws and regulations. These laws, which change
frequently, regulate the discharge of materials into the
environment and may require us to remove or mitigate the
environmental effects of the disposal or release of petroleum or
chemical substances at various sites, install additional
controls, or make other modifications or changes in use for
certain emission sources.
|
|
|
Environmental Liabilities |
As previously reported, we were involved with the EPA regarding
a waste disposal site near Abbeville, Louisiana. Tesoro was
named a potentially responsible party under the Federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA or Superfund) at this
location. The site was removed from the EPAs National
Priority List and the EPA entered into a settlement with third
parties to remediate the site. Based on these considerations and
recent discussions with the EPA, we believe that the likelihood
that this matter will have any impact on our results of
operations or financial position is remote.
We are currently involved in remedial responses and have
incurred and expect to continue to incur cleanup expenditures
associated with environmental matters at a number of sites,
including certain of our owned properties. At December 31,
2004, our accruals for environmental expenses totaled
approximately $34 million. Our accruals for environmental
expenses include retained liabilities for previously owned or
operated properties, refining, pipeline and terminal operations
and retail service stations. We believe these accruals are
adequate, based on currently available information, including
the participation of other parties or former owners in
remediation action.
38
We are continuing to negotiate a settlement of approximately
70 Notices of Violation (NOVs) issued by the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The NOVs allege
various violations of air quality requirements at the California
refinery between May 2002 and February 2004. Reserves for the
settlement of the NOVs are included in the accruals of
$34 million referenced above. We have established reserves
for this matter which are not material and we believe that the
resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse
effect on our financial position or results of operations.
On March 3, 2005 we finalized a settlement with the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District and the Contra Costa County
District Attorneys office concerning three NOVs we
received in March 2004 in response to odor incidents at our
California refinery. We have agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$225,000 to resolve this matter. Reserves for the settlement of
the NOVs are included in the accruals of $34 million
referenced above.
|
|
|
Other Environmental Matters |
In the ordinary course of business, we become party to or
otherwise involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings and
governmental investigations, including environmental, regulatory
and other matters. Large and sometimes unspecified damages or
penalties may be sought from us in some matters for which the
likelihood of loss may be reasonably possible but the amount of
loss is not currently estimable, and some matters may require
years for us to resolve. As a result, we have not established
reserves for these matters and we cannot provide assurance that
an adverse resolution of one or more of the matters described
below during a future reporting period will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations in future periods. However, on the basis of existing
information, we believe that the resolution of these matters,
individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations.
As previously disclosed, we were a defendant in seven pending
cases alleging MTBE contamination in groundwater. During the
2004 fourth quarter, we were named as a defendant in seven
additional pending cases, of which we obtained a dismissal
without prejudice in four of these cases in February 2005. The
plaintiffs in each of the remaining 10 pending cases, all
in California, are generally water providers, governmental
authorities and private well owners alleging that refiners and
suppliers of gasoline containing MTBE are liable for
manufacturing or distributing a defective product. We are being
sued as a refiner, supplier and marketer of gasoline containing
MTBE along with other refining industry companies. The suits
generally seek individual, unquantified compensatory and
punitive damages and attorneys fees, but we cannot
estimate the amount or the likelihood of the ultimate resolution
of these matters at this time, and accordingly, we have not
established a reserve for these cases. We believe we have
defenses to these claims and intend to vigorously defend the
lawsuits.
Soil and groundwater conditions at our California refinery may
require substantial expenditures over time. In connection with
our acquisition of the California refinery from Ultramar, Inc.
in May 2002, Ultramar assigned certain of its rights and
obligations that Ultramar had acquired from Tosco Corporation in
August of 2000. Tosco assumed responsibility and contractually
indemnified us for up to $50 million for certain
environmental liabilities arising from operations at the
refinery prior to August of 2000, which are identified prior to
August 31, 2010 (Pre-Acquisition Operations).
Based on existing information, we currently estimate that the
environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition
Operations are approximately $41 million, including soil
and groundwater conditions at the refinery in connection with
various projects and including those required by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board and other government
agencies. If we incur remediation liabilities in excess of the
environmental liabilities for Pre-Acquisition Operations
indemnified by Tosco, we expect to be reimbursed for such excess
liabilities under certain environmental insurance policies. The
policies provide $140 million of coverage in excess of the
$50 million indemnity covering environmental liabilities
arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations. Because of Toscos
indemnification and the environmental insurance policies, we
have not established a reserve for environmental liabilities
arising out of the Pre-Acquisition Operations. In December 2003,
we initiated arbitration proceedings against Tosco seeking
damages, indemnity and a declaration that Tosco is responsible
for the environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition
Operations at our California refinery.
39
In November 2003, we filed suit in Contra Costa County Superior
Court against Tosco alleging that Tosco misrepresented,
concealed and failed to disclose certain additional
environmental conditions at our California refinery. The court
granted Toscos motion to compel arbitration of our claims
for these certain additional environmental conditions. In the
arbitration proceedings we initiated against Tosco in December
2003, we are also seeking a determination that Tosco is liable
for investigation and remediation of these certain additional
environmental conditions, the amount of which is currently
unknown and therefore a reserve has not been established, and
which may not be covered by the $50 million indemnity for
environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition
Operations. In response to our arbitration claims, Tosco filed
counterclaims in the Contra Costa County Superior Court action
alleging that we are contractually responsible for certain
environmental liabilities at our California refinery, including
certain liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations. In
February 2005, the parties agreed to stay the arbitration
proceedings for a period of 90 days to pursue settlement
discussions. In the event we are unable to reach settlement, we
intend to vigorously prosecute our claims against Tosco and to
oppose Toscos claims against us, although we cannot
provide assurance that we will prevail.
During the first quarter of 2005, we began settlement
discussions with the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) concerning an NOV we received in October
2004. The NOV, issued by CARB, alleges we offered for sale
eleven batches of gasoline in California that did not meet
CARBs gasoline exhaust emission limits. As of
December 31, 2004, we could not estimate the amount of any
penalties that might be associated with this NOV and
accordingly, we did not establish a reserve for this matter. We
disagree with factual allegations in the NOV and believe that
the ultimate resolution of this matter with CARB will not have a
material adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations.
|
|
|
Environmental Capital Expenditures |
EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act require reductions
in the sulfur content in gasoline, which began January 1,
2004. To meet the revised gasoline standard, we spent
approximately $11 million in 2004, and we currently
estimate we will make additional capital improvements of
approximately $37 million through 2009. This will permit
each of our six refineries to produce gasoline meeting the
sulfur limits imposed by the EPA.
EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act also require
reductions in the sulfur content in diesel fuel manufactured for
on-road consumption. In general, the new on-road diesel fuel
standards will become effective on June 1, 2006. In May
2004, the EPA issued a rule regarding the sulfur content of
non-road diesel fuel. The requirements to reduce non-road diesel
sulfur content will become effective in phases between 2007 and
2010. We have not determined if we will invest the capital
necessary to manufacture low sulfur diesel for the non-road
market in Alaska, and we are continuing to evaluate potential
projects to manufacture additional non-road low sulfur diesel at
our Hawaii refinery. Our California, Washington and North Dakota
refineries will not require additional capital spending for
non-road low sulfur diesel. We spent $31 million in 2004 to
meet low sulfur diesel standards, and based on our latest
engineering estimates, we now expect to spend approximately
$45 million in additional capital improvements through 2006.
To comply with the Maximum Achievable Control Technologies
standard for petroleum refineries (Refinery
MACT II), we spent $20 million during 2004,
primarily to complete the installation of new emission control
equipment at our North Dakota refinery. We expect to spend
approximately $17 million in additional capital
improvements in 2006 at our Washington refinery.
40
Estimated capital expenditures described above to comply with
the Clean Air Act are summarized in the table below (in
millions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual | |
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Lower Sulfur Gasoline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alaska
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Hawaii
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Dakota
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
California
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total For Lower Sulfur Gasoline
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Sulfur Diesel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alaska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Dakota
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total For Lower Sulfur Diesel
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refinery MACT II
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alaska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Dakota
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total For Refinery MACT II
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
83 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In connection with the 2001 acquisition of our North Dakota and
Utah refineries, Tesoro assumed the sellers obligations
and liabilities under a consent decree among the United States,
BP Exploration and Oil Co. (BP), Amoco Oil
Company and Atlantic Richfield Company. BP entered into this
consent decree for both the North Dakota and Utah refineries for
various alleged violations. As the owner of these refineries,
Tesoro is required to address issues, including leak detection
and repair, flaring protection and sulfur recovery unit
optimization. We currently estimate we will spend
$5 million over the next three years to comply with this
consent decree. We also agreed to indemnify the sellers for all
losses of any kind incurred in connection with the consent
decree.
In connection with the 2002 acquisition of our California
refinery, subject to certain conditions, Tesoro also assumed the
sellers obligations pursuant to settlement efforts with
the EPA concerning the Section 114 refinery enforcement
initiative under the Clean Air Act, except for any potential
monetary penalties, which the seller retains. We believe these
obligations will not have a material impact on Tesoros
financial position or results of operations.
We will need to spend additional capital at the California
refinery for reconfiguring and replacing above-ground storage
tank systems and upgrading piping within the refinery. For these
related projects at our
41
California refinery, we spent $10 million during 2004, and
we estimate that we may spend an additional $90 million
through 2010. This cost estimate is subject to further review
and analysis.
Conditions may develop that cause increases or decreases in
future expenditures for our various sites, including, but not
limited to, our refineries, tank farms, retail gasoline stations
(operating and closed locations) and petroleum product
terminals, and for compliance with the Clean Air Act and other
federal, state and local requirements. We cannot currently
determine the amounts of such future expenditures.
Union Oil Company of California has asserted claims against
other refining companies for infringement of patents related to
the production of certain reformulated gasoline. Our California
refinery produces grades of gasoline that may be subject to
similar claims. We have not paid or accrued liabilities for
patent royalties that may be related to our California
refinerys production, since the U.S. Patent Office
and the Federal Trade Commission are evaluating the validity of
those patents. We believe that the resolution of this matter
will not have a material adverse effect on our financial
position or results of operations.
For further information on environmental matters and other
contingencies, see Note P in our consolidated financial
statements in Item 8.
For all eligible employees, we provide a qualified defined
benefit retirement plan with benefits based on years of service
and compensation. Our long-term expected return on plan assets
is 8.5%, and our pension plan assets experienced a return of
$12 million in 2004 and $14 million in 2003. We
contributed $53 million in 2004 and currently project to
contribute $12 million in 2005, $16 million in 2006,
$29 million in 2007 and $28 million in 2008 and
$28 million in 2009. We are unable to project benefit
contributions beyond 2009. Future contributions are affected by
returns on plan assets, employee demographics and other factors.
See Note N in our consolidated financial statements in
Item 8 for further discussion.
|
|
|
Claims Against Third-Parties |
Beginning in the early 1980s, Tesoro Hawaii Corporation, Tesoro
Alaska Company and other fuel suppliers entered a series of
long-term, fixed-price fuel supply contracts with the
U.S. Defense Energy Support Center (DESC). Each
of the contracts contained a provision for price adjustments by
the DESC. However, the Federal Acquisition Regulations
(FAR) limit how prices may be adjusted, and we and
many of the other suppliers in separate suits in the Court of
Federal Claims currently are seeking relief from the DESCs
price adjustments. We and the other suppliers allege that the
DESCs price adjustments violated FAR by not adjusting the
price of fuel based on changes to the suppliers
established prices or costs, as FAR requires. We and the other
suppliers seek recovery of approximately $3 billion in
underpayment for fuel. Our share of the underpayment currently
totals approximately $165 million, plus interest. The Court
of Federal Claims granted partial summary judgment in our favor,
held that the DESCs fuel prices were illegal, and rejected
the DESCs assertion that we waived our right to a remedy
by entering into the contracts. However, some of the other
judges in the same court ruled on the cross-motions for other
suppliers in conflict with the holding for us. As a result, we
petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to
review its claims, and oral arguments in the appeal were held on
January 10, 2005. We are seeking the Court of Appeals
validation that the price adjustments were illegal and that we
did not waive our right to sue when we entered into the
contracts. We expect to receive the written decision from the
Court of Appeals during the second quarter of 2005, but we
cannot predict how the court will rule in this litigation.
In December of 1996, Tesoro Alaska Company filed a protest of
the intrastate rates charged for the transportation of its crude
oil through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).
Our protest asserted that the TAPS intrastate rates were
excessive and should be reduced. The Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA) opened RCA Docket No. P-97-4 to
consider our protest of the intrastate rates for the years 1997
through 2000. Through RCAs Order P-97-4(151), the RCA
set just and reasonable final rates for the years 1997 through
2000, and held that we are entitled to receive approximately
$52 million in refunds, including
42
interest through the expected conclusion of appeals in December
2007. RCA Order P-97-4(151) is currently on appeal, and we
cannot give any assurances of when or whether we will prevail in
the appeal.
In December 2002, the RCA opened Docket No. P-03-4 to
consider the justness and reasonableness of the proposed
intrastate rates for TAPS for 2001-2003. Through the RCAs
Order P-03-4(34) (Order 34), the RCA
rejected the TAPS Carriers proposed intrastate rate
increases and maintained the permanent rate of $1.96 to the
Valdez Marine Terminal. Order 34 is currently on appeal to the
Alaska Superior Court (Case No. 3AN-04-8780 CI) and the
TAPS Carriers did not move to stay Order 34 to prevent the
rate decrease. The rate decrease has been in effect since June
2003.
If the RCAs decision is upheld on appeal, we could be
entitled to refunds resulting from our shipments from January
2001 through mid-June 2003. If the RCAs decision is not
upheld on appeal, we could have to pay additional shipping
charges resulting from our shipments from mid-June 2003 through
December 2004. We cannot give any assurances of when or whether
we will prevail in the appeal. We also believe that, should we
not prevail on appeal, the amount of additional shipping charges
cannot reasonably be estimated since it is not possible to
estimate the permanent rate which the RCA could set, and the
appellate courts approve, for each year. In addition, depending
upon the level of such rates, there is a reasonable possibility
that any refunds for the period January 2001 through mid-June
2003, could offset some or all of any repayments due for the
period mid-June 2003 through December 2004.
ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
|
|
|
Critical Accounting Policies |
Our accounting policies are described in Note A in our
consolidated financial statements in Item 8. We prepare our
consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America,
which require us to make estimates and assumptions that affect
the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosures
of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the
financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and
expenses during the year. Actual results could differ from those
estimates. We consider the following policies to be the most
critical in understanding the judgments that are involved in
preparing our financial statements and the uncertainties that
could impact our financial condition and results of operations.
Receivables Our trade receivables are stated
at their invoiced amounts, less an allowance for potentially
uncollectible amounts. We monitor the credit and payment
experience of our customers and manage our loss exposure through
our credit policies and procedures. The estimated allowance for
doubtful accounts is based on our general loss experience and
identified loss exposures on individual accounts. Although
actual losses have not been significant to our results of
operations, economic conditions and the related credit
environment could change, and actual losses could vary from
estimates.
Inventory Our inventories are stated at the
lower of cost or market. We use the LIFO method to determine the
cost of our crude oil and refined product inventories. The LIFO
cost of these inventories is usually much less than current
market value, however a significant decline in market values of
petroleum products could impair the carrying values of these
inventories. We had 21.8 million barrels of crude oil and
refined product inventories at December 31, 2004 with an
average cost of approximately $26 per barrel on a LIFO
basis. If refined product prices decline below the average cost,
then we would be required to write down the value of our
inventories in future periods.
Property, Plant and Equipment We calculate
depreciation and amortization using the straight-line method
based on estimated useful lives and salvage values of our
assets. When assets are placed into service, we make estimates
with respect to their useful lives that we believe are
reasonable. However, factors such as maintenance levels,
economic conditions impacting the demand for these assets, and
regulation or environmental matters could cause us to change our
estimates, thus impacting the future calculation of depreciation
and amortization. We evaluate property, plant and equipment for
potential impairment by identifying whether indicators of
impairment exist and, if so, assessing whether the assets are
recoverable from estimated future undiscounted cash flows. The
actual amount of impairment loss, if any, to be recorded is
equal to the amount
43
by which the assets carrying value exceeds its fair value.
Estimates of future undiscounted cash flows and fair value of
assets require subjective assumptions with regard to several
factors, including an assessment of market conditions and future
operating results. Actual results could differ from those
estimates.
Goodwill and Acquired Intangibles As of
December 31, 2004, we had $89 million of goodwill
included in Other Noncurrent Assets. Goodwill is not amortized,
but is tested for impairment annually or more frequently when
indicators of impairment exist. We review the recorded value of
our goodwill for impairment annually during the fourth quarter,
or sooner if events or changes in circumstances indicate the
carrying amount may exceed fair value. Recoverability is
determined by comparing the estimated fair value of a reporting
unit to the carrying value, including the related goodwill, of
that reporting unit. We use the present value of expected net
cash flows to determine the estimated fair value of our
reporting units. In 2003, we wrote off the marine services
goodwill of $2.4 million in connection with the sale of
that operation. In connection with the 2002 annual impairment
review, we recognized a loss of $1.2 million to reduce the
carrying value of goodwill in our retail segment. The impairment
test is susceptible to change from period to period as it
requires us to make cash flow assumptions including, among other
things, future margins, volumes, operating costs and discount
rates. Our assumptions regarding future margins and volumes
require significant judgment as actual margins and volumes have
fluctuated in the past and will likely continue to do so. For
the impairment test performed during the fourth quarter of 2004,
we assumed that future margins in our geographic areas will
approximate our five-year average levels. Changes in market
conditions could result in impairment charges in the future.
As of December 31, 2004, we included $127 million of
acquired intangible assets in Other Noncurrent Assets. The
valuation of these intangible assets required us to use our
judgment, including estimates with respect to their useful
lives. We review acquired intangible assets for impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the
carrying amount of the assets may not be recoverable. The
assessment of impairment is based on the estimated undiscounted
future cash flows from operating activities, compared with the
carrying value of the assets. The actual amount of impairment
loss, if any, to be recorded is equal to the amount by which the
assets carrying value exceeds its fair value. Estimates of
future undiscounted cash flows and fair values of assets require
subjective assumptions with regard to several factors, including
an assessment of market conditions, discount rates and future
operating results. Actual results could differ from those
estimates.
