Exxon Mobil to buy XTO Energy for $31 billion
MARK WILLIAMS,AP Energy Writer Comments 1
Published: December 14, 2009

Exxon Mobil will buy XTO Energy in an all-stock deal worth $31 billion as the oil giant moved aggressively Monday to capitalize on the growing supply of natural gas at home.

Advertisement


The deal could signal a new rush to own natural gas assets by major integrated producers, and perhaps the start of a significant consolidation in the energy industry.

"Exxon is the group leader and it sets the trend. I would expect more acquisitions in the next three to six months," said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst for Oppenheimer. "Who that will be is the $64,000 question."

Exxon is closely watched in the industry and an acquisition like XTO could prompt other companies like Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP BLC or Chevron Corp. to move.

Potential targets include big natural gas companies like Chesapeake Energy, Devon Energy and Anadarko, Gheit said.

XTO shows the priority that major producers are giving to natural gas as a fuel source. New technology has unlocked trillions of cubic feet of natural gas at home, meaning energy producers do not have to navigate tricky political environments overseas.

That doesn't mean that those projects are being excluded.

Exxon just last week gave the go-ahead for a $15 billion natural gas project in Papua New Guinea, positioning the world's largest publicly traded oil company to provide energy to a fuel-hungry China.

XTO claims about 45 trillion cubic feet of gas, much of it trapped in tight formations known as shale. Shares in the company jumped 16 percent, or $6.64, to $48.13 in early trading.

Shares of Exxon fell 3.5 percent, or $2.51, to $70.32.

Exxon has signaled recently that it was moving increasingly toward landing natural gas assets. Once the deal closes, Exxon said it will establish a new organization to manage global development and production of unconventional resources.

The company, based in Irving, Texas, will issue 0.7098 common shares for each common share of XTO, representing a 25 percent premium to XTO stockholders. Exxon also will assume $10 billion in XTO debt.

The deal values XTO's shares at $51.69, based on the closing price Friday.

"XTO has a proven ability to profitably and consistently grow production and reserves in unconventional resources," Bob Simpson, chairman and founder of XTO, said in a statement.

Simpson is one of the highest paid executives in the United States. His compensation last year was valued at $53.5 million.

He retired as CEO in 2008.


Read more: NewsOK (http://newsok.com/exxon-mobil-to-buy-xto-energy-for-31-billion/article/3424927?custom_click=headlines_widget#ixzz0Zg1l557 f)

This is why having Devon building is so important. It helps keep a company in place if it has significant real estate holdings in a city. Imagine how easy it would be to move Devon if all they had to worry about is a couple of leases that expire every few years. However, having a $billion office building on the books makes it harder to move.

I think the company more in danger of a hostile takeover is Chesapeake. Real estate or not, McClendon doesn't control enough of the company to prevent it. In either case, it would be catastrophic if one of those behemouths came looking here.

CHK has too much debt to be a takeover target

CHK has too much debt to make it very attractive. DVN would very likely resist any sort of acquisition bid. There are much more attractive targets out there.

Its not as tasty a target because of that but it is more vulnerable to it. Neither McClendon or Nichols would agree to a takeover but I believe Devon has far more ability to fight one off than Chesapeake.

CHK has too much debt to be a takeover target

XTO, the company taken over by Exxon, had 10billion in debt. Exxon assumed that debt.

How much debt does CHK have? I wouldn't be shocked if it were bought out.

And XTO's chairman & founder "was one of the heighest paid executives" last year. Bad omen lol.

I don't think that Chesapeake's debt makes it takeover resistant because KMG had debt. I think though that if CHK can make it without getting taken over while it's stock rebounds and it's spreadsheets do improve (because they will) then that will enable McClendon to get his hands on more stock to prevent a takeover.

Devon is not a takeover risk, too big, too entrenched, etc. You don't just take over a giant like Devon with a 850 ft tall tower, taller than Exxon's in Houston I think. I think that's mostly a perception thing, too. If CHK had invested in a tower instead of a campus they would have the perception of being a giant, too.

Does anyone know the investment CHK has made in their campus vs. the cost of the new Devon tower? I would bet its somewhat comperable overall. In either case, its not a matter of Nichols or McClendon selling out, its a matter of whether or not a suitor with endless pockets like Exxon can be fought off in a hostile takeover.

Reading this was horrifying.

With Devon selling off all of the international assets and asset in the Gulf, they are positioning themselves to be an easier target to take over. Devon has been run very conservatively with not as much debt as most oil and gas companies. They have been on takeover lists for many years because of this.

Chesapeake's debt is more than it appears, and their diluted stock is also a risk. So, I don't see Chesapeake being taken over.