Deferred Maintenance Costs We record the cost
of major scheduled refinery turnarounds, long-lived catalysts
used in refinery process units, and periodic maintenance on
ships, tugs and barges (drydocking) as deferred
charges in Other Noncurrent Assets which totaled
$99 million at December 31, 2004. We amortize these
deferred charges over the expected periods of benefit, generally
ranging from two to six years. In September 2003, the American
Institute of CPAs Accounting Standards Executive Committee
(AcSEC) approved for issuance a Statement of
Position (SOP), Accounting for Certain Costs
and Activities Related to Property, Plant and Equipment,
subject to clearance by the FASB, which would have required
these major maintenance activities to be expensed as costs are
incurred. On April 14, 2004, the FASB unanimously decided
not to approve the issuance of the proposed SOP. AcSEC has
stated that they will not spend any further time on this
project, and the FASB currently does not have definitive plans
to consider the issues addressed in the proposed SOP.
Contingencies We record an estimated loss
from a contingency when information available before issuing our
financial statements indicates that (a) it is probable that
an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred at
the date of the financial statements and (b) the amount of
the loss can be reasonably estimated. We are required to use our
judgment to account for contingencies such as environmental,
legal and income tax matters. While we believe that our accruals
for these matters are adequate, the actual loss may differ from
our estimated loss, and we would record the necessary
adjustments in future periods. We do not record the benefits of
contingent recoveries or gains until the amount is determinable
and recovery is assured.
Income Taxes As part of the process of
preparing consolidated financial statements, we must assess the
likelihood that our deferred income tax assets will be recovered
through future taxable income. To the extent we believe that
recovery is not likely, a valuation allowance must be
established. Significant
44
management judgment is required in determining any valuation
allowance recorded against net deferred income tax assets. Based
on our estimates of taxable income in each jurisdiction in which
we operate and the period over which deferred income tax assets
will be recoverable, we have not recorded a valuation allowance
as of December 31, 2004. In the event that actual results
differ from these estimates or we make adjustments to these
estimates in future periods, we may need to establish a
valuation allowance.
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits
Accounting for pensions and other postretirement benefits
involves several assumptions and estimates including discount
rates, health care cost trends, inflation, retirement rates and
mortality rates. We must also assume a rate of return on funded
pension plan assets in order to estimate our obligations under
our defined benefit plans. Due to the nature of these
calculations, we engage an actuarial firm to assist with the
determination of these estimates and the calculation of certain
employee benefit expenses. We record a liability for the cost of
the plans based on the actuarially determined amounts, less any
plan assets. While we believe that the assumptions used are
appropriate, significant differences in the actual experience or
significant changes in assumptions would affect pension and
other postretirement benefits costs and obligations. A
one-percentage-point change in the expected return on plan
assets and discount rate for the pension plans would have had
the following effects in 2004 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-Percentage- | |
|
1-Percentage- | |
|
|
Point Increase | |
|
Point Decrease | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Expected Rate of Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on net periodic pension expense
|
|
$ |
(1.2 |
) |
|
$ |
1.2 |
|
Discount Rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect on net periodic pension expense
|
|
$ |
(2.4 |
) |
|
$ |
2.8 |
|
|
Effect on projected benefit obligation
|
|
$ |
(18.4 |
) |
|
$ |
21.7 |
|
See Note N in our consolidated financial statements in
Item 8 for more information regarding costs and assumptions.
|
|
|
New Accounting Standards and Disclosures |
See Note A in our consolidated financial statements in
Item 8.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes forward-looking
statements within the meaning of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are included
throughout this Form 10-K and relate to, among other
things, expectations regarding refining margins, revenues, cash
flows, capital expenditures, turnaround expenses, and other
financial items. These statements also relate to our business
strategy, goals and expectations concerning our market position,
future operations, margins and profitability. We have used the
words anticipate, believe,
could, estimate, expect,
intend, may, plan,
predict, project, will and
similar terms and phrases to identify forward-looking statements
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Although we believe the assumptions upon which these
forward-looking statements are based are reasonable, any of
these assumptions could prove to be inaccurate and the
forward-looking statements based on these assumptions could be
incorrect. Our operations involve risks and uncertainties, many
of which are outside our control, and any one of which, or a
combination of which, could materially affect our results of
operations and whether the forward-looking statements ultimately
prove to be correct.
Actual results and trends in the future may differ materially
from those suggested or implied by the forward-looking
statements depending on a variety of factors including, but not
limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in general economic conditions; |
|
|
|
the timing and extent of changes in commodity prices and
underlying demand for our products; |
|
|
|
the availability and costs of crude oil, other refinery
feedstocks and refined products; |
45
|
|
|
|
|
changes in our cash flow from operations; |
|
|
|
changes in the cost or availability of third-party vessels,
pipelines and other means of transporting feedstocks and
products; |
|
|
|
disruptions due to equipment interruption or failure at our
facilities or third-party facilities; |
|
|
|
actions of customers and competitors; |
|
|
|
changes in capital requirements or in execution of planned
capital projects; |
|
|
|
direct or indirect effects on our business resulting from actual
or threatened terrorist incidents or acts of war; |
|
|
|
political developments in foreign countries; |
|
|
|
changes in our inventory levels and carrying costs; |
|
|
|
seasonal variations in demand for refined products; |
|
|
|
changes in fuel and utility costs for our facilities; |
|
|
|
state and federal environmental, economic, safety and other
policies and regulations, any changes therein, and any legal or
regulatory delays or other factors beyond our control; |
|
|
|
adverse rulings, judgments, or settlements in litigation or
other legal or tax matters, including unexpected environmental
remediation costs in excess of any reserves; |
|
|
|
weather conditions affecting our operations or the areas in
which our products are marketed; and |
|
|
|
earthquakes or other natural disasters affecting operations. |
Many of these factors are described in greater detail in
Competition and Other on page 10 and Risk
Factors on page 15. All future written and oral
forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting
on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the
previous statements. We undertake no obligation to update any
information contained herein or to publicly release the results
of any revisions to any forward-looking statements that may be
made to reflect events or circumstances that occur, or that we
become aware of, after the date of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
|
|
ITEM 7A. |
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK |
Changes in commodity prices and interest rates are our primary
sources of market risk. We have a risk management committee
responsible for managing risks arising from transactions and
commitments related to the sale and purchase of energy
commodities.
Commodity Price Risks
Our earnings and cash flows from operations depend on the margin
above fixed and variable expenses (including the costs of crude
oil and other feedstocks) at which we are able to sell refined
products. The prices of crude oil and refined products have
fluctuated substantially in recent years. These prices depend on
many factors, including the demand for crude oil, gasoline and
other refined products, which in turn depend on, among other
factors, changes in the economy, the level of foreign and
domestic production of crude oil and refined products, worldwide
political conditions, the availability of imports of crude oil
and refined products, the marketing of alternative and competing
fuels and the impact of government regulations. The prices we
receive for refined products are also affected by local factors
such as local market conditions and the level of operations of
other refineries in our markets.
The prices at which we sell our refined products are influenced
by the commodity price of crude oil. Generally, an increase or
decrease in the price of crude oil results in a corresponding
increase or decrease in the price of gasoline and other refined
products. The timing of the relative movement of the prices,
however, can impact profit margins which could significantly
affect our earnings and cash flows. In addition, the
46
majority of our crude oil supply contracts are short-term in
nature with market-responsive pricing provisions. Our financial
results can be affected significantly by price level changes
during the period between purchasing refinery feedstocks and
selling the manufactured refined products from such feedstocks.
We also purchase refined products manufactured by others for
resale to our customers. Our financial results can be affected
significantly by price level changes during the periods between
purchasing and selling such products. Assuming all other factors
remained constant, a $1.00 per barrel change in average
gross refining margins, based on our 2004 average throughput of
520 thousand bpd, would change annual pretax operating income by
approximately $190 million.
We maintain inventories of crude oil, intermediate products and
refined products, the values of which are subject to
fluctuations in market prices. Our inventories of refinery
feedstocks and refined products totaled 21.8 million
barrels and 18.8 million barrels at December 31, 2004
and 2003, respectively. The average cost of our refinery
feedstocks and refined products at December 31, 2004 was
approximately $26 per barrel on a LIFO basis, compared to
market prices of approximately $46 per barrel. If market
prices for refined products decline to a level below the average
cost of these inventories, we would be required to write down
the carrying value of our inventory.
Tesoro periodically enters into derivative arrangements
primarily to manage exposure to commodity price risks associated
with the purchase of crude oil. To manage these risks, we
typically enter into exchange-traded futures and options and
over-the-counter swaps, generally with durations of one year or
less. We mark to market our non-hedging derivative instruments
and recognize the changes in their fair values in earnings. We
include the carrying amounts of our derivatives in other current
assets or accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance
sheets. We did not designate or account for any derivative
instruments as hedges during the years ended 2004, 2003 or 2002.
During 2004, we settled futures, options and other
over-the-counter contracts of approximately 42 million
barrels of crude oil and refined products, which due to
significant price volatility resulted in losses of
$53 million. At December 31, 2004, we had open net
futures contracts and swap positions of 529,000 barrels and
587,000 barrels, respectively, which will expire at various
times during 2005. We recorded the fair value of these
positions, which resulted in a mark-to-market gain of
$1.6 million at December 31, 2004.
Interest Rate Risk
At December 31, 2004, we had $97.0 million of
outstanding floating-rate debt under our senior secured term
loans and $1.1 billion of fixed-rate debt. The interest
rate on our floating-rate debt was 7.99% at December 31,
2004, 5.5% of which was fixed. The impact on annual cash flow of
an additional 1% (100 basis points) in the floating-rate
component for our senior secured term loans would be
approximately $1 million.
The fair market values of our senior secured loans, senior
secured notes and senior subordinated notes are based on
transactions and bid quotes. The fair market value of our junior
subordinated notes and capital lease obligations approximate
their carrying values. The fair market values of our fixed and
variable rate debt were approximately $110 million and
$3 million, respectively, more than their carrying values
at December 31, 2004.
47
|
|
ITEM 8. |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA |
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Tesoro Corporation
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Tesoro Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) as
of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related statements
of consolidated operations, stockholders equity, and cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2004. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
Tesoro Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004
and 2003, and the results of their operations and their cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2004, in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.
As discussed in Note A to the consolidated financial
statements, as of January 1, 2004, the Company changed its
method of accounting for stock options.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on the
criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated
March 2, 2005, expressed an unqualified opinion on
managements assessment of the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting and an
unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys
internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ deloitte &
touche llp
San Antonio, Texas
March 2, 2005
48
TESORO CORPORATION
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions except per share amounts) | |
REVENUES
|
|
$ |
12,262.2 |
|
|
$ |
8,845.7 |
|
|
$ |
7,119.3 |
|
COSTS AND EXPENSES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs of sales and operating expenses
|
|
|
11,228.5 |
|
|
|
8,207.8 |
|
|
|
6,865.7 |
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
|
152.3 |
|
|
|
138.0 |
|
|
|
133.2 |
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
154.1 |
|
|
|
148.2 |
|
|
|
130.7 |
|
|
Loss on asset sales and impairments
|
|
|
14.1 |
|
|
|
16.9 |
|
|
|
8.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
713.2 |
|
|
|
334.8 |
|
|
|
(18.7 |
) |
Interest and financing costs, net
|
|
|
(166.6 |
) |
|
|
(211.7 |
) |
|
|
(162.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EARNINGS (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES
|
|
|
546.6 |
|
|
|
123.1 |
|
|
|
(181.3 |
) |
Income tax provision (benefit)
|
|
|
218.7 |
|
|
|
47.0 |
|
|
|
(64.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET EARNINGS (LOSS)
|
|
$ |
327.9 |
|
|
$ |
76.1 |
|
|
$ |
(117.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$ |
5.01 |
|
|
$ |
1.18 |
|
|
$ |
(1.93 |
) |
|
Diluted
|
|
$ |
4.76 |
|
|
$ |
1.17 |
|
|
$ |
(1.93 |
) |
WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
65.5 |
|
|
|
64.6 |
|
|
|
60.5 |
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
68.9 |
|
|
|
65.1 |
|
|
|
60.5 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
49
TESORO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Dollars in millions | |
|
|
except per share amounts) | |
ASSETS |
CURRENT ASSETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
184.8 |
|
|
$ |
77.2 |
|
|
Receivables, less allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
528.4 |
|
|
|
414.6 |
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
615.7 |
|
|
|
487.3 |
|
|
Prepayments and other
|
|
|
64.5 |
|
|
|
44.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Current Assets
|
|
|
1,393.4 |
|
|
|
1,024.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining
|
|
|
2,602.5 |
|
|
|
2,451.1 |
|
|
Retail
|
|
|
225.1 |
|
|
|
231.4 |
|
|
Corporate and other
|
|
|
66.2 |
|
|
|
58.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,893.8 |
|
|
|
2,741.3 |
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(590.2 |
) |
|
|
(489.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Property, Plant and Equipment
|
|
|
2,303.6 |
|
|
|
2,251.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER NONCURRENT ASSETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
88.7 |
|
|
|
88.7 |
|
|
Acquired intangibles, net
|
|
|
127.2 |
|
|
|
138.6 |
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
162.2 |
|
|
|
158.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Noncurrent Assets
|
|
|
378.1 |
|
|
|
385.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$ |
4,075.1 |
|
|
$ |
3,661.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
CURRENT LIABILITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$ |
686.6 |
|
|
$ |
431.8 |
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
302.7 |
|
|
|
251.7 |
|
|
Current maturities of debt
|
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Current Liabilities
|
|
|
992.7 |
|
|
|
687.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFERRED INCOME TAXES
|
|
|
292.9 |
|
|
|
179.2 |
|
OTHER LIABILITIES
|
|
|
247.5 |
|
|
|
224.4 |
|
DEBT
|
|
|
1,214.9 |
|
|
|
1,605.3 |
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Note P)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value
$0.162/3;
authorized 100,000,000 shares; 68,261,949 shares
issued (66,458,008 in 2003)
|
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
728.7 |
|
|
|
690.6 |
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
608.9 |
|
|
|
281.0 |
|
|
Unearned compensation
|
|
|
(10.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock, 1,438,524 common shares (1,701,768 in 2003), at
cost
|
|
|
(11.2 |
) |
|
|
(17.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
1,327.1 |
|
|
|
965.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders Equity
|
|
$ |
4,075.1 |
|
|
$ |
3,661.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
50
TESORO CORPORATION
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock | |
|
Additional | |
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury Stock | |
|
|
| |
|
Paid-In | |
|
Retained | |
|
Unearned | |
|
| |
|
|
Shares | |
|
Amount | |
|
Capital | |
|
Earnings | |
|
Compensation | |
|
Shares | |
|
Amount | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
AT JANUARY 1, 2002
|
|
|
43.4 |
|
|
$ |
7.2 |
|
|
$ |
448.4 |
|
|
$ |
321.9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
(2.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(20.5 |
) |
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(117.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issuance of common stock
|
|
|
23.0 |
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
|
241.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares issued for stock options and benefit plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AT DECEMBER 31, 2002
|
|
|
66.4 |
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
|
689.8 |
|
|
|
204.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.8 |
) |
|
|
(18.1 |
) |
|
Net earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares issued for stock options and benefit plans
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AT DECEMBER 31, 2003
|
|
|
66.5 |
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
|
690.6 |
|
|
|
281.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.7 |
) |
|
|
(17.2 |
) |
|
Net earnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
327.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares issued for stock options and benefit plans
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
21.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
Tax benefits on stock options exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock grants
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AT DECEMBER 31, 2004
|
|
|
68.3 |
|
|
$ |
11.4 |
|
|
$ |
728.7 |
|
|
$ |
608.9 |
|
|
$ |
(10.7 |
) |
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
$ |
(11.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements
51
TESORO CORPORATION
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
CASH FLOWS FROM (USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss)
|
|
$ |
327.9 |
|
|
$ |
76.1 |
|
|
$ |
(117.0 |
) |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings (loss) to net cash from
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
154.1 |
|
|
|
148.2 |
|
|
|
130.7 |
|
|
Amortization of debt issuance costs and discounts
|
|
|
17.7 |
|
|
|
19.3 |
|
|
|
14.2 |
|
|
Write-off of unamortized debt issuance costs and discount
|
|
|
9.3 |
|
|
|
36.2 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
|
Loss on asset sales and impairments
|
|
|
14.1 |
|
|
|
16.9 |
|
|
|
8.4 |
|
|
Stock-based compensation
|
|
|
14.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
102.4 |
|
|
|
55.5 |
|
|
|
3.3 |
|
|
Other changes in non-current assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(13.9 |
) |
|
|
(42.6 |
) |
|
|
(38.0 |
) |
|
Changes in current assets and current liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receivables
|
|
|
(115.8 |
) |
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
(49.8 |
) |
|
|
Income taxes receivable
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
38.4 |
|
|
|
(19.4 |
) |
|
|
Inventories
|
|
|
(128.6 |
) |
|
|
(26.0 |
) |
|
|
115.9 |
|
|
|
Prepayments and other
|
|
|
(16.4 |
) |
|
|
(16.3 |
) |
|
|
(20.7 |
) |
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
318.4 |
|
|
|
140.4 |
|
|
|
17.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash from operating activities
|
|
|
685.3 |
|
|
|
447.3 |
|
|
|
57.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM (USED IN) INVESTING ACTIVITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(179.4 |
) |
|
|
(101.1 |
) |
|
|
(203.5 |
) |
|
Acquisitions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(931.5 |
) |
|
Proceeds from asset sales
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
31.2 |
|
|
|
207.4 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.1 |
) |
|
|
(13.1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(174.5 |
) |
|
|
(70.0 |
) |
|
|
(940.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM (USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from debt offerings, net of issuance costs of $11.2 in
2003 and $9.4 in 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
360.0 |
|
|
|
440.6 |
|
|
Borrowings under term loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
350.0 |
|
|
|
425.0 |
|
|
Proceeds from Common Stock offering, net of issuance costs of
$13.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
245.1 |
|
|
Debt refinanced
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(721.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments of debt
|
|
|
(400.9 |
) |
|
|
(376.7 |
) |
|
|
(133.0 |
) |
|
Other financing costs
|
|
|
(15.1 |
) |
|
|
(22.7 |
) |
|
|
(36.9 |
) |
|
Proceeds from stock options exercised
|
|
|
12.8 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash from (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
(403.2 |
) |
|
|
(409.9 |
) |
|
|
940.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
|
|
107.6 |
|
|
|
(32.6 |
) |
|
|
57.9 |
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF YEAR
|
|
|
77.2 |
|
|
|
109.8 |
|
|
|
51.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF YEAR
|
|
$ |
184.8 |
|
|
$ |
77.2 |
|
|
$ |
109.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW DISCLOSURES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of capitalized interest
|
|
$ |
141.7 |
|
|
$ |
156.7 |
|
|
$ |
114.3 |
|
|
Income taxes paid (refunded)
|
|
$ |
52.9 |
|
|
$ |
(50.7 |
) |
|
$ |
(48.0 |
) |
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
52
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE A SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING
POLICIES
|
|
|
Description and Nature of Business |
Tesoro Corporation (Tesoro) was incorporated in
Delaware in 1968 and is an independent refiner and marketer of
petroleum products. We own and operate six petroleum refineries
in the western and mid-continental United States with a combined
rated crude oil throughput capacity of 558,000 barrels per
day (bpd), and we sell refined products to a wide
variety of customers. We market products to wholesale and retail
customers, as well as commercial end-users. Our retail business
includes a network of 506 branded retail stations operated
by Tesoro or independent dealers.
Tesoros earnings, cash flows from operations and liquidity
depend upon many factors, including producing and selling
refined products at margins above fixed and variable expenses.
The prices of crude oil and refined products have fluctuated
substantially in our markets. Our operating results have been
significantly influenced by the timing of changes in crude oil
costs and how quickly refined product prices adjust to reflect
these changes. These price fluctuations depend on numerous
factors beyond our control, including the demand for crude oil,
gasoline and other refined products, which is subject to, among
other things, changes in the economy and the level of foreign
and domestic production of crude oil and refined products,
worldwide political conditions, threatened or actual terrorist
incidents or acts of war, availability of crude oil and refined
product imports, the infrastructure to transport crude oil and
refined products, weather conditions, earthquakes and other
natural disasters, seasonal variations, government regulations
and local factors, including market conditions and the level of
operations of other refineries in our markets. As a result of
these factors, margin fluctuations during any reporting period
can have a significant impact on our results of operations, cash
flows, liquidity and financial position.
|
|
|
Principles of Consolidation and Basis of
Presentation |
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the
accounts of Tesoro and its subsidiaries. All intercompany
accounts and transactions have been eliminated. Investments in
entities in which we have the ability to exercise significant
influence, but not control, are accounted for using the equity
method, while other investments are carried at cost. These
investments are not material, either individually or in the
aggregate, to Tesoros financial position, results of
operations or cash flows. See Note P for information
related to a 50% limited partnership interest, which we account
for using the equity method.
Separate financial statements of Tesoros subsidiary
guarantors are not included because these subsidiary guarantors
are jointly and severally liable for Tesoros outstanding
senior secured term loans, senior secured notes and senior
subordinated notes. Further, net assets, results of operations
and equity of the subsidiary guarantors are substantially
equivalent to Tesoros consolidated net assets, results of
operations and equity.
We prepare Tesoros consolidated financial statements in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America (U.S. GAAP), which
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues
and expenses during the year. We review our estimates on an
ongoing basis, based on currently available information. Changes
in facts and circumstances may result in revised estimates and
actual results could differ from those estimates.
53
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents |
We consider all highly-liquid instruments, such as temporary
cash investments, with a maturity of three months or less at the
time of purchase to be cash equivalents. Cash equivalents are
stated at cost, which approximates market value.
The carrying amounts of financial instruments, including cash
and cash equivalents, receivables, accounts payable and certain
accrued liabilities, approximate fair value because of the short
maturities of these instruments. The carrying amounts of
Tesoros debt and other obligations may vary from our
estimates of the fair value of such items. We estimate that the
fair market value of Tesoros fixed-rate debt at
December 31, 2004, was approximately $110 million more
than its total book value of $1.1 billion. We estimate that
the fair market value of the Companys variable-rate debt
at December 31, 2004, was approximately $3 million
more than its book value of $97 million.
Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market. We use
last-in, first-out (LIFO) as the primary method to
determine the cost of crude oil and refined product inventories
in our refining and retail segments. We determine the carrying
value of inventories of oxygenates and by-products using the
first-in, first-out (FIFO) cost method. We value
merchandise and materials and supplies at average cost.
|
|
|
Property, Plant and Equipment |
We capitalize the cost of additions, major improvements and
modifications to property, plant and equipment. We compute
depreciation of property, plant and equipment on the
straight-line method, based on the estimated useful life of each
asset. The weighted average lives range from 26 to 27 years
for refineries, 8 to 16 years for terminals, 12 to
16 years for retail stations, 5 to 29 years for
transportation assets and 4 to 17 years for corporate
assets. We record property under capital leases at the present
value of minimum lease payments using Tesoros incremental
borrowing rate. We amortize property under capital leases over
the term of each lease.
We capitalize interest as part of the cost of major projects
during extended construction periods. Tesoro incurred total
interest and financing costs of $175.4 million,
$215.3 million and $168.6 million in 2004, 2003 and
2002, respectively, of which $4.3 million,
$2.7 million and $2.5 million was capitalized during
2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
|
|
|
Asset Retirement Obligations |
We accrue for asset retirement obligations, primarily for assets
on leased sites, in the period in which the obligations are
incurred. We accrue these costs at estimated fair value. When
the related liability is initially recorded, we capitalize the
cost by increasing the carrying amount of the related long-lived
asset. Over time, the liability is accreted to its settlement
value and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful
life of the related asset. Upon settlement of the liability, we
recognize a gain or loss for any difference between the
settlement amount and the liability recorded. We have identified
asset retirement obligations, including obligations imposed by
certain state laws pertaining to closure and/or removal of
storage tanks, and contractual removal obligations included in
certain lease and right-of-way agreements associated with our
retail, pipeline and terminal operations. We have estimated the
fair value of our asset retirement obligations, based in part on
the terms of the agreements and the probabilities associated
with the eventual sale or other disposition of these assets. We
cannot currently make reasonable estimates of the fair values of
some retirement obligations, principally those associated with
refineries, certain pipeline rights-of-way and certain
54
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
terminals, because the related assets have indeterminate useful
lives which preclude development of assumptions about the
potential timing of settlement dates. Such obligations will be
recognized in the period in which sufficient information exists
to estimate a range of potential settlement dates. At both
December 31, 2004 and 2003, our liability for asset
retirement obligations amounted to approximately $1 million.
|
|
|
Environmental Expenditures |
We capitalize environmental expenditures that extend the life or
increase the capacity of facilities, as well as expenditures
that mitigate or prevent environmental contamination that is yet
to occur. We charge to expense costs that relate to an existing
condition caused by past operations and that do not contribute
to current or future revenue generation. We record liabilities
when environmental assessments and/or remedial efforts are
probable and can be reasonably estimated. Cost estimates are
based on the expected timing and the extent of remedial actions
required by applicable governing agencies, experience gained
from similar sites on which environmental assessments or
remediation have been completed, and the amount of our
anticipated liability considering the proportional liability and
financial abilities of other responsible parties. Generally, the
timing of these accruals coincides with the completion of a
feasibility study or our commitment to a formal plan of action.
Estimated liabilities are not discounted to present value.
|
|
|
Goodwill and Acquired Intangibles |
Goodwill represents the excess of cost (purchase price) over the
fair value of net assets acquired. Under Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, we ceased
amortizing goodwill on January 1, 2002. Acquired
intangibles consist primarily of air emissions credits, permits
and plans, and customer agreements and contracts, which we
recorded at fair value as of the date acquired. We compute
amortization on a straight-line basis over estimated useful
lives of 2 to 28 years, and we include amortization of
acquired intangibles in depreciation and amortization expense.
We periodically shut down refinery processing units for major
scheduled maintenance, or turnarounds. Certain catalysts are
used in refinery process units for periods exceeding one year.
Also, we drydock ships, tugs and barges for periodic
maintenance. We defer turnaround, catalyst and drydocking costs
and amortize the costs on a straight-line basis over the
expected periods of benefit, generally ranging from 2 to
6 years. Amortization of such deferred costs, which is
included in depreciation and amortization expense, amounted to
$34.0 million, $30.9 million and $27.2 million in
2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. In 2004, the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) decided not to
approve the issuance of a Statement of Position
(SOP) proposed by the American Institute of CPAs.
The proposed SOP would have required major maintenance
activities, such as refinery turnarounds, to be expensed as
incurred. See New Accounting Standards and Disclosures below for
further information.
We defer debt issuance costs related to our credit agreement and
senior notes and amortize the costs over the estimated terms of
each instrument. We include the amortization in interest and
financing costs in our statements of consolidated operations. We
evaluate the carrying value of debt issuance costs when
modifications are made to the related debt instruments (see
Note F).
|
|
|
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets |
We review property, plant and equipment and other long-lived
assets, including acquired intangible assets for impairment
whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate
the carrying values of the assets may not be recoverable. We
would record impairment losses if the undiscounted cash flows
estimated to be generated by those assets were less than the
carrying amount of those assets. Factors that would indicate
potential impairment include, but are not limited to,
significant decreases in the market value of a long-lived
55
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
asset, a significant change in the long-lived assets
physical condition, and operating or cash flow losses associated
with the use of the long-lived asset. We review goodwill
balances for impairment annually or more frequently, if events
or changes in business circumstances indicate the carrying
values of the assets may not be recoverable.
We recognize revenues from product sales upon delivery to
customers, which is the point at which title to the products is
transferred, and when payment has either been received or
collection is reasonably assured. We include certain crude oil
and product purchases and resales used for trading purposes in
revenues on a net basis. Nonmonetary product and crude oil
exchange transactions, commonly called buy/ sell transactions,
which are entered into primarily to optimize our refinery supply
requirements, are included in cost of sales and operating
expense on a net basis. We include transportation fees charged
to customers in revenues, and we include the related costs in
costs of sales in our statements of consolidated operations. In
our retail segment, revenues and costs of sales include federal
excise and state motor fuel taxes collected from customers and
remitted to governmental agencies. These taxes, primarily
related to sales of gasoline and diesel fuel, totaled
$123 million, $128 million and $167 million in
2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. In our refining segment,
excise taxes on sales are not included in revenues and costs of
sales.
We record deferred tax assets and liabilities for future income
tax consequences that are attributable to differences between
financial statement carrying amounts of assets and liabilities
and their income tax bases. We base the measurement of deferred
tax assets and liabilities on enacted tax rates that we expect
will apply to taxable income in the year when we expect to
settle or recover those temporary differences. We recognize the
effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of any change in
income tax rates in the period that includes the enactment date.
We provide a valuation allowance for deferred tax assets if it
is more likely than not that those items will either expire
before we are able to realize their benefit or their future
deductibility is uncertain.
Effective January 1, 2004, we adopted the preferable fair
value method of accounting for our stock options, as prescribed
in SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation. We selected the modified prospective
method of adoption described in SFAS No. 148,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation
Transition and Disclosure. We recognized compensation cost
for our stock options as if the fair value method had been
applied from its original effective date, resulting in pretax
charges for the year ended December 31, 2004 of
$8.4 million. See New Accounting Standards and Disclosures
below for further information.
Prior to January 1, 2004, we accounted for stock options
using the intrinsic value method prescribed in Accounting
Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 25,
Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and
related interpretations. Under the intrinsic value method, we
did not recognize compensation costs for our stock options as
all options granted had an exercise price equal to the market
value of the underlying common stock on the date of grant.
56
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table represents the effect on net earnings and
earnings per share as if we had applied the fair value method
and recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 to our
stock options during 2003 and 2002 (in millions except per share
amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Reported net earnings (loss)
|
|
$ |
76.1 |
|
|
$ |
(117.0 |
) |
Deduct total stock-based employee compensation expense
determined under fair value based methods for all awards, net of
related tax effects
|
|
|
(3.2 |
) |
|
|
(3.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net earnings (loss)
|
|
$ |
72.9 |
|
|
$ |
(120.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic, as reported
|
|
$ |
1.18 |
|
|
$ |
(1.93 |
) |
Basic, pro forma
|
|
$ |
1.13 |
|
|
$ |
(2.00 |
) |
Diluted, as reported
|
|
$ |
1.17 |
|
|
$ |
(1.93 |
) |
Diluted, pro forma
|
|
$ |
1.12 |
|
|
$ |
(2.00 |
) |
See Note O for further information on Tesoros
stock-based employee compensation plans.
We account for derivative instruments in accordance with
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended and
interpreted. Tesoro periodically enters into derivative
arrangements primarily to manage exposure to commodity price
risks associated with the purchase of crude oil. To manage these
risks, we typically enter into exchange-traded futures and
options and over-the-counter swaps, generally with durations of
one year or less.
We mark to market our non-hedging derivative instruments and
recognize the changes in their fair values in earnings. We
include the carrying amounts of our derivatives in other current
assets or accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance
sheets. During 2004, we settled futures, options and other
over-the-counter contracts of approximately 42 million
barrels of crude oil and refined products, which due to
significant price volatility resulted in losses of
$53 million. At December 31, 2004, we had open net
futures contracts and swap positions of 529,000 barrels and
587,000 barrels, respectively, which will expire at various
times during 2005. We recorded the fair value of these
positions, which resulted in a mark-to-market gain of
$1.6 million at December 31, 2004. We did not
designate or account for any derivative instruments as hedges
during 2004, 2003 or 2002.
|
|
|
New Accounting Standards and Disclosures |
Tesoro sponsors a postretirement health care plan that provides
prescription drug benefits. In December 2003, the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003
(the Act) was passed. The Act introduces a
prescription drug benefit under Medicare (Medicare Part D),
as well as a federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care
benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least
actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D. In January 2004,
the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FAS 106-1,
Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of
2003 (FAS 106-1), which became effective
for us as of December 31, 2003 and permitted an election to
reflect the effects of the Act immediately or defer recognition
of the Act until more definitive guidance was issued. In May
2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position
No. FAS 106-2 (FAS 106-2) which
provides guidance for the accounting of the federal subsidy.
Further, the new accounting standard required FAS 106-1 to
be superseded upon the effective date of FAS 106-2, which
was
57
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
July 1, 2004 for Tesoro. In accordance with FAS 106-1
and FAS 106-2, we deferred recognition of the Act through
June 30, 2004. On July 1, 2004, we elected the
prospective application of adoption for the
recognition of the federal subsidy as defined in FAS 106-2.
The effect of recognizing the federal subsidy in accordance with
FAS 106-2 will result in an annual reduction of
postretirement benefit expense of approximately $1 million.
See Note N for further information.
In January 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 46,
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities
(FIN 46), which requires the consolidation of
variable interest entities, as defined. Our implementation of
FIN 46 did not result in the consolidation of any variable
interest entities. In December 2003, the FASB issued
Interpretation No. 46 (Revised)
(FIN 46(R)), which provides additional guidance
related to accounting for variable interest entities and became
effective for us at the end of the 2004 first quarter.
Implementation of FIN 46(R) did not require consolidation
of any variable interest entities.
In September 2003, the American Institute of CPAs Accounting
Standards Executive Committee (AcSEC) approved for
issuance an SOP, Accounting for Certain Costs and
Activities Related to Property, Plant and Equipment,
subject to clearance by the FASB. In April 2004, the FASB
unanimously decided not to approve the issuance of the proposed
SOP. The proposed SOP would have, among other provisions,
required major maintenance activities, such as refinery
turnarounds, to be expensed as incurred. AcSEC has stated they
will not spend any further time on this project, and the FASB
currently does not have definitive plans to consider the issues
addressed in the proposed SOP.
|
|
|
SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004) |
In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123
(Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, which is a
revision of SFAS No. 123, and supersedes APB Opinion
No. 25. Among other items, SFAS No. 123 (Revised
2004) eliminates the use of APB Opinion No. 25 and the
intrinsic value method of accounting, and requires companies to
recognize the cost of employee services received in exchange for
awards of equity instruments, based on the grant date fair value
of those awards, in the financial statements. The effective date
of SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004) is the first reporting
period beginning after June 15, 2005, although early
adoption is allowed. Effective January 1, 2004, we began to
recognize compensation expense for our stock options using the
fair value method of accounting as described in
SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation. SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004) will
require Tesoro to also adopt the fair value method for our
outstanding phantom stock options. See Note O for further
information on Tesoros stock-based employee compensation
plans. We adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 123
(Revised 2004) on January 1, 2005, which did not have a
material impact on our financial position or results of
operations.
In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 153,
Exchanges of Nonmonetary Assets An Amendment
of APB Opinion No. 29, Accounting for Nonmonetary
Transactions. SFAS 153 eliminates the exception from
fair value measurement for nonmonetary exchanges of similar
productive assets in paragraph 21(b) of APB Opinion
No. 29, Accounting for Nonmonetary
Transactions, and replaces it with an exception for
exchanges that do not have commercial substance. SFAS 153
specifies that a nonmonetary exchange has commercial substance
if the future cash flows of the entity are expected to change
significantly as a result of the exchange. SFAS 153 is
effective for fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2005
and is required to be adopted by Tesoro beginning on
January 1, 2006. We are currently evaluating this standard,
although we do not believe it will have a material impact on our
financial position or results of operations.
58
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
EITF Issue No. 4-13
The Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) is currently considering
EITF Issue No. 4-13, Accounting for Purchases and
Sales of Inventory with the Same Counterparty which will
determine whether buy/sell arrangements should be accounted for
at historical cost and whether these arrangements should be
reported on a gross or net basis. Buy/ sell arrangements are
typically contractual arrangements where the buy and sell
agreements are entered into in contemplation of one another with
the same counterparty. The SEC has questioned the gross
treatment of these types of arrangements. Tesoro reports all
buy/ sell arrangements on a net basis. Therefore, if EITF Issue
No. 4-13 were to require companies to report buy/ sell
arrangements on a net basis, it would have no effect on our
financial position or results of operations.