XTO purchased a portion of Dominion E&P's assets in 2007. Dominion had 500 employees in Oklahoma with 300 in Oklahoma City. Linn Energy and HighMount purchased two other portions of Dominion's assets with employees in Oklahoma City. They sold the Rockies and South Texas assets to XTO. All of the employees except one in the Oklahoma City office was given severance from XTO.

I think Devon has more control over its destiny than does Chesapeake. No doubt CHK is a less attractive target but its shale properties are extraordinarily valuable - especially at such time as gas gets more expensive.

It certainly would be quite scary for Devon and CHK Energy to be taken over by larger well endowed $$ oil companies. It would certainly be a big test if both companies exited OKC and to see if OKC has truly diversified and would be able to recover from losing 2 Fortune 500 companies. Perhaps this may never happen, but as I mentioned numerous times, does the city have any back up plans to "attempt" to lure new HQ or is this something that our city leaders are not ready to deal with and to be totally dumbfounded if it does occur. Pretty scary thought.

I think CHK has to be looked at from the perspective of a good investment.

Buy low sell high.

CHK has too much debt to be a takeover target
You should take a look at Exxon's books if you think they have too much debt..Exxon is capable fo acquiring 200+ billion dollar company or companies...they are huge...good news is the federal government wont allow too much of this I dont think...


CHK has too much debt to make it very attractive. DVN would very likely resist any sort of acquisition bid. There are much more attractive targets out there.
Devon would resist a bid, CHK would try...

It certainly would be quite scary for Devon and CHK Energy to be taken over by larger well endowed $$ oil companies. It would certainly be a big test if both companies exited OKC and to see if OKC has truly diversified and would be able to recover from losing 2 Fortune 500 companies. Perhaps this may never happen, but as I mentioned numerous times, does the city have any back up plans to "attempt" to lure new HQ or is this something that our city leaders are not ready to deal with and to be totally dumbfounded if it does occur. Pretty scary thought.

Just becuase a company gets bought doesn't necessarily mean they will leave the state, it may lead to jobs flowing into the state as cost of living is much lower here and employees could enjoy a better life. XOM isn't moving anyone from XTO's fort worth office, in fact they will be creating a new business unit and stationing that unit out of the XTO fort worth offices.

But i hope neither company gets bought out or taken over.

Devon would resist a bid, CHK would try...

Aubrey McClendon's dad started Chesapeake. Aubrey built it to the great company that it is. Its now one of the largest gas producers in the world. McClendon won't want to sell the company - its his baby. The question is, can he fight off Conoco/Phillips or British Pete - or Exxon?

Aubrey McClendon's dad started Chesapeake. Aubrey built it to the great company that it is. Its now one of the largest gas producers in the world. McClendon won't want to sell the company - its his baby. The question is, can he fight off Conoco/Phillips or British Pete - or Exxon?

I agree, but it may not be his choice. Rather, the stockholders, many of which no nothing about the complexities of the energy business, who are going to be the final decision makers on any sort of merger.

Fortunately, both Devon and CHK have stocks that have been outperforming the big boys for some time, and I think if either would be bought tomorrow it would be heavily resisted. If the price starts sagging, maybe due to stubbornly low oil or gas prices, then I would get concerned.

Just becuase a company gets bought doesn't necessarily mean they will leave the state, it may lead to jobs flowing into the state as cost of living is much lower here and employees could enjoy a better life. XOM isn't moving anyone from XTO's fort worth office, in fact they will be creating a new business unit and stationing that unit out of the XTO fort worth offices.

But i hope neither company gets bought out or taken over.

It's one thing for an Irving-based company to not steal jobs from Fort Worth, but they are more likely to do so if it's a company in another state--especially Oklahoma which they so love to look down upon.

But you are right. For example, homegrown company Advanced Academics has stayed put and grown despite being acquired by Chicago-based DeVry a few years ago.

And progressiveboy, you constantly prattle on about OKC luring a Fortune 500 company. It just doesn't work that way, especially for midsize cities. We need to grow our local companies.


Aubrey McClendon's dad started Chesapeake. Aubrey built it to the great company that it is.

I think you have it mixed up. Aubrey started Chesapeake with Tom Ward. Devon was started by Larry Nichols father. Or they founded it together. Something like that. Also, Robert S. Kerr was McClendon's uncle.

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Educate me. What would stop Aubrey from being able to retain Chesapeake? Is it the shareholders who have a vote? Fancy me.

If this is how the American dream is done, I'll take mine rare. What is the f-ing point of building up a company with so much local influence only so that some big fat-ass corporate giant can come and take it over.

Do me a favor, Houston. Stay out of Oklahoma's business. Go hang another circled Texas star on your house.