NOTE B EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
We compute basic earnings (loss) per share by dividing net
earnings (loss) by the weighted average number of common shares
outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share
include the effects of potentially dilutive shares, principally
common stock options and restricted stock outstanding during the
period. The assumed conversion of common stock options produced
anti-dilutive results for 2002 and, therefore, was not included
in the calculations of diluted loss per share. Earnings (loss)
per share calculations are presented below (in millions, except
per share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Basic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss)
|
|
$ |
327.9 |
|
|
$ |
76.1 |
|
|
$ |
(117.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
65.5 |
|
|
|
64.6 |
|
|
|
60.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share
|
|
$ |
5.01 |
|
|
$ |
1.18 |
|
|
$ |
(1.93 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net earnings (loss)
|
|
$ |
327.9 |
|
|
$ |
76.1 |
|
|
$ |
(117.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
65.5 |
|
|
|
64.6 |
|
|
|
60.5 |
|
|
Dilutive effect of assumed exercise of stock options and awards
(anti-dilutive in 2002)
|
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total diluted shares
|
|
|
68.9 |
|
|
|
65.1 |
|
|
|
60.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share
|
|
$ |
4.76 |
|
|
$ |
1.17 |
|
|
$ |
(1.93 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE C ACQUISITION
On May 17, 2002, we acquired a 168,000 bpd refinery
located in Martinez, California in the San Francisco Bay
area along with 70 associated retail sites throughout
northern California. The cash purchase price for these assets
was $923 million, including $130 million for
feedstock, refined products and other inventories. In addition,
Tesoro issued to the seller two ten-year junior subordinated
notes with face amounts aggregating $150 million, and a
present value at the acquisition date of approximately
$61 million (see Note F). We incurred direct costs
related to this transaction of $9 million. The purchase
price was allocated to the acquired assets and assumed
liabilities based on their respective estimated fair market
values at the date of acquisition, based on an independent
appraisal. The accompanying financial statements include the
results of operations of the California assets since the date of
acquisition in 2002.
59
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
NOTE D DIVESTITURES
On December 23, 2003, we sold substantially all of the
physical assets, including inventories, of our marine services
operations for $32 million in cash. Tesoro recognized a
pretax loss on the sale of $8 million. We included this
charge in loss on asset sales and impairments in our statements
of consolidated operations due to the immateriality of marine
services operations as compared to our historical and ongoing
refining and retail operations.
On December 26, 2002, we sold our product pipeline
extending from Mandan, North Dakota to Minneapolis,
Minnesota and terminals in North Dakota and Minnesota for
$100 million in cash. Tesoros gain on the sale of
these assets was immaterial. We continue to distribute products
from our North Dakota refinery through the product pipeline
under a tariff arrangement, which expires in 2012.
In December 2002, we sold 70 retail stations in northern
California for $66 million in cash, including inventories.
We purchased these stations in May 2002 as part of the
California refinery acquisition and we retain responsibility for
all environmental liabilities at the stations arising prior to
their sale. We recognized a pretax loss on the sale of
$2.5 million. We continue to sell products to a majority of
the stations under an unbranded supply agreement, which expires
in 2005 with short-term renewable provisions thereafter.
On December 31, 2002, we completed a sale/ lease-back
transaction for 30 of our retail stations located in Alaska,
Hawaii, Idaho and Utah for cash proceeds of $40 million. We
recognized a pretax loss on the sale of $4 million. The
leases are for land, buildings and certain equipment and have an
initial term of 17 years with four 5-year renewal options.
The portion of the leases attributable to land is accounted for
as an operating lease, while the portion attributable to
buildings and equipment is accounted for as a capital lease (see
Notes F and P).
NOTE E OPERATING SEGMENTS
The Companys revenues are derived from two operating
segments: (i) refining and (ii) retail. Our refining
segment owns and operates six petroleum refineries located in
California, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, North Dakota and Utah.
These refineries manufacture gasoline and gasoline blendstocks,
jet fuel, diesel fuel, residual fuel oils and other refined
products. We sell these products, together with products
purchased from third parties, at wholesale through terminal
facilities and other locations, primarily in Alaska, California,
Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Oregon and
Washington. Our refining segment also sells petroleum products
to unbranded marketers and occasionally exports products to
other markets in the Asia/ Pacific area. Our retail segment
sells gasoline, diesel fuel and convenience store items through
company-operated retail stations and branded jobber/dealers in
18 western states from Minnesota to Alaska and Hawaii. Retail
operates under the Tesoro®, Mirastar® and
2-Go Tesoro® brands. We developed our Mirastar®
brand exclusively for use at Wal-Mart stores in an agreement
covering 17 western states. Prior to 2004, we also had revenues
from our marine services operations, which marketed and
distributed petroleum products, supplies and services to the
marine and offshore exploration and production industries
operating in the Gulf of Mexico. We sold substantially all of
the marine services physical assets in December 2003 (see
Note D).
The operating segments adhere to the accounting policies used
for Tesoros consolidated financial statements, as
described in the summary of significant accounting policies in
Note A. We evaluate the performance of our segments and
allocate resources based primarily on segment operating income.
Segment operating income includes those revenues and expenses
that are directly attributable to management of the respective
segment. Intersegment sales are primarily from refining to
retail made at prevailing market rates. Income taxes, interest
and financing costs, corporate general and administrative
expenses and losses on asset sales and impairments are not
included in determining segment operating income. Identifiable
assets are those utilized by the segment. Corporate assets are
principally cash and other assets that are not associated with a
specific operating segment.
60
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Segment information as of and for each of the three years ended
December 31, 2004 is as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refined products
|
|
$ |
11,633.2 |
|
|
$ |
8,098.3 |
|
|
$ |
6,425.7 |
|
|
|
Crude oil resales and other(a)
|
|
|
419.3 |
|
|
|
370.3 |
|
|
|
334.6 |
|
|
Retail:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel
|
|
|
863.5 |
|
|
|
797.5 |
|
|
|
920.4 |
|
|
|
Merchandise and other
|
|
|
130.8 |
|
|
|
120.6 |
|
|
|
132.1 |
|
|
Marine Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
155.4 |
|
|
|
132.2 |
|
|
Intersegment sales from Refining to Retail
|
|
|
(784.6 |
) |
|
|
(696.4 |
) |
|
|
(825.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues
|
|
$ |
12,262.2 |
|
|
$ |
8,845.7 |
|
|
$ |
7,119.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment Operating Income (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining
|
|
$ |
840.3 |
|
|
$ |
411.1 |
|
|
$ |
72.9 |
|
|
Retail
|
|
|
(2.0 |
) |
|
|
15.7 |
|
|
|
(12.3 |
) |
|
Marines Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.3 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Segment Operating Income
|
|
|
838.3 |
|
|
|
433.1 |
|
|
|
62.9 |
|
|
Corporate and Unallocated Costs
|
|
|
(111.0 |
) |
|
|
(81.4 |
) |
|
|
(73.2 |
) |
|
Loss on Asset Sales and Impairments
|
|
|
(14.1 |
) |
|
|
(16.9 |
) |
|
|
(8.4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income (Loss)(b)
|
|
|
713.2 |
|
|
|
334.8 |
|
|
|
(18.7 |
) |
|
Interest and Financing Costs, Net
|
|
|
(166.6 |
) |
|
|
(211.7 |
) |
|
|
(162.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (Loss) Before Income Taxes
|
|
$ |
546.6 |
|
|
$ |
123.1 |
|
|
$ |
(181.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining
|
|
$ |
129.9 |
|
|
$ |
120.4 |
|
|
$ |
104.2 |
|
|
Retail
|
|
|
17.6 |
|
|
|
19.2 |
|
|
|
16.9 |
|
|
Marine Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
6.6 |
|
|
|
6.6 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Depreciation and Amortization
|
|
$ |
154.1 |
|
|
$ |
148.2 |
|
|
$ |
130.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Expenditures(c)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining
|
|
$ |
166.6 |
|
|
$ |
97.4 |
|
|
$ |
150.9 |
|
|
Retail
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
40.6 |
|
|
Marine Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
9.6 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
9.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Capital Expenditures
|
|
$ |
179.4 |
|
|
$ |
101.1 |
|
|
$ |
203.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identifiable Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refining
|
|
$ |
3,543.9 |
|
|
$ |
3,183.2 |
|
|
$ |
3,118.1 |
|
|
Retail
|
|
|
241.0 |
|
|
|
261.4 |
|
|
|
287.8 |
|
|
Marine Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21.1 |
|
|
|
68.4 |
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
290.2 |
|
|
|
195.6 |
|
|
|
284.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
$ |
4,075.1 |
|
|
$ |
3,661.3 |
|
|
$ |
3,758.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
To balance or optimize our refinery supply requirements, we sell
certain crude oil that we purchase under our supply contracts. |
61
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
(b) |
|
Operating income in 2003 included charges of $8.4 million,
included in corporate and unallocated costs, for the termination
of Tesoros funded executive security plan (see
Note N) and $9.0 million in voluntary early retirement
benefits and severance costs. The $9.0 million charge
included $2.6 million in refining, $1.3 million in
retail, $0.4 million in marine services and
$4.7 million in corporate. |
|
(c) |
|
Excludes asset acquisitions of $932 million in 2002 (see
Note C) and refinery turnaround and other major maintenance
costs of $50.0 million, $51.5 million and
$40.6 million in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. |
NOTE F DEBT
At December 31, 2004 and 2003, debt consisted of (in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Credit Agreement Revolving Credit Facility
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Senior Secured Term Loans
|
|
|
97.0 |
|
|
|
199.0 |
|
8% Senior Secured Notes Due 2008 (net of unamortized
discount of $2.7 in 2004 and $3.3 in 2003)
|
|
|
372.3 |
|
|
|
371.7 |
|
95/8% Senior
Subordinated Notes Due 2012
|
|
|
429.0 |
|
|
|
429.0 |
|
95/8% Senior
Subordinated Notes Due 2008
|
|
|
211.0 |
|
|
|
211.0 |
|
9% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2008 (net of unamortized
discount of $1.8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
295.7 |
|
Junior subordinated notes due 2012 (net of unamortized discount
of $66.8 in 2004 and $75.0 in 2003)
|
|
|
83.2 |
|
|
|
75.0 |
|
Capital lease obligations and other
|
|
|
25.8 |
|
|
|
27.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
1,218.3 |
|
|
|
1,608.8 |
|
Less current maturities
|
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt, less current maturities
|
|
$ |
1,214.9 |
|
|
$ |
1,605.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aggregate maturities of Tesoros debt for each of the
five years following December 31, 2004 were:
2005 $3.4 million; 2006
$3.4 million; 2007 $94.2 million;
2008 $587.1 million; and 2009
$1.0 million.
In September 2004, we amended our credit agreement to
(i) increase its capacity an additional $100 million
to $750 million, (ii) modify the amount of permitted
restricted payments and subordinated debt repayments and
(iii) reduce the applicable margins on revolver borrowings.
In addition, the amendment provides the flexibility to obtain up
to $250 million in letters of credit outside of the credit
agreement for foreign crude oil purchases. The credit agreement
was previously amended in May 2004 to increase its capacity by
$150 million to $650 million and to extend the term by
one year to June 2007.
The credit agreement currently provides for borrowings
(including letters of credit) up to the lesser of the
agreements total capacity, $750 million as amended,
or the amount of a periodically adjusted borrowing base
($813 million as of December 31, 2004), consisting of
Tesoros eligible cash and cash equivalents, receivables
and petroleum inventories, as defined. As of December 31,
2004, we had no borrowings and $341 million in letters of
credit outstanding under the revolving credit facility,
resulting in total unused credit availability of
$409 million or 55% of the eligible borrowing base.
Borrowings under the revolving credit facility bear interest at
either a base rate (5.25% at December 31, 2004) or a
eurodollar rate (2.49% at December 31, 2004), plus an
applicable margin. The applicable margins at December 31,
2004 were 0.25% in the case of the base rate and 2.00% in the
case of the eurodollar rate and vary based on credit facility
availability. Letters of credit
62
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
outstanding under the revolving credit facility incur fees at an
annual rate tied to the eurodollar rate applicable margin, in
the range of 1.75% to 2.00% at December 31, 2004.
The credit agreement contains covenants and conditions that,
among other things, limit our ability to pay cash dividends,
incur indebtedness, create liens and make investments. Tesoro is
also required to maintain specified levels of fixed charge
coverage and tangible net worth. We are not required to maintain
the fixed charge coverage ratio if unused credit availability
exceeds 15% of the eligible borrowing base. The credit agreement
is guaranteed by substantially all of Tesoros active
subsidiaries and is secured by substantially all of
Tesoros cash and cash equivalents, petroleum inventories
and receivables.
|
|
|
9% Senior Subordinated Notes Due 2008 |
In July 2004, we voluntarily prepaid the remaining
$297.5 million outstanding principal balance of the
9% senior subordinated notes at a call premium of 3%. The
prepayment resulted in a pretax charge during 2004 of
$16 million, comprising $9 million for the 3% call
premium and $7 million for the write-off of unamortized
debt issuance and discount costs.
|
|
|
Senior Secured Term Loans |
In April 2003, we entered into $200 million senior secured
term loans and in September 2004, we voluntarily prepaid
$100 million of our senior secured term loans at a
prepayment premium of 3%. The prepayment resulted in a pretax
charge during 2004 of $5 million, comprising
$3 million for the 3% prepayment premium and
$2 million for the write-off of unamortized debt issuance
costs. As a result of the prepayment, the term loans will mature
in October 2007, prior to its original maturity date of April
2008. Principal payments of the term loans are repaid in
quarterly installments of $500,000 through April 2007, and the
remaining principal payments of $48 million and
$44 million are payable in July 2007 and October 2007,
respectively. The term loans are subject to optional redemption
by Tesoro at premiums of 3% through April 14, 2005, 1% from
April 15, 2005 to April 14, 2006, and at par
thereafter.
The term loans contain covenants and restrictions that are less
restrictive than those in the credit agreement. The term loans
and the 8% senior secured notes, described below, are
equally secured by substantially all of the Tesoros
refining property, plant and equipment and are guaranteed by
substantially all of Tesoros active subsidiaries. The
interest rate on the term loans at December 31, 2004 was
7.99%. Borrowings under the term loans bear interest at either a
base rate (5.25% at December 31, 2004) or a eurodollar rate
(2.49% at December 31, 2004), plus an applicable margin.
The applicable margins for the term loans were 4.5% in the case
of the base rate and 5.5% in the case of the eurodollar rate at
December 31, 2004.
|
|
|
8% Senior Secured Notes Due 2008 |
In April 2003, Tesoro issued $375 million aggregate
principal amount of 8% senior secured notes due
April 15, 2008. The notes have a five-year maturity with no
sinking fund requirements and are subject to optional redemption
by Tesoro, beginning April 15, 2006, at a premium of 4%
through April 14, 2007, and at par thereafter. We have the
right to redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount at a
redemption price of 108% with proceeds from certain equity
issuances through April 15, 2006. The indenture for the
notes contains covenants and restrictions that are customary for
notes of this nature and are similar to the covenants in the
indentures for Tesoros senior subordinated debt. The notes
and the term loans are equally secured by substantially all of
Tesoros refining property, plant and equipment and are
guaranteed by substantially all of Tesoros active
subsidiaries. The notes were issued at 98.994% of par, resulting
in net proceeds of $371.2 million before debt issuance
costs. The effective interest rate on the notes is 8.25%, after
giving effect to the discount.
63
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
95/8% Senior
Subordinated Notes Due 2012 |
In April 2002, Tesoro issued $450 million principal amount
of
95/8% senior
subordinated notes due April 1, 2012. These notes have a
ten-year maturity with no sinking fund requirements and are
subject to optional redemption by Tesoro, beginning
April 1, 2007 at premiums of 4.8% through March 31,
2008, 3.2% from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009, 1.6%
from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, and at par
thereafter. The indenture for these notes contains covenants and
restrictions which are customary for notes of this nature. To
the extent Tesoros fixed charge coverage ratio, as defined
in the indenture, allows us to incur additional debt, we are
allowed to pay cash dividends on common stock and repurchase
shares of common stock, subject to limitations in our credit
agreement. The notes are guaranteed by substantially all of
Tesoros active domestic subsidiaries.
|
|
|
95/8% Senior
Subordinated Notes Due 2008 |
In November 2001, Tesoro issued $215 million principal
amount of
95/8% senior
subordinated notes due November 1, 2008. These notes have a
seven-year maturity with no sinking fund requirements and are
subject to optional redemption by Tesoro, beginning
November 1, 2005 at premiums of 4.8% through
October 31, 2006, 2.4% from November 1, 2006 to
October 31, 2007, and at par thereafter. The indenture for
these notes contains covenants and restrictions which are
customary for notes of this nature. To the extent Tesoros
fixed charge coverage ratio, as defined in the indenture, allows
us to incur additional debt, we are allowed to pay cash
dividends on common stock and repurchase shares of common stock,
subject to limitations in our credit agreement. The notes are
guaranteed by substantially all of Tesoros active domestic
subsidiaries.
|
|
|
Junior Subordinated Notes Due 2012 |
In connection with our acquisition of the California refinery,
Tesoro issued to the seller two ten-year junior subordinated
notes with face amounts totaling $150 million. The notes
consist of: (i) a $100 million junior subordinated
note, due July 2012, which is non-interest bearing through
May 16, 2007, and carries a 7.5% interest rate thereafter,
and (ii) a $50 million junior subordinated note, due
July 2012, which bears interest at 7.47% from May 17,
2003 through May 16, 2007 and 7.5% thereafter. We initially
recorded these two notes at a combined present value of
approximately $61 million, discounted at rates of 15.625%
and 14.375%, respectively. We are amortizing the discount over
the term of the notes.
|
|
|
Capital Lease Obligations |
Our capital lease obligations comprise primarily of 30 retail
stations that we sold and leased-back in 2002 with initial terms
of 17 years, with four 5-year renewal options (See
Note D). We classified the portions of the leases
attributable to land as operating leases, and we classified the
portions attributable to depreciable buildings and equipment as
capital leases. The combined present value of minimum lease
payments totaled $23.2 million at December 31, 2004.
Tesoro also has other capital leases for tugs and barges used to
transport petroleum products, over varying terms ending in 2005
through 2010, in which the combined present value of minimum
lease payments totaled $2.5 million at December 31,
2004.
At December 31, 2004 and 2003, the total cost of assets
under capital leases was $34.6 million gross (accumulated
amortization of $11.8 million) and $34.7 million gross
(accumulated amortization of $9.6 million), respectively.
Capital lease obligations included in debt totaled
$25.7 million and $27.4 million at December 31,
2004 and 2003, respectively. We include amortization of the cost
of assets under capital leases in depreciation and amortization.
64
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Future minimum annual lease payments, including interest, as of
December 31, 2004 for capital leases were (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
$ |
3.9 |
|
2006
|
|
|
3.9 |
|
2007
|
|
|
3.5 |
|
2008
|
|
|
3.4 |
|
2009
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
32.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total minimum lease payments
|
|
|
50.6 |
|
Less amount representing interest
|
|
|
24.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
$ |
25.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE G STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
In March 2002, Tesoro completed a public offering of
23 million shares of common stock. We used the net proceeds
from the stock offering of $245.1 million, after deducting
underwriting fees and offering expenses, to partially fund our
acquisition of the California refinery.
Our credit agreement, senior secured notes and senior
subordinated notes each limit our ability to pay cash dividends
or repurchase stock. The limitation in each of our debt
agreements is based on limits on restricted payments (as defined
in our debt agreements), which include dividends, stock
repurchases or voluntary prepayments of subordinate debt. The
aggregate amount of restricted payments cannot exceed an amount
defined in each of the debt agreements.
See Note O for information relating to stock-based
compensation and common stock reserved for exercise of options.
NOTE H INCOME TAXES
The income tax provision (benefit) was comprised of (in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$ |
103.9 |
|
|
$ |
(8.5 |
) |
|
$ |
(60.8 |
) |
|
State
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6.8 |
) |
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
77.8 |
|
|
|
53.5 |
|
|
|
8.5 |
|
|
State
|
|
|
24.6 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
(5.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Tax Provision (Benefit)
|
|
$ |
218.7 |
|
|
$ |
47.0 |
|
|
$ |
(64.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
We provide deferred income taxes and benefits for differences
between financial statement carrying amounts of assets and
liabilities and their respective tax bases. Temporary
differences and the resulting deferred tax liabilities and
assets at December 31, 2004 and 2003 were (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Current Deferred Federal Tax Assets and Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIFO inventory
|
|
$ |
(43.1 |
) |
|
$ |
(27.6 |
) |
|
Alternative minimum tax credits
|
|
|
37.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued pension and other postretirement benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.3 |
|
|
Other accrued employee costs
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
|
Accrued environmental remediation liabilities
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
|
|
(1.2 |
) |
Current Deferred State Tax Asset (Liability), Net
|
|
|
(3.3 |
) |
|
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Deferred Tax Asset (Liability), Net
|
|
$ |
3.1 |
|
|
$ |
(8.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Deferred Federal Tax Assets and Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accelerated depreciation and property related items
|
|
$ |
(350.1 |
) |
|
$ |
(276.5 |
) |
|
Deferred maintenance costs, including refinery turnarounds
|
|
|
(30.5 |
) |
|
|
(23.5 |
) |
|
Amortization of intangible assets
|
|
|
(26.1 |
) |
|
|
(33.2 |
) |
|
Net operating loss carry forwards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77.0 |
|
|
Accrued pension and other postretirement benefits
|
|
|
61.5 |
|
|
|
51.7 |
|
|
Alternative minimum tax credits
|
|
|
58.6 |
|
|
|
27.4 |
|
|
Accrued environmental remediation liabilities
|
|
|
6.1 |
|
|
|
5.9 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
22.0 |
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
Noncurrent Deferred State Tax Liability, Net
|
|
|
(34.4 |
) |
|
|
(18.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent Deferred Tax Liability, Net
|
|
$ |
(292.9 |
) |
|
$ |
(179.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The realization of deferred tax assets depends on Tesoros
ability to generate future taxable income. Although realization
is not assured, we believe it is more likely than not that we
will realize the deferred tax assets, and therefore, we did not
record a valuation allowance as of December 31, 2004 or
2003.
The reconciliation of income tax expense (benefit) at the
U.S. statutory rate to the income tax expense (benefit)
follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Income Taxes (Benefit) at U.S. Federal Statutory Rate
|
|
$ |
191.4 |
|
|
$ |
43.1 |
|
|
$ |
(63.5 |
) |
Effect of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State income taxes, net of federal income tax effect
|
|
|
23.9 |
|
|
|
5.9 |
|
|
|
(7.8 |
) |
|
Expired tax credits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.9 |
|
|
State tax credits, net
|
|
|
(0.5 |
) |
|
|
(4.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
3.9 |
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Tax Provision (Benefit)
|
|
$ |
218.7 |
|
|
$ |
47.0 |
|
|
$ |
(64.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2004, Tesoro had approximately
$96.2 million of alternative minimum tax credits that we
carry forward indefinitely and no Federal net operating loss
carry-forwards. Our filing of the 2002 and 2001 tax returns and
the carryback of the net operating losses for both years
resulted in the receipt of refunds
66
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
of $51 million and $48 million during 2003 and 2002,
respectively. However, our election to carry back the
2002 net operating losses resulted in the loss of
$3.9 million of tax credits claimed in earlier years.
NOTE I RECEIVABLES
Concentrations of credit risk with respect to accounts
receivable are influenced by the large number of customers
comprising Tesoros customer base and their dispersion
across various industry groups and geographic areas of
operations. We perform ongoing credit evaluations of our
customers financial condition, and in certain
circumstances, require prepayments, letters of credit or other
collateral arrangements. We include an allowance for doubtful
accounts as a reduction in our trade receivables, which amounted
to $4.6 million and $4.3 million at December 31,
2004 and 2003, respectively.
NOTE J INVENTORIES
Components of inventories at December 31, 2004 and 2003
were (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Crude oil and refined products, at LIFO cost
|
|
$ |
559.9 |
|
|
$ |
430.1 |
|
Oxygenates and by-products, at the lower of FIFO cost or market
|
|
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
9.7 |
|
Merchandise
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
7.4 |
|
Materials and supplies
|
|
|
41.2 |
|
|
|
40.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Inventories
|
|
$ |
615.7 |
|
|
$ |
487.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories valued at LIFO cost were less than replacement cost
by approximately $385 million and $210 million, at
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. During 2002, we
reduced certain inventories resulting in a decrease in LIFO
inventory quantities, which had been carried at lower costs
prevailing in previous years. This LIFO inventory liquidation
decreased our costs of sales by $5 million and the net loss
by approximately $3 million, or $0.05 per share, in
2002.
NOTE K GOODWILL AND ACQUIRED INTANGIBLES
SFAS No. 142 requires that goodwill and other
intangibles determined to have an indefinite life are no longer
to be amortized but are to be tested for impairment at least
annually. We review the recorded value of goodwill for
impairment during the fourth quarter of each year, or sooner if
events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount
may exceed fair value. Our annual evaluation of goodwill
impairment requires us to make significant estimates to
determine the fair value of our reporting units. Our estimates
may change from period to period because we must make
assumptions about future cash flows, profitability and other
matters. It is reasonably possible that future changes in our
estimates could have a material effect on the carrying amount of
goodwill. Goodwill included $84.0 million in refining and
$4.7 million in retail at both December 31, 2004 and
2003.
67
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table provides the gross carrying amount and
accumulated amortization for each major class of acquired
intangible assets, excluding goodwill (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Gross | |
|
|
|
Net | |
|
Gross | |
|
|
|
Net | |
|
|
Carrying | |
|
Accumulated | |
|
Carrying | |
|
Carrying | |
|
Accumulated | |
|
Carrying | |
|
|
Amount | |
|
Amortization | |
|
Value | |
|
Amount | |
|
Amortization | |
|
Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Air emissions credits
|
|
$ |
98.7 |
|
|
$ |
9.7 |
|
|
$ |
89.0 |
|
|
$ |
98.7 |
|
|
$ |
6.2 |
|
|
$ |
92.5 |
|
Refinery permits and plans
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
9.2 |
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
9.8 |
|
Customer agreements and contracts
|
|
|
39.8 |
|
|
|
17.4 |
|
|
|
22.4 |
|
|
|
39.8 |
|
|
|
11.3 |
|
|
|
28.5 |
|
Other intangibles
|
|
|
9.2 |
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
6.6 |
|
|
|
12.7 |
|
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
158.7 |
|
|
$ |
31.5 |
|
|
$ |
127.2 |
|
|
$ |
162.2 |
|
|
$ |
23.6 |
|
|
$ |
138.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The weighted average estimated lives of acquired intangible
assets are: air emission credits 28 years;
refinery permits and plans 22 years; customer
agreements and contracts 14 years; and other
intangible assets 19 years. Amortization
expense of acquired intangible assets amounted to
$11.4 million, $10.3 million and $8.8 million for
the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002,
respectively. Our estimated amortization expense for each of the
following five years is: 2005 $8 million;
2006 $7 million; 2007
$6 million; 2008 $6 million; and
2009 $6 million.
NOTE L OTHER NONCURRENT ASSETS
Other noncurrent assets at December 31, 2004 and 2003
consisted of (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Deferred maintenance costs, including refinery turnarounds, net
of amortization
|
|
$ |
98.8 |
|
|
$ |
82.8 |
|
Debt issuance costs, net of amortization
|
|
|
31.3 |
|
|
|
43.5 |
|
Intangible pension asset
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
4.2 |
|
Notes receivable from employees
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
Other assets, net of amortization
|
|
|
23.8 |
|
|
|
25.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Assets
|
|
$ |
162.2 |
|
|
$ |
158.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In May 2002, in connection with the acquisition of our
California refinery, Tesoro assumed two non-interest bearing
notes due from an employee who subsequently become an executive
officer with remaining terms of 4 and 6 years, which
totaled approximately $0.7 million and $0.8 million at
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
68
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
NOTE M ACCRUED LIABILITIES
The Companys current accrued liabilities and noncurrent
other liabilities at December 31, 2004 and 2003 included
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Accrued Liabilities Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes other than income taxes, primarily excise taxes
|
|
$ |
103.5 |
|
|
$ |
73.0 |
|
|
Income taxes payable
|
|
|
60.8 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
Employee costs
|
|
|
53.8 |
|
|
|
51.9 |
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
27.6 |
|
|
|
40.3 |
|
|
Pension benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.3 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
57.0 |
|
|
|
50.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Accrued Liabilities Current
|
|
$ |
302.7 |
|
|
$ |
251.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Liabilities Noncurrent:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension and other postretirement benefits
|
|
$ |
175.3 |
|
|
$ |
157.4 |
|
|
MTBE facility lease termination obligation
|
|
|
22.2 |
|
|
|
29.5 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
50.0 |
|
|
|
37.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other Liabilities Noncurrent
|
|
$ |
247.5 |
|
|
$ |
224.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As part of our California refinery acquisition in 2002, we
acquired an operating lease for an MTBE production facility. We
accrued the termination obligation because California state
regulations required the phase-out of MTBE by December 31,
2003. We have not terminated the lease and expect to make
payments throughout the remaining term of the lease ending in
2010.
NOTE N BENEFIT PLANS
|
|
|
Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits |
Tesoro sponsors defined benefit pension plans, including a
funded employee retirement plan, an unfunded executive security
plan and an unfunded non-employee director retirement plan. We
provide a qualified noncontributory retirement plan for all
eligible employees. Benefits are based on years of service and
compensation. Although Tesoro has no minimum required
contribution obligation to its pension plan under applicable
laws and regulations in 2005, we expect to contribute
$12 million to the plan in 2005. We contributed
$53 million in 2004. Plan assets are primarily comprised of
common stock and bond funds.
Tesoros unfunded executive security plan provides certain
executive officers and other key personnel with supplemental
death or retirement benefits. These benefits are provided by a
nonqualified, noncontributory plan and are based on years of
service and compensation. During December 2003, we terminated
our funded executive security plan, resulting in a write-off of
unamortized prepaid pension costs of $6.9 million and a
plan curtailment contribution of $1.5 million. We made
additional contributions of $2.9 million to the funded plan
in 2003.
69
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Tesoro had previously established an unfunded non-employee
director retirement plan that provided eligible directors
retirement payments upon meeting certain age and other
requirements. In 1997, that plan was frozen with accrued
benefits of current directors transferred to the board of
directors phantom stock plan (see Note O). After the
amendment and transfer, only those retired directors or
beneficiaries who had begun to receive benefits remained
participants in the previous plan.
Tesoro provides to retirees who met certain service requirements
and were participating in our group insurance program at
retirement, health care benefits and, to those who qualify, life
insurance benefits. Health care is available to qualified
dependents of participating retirees. These benefits are
provided through unfunded, defined benefit plans or through
contracts with area health-providers on a premium basis. The
health care plans are contributory, with retiree contributions
adjusted periodically, and contain other cost-sharing features
such as deductibles and coinsurance. The life insurance plan is
noncontributory. We fund Tesoros share of the cost of
postretirement health care and life insurance benefits on a
pay-as-you go basis.
Our retiree medical plan provides prescription drug benefits,
which were affected by the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the Act),
signed in to law in December 2003. The Act introduces a
prescription drug benefit under Medicare (Medicare Part D),
as well as a federal subsidy to sponsors of retiree health care
benefit plans that provide a benefit that is at least
actuarially equivalent to Medicare Part D. In May 2004, the
FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FAS 106-2
(FAS 106-2), Accounting and Disclosure
Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which provides
guidance for the accounting of the federal subsidy. On
July 1, 2004, we elected the prospective
application of adoption for the recognition of the federal
subsidy as defined in FAS 106-2. The effect of recognizing
the federal subsidy in accordance with FAS 106-2 will
result in an annual reduction of postretirement benefit expense
of approximately $1 million, of which approximately
$500,000 was recognized during 2004. The effect of the subsidy
resulted in a $10 million reduction in our benefit
obligation as of December 31, 2004, and is reflected in the
table below as an actuarial gain in other postretirement
benefits. We expect to receive approximately $200,000 annually
in federal subsidy receipts for the years 2006 through 2009 and
an aggregate $1.5 million for the years 2010 through 2014.
70
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
We use December 31 as the measurement date for all of our
defined benefit pension plans. Changes in benefit obligations,
plan assets and the funded status of the pension plans and other
postretirement benefits, reconciled to amounts in the
consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2004 and
2003, were (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Change in benefit obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligations at beginning of year
|
|
$ |
181.3 |
|
|
$ |
184.7 |
|
|
$ |
137.2 |
|
|
$ |
138.3 |
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
16.1 |
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
7.6 |
|
|
|
7.9 |
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
11.5 |
|
|
|
11.1 |
|
|
|
8.1 |
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
Actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
19.1 |
|
|
|
(4.1 |
) |
|
|
(0.8 |
) |
|
|
(15.7 |
) |
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(9.9 |
) |
|
|
(33.3 |
) |
|
|
(2.6 |
) |
|
|
(1.6 |
) |
|
Curtailments and settlements
|
|
|
(0.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan amendments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Special termination benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligations at end of year
|
|
|
217.5 |
|
|
|
181.3 |
|
|
|
149.5 |
|
|
|
137.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year
|
|
|
74.5 |
|
|
|
72.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual return on plan assets
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
|
|
13.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employer contributions
|
|
|
53.4 |
|
|
|
21.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(9.9 |
) |
|
|
(33.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at end of year
|
|
|
129.6 |
|
|
|
74.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status
|
|
|
(87.9 |
) |
|
|
(106.8 |
) |
|
|
(149.5 |
) |
|
|
(137.2 |
) |
Unrecognized prior service cost
|
|
|
11.1 |
|
|
|
9.3 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
Unrecognized net actuarial loss
|
|
|
43.8 |
|
|
|
34.9 |
|
|
|
11.2 |
|
|
|
12.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued benefit cost
|
|
$ |
(33.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(62.6 |
) |
|
$ |
(136.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(123.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amounts included in consolidated balance sheets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued and other liabilities
|
|
$ |
(39.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(66.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(136.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(123.0 |
) |
|
Intangible asset
|
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net amount recognized
|
|
$ |
(33.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(62.6 |
) |
|
$ |
(136.3 |
) |
|
$ |
(123.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The combined accumulated benefit obligations for our retirement
plans was $168.8 million and $141.3 million at
December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. At
December 31, 2004 and 2003, the accumulated benefit
obligation of the employee retirement and executive security
plan exceeded the fair value of plan assets, and we recognized
an additional minimum liability and an intangible asset of
$6.0 million and $4.2 million, respectively. In 2003,
Tesoro offered voluntary enhanced retirement benefits to certain
qualified employees. These enhanced benefits resulted in an
increase to the pension benefit obligation of $1.4 million
and a charge to expense of $6.4 million.
71
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The components of pension and postretirement benefit expense
included in the consolidated statements of operations for the
years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 were (in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Components of net periodic benefit expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$ |
16.1 |
|
|
$ |
15.0 |
|
|
$ |
13.5 |
|
|
$ |
7.6 |
|
|
$ |
7.9 |
|
|
$ |
6.1 |
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
11.5 |
|
|
|
11.1 |
|
|
|
10.9 |
|
|
|
8.1 |
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(6.8 |
) |
|
|
(7.0 |
) |
|
|
(6.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
Recognized net actuarial loss
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
Curtailments and settlements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.4 |
|
|
|
(0.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Special termination benefits
|
|
|
(0.7 |
) |
|
|
6.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit expense
|
|
$ |
23.9 |
|
|
$ |
40.1 |
|
|
$ |
22.2 |
|
|
$ |
15.9 |
|
|
$ |
16.6 |
|
|
$ |
13.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant assumptions included in estimating Tesoros
pension and other postretirement benefits obligations were:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Projected Benefit Obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed weighted average % as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
5.75 |
|
|
|
6.25 |
|
|
|
6.34 |
|
|
|
5.75 |
|
|
|
6.25 |
|
|
|
6.50 |
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
3.43 |
|
|
|
3.78 |
|
|
|
4.12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Periodic Pension Cost:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed weighted average % as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.25 |
|
|
|
6.05 |
|
|
|
6.97 |
|
|
|
6.25 |
|
|
|
6.50 |
|
|
|
7.25 |
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
3.89 |
|
|
|
4.32 |
|
|
|
5.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
8.50 |
|
|
|
8.04 |
|
|
|
8.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The expected return on plan assets reflects the weighted-average
of the expected long-term rates of return for the broad
categories of investments held in the plans. The expected
long-term rate of return is adjusted when there are fundamental
changes in expected returns on the plans investments.
The assumed health care cost trend rates used to determine the
projected postretirement benefit obligation are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Health care cost trend rate assumed for next year
|
|
|
7.86 |
% |
|
|
8.43 |
% |
Rate to which the cost trend rate is assumed to decline
|
|
|
5.00 |
% |
|
|
5.00 |
% |
Year that the rate reaches the ultimate trend rate
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
72
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant effect
on the amounts reported for the health care and life insurance
plans. A one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost
trend rates could have the following effects (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-Percentage-Point | |
|
1-Percentage-Point | |
|
|
Increase | |
|
Decrease | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Effect on total of service and interest cost components
|
|
$ |
3.1 |
|
|
$ |
(2.4 |
) |
Effect on postretirement benefit obligations
|
|
$ |
26.9 |
|
|
$ |
(21.1 |
) |
Our pension plans follow an investment return approach in which
investments are allocated to broad investment categories,
including equities, debt and real estate, to maximize the
long-term return of the plan assets at a prudent level of risk.
The target allocations for the pension plans assets were
70% equity securities (with sub-category allocation targets),
24% debt securities and 6% real estate. The weighted-average
asset allocations in our pension plans, at December 31,
2004 and 2003, were:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plan Assets | |
|
|
at | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
Asset Category |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Equity Securities
|
|
|
72 |
% |
|
|
66 |
% |
Debt Securities
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
Real Estate
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our other postretirement benefit plans contained no assets at
December 31, 2004 and 2003.
The following estimated future benefit payments, which reflect
expected future service, as appropriate, are expected to be paid
in the years indicated (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
Pension | |
|
Postretirement | |
|
|
Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
2005
|
|
$ |
12.6 |
|
|
$ |
3.3 |
|
2006
|
|
|
14.2 |
|
|
|
3.9 |
|
2007
|
|
|
16.8 |
|
|
|
4.4 |
|
2008
|
|
|
19.4 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
|
2009
|
|
|
22.7 |
|
|
|
5.8 |
|
2010-2014
|
|
|
142.0 |
|
|
|
41.8 |
|
|
|
|
Thrift Plan and Retail Savings Plan |
Tesoro sponsors an employee thrift plan that provides for
contributions, subject to certain limitations, by eligible
employees into designated investment funds with a matching
contribution by Tesoro. Employees may elect tax-deferred
treatment in accordance with the provisions of
Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Tesoro matches
100% of employee contributions, up to 7% of the employees
eligible earnings, with at least 50% of the matching
contribution directed for initial investment in Tesoros
common stock. The maximum matching contribution is 6% for
employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement at the
California refinery. Effective January 1, 2004,
participants may transfer out of Tesoros common stock at
any time, on an unlimited basis. Tesoros contributions to
the thrift plan amounted to $13.3 million,
$11.4 million and $11.1 million during 2004, 2003 and
2002, respectively, of which $5.9 million,
$0.9 million and $2.4 million consisted of treasury
stock reissuances in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
73
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Tesoro sponsors a savings plan, in lieu of the thrift plan, for
eligible retail employees who have completed one year of service
and have worked at least 1,000 hours within that time.
Eligible employees receive a mandatory employer contribution
equal to 3% of eligible earnings. If employees elect to make
pretax contributions, Tesoro also contributes an employer match
contribution equal to $0.50 for each $1.00 of employee
contributions, up to 6% of eligible earnings. At least 50% of
the matching employer contributions must be directed for initial
investment in Tesoro common stock. Effective January 1,
2004, participants may transfer out of Tesoros common
stock at any time, on an unlimited basis. Tesoros
contributions amounted to $0.4 million during 2004, 2003
and 2002, of which $0.1 million consisted of treasury stock
reissuances in 2004 and 2002.
|
|
NOTE O |
STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION |
Effective January 1, 2004, we adopted the preferable fair
value method of accounting for stock options, as prescribed in
SFAS No. 123. We selected the modified
prospective method of adoption described in
SFAS No. 148 recognizing compensation cost as if the
fair value method of SFAS No. 123 had been applied
from its original effective date. The adoption of this standard
resulted in pretax charges for the year ended December 31,
2004 of $8.4 million, including $1.7 million
associated with the announced retirement of certain executive
officers. See Note A for information related to the pro
forma effects, had compensation cost been determined based on
fair values at the grant dates of awards during 2003 and 2002 in
accordance with SFAS No. 123. Effective
January 1, 2005, we adopted the provisions of
SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based
Payment, which requires compensation cost related to all
employee stock-based awards to be expensed equal to the fair
value of the award on the grant date. SFAS No. 123
(Revised 2004) will require Tesoro to adopt the fair value
method for our outstanding phantom stock options.
We have two employee incentive stock plans, the Amended and
Restated Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Key Employee
Stock Option Plan, as amended. Tesoro also has the 1995
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, as amended. At
December 31, 2004, Tesoro had 7,621,862 shares of
unissued common stock reserved for these plans.
Under the Amended and Restated Executive Long-Term Incentive
Plan, shares of common stock may be granted in a variety of
forms, including restricted stock, nonqualified stock options,
stock appreciation rights and performance share and performance
unit awards. Stock options may be granted at exercise prices not
less than the fair market value on the date the options are
granted. The options granted generally become exercisable after
one year in 25% or 33% annual increments and expire ten years
from the date of grant. At Tesoros annual meeting of
stockholders held in May 2004, an amendment was approved by the
stockholders to (i) increase the total number of shares
available for grant under the plan from 7,250,000 shares to
9,250,000 shares, (ii) increase from 750,000 to
1,500,000 the limitation on the total number of those shares
that may be granted as restricted stock during the life of the
plan and include within the limitation grants of performance
shares and performance units, and (iii) expressly provide
that options granted under the plan may not be repriced without
stockholder approval. The plan will expire, unless earlier
terminated, as to the issuance of awards in September 2008. At
December 31, 2004, Tesoro had 1,467,352 shares
available for future grants under this plan.
The Key Employee Stock Option Plan provided stock option grants
to eligible employees who were not executive officers of Tesoro.
We granted stock options to purchase 797,000 shares of
common stock, of which 356,550 shares were outstanding at
December 31, 2004, which become exercisable one year after
grant in 25% annual increments. The options expire ten years
after the date of grant. The board of directors has suspended
any future grants under this plan.
74
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan provides for
the grant of nonqualified stock options to eligible non-employee
directors of Tesoro. These automatic, non-discretionary stock
options are granted at an exercise price equal to the fair
market value per share of Tesoros common stock at the date
of grant. The term of each option is ten years, and an option
becomes exercisable six months after it is granted. At
Tesoros annual meeting of stockholders held in May 2004,
an amendment was approved by the stockholders to increase the
number of shares available for issuance of options from 300,000
to 450,000 and to extend the expiration date of this plan to
February 23, 2010. At December 31, 2004, Tesoro had
127,000 options outstanding and 268,000 shares available
for future grants under this plan.
A summary of stock option activity for all plans is set forth
below (shares in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of | |
|
|
|
|
Options | |
|
Weighted-Average | |
|
|
Outstanding | |
|
Exercise Price | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Outstanding January 1, 2002
|
|
|
4,851.1 |
|
|
$ |
12.57 |
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
1,368.0 |
|
|
|
8.20 |
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(0.7 |
) |
|
|
10.03 |
|
|
Forfeited or expired
|
|
|
(151.1 |
) |
|
|
12.58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding December 31, 2002
|
|
|
6,067.3 |
|
|
|
11.59 |
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
570.5 |
|
|
|
8.08 |
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(72.3 |
) |
|
|
9.74 |
|
|
Forfeited or expired
|
|
|
(296.2 |
) |
|
|
11.16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding December 31, 2003
|
|
|
6,269.3 |
|
|
|
11.31 |
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
767.6 |
|
|
|
26.88 |
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(1,143.1 |
) |
|
|
11.23 |
|
|
Forfeited or expired
|
|
|
(7.3 |
) |
|
|
15.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding December 31, 2004
|
|
|
5,886.5 |
|
|
$ |
13.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes information about stock options
outstanding under all plans at December 31, 2004 (shares in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Options Exercisable | |
|
|
|
|
Weighted-Average | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Number | |
|
Remaining | |
|
Weighted-Average | |
|
Number | |
|
Weighted-Average | |
Range of Exercise Prices |
|
Outstanding | |
|
Contractual Life | |
|
Exercise Price | |
|
Exercisable | |
|
Exercise Price | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
$3.87 to 6.00
|
|
|
626.7 |
|
|
|
7.9 years |
|
|
$ |
4.62 |
|
|
|
406.7 |
|
|
$ |
4.64 |
|
$6.01 to 12.12
|
|
|
1,912.0 |
|
|
|
6.2 years |
|
|
|
9.23 |
|
|
|
1,459.2 |
|
|
|
9.59 |
|
$12.13 to 17.86
|
|
|
2,576.2 |
|
|
|
4.4 years |
|
|
|
14.50 |
|
|
|
2,322.9 |
|
|
|
14.63 |
|
$17.87 to 23.95
|
|
|
341.0 |
|
|
|
9.3 years |
|
|
|
23.66 |
|
|
|
27.0 |
|
|
|
20.30 |
|
$23.96 to 29.38
|
|
|
430.6 |
|
|
|
9.5 years |
|
|
|
29.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$3.87 to 29.38
|
|
|
5,886.5 |
|
|
|
6.0 years |
|
|
|
13.35 |
|
|
|
4,215.8 |
|
|
|
11.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, exercisable stock
options totaled 4.2 million, 4.4 million and
3.8 million, respectively. The weighted-average exercise
price for our exercisable stock options amounted to $11.96,
$12.40 and $13.00 at December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002,
respectively.
We amortize the estimated fair value of stock options granted
over the vesting period using the straight-line method. The
estimated average fair value per share of options granted during
2004, 2003 and 2002 was
75
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
$13.01, $6.73 and $4.35, respectively. We estimated the fair
value of each option on the date of grant using the
Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following
weighted-average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical | |
|
Pro forma | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Expected life (years)
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
43 |
% |
|
|
118 |
% |
|
|
88 |
% |
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
4.3 |
% |
|
|
3.4 |
% |
|
|
4.2 |
% |
|
|
|
Non-Employee Director Phantom Stock Plan |
Under the Non-Employee Director Phantom Stock Plan, a yearly
credit of $7,250 is made in units to an account of each
non-employee director, based upon the closing market price of
Tesoros common stock on the date of credit, which vests
with three years of service. A director also may elect to have
the value of his cash retainer fee deposited quarterly into the
account as units that are immediately vested. Retiring directors
who are committee chairpersons receive an additional $5,000
credit to their accounts. Certain non-employee directors also
received a credit in their accounts in 1997, arising from the
transfer of their lump-sum accrued benefit under the frozen
Director Retirement Plan. The value of each vested account
balance, which is a function of changes in market value of the
Tesoros common stock, is payable in cash commencing at
termination or at retirement, death or disability. Payments may
be made as a total distribution or in annual installments, not
to exceed ten years. Our results of operations included an
expense of $1,107,000 in 2004, an expense of $536,000 in 2003,
and a credit of $299,000 in 2002, related to the Non-Employee
Director Phantom Stock Plan.
Pursuant to our Amended and Restated Executive Long-term
Incentive Plan, we may grant restricted shares of our common
stock to eligible employees subject to certain terms and
conditions. In March 2004, we issued 250,000 shares of
restricted stock to our chief executive officer pursuant to a
December 2003 award. The shares were awarded at a grant date
value of $13.18 per share and vest in 20% annual increments
beginning in February 2005, assuming continued employment at the
vesting dates. In connection with our chief executive
officers employment contract, we also issued an additional
250,000 shares of restricted stock during 2004 to match
common stock he purchased during 2004. The matching restricted
shares vest in December 2008, assuming continued employment at
that date. In addition to the restricted shares issued to our
chief executive officer as described above, we issued an
additional 158,150 shares of restricted stock to our chief
executive officer and other executives during the 2004 third
quarter. These restricted shares vest in annual increments
ratably over three years beginning in 2005, assuming continued
employment at the vesting dates. The weighted-average grant-date
fair value of the 408,150 restricted stock grants in 2004 was
$23.08.
The total amount of restricted shares that can be awarded,
pursuant to the Amended and Restated Executive Long-term
Incentive Plan, is 1,500,000 shares of which
1,008,150 shares had been issued through December 31,
2004. The aggregate fair value of restricted stock on the dates
of award of $12.7 million, based on the fair market price
of our common stock at the date of grant, was recorded in the
consolidated balance sheet as unearned compensation, a separate
component of stockholders equity, and is being amortized
on a straight-line basis over the applicable vesting periods.
During 2004, amortization related to our restricted stock
totaled $2.0 million.
Pursuant to our Amended and Restated Long-term Incentive Plan,
Tesoros chief executive officer also holds 175,000 phantom
stock options, which were granted in 1997 with a term of ten
years at 100% of the fair
76
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
value of Tesoros common stock on the grant date, or
$16.9844 per share. At December 31, 2004, all of the
phantom stock options were exercisable. Upon exercise, the chief
executive officer would be entitled to receive, in cash, the
difference between the fair market value of the common stock on
the date of the phantom stock option grant and the fair market
value of common stock on the date of exercise. At the discretion
of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, these
phantom stock options may be converted to traditional stock
options under the executive long-term incentive plan. Total
compensation expense recognized for this award during 2004
amounted to approximately $3 million. No compensation
expense had been recorded for this award prior to 2004, as our
stock price had not exceeded the grant date price for this award.
NOTE P COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Tesoro has various cancellable and noncancellable operating
leases related to land, office and retail facilities, ship
charters and equipment and other facilities used in the storage,
transportation, production and sale of feedstocks and refined
products. These leases have remaining primary terms up to
39 years, with terms of certain rights-of-way extending up
to 26 years, and generally contain multiple renewal options.
We have long-term charters through 2010 for two
U.S. flagged ships, used to transport crude oil and
products. The aggregate annual commitments on these charters
total $27 million to $29 million over the remaining
terms, including operating expenses that increase annually from
$14 million to $16 million.
Tesoro has operating leases for most of its retail gas station
sites with primary remaining terms up to 39 years, and
generally containing renewal options. Our aggregate annual lease
commitments for the sites total approximately $8 million to
$11 million over the next five years. These leases include
the 30 retail stations that we sold and leased back in 2002 with
initial terms of 17 years and four five-year renewal
options (See Note D). We classified the portion of each
lease attributable to land as an operating lease, and the
portion attributable to depreciable buildings and equipment as a
capital lease (See Note F). Tesoro also has an agreement
with Wal-Mart to build and operate retail gas stations at
selected existing and future Wal-Mart stores in the western
United States. Under the agreement, each site is subject to a
lease with a ten-year primary term and an option, exercisable at
our discretion, to extend a sites lease for two additional
five-year options.
We lease Tesoros corporate headquarters from a limited
partnership, in which Tesoro owns a 50% limited interest. The
initial lease term is through 2014 with two five-year renewal
options. Our total rent expense includes lease payments and
operating costs paid to the partnership totaling
$3.3 million, $3.2 million and $3.1 million in
2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. We account for Tesoros
interest in the partnership using the equity method of
accounting, and our consolidated balance sheets do not include
the partnerships assets, primarily land and buildings,
totaling approximately $17 million and debt of
approximately $13 million.
Tesoros minimum annual lease payments as of
December 31, 2004, for operating leases having initial or
remaining noncancellable lease terms in excess of one year were
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ship | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charters | |
|
Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2005
|
|
$ |
26.9 |
|
|
$ |
54.9 |
|
|
$ |
81.8 |
|
2006
|
|
|
27.7 |
|
|
|
50.1 |
|
|
|
77.8 |
|
2007
|
|
|
28.1 |
|
|
|
46.4 |
|
|
|
74.5 |
|
2008
|
|
|
28.5 |
|
|
|
35.0 |
|
|
|
63.5 |
|
2009
|
|
|
28.9 |
|
|
|
24.6 |
|
|
|
53.5 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
12.5 |
|
|
|
155.1 |
|
|
|
167.6 |
|
77
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Total rental expense for short-term and long-term operating
leases, excluding marine charters, amounted to approximately
$44 million in 2004, $49 million in 2003, and
$46 million in 2002. We also enter into various short-term
charters for vessels to transport refined products to and from
our refineries and terminals and to deliver products to
customers. Total marine charter expense was $68 million in
2004, $61 million in 2003 and $54 million in 2002. See
Note F for information related to capital leases.
|
|
|
Purchase Obligations and Other Commitments |
Tesoros contractual purchase commitments consist primarily
of crude oil supply contracts for our refineries from several
suppliers with noncancellable remaining terms ranging up to two
years with renewal provisions. Prices under the term agreements
fluctuate with market prices. Assuming actual market crude oil
prices as of December 31, 2004, ranging from $29 per
barrel to $42 per barrel, our minimum crude supply
commitments, for the next two years would approximate
$3.0 billion in 2005 and $388 million in 2006. We also
purchase crude oil at market prices under short-term renewable
agreements and in the spot market. In addition to these purchase
commitments, we also have contractual capital spending
commitments, primarily for refinery improvements and
environmental projects totaling approximately $100 million
in 2005.
We also have long-term take-or-pay commitments to purchase
services associated with the operation of our refineries,
primarily for chemical supplies. We also will make annual
payments of approximately $6 million through 2010 for a
deactivated MTBE plant located at our California refinery. The
present value of these future lease payments was included in
accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets (see
Note M). The minimum annual payments under our service
contracts, including lease payments for the deactivated MTBE
plant, are estimated to total $35 million in 2005,
$32 million in 2006, $30 million in 2007,
$29 million in 2008, and $18 million in 2009. The
remaining minimum commitment totals approximately
$42 million over 8 years. We also have a power supply
agreement through 2012 at the California refinery, which
requires minimum payments through 2007 that vary based on market
prices for electricity. Assuming estimated future market prices
of electricity, minimum payments for the next three years would
approximate $46 million in 2005, $48 million in 2006
and $27 million in 2007. Tesoro paid approximately
$92 million, $92 million and $57 million in 2004,
2003 and 2002, respectively, under these take-or-pay contracts.
|
|
|
Environmental and Other Matters |
We are a party to various litigation and contingent loss
situations, including environmental and income tax matters,
arising in the ordinary course of business. Where required, we
have made accruals in accordance with SFAS No. 5,
Accounting for Contingencies, in order to provide
for these matters. We cannot predict the ultimate effects of
these matters with certainty, and we have made related accruals
based on our best estimates, subject to future developments. We
believe that the outcome of these matters will not result in a
material adverse effect on our liquidity and consolidated
financial position, although the resolution of certain of these
matters could have a material adverse impact on interim or
annual results of operations.
Tesoro is subject to audits by federal, state and local taxing
authorities in the normal course of business. It is possible
that tax audits could result in claims against Tesoro in excess
of recorded liabilities. We believe, however, that when these
matters are resolved, they will not materially affect
Tesoros consolidated financial position or results of
operations.
Tesoro is subject to extensive federal, state and local
environmental laws and regulations. These laws, which change
frequently, regulate the discharge of materials into the
environment and may require us to remove or mitigate the
environmental effects of the disposal or release of petroleum or
chemical substances at various sites, install additional
controls, or make other modifications or changes in use for
certain emission sources.
78
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
Environmental Liabilities |
As previously reported, we were involved with the EPA regarding
a waste disposal site near Abbeville, Louisiana. Tesoro was
named a potentially responsible party under the Federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA or Superfund) at this
location. The site was removed from the EPAs National
Priority List and the EPA entered into a settlement with third
parties to remediate the site. Based on these considerations and
recent discussions with the EPA, we believe that the likelihood
that this matter will have any impact on our results of
operations or financial position is remote.
We are currently involved in remedial responses and have
incurred and expect to continue to incur cleanup expenditures
associated with environmental matters at a number of sites,
including certain of our owned properties. At December 31,
2004, our accruals for environmental expenses totaled
approximately $34 million. Our accruals for environmental
expenses include retained liabilities for previously owned or
operated properties, refining, pipeline and terminal operations
and retail service stations. We believe these accruals are
adequate, based on currently available information, including
the participation of other parties or former owners in
remediation action.
We are continuing to negotiate a settlement of approximately 70
Notices of Violation (NOVs) issued by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District. The NOVs allege various
violations of air quality requirements at the California
refinery between May 2002 and February 2004. Reserves for the
settlement of the NOVs are included in the accruals of
$34 million referenced above. We have established reserves
for this matter which are not material and we believe that the
resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse
effect on our financial position or results of operations.
On March 3, 2005 we finalized a settlement with the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District and the Contra Costa County
District Attorneys office concerning three NOVs we
received in March 2004 in response to odor incidents at our
California refinery. We have agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$225,000 to resolve this matter. Reserves for the settlement of
the NOVs are included in the accruals of $34 million
referenced above.
|
|
|
Other Environmental Matters |
In the ordinary course of business, we become party to or
otherwise involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings and
governmental investigations, including environmental, regulatory
and other matters. Large and sometimes unspecified damages or
penalties may be sought from us in some matters for which the
likelihood of loss may be reasonably possible but the amount of
loss is not currently estimable, and some matters may require
years for us to resolve. As a result, we have not established
reserves for these matters and we cannot provide assurance that
an adverse resolution of one or more of the matters described
below during a future reporting period will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations in future periods. However, on the basis of existing
information, we believe that the resolution of these matters,
individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations.
As previously disclosed, we were a defendant in seven pending
cases alleging MTBE contamination in groundwater. During the
2004 fourth quarter, we were named as a defendant in seven
additional pending cases, of which we obtained a dismissal
without prejudice in four of these cases in February 2005. The
plaintiffs in each of the remaining 10 pending cases, all in
California, are generally water providers, governmental
authorities and private well owners alleging that refiners and
suppliers of gasoline containing MTBE are liable for
manufacturing or distributing a defective product. We are being
sued as a refiner, supplier and marketer of gasoline containing
MTBE along with other refining industry companies. The suits
generally seek individual, unquantified compensatory and
punitive damages and attorneys fees, but we cannot
estimate the amount or the likelihood of the ultimate resolution
of these matters at this time, and accordingly,
79
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
we have not established a reserve for these cases. We believe we
have defenses to these claims and intend to vigorously defend
the lawsuits.
Soil and groundwater conditions at our California refinery may
require substantial expenditures over time. In connection with
our acquisition of the California refinery from Ultramar, Inc.
in May 2002, Ultramar assigned certain of its rights and
obligations that Ultramar had acquired from Tosco Corporation in
August of 2000. Tosco assumed responsibility and contractually
indemnified us for up to $50 million for certain
environmental liabilities arising from operations at the
refinery prior to August of 2000, which are identified prior to
August 31, 2010 (Pre-Acquisition Operations).
Based on existing information, we currently estimate that the
environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition
Operations are approximately $41 million, including soil
and groundwater conditions at the refinery in connection with
various projects and including those required by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board and other government
agencies. If we incur remediation liabilities in excess of the
environmental liabilities for Pre-Acquisition Operations
indemnified by Tosco, we expect to be reimbursed for such excess
liabilities under certain environmental insurance policies. The
policies provide $140 million of coverage in excess of the
$50 million indemnity covering environmental liabilities
arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations. Because of Toscos
indemnification and the environmental insurance policies, we
have not established a reserve for environmental liabilities
arising out of the Pre-Acquisition Operations. In December 2003,
we initiated arbitration proceedings against Tosco seeking
damages, indemnity and a declaration that Tosco is responsible
for the environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition
Operations at our California refinery.
In November 2003, we filed suit in Contra Costa County Superior
Court against Tosco alleging that Tosco misrepresented,
concealed and failed to disclose certain additional
environmental conditions at our California refinery. The court
granted Toscos motion to compel arbitration of our claims
for these certain additional environmental conditions. In the
arbitration proceedings we initiated against Tosco in December
2003, we are also seeking a determination that Tosco is liable
for investigation and remediation of these certain additional
environmental conditions, the amount of which is currently
unknown and therefore a reserve has not been established, and
which may not be covered by the $50 million indemnity for
environmental liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition
Operations. In response to our arbitration claims, Tosco filed
counterclaims in the Contra Costa County Superior Court action
alleging that we are contractually responsible for certain
environmental liabilities at our California refinery, including
certain liabilities arising from Pre-Acquisition Operations. In
February 2005, the parties agreed to stay the arbitration
proceedings for a period of 90 days to pursue settlement
discussions. In the event we are unable to reach settlement, we
intend to vigorously prosecute our claims against Tosco and to
oppose Toscos claims against us, although we cannot
provide assurance that we will prevail.
During the first quarter of 2005, we began settlement
discussions with the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) concerning an NOV we received in October
2004. The NOV, issued by CARB, alleges we offered for sale
eleven batches of gasoline in California that did not meet
CARBs gasoline exhaust emission limits. As of
December 31, 2004, we could not estimate the amount of any
penalties that might be associated with this NOV and
accordingly, we did not establish a reserve for this matter. We
disagree with factual allegations in the NOV and believe that
the ultimate resolution of this matter with CARB will not have a
material adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations.
|
|
|
Environmental Capital Expenditures |
EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act require reductions
in the sulfur content in gasoline, which began January 1,
2004. To meet the revised gasoline standard, we spent
approximately $11 million in 2004, and we currently
estimate we will make additional capital improvements of
approximately $37 million through 2009. This will permit
each of our six refineries to produce gasoline meeting the
sulfur limits imposed by the EPA.
80
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
EPA regulations related to the Clean Air Act also require
reductions in the sulfur content in diesel fuel manufactured for
on-road consumption. In general, the new on-road diesel fuel
standards will become effective on June 1, 2006. In May
2004, the EPA issued a rule regarding the sulfur content of
non-road diesel fuel. The requirements to reduce non-road diesel
sulfur content will become effective in phases between 2007 and
2010. We have not determined if we will invest the capital
necessary to manufacture low sulfur diesel for the non-road
market in Alaska, and we are continuing to evaluate potential
projects to manufacture additional non-road low sulfur diesel at
our Hawaii refinery. Our California, Washington and North Dakota
refineries will not require additional capital spending for
non-road low sulfur diesel. We spent $31 million in 2004 to
meet low sulfur diesel standards, and based on our latest
engineering estimates, we now expect to spend approximately
$45 million in additional capital improvements through 2006.
To comply with the Maximum Achievable Control Technologies
standard for petroleum refineries (Refinery
MACT II), we spent $20 million during 2004,
primarily to complete the installation of new emission control
equipment at our North Dakota refinery. We expect to spend
approximately $17 million in additional capital
improvements in 2006 at our Washington refinery.
In connection with the 2001 acquisition of our North Dakota and
Utah refineries, Tesoro assumed the sellers obligations
and liabilities under a consent decree among the United States,
BP Exploration and Oil Co. (BP), Amoco Oil Company
and Atlantic Richfield Company. BP entered into this consent
decree for both the North Dakota and Utah refineries for various
alleged violations. As the owner of these refineries, Tesoro is
required to address issues, including leak detection and repair,
flaring protection and sulfur recovery unit optimization. We
currently estimate we will spend $5 million over the next
three years to comply with this consent decree. We also agreed
to indemnify the sellers for all losses of any kind incurred in
connection with the consent decree.
In connection with the 2002 acquisition of our California
refinery, subject to certain conditions, Tesoro also assumed the
sellers obligations pursuant to settlement efforts with
the EPA concerning the Section 114 refinery enforcement
initiative under the Clean Air Act, except for any potential
monetary penalties, which the seller retains. We believe these
obligations will not have a material impact on Tesoros
financial position or results of operations.
We will need to spend additional capital at the California
refinery for reconfiguring and replacing above-ground storage
tank systems and upgrading piping within the refinery. For these
related projects at our California refinery, we spent
$10 million during 2004, and we estimate that we may spend
an additional $90 million through 2010. This cost estimate
is subject to further review and analysis.
Conditions may develop that cause increases or decreases in
future expenditures for our various sites, including, but not
limited to, our refineries, tank farms, retail gasoline stations
(operating and closed locations) and petroleum product
terminals, and for compliance with the Clean Air Act and other
federal, state and local requirements. We cannot currently
determine the amounts of such future expenditures.
Union Oil Company of California has asserted claims against
other refining companies for infringement of patents related to
the production of certain reformulated gasoline. Our California
refinery produces grades of gasoline that may be subject to
similar claims. We have not paid or accrued liabilities for
patent royalties that may be related to our California
refinerys production, since the U.S. Patent Office
and the Federal Trade Commission are evaluating the validity of
those patents. We believe that the resolution of this matter
will not have a material adverse effect on our financial
position or results of operations.
81
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
Claims Against Third-Parties |
Beginning in the early 1980s, Tesoro Hawaii Corporation, Tesoro
Alaska Company and other fuel suppliers entered a series of
long-term, fixed-price fuel supply contracts with the
U.S. Defense Energy Support Center (DESC). Each
of the contracts contained a provision for price adjustments by
the DESC. However, the Federal Acquisition Regulations
(FAR) limit how prices may be adjusted, and we and
many of the other suppliers in separate suits in the Court of
Federal Claims currently are seeking relief from the DESCs
price adjustments. We and the other suppliers allege that the
DESCs price adjustments violated FAR by not adjusting the
price of fuel based on changes to the suppliers
established prices or costs, as FAR requires. We and the other
suppliers seek recovery of approximately $3 billion in
underpayment for fuel. Our share of the underpayment currently
totals approximately $165 million, plus interest. The Court
of Federal Claims granted partial summary judgment in our favor,
held that the DESCs fuel prices were illegal, and rejected
the DESCs assertion that we waived our right to a remedy
by entering into the contracts. However, some of the other
judges in the same court ruled on the cross-motions for other
suppliers in conflict with the holding for us. As a result, we
petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to
review its claims, and oral arguments in the appeal were held on
January 10, 2005. We are seeking the Court of Appeals
validation that the price adjustments were illegal and that we
did not waive our right to sue when we entered into the
contracts. We expect to receive the written decision from the
Court of Appeals during the second quarter of 2005, but we
cannot predict how the court will rule in this litigation.
In December of 1996, Tesoro Alaska Company filed a protest of
the intrastate rates charged for the transportation of its crude
oil through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).
Our protest asserted that the TAPS intrastate rates were
excessive and should be reduced. The Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA) opened RCA Docket No. P-97-4 to
consider our protest of the intrastate rates for the years 1997
through 2000. Through RCAs Order P-97-4(151), the RCA
set just and reasonable final rates for the years 1997 through
2000, and held that Tesoro is entitled to receive approximately
$52 million in refunds, including interest through the
expected conclusion of appeals in December 2007. RCA
Order P-97-4(151) is currently on appeal, and we cannot
give any assurances of when or whether we will prevail in the
appeal.
In December 2002, the RCA opened Docket No. P-03-4 to
consider the justness and reasonableness of the proposed
intrastate rates for TAPS for 2001-2003. Through the RCAs
Order P-03-4(34) (Order 34), the RCA
rejected the TAPS Carriers proposed intrastate rate
increases and maintained the permanent rate of $1.96 to the
Valdez Marine Terminal. Order 34 is currently on appeal to
the Alaska Superior Court (Case No. 3AN-04-8780 CI)
and the TAPS Carriers did not move to stay Order 34 to
prevent the rate decrease. The rate decrease has been in effect
since June 2003.
If the RCAs decision is upheld on appeal, Tesoro could be
entitled to refunds resulting from our shipments from January
2001 through mid-June 2003. If the RCAs decision is not
upheld on appeal, Tesoro could have to pay additional shipping
charges resulting from our shipments from mid-June 2003 through
December 2004. We cannot give any assurances of when or whether
we will prevail in the appeal. We also believe that, should we
not prevail on appeal, the amount of additional shipping charges
cannot reasonably be estimated since it is not possible to
estimate the permanent rate which the RCA could set, and the
appellate courts approve, for each year. In addition, depending
upon the level of such rates, there is a reasonable possibility
that any refunds for the period January 2001 through mid-June
2003, could offset some or all of any repayments due for the
period mid-June 2003 through December 2004.
82
TESORO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
NOTE Q QUARTERLY FINANCIAL DATA
(UNAUDITED)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Total | |
|
|
First | |
|
Second | |
|
Third | |
|
Fourth | |
|
Year | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions except per share amounts) | |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
2,429.9 |
|
|
$ |
3,155.0 |
|
|
$ |
3,288.5 |
|
|
$ |
3,388.8 |
|
|
$ |
12,262.2 |
|
|
Operating Income
|
|
$ |
126.6 |
|
|
$ |
395.7 |
|
|
$ |
160.6 |
|
|
$ |
30.3 |
|
|
$ |
713.2 |
|
|
Net Earnings (Loss)
|
|
$ |
50.4 |
|
|
$ |
213.1 |
|
|
$ |
64.6 |
|
|
$ |
(0.2 |
) |
|
$ |
327.9 |
|
|
Net Earnings Per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$ |
0.78 |
|
|
$ |
3.26 |
|
|
$ |
0.98 |
|
|
$ |
0.00 |
|
|
$ |
5.01 |
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$ |
0.75 |
|
|
$ |
3.11 |
|
|
$ |
0.93 |
|
|
$ |
0.00 |
|
|
$ |
4.76 |
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
2,286.1 |
|
|
$ |
2,116.4 |
|
|
$ |
2,330.0 |
|
|
$ |
2,113.2 |
|
|
$ |
8,845.7 |
|
|
Operating Income
|
|
$ |
79.5 |
|
|
$ |
67.1 |
|
|
$ |
159.6 |
|
|
$ |
28.6 |
|
|
$ |
334.8 |
|
|
Net Earnings (Loss)
|
|
$ |
20.4 |
|
|
$ |
(7.0 |
) |
|
$ |
70.6 |
|
|
$ |
(7.9 |
) |
|
$ |
76.1 |
|
|
Net Earnings (Loss) Per Share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$ |
0.32 |
|
|
$ |
(0.11 |
) |
|
$ |
1.09 |
|
|
$ |
(0.12 |
) |
|
$ |
1.18 |
|
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$ |
0.32 |
|
|
$ |
(0.11 |
) |
|
$ |
1.09 |
|
|
$ |
(0.12 |
) |
|
$ |
1.17 |
|
During the fourth quarter of 2004, we incurred stock-based
compensation expenses related to the announced retirement of
certain executive officers totaling $1.7 million. During
the 2003 fourth quarter, we terminated our funded executive
security plan, resulting in a charge of $8.4 million, of
which $6.9 million was a non-cash write-off of unamortized
prepaid pension costs (See Note N). Also during the fourth
quarter of 2003, we recorded pretax charges of $1.4 million
for impairment losses on certain retail stations.
83
|
|
ITEM 9. |
CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING
AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE |
None.
|
|
ITEM 9A. |
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES |
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
We carried out an evaluation required by the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), under
the supervision and with the participation of our management,
including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our
disclosure controls and procedures pursuant to Rule 13a-15
under the Exchange Act as of the end of the year. Based upon
that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures
are effective in alerting them on a timely basis to material
information relating to the Company and required to be included
in our periodic filings under the Exchange Act. During the
fourth quarter of 2004, there have been no changes in our
internal control over financial reporting that have materially
affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our
internal control over financial reporting.
Management Report on Internal Control over Financial
Reporting
We, as management of Tesoro Corporation and its subsidiaries
(the Company), are responsible for establishing and
maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting
as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Rule 13a-15(f). The Companys internal control system
is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles in the
United States of America.
Due to its inherent limitations, internal control over financial
reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Therefore,
even those systems determined to be effective can provide only
reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement
preparation and presentation.
Management assessed the effectiveness of internal controls over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, using the
criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations
of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control
Integrated Framework. Based on such assessment, we believe
that as of December 31, 2004, the Companys internal
control over financial reporting is effective. The independent
registered public accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche
LLP, as auditors of the Companys consolidated financial
statements, has issued an attestation report on
managements assessment of the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting,
included herein.
84
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Tesoro Corporation
We have audited managements assessment, included in the
accompanying Management Report on Internal Control over
Financial Reporting, that Tesoro Corporation and subsidiaries
(the Company) maintained effective internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on
the criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Companys
management is responsible for maintaining effective internal
control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on managements
assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting based
on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, evaluating
managements assessment, testing and evaluating the design
and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable
basis for our opinions.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed by, or under the supervision of, the
companys principal executive and principal financial
officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected
by the companys board of directors, management, and other
personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over
financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or
improper management override of controls, material misstatements
due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a
timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the
effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting
to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.
In our opinion, managements assessment that the Company
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2004, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, based on the criteria established in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all
material respects, effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004, based on the criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
85
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2004 of the Company and our report dated
March 2, 2005, expressed an unqualified opinion on those
financial statements.
/s/ deloitte &
touche llp
San Antonio, Texas
March 2, 2005
86
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION
None.
PART III
|
|
ITEM 10. |
DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT |
Information required under this Item will be contained in the
Companys 2005 Proxy Statement, incorporated herein by
reference. See also Executive Officers of the Registrant under
Business in Item 1 hereof.
In February 2004, the Board of Directors of Tesoro adopted a
code of business conduct and ethics for senior financial
executives (Code of Ethics). You can access our Code
of Ethics on our website at www.tsocorp.com, and you may
receive a copy, free of charge by writing to Tesoro Corporation,
Attention: Investor Relations, 300 Concord Plaza Drive,
San Antonio, Texas 78216-6999.
|
|
ITEM 11. |
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION |
Information required under this Item will be contained in the
Companys 2005 Proxy Statement, incorporated herein by
reference.
|
|
ITEM 12. |
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND
MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS |
Information required under this Item will be contained in the
Companys 2005 Proxy Statement, incorporated herein by
reference.
|
|
ITEM 13. |
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS |
Information required under this Item will be contained in the
Companys 2005 Proxy Statement, incorporated herein by
reference.
|
|
ITEM 14. |
PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES |
Information required under this Item will be contained in the
Companys 2005 Proxy Statement, incorporated herein by
reference.
PART IV
|
|
ITEM 15. |
EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES |
(a)1. Financial Statements
The following consolidated financial statements of Tesoro
Corporation and its subsidiaries are included in Part II,
Item 8 of this Form 10-K:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page | |
|
|
| |
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
|
|
48 |
|
Statements of Consolidated Operations Years Ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
|
|
|
49 |
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets December 31, 2004
and 2003
|
|
|
50 |
|
Statements of Consolidated Stockholders Equity
Years Ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
|
|
|
51 |
|
Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows Years Ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
|
|
|
52 |
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
53 |
|
87
2. Financial Statement Schedules
No financial statement schedules are submitted because of the
absence of the conditions under which they are required or
because the required information is included in the consolidated
financial statements.
3. Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
|
|
Description of Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1 |
|
|
|
|
Stock Sale Agreement, dated March 18, 1998, among the
Company, BHP Hawaii Inc. and BHP Petroleum Pacific Islands Inc.
(incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 2.1 to
Registration Statement No. 333-51789). |
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
|
Stock Sale Agreement, dated May 1, 1998, among Shell
Refining Holding Company, Shell Anacortes Refining Company and
the Company (incorporated by reference herein to the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 1998, File No. 1-3473). |
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
Asset Purchase Agreement, dated July 16, 2001, by and among
the Company, BP Corporation North America Inc. and Amoco
Oil Company (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 2.1 to the Companys Current Report on Form
8-K filed on September 21, 2001, File No. 1-3473). |
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
|
Asset Purchase Agreement, dated July 16, 2001, by and among
the Company, BP Corporation North America Inc. and Amoco
Oil Company (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 2.2 to the Companys Current Report on
Form 8-K filed on September 21, 2001, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
Asset Purchase Agreement, dated July 16, 2001, by and among
the Company, BP Corporation North America Inc. and
BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 2.1 to the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2001, File No. 1-3473). |
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
|
Sale and Purchase Agreement for Golden Eagle Refining and
Marketing Assets, dated February 4, 2002, by and among
Ultramar Inc. and Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company,
including First Amendment dated February 20, 2002 and
related Purchaser Parent Guaranty dated February 4, 2002,
and Second Amendment dated May 3, 2002 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 2.12 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2001, File No. 1-3473, and
Exhibit 2.1 to the Companys Current Report on Form
8-K filed on May 9, 2002, File No. 1-3473). |
|
3.1 |
|
|
|
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company
(incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 3 to the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1993, File No. 1-3473). |
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
|
By-Laws of the Company, as amended through February 2, 2005
(incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 3.1 to the
Companys Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
February 8, 2005, File No. 1-3473). |
|
3.3 |
|
|
|
|
Amendment to Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Company adding a new Article IX limiting Directors
Liability (incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 3(b)
to the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1993, File No. 1-3473). |
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Designation Establishing a Series A
Participating Preferred Stock, dated as of December 16,
1985 (incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 3(d) to
the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 1993, File No. 1-3473). |
|
3.5 |
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Amendment, dated as of February 9, 1994, to
Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company amending
Article IV, Article V, Article VII and
Article VIII (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 3(e) to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1993,
File No. 1-3473). |
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
|
Certificate of Amendment, dated as of August 3, 1998, to
Certificate of Incorporation of the Company, amending
Article IV, increasing the number of authorized shares of
Common Stock from 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 3.1 to the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 1998, File No. 1-3473). |
88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
|
|
Number | |
|
|
|
Description of Exhibit |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
.7 |
|
|
|
Certificate of Ownership of Merger merging Tesoro Merger Corp.
into Tesoro Petroleum Corporation and changing the name of
Tesoro Petroleum Corporation to Tesoro Corporation, dated
November 8, 2004 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
November 9, 2004). |
|
4 |
.1 |
|
|
|
Form of Coastwide Energy Services Inc. 8% Convertible
Subordinated Debenture (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 4.3 to Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to
Registration No. 333-00229). |
|
4 |
.2 |
|
|
|
Debenture Assumption and Conversion Agreement dated as of
February 20, 1996, between the Company, Coastwide Energy
Services, Inc. and CNRG Acquisition Corp. (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 4.4 to Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 to Registration No. 333-00229). |
|
4 |
.3 |
|
|
|
Indenture, dated as of July 2, 1998, between Tesoro
Petroleum Corporation and U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 4.4 to Registration Statement No. 333-59871). |
|
4 |
.4 |
|
|
|
Form of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2008 and
9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2008, Series B
(incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 4.5 to
Registration Statement No. 333-59871). |
|
4 |
.5 |
|
|
|
Indenture, dated as of November 6, 2001, between Tesoro
Petroleum Corporation and U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 4.8 to Registration Statement No. 333-75056). |
|
4 |
.6 |
|
|
|
Form of
95/8% Senior
Subordinated Notes due 2008 and
95/8% Senior
Subordinated Notes due 2008, Series B (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 4.7 to Registration Statement
No. 333-92468). |
|
4 |
.7 |
|
|
|
Indenture, dated as of April 9, 2002, between Tesoro Escrow
Corp. and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee
(incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 4.9 to
Registration Statement No. 333-84018). |
|
4 |
.8 |
|
|
|
Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 17, 2002, among
Tesoro Escrow Corp., Tesoro Corporation, the subsidiary
guarantors and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee
(incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 4.10 to
Registration Statement No. 333-92468). |
|
4 |
.9 |
|
|
|
Form of
95/8% Senior
Subordinated Notes due 2012 (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 4.10 to Registration Statement No. 333-84018). |
|
4 |
.10 |
|
|
|
Indenture, dated as of April 17, 2003, between Tesoro
Petroleum Corporation and The Bank of New York (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 4.8 to Registration Statement
No. 333-105783). |
|
4 |
.11 |
|
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture to the 8% Senior Secured Notes
due 2008, dated as of June 23, 2004 among Tesoro Petroleum
Corporation and The Bank of New York, as trustee (incorporated
by reference herein to Exhibit 4.2 to the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2004, File No. 1-3473). |
|
4 |
.12 |
|
|
|
Credit and Guaranty Agreement related to Senior Secured Term
Loans Due 2008, dated as of April 17, 2003, among Tesoro
Petroleum Corporation, certain subsidiary guarantors, Goldman
Sachs Credit Partners L.P., as Administrative Agent, and Goldman
Sachs Credit Partners L.P., as Sole Lead Arranger, Sole
Bookrunner and Syndication Agent (incorporated by reference
herein to Exhibit 4.11 to Registration Statement
No. 333-105783). |
|
4 |
.13 |
|
|
|
First Amendment, dated as of March 15, 2004, to the Credit
and Guaranty Agreement of the Senior Secured Term Loans Due
2008, among Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, certain subsidiary
guarantors, Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., as
Administrative Agent, Sole Lead Arranger, Sole Bookrunner and
Syndication Agent (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 4.1 to the Companys Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2004, File No. 1-3473). |
89
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
|
|
Number | |
|
|
|
Description of Exhibit |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
4.14 |
|
|
|
|
Pledge and Security Agreement related to Senior Secured Term
Loans Due 2008 and 8% Senior Secured Notes due 2008, dated
as of April 17, 2003, among Tesoro Petroleum Corporation,
certain subsidiary guarantors and Wilmington Trust Company, as
Collateral Agent (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 4.12 to Registration Statement No. 333-105783). |
|
4.15 |
|
|
|
|
Collateral Agency Agreement related to Senior Secured Term Loans
Due 2008 and 8% Senior Secured Notes due 2008, dated as of
April 17, 2003, among Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, certain
subsidiary guarantors, Goldman Sachs Credit Partners L.P., The
Bank of New York Trust Company and Wilmington Trust Company
(incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 4.13 to
Registration Statement No. 333-105783). |
|
4.16 |
|
|
|
|
Control Agreement related to Senior Secured Tem Loans due 2008
and 8% Senior Secured Notes due 2008, dated as of
May 16, 2003, among Tesoro Petroleum Corporation,
Wilmington Trust Company, as Collateral Agent, and Frost Bank,
as Depositary Agent (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 4.14 to Registration Statement No. 333-105783). |
|
10.1 |
|
|
|
|
Security Agreement dated as of April 17, 2003, by and
between the Company, certain of its subsidiary parties thereto
and Bank One NA as Agent (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 10.44 to Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement
No. 333-105783). |
|
10.2 |
|
|
|
|
Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of
May 25, 2004, among the Company, Bank of America, N.A. (the
syndication agent), Wells Fargo Foothill, LLC (the documentation
agent), Bank One, NA (the administrative agent) and a syndicate
of banks, financial institutions and other entities
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2004, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.3 |
|
|
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the Third Amended and Restated Credit
Agreement, dated as of September 29, 2004 among the
Company, Bank One N.A. (the administrative agent) and a
syndicate of banks, financial institutions and other entities
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current
Report on Form 8-K filed on September 30, 2004, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.4 |
|
|
|
|
Affirmation of Loan Documents dated as of September 29,
2004, by and between the Company, certain of its subsidiary
parties thereto and Bank One N.A. as administrative agent
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Current
Report on Form 8-K filed on September 30, 2004, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.5 |
|
|
|
|
Second Amendment to the Companys Amended and Restated
Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan effective as of May 1,
2003 (incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 10.33 to
Registration Statement No. 333-105783). |
|
10.6 |
|
|
|
|
$100 million Promissory Note, dated as of May 17,
2002, payable by the Company to Ultramar Inc. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys Current
Report on Form 8-K filed on May 24, 2002, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.7 |
|
|
|
|
$50 million Promissory Note, dated as of May 17, 2002,
payable by the Company to Ultramar Inc. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys Current
Report on Form 8-K filed on May 24, 2002, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.8 |
|
|
|
|
The Companys Amended Executive Security Plan, as amended
through November 13, 1989 for executive officers and key
personnel (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 10(f) to the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30,
1990, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.9 |
|
|
|
|
Sixth Amendment to the Companys Amended Executive Security
Plan dated effective March 6, 1991 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 10(g) to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 1991, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.10 |
|
|
|
|
Seventh Amendment to the Companys Amended Executive
Security Plan dated effective December 8, 1994
(incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 10(f) to the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1994, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.11 |
|
|
|
|
Eighth Amendment to the Companys Amended Executive
Security Plan dated effective June 6, 1996 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 10.5 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1998, File No. 1-3473). |
90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
|
|
Number | |
|
|
|
Description of Exhibit |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
10.12 |
|
|
|
|
Ninth Amendment to the Companys Amended Executive Security
Plan dated effective October 1, 1998 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 10.6 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1998, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.13 |
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between the Company
and Bruce A. Smith dated December 3, 2003 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the Companys Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.14 |
|
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between the Company and Gregory A. Wright
dated as of August 26, 2004 (incorporated by reference
herein to Exhibit 10.4 to the Companys Current Report
on Form 8-K filed on August 31, 2004, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.15 |
|
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between the Company and William J. Finnerty
dated as of February 2, 2005 (incorporated by reference
herein to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys Current Report
on Form 8-K/A filed on February 8, 2005, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.16 |
|
|
|
|
Employment Agreement between the Company and Everett D. Lewis
dated as of February 2, 2005 (incorporated by reference
herein to Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys Current Report
on Form 8-K/A filed on February 8, 2005, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.17 |
|
|
|
|
Management Stability Agreement between the Company and W. Eugene
Burden dated November 6, 2002 (incorporated by reference
herein to Exhibit 10.23 to the Companys Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2002, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.18 |
|
|
|
|
Management Stability Agreement between the Company and J.
William Haywood dated November 6, 2002 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 10.32 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.19 |
|
|
|
|
Management Stability Agreement between the Company and Joseph M.
Monroe dated November 6, 2002 (incorporated by reference
herein to Exhibit 10.30 to the Companys Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002,
File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.20 |
|
|
|
|
Management Stability Agreement between the Company and Stephen
L. Wormington dated November 6, 2002 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 10.20 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.21 |
|
|
|
|
Management Stability Agreement between the Company and G. Scott
Spendlove dated January 24, 2002 (incorporated by reference
herein to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2002, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.22 |
|
|
|
|
Management Stability Agreement between the Company and Claude A.
Flagg dated February 2, 2005 (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys Current Report on Form
8-K filed on February 8, 2005, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.23 |
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Management Stability Agreement between the
Company and Susan A. Lerette dated February 2, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to the
Companys Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
February 8, 2005, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.24 |
|
|
|
|
Management Stability Agreement between the Company and Charles
S. Parrish dated February 2, 2005 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the Companys Current
Report on Form 8-K filed on February 8, 2005, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.25 |
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated Management Stability Agreement between the
Company and Otto C. Schwethelm dated February 2, 2005
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to the
Companys Current Report on Form 8-K filed on
February 8, 2005, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.26 |
|
|
|
|
Consulting Agreement between the Company and James C.
Reed, Jr. dated effective March 1, 2005 (incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Companys Current
Report on Form 8-K filed on March 3, 2005, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.27 |
|
|
|
|
Consulting Agreement between the Company and Thomas E. Reardon
dated effective March 1, 2005 (incorporated by reference
herein to Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys Current Report
on Form 8-K filed on March 3, 2005, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.28 |
|
|
|
|
Copy of the Companys Key Employee Stock Option Plan dated
November 12, 1999 (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 10.3 to the Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2002, File
No. 1-3473). |
91
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
|
|
Number | |
|
|
|
Description of Exhibit |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
10.29 |
|
|
|
|
Copy of the Companys Amended and Restated Executive
Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended through May 25, 2000
(Companys Registration Statement No. 333-39070 filed
on Form S-8). |
|
10.30 |
|
|
|
|
Amendment to the Companys Amended and Restated Executive
Long-Term Incentive Plan effective as of June 20, 2002
(incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 10.31 to the
(incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 10.31 to the
Companys Registration Statement No. 333-92468). |
|
10.31 |
|
|
|
|
Third Amendment to the Companys Amended and Restated
Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan effective as of May 11,
2004 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.16 to the
Companys Registration statement No. 333-120716). |
|
10.32 |
|
|
|
|
Copy of the Companys Non-Employee Director Retirement Plan
dated December 8, 1994 (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit 10(t) to the Companys Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1994, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.33 |
|
|
|
|
Amended and Restated 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option
Plan, as amended through March 15, 2000 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2002, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.34 |
|
|
|
|
Amendment to the Companys Amended and Restated 1995
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 10.41 to the Companys
Registration Statement No. 333-92468). |
|
10.35 |
|
|
|
|
Amendment to the Companys 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock
Option Plan effective as of May 11, 2004 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 4.19 to the Companys
Registration Statement No. 333-120716). |
|
10.36 |
|
|
|
|
Copy of the Companys Board of Directors Deferred
Compensation Plan dated February 23, 1995 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 10(u) to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1994, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.37 |
|
|
|
|
Copy of the Companys Board of Directors Deferred
Compensation Trust dated February 23, 1995 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 10(v) to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1994, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.38 |
|
|
|
|
Copy of the Companys Board of Directors Deferred Phantom
Stock Plan (incorporated by reference herein to Exhibit 10
to the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 1997, File
No. 1-3473). |
|
10.39 |
|
|
|
|
Phantom Stock Option Agreement between the Company and Bruce A.
Smith dated effective October 29, 1997 (incorporated by
reference herein to Exhibit 10.20 to the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1997, File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.40 |
|
|
|
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement between the Company and its
officers and directors (incorporated by reference herein to
Exhibit B to the Companys Proxy Statement for the
Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on February 25, 1987,
File No. 1-3473). |
|
10.41 |
|
|
|
|
Letter dated May 5, 2002 from the Company to the State of
California Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to the
Companys Current Report on For 8-K filed on May 24,
2002, File No. 1-3473; portions of this document have been
omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment). |
|
14.1 |
|
|
|
|
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for Senior Financial
Executives (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 14.1 to
the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2003, File No. 1-3473). |
|
*21.1 |
|
|
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Company. |
|
*23.1 |
|
|
|
|
Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP. |
|
*31.1 |
|
|
|
|
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002. |
|
*31.2 |
|
|
|
|
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002. |
|
*32.1 |
|
|
|
|
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002. |
|
*32.2 |
|
|
|
|
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002. |
92
|
|
|
Identifies management contracts or compensatory plans or
arrangements required to be filed as an exhibit hereto pursuant
to Item 15(a)(3) of Form 10-K. |
Schedules not listed above are omitted because of the absence of
the conditions under which they are required or because the
information required by such omitted schedules is set forth in
the financial statements or the notes thereto.
Copies of exhibits filed as part of this Form 10-K may be
obtained by stockholders of record at a charge of $0.15 per
page, minimum $5.00 each request. Direct inquiries to the
Corporate Secretary, Tesoro Corporation, 300 Concord Plaza
Drive, San Antonio, Texas, 78216-6999.
93
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce A. Smith |
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors, |
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
Dated: March 4, 2005
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ BRUCE A. SMITH
Bruce
A. Smith |
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
|
March 4, 2005 |
|
/s/ GREGORY A. WRIGHT
Gregory
A. Wright |
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |
|
March 4, 2005 |
|
/s/ OTTO C. SCHWETHELM
Otto
C. Schwethelm |
|
Vice President and Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
March 4, 2005 |
|
/s/ STEVEN H. GRAPSTEIN
Steven
H. Grapstein |
|
Lead Director |
|
March 4, 2005 |
|
/s/ ROBERT W. GOLDMAN
Robert
W. Goldman |
|
Director |
|
March 4, 2005 |
|
/s/ WILLIAM J. JOHNSON
William
J. Johnson |
|
Director |
|
March 4, 2005 |
|
/s/ A. MAURICE MYERS
A.
Maurice Myers |
|
Director |
|
March 4, 2005 |
|
/s/ DONALD H. SCHMUDE
Donald
H. Schmude |
|
Director |
|
March 4, 2005 |
|
/s/ PATRICK J. WARD
Patrick
J. Ward |
|
Director |
|
March 4, 2005 |
94