It certainly would be quite scary for Devon and CHK Energy to be taken over by larger well endowed $$ oil companies. It would certainly be a big test if both companies exited OKC and to see if OKC has truly diversified and would be able to recover from losing 2 Fortune 500 companies. Perhaps this may never happen, but as I mentioned numerous times, does the city have any back up plans to "attempt" to lure new HQ or is this something that our city leaders are not ready to deal with and to be totally dumbfounded if it does occur. Pretty scary thought.

A test? It would be a massacre. I don't think you're thinking it through...the number of employees both companies have; the level of communtiy involvement, the philanthropic works...massacre. Seriously, i don't think I'm even being dramatic. From skyscrapers to helping get the Thunder to OKC to donations to schools to river improvements....ugh.

that being said, there's nothign to worry about right now. That sentence in that article was complete and utter speculation.

Unfortunately, these things run in packs. One company does something so the competition starts doing it or they feel like they will be left behind. Look for a couple more big buyouts of gas companies. Luckily, there are several others but the damn press articles keep talkign about Devon and Chesapeake as the top ones because of their shale expertise.

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Educate me. What would stop Aubrey from being able to retain Chesapeake? Is it the shareholders who have a vote? Fancy me.

If this is how the American dream is done, I'll take mine rare. What is the f-ing point of building up a company with so much local influence only so that some big fat-ass corporate giant can come and take it over.

Do me a favor, Houston. Stay out of Oklahoma's business. Go hang another circled Texas star on your house.

You can build a company any way you want but when you take it public (ie issue stock on a public stock exchange) you sell pieces of the company to other people (shareholders). Once you sell over 50% obviously it is no longer majoirty owned by you. Aubrey has long had less than 50% but lost remaining control this past year when he was forced to sell his stock to cover a margin call. Not the company's fault, not the country's fault, its Aubrey's fault...the american dream is fine, building a business is fine but when you exchange pieces of the business for money you lose some of that control

Does anyone know the investment CHK has made in their campus vs. the cost of the new Devon tower?

Devon is spending $750 million on it's new HQ and for CHK it's almost impossible to total everything up.

They own hundreds of separate properties and many (such as Classen Curve and NH Plaza) are not for the use of their employees. Many more are not being used directly by the company now but may ultimately become part of their campus.

It wouldn't surprise me, though, if CHK has around $750 million invested in various real estate.

Do me a favor, Houston. Stay out of Oklahoma's business. Go hang another circled Texas star on your house.

This is why cities like OKC, Dallas, and KC take a huge community effort to be successful, whereas cities like Houston or Omaha that are the toast of the white collar business world just take a few corporate decisions continuing to go their way to be successful.

This is also the reason, when you get to the heart of it, that Tulsa is no longer a successful city. For years they just expected corporate decisions to continue to go their way. Then they stopped going their way and Tulsa couldn't make the switch to a community effort kind of city.

This is why cities like OKC, Dallas, and KC take a huge community effort to be successful, whereas cities like Houston or Omaha that are the toast of the white collar business world just take a few corporate decisions continuing to go their way to be successful.

This is also the reason, when you get to the heart of it, that Tulsa is no longer a successful city. For years they just expected corporate decisions to continue to go their way. Then they stopped going their way and Tulsa couldn't make the switch to a community effort kind of city.

Tulsa and the state had a lot to do with driving corporations out...you're exactly right they expected decisions to go their way, they got arrogant, thought they could create an environment not as friendly to business and it backfired and the result was thousands of lost jobs....jobs that are now south of the red river :(

Well I would question anytime Tulsans claim that it was the city govt that drove corporations out. State, possibly. But Tulsans need to get over their hatred of the city govt if they're ever going to move forward.

Well I would question anytime Tulsans claim that it was the city govt that drove corporations out. State, possibly. But Tulsans need to get over their hatred of the city govt if they're ever going to move forward.

Easy for someone to say who doesn't deal with Tulsa incompetence on a regular basis or see the ridiculous news stories regarding our government up here.

As I've stated before Tulsa is going ot have to raise taxes or change the tax base to be successful and rebuild infrastructure because a lot of it is too far gone for simple fixes.

But when road projects are 30% more expensive than they should be so you can line a buddy's pockets thats a problem, and you wonder why so many here are skeptical of government? Or how about takign tax payer money to invest in publicly traded companies that are high risk endeavors? There are countless issues with government up here so yeah people are skeptical and pissed and they should be. Unlike OKC there is no solid track record of responsible governance in Tulsa...

The state and the city of Tulsa both played a role in the mass exodus of jobs, you can read up on it if you haven't, but there were numerous factors that ultimately tilted the market less favorable here and more favorable in Texas.

Well I can tell you it wasn't the City of Tulsa. People in Tulsa like to think of city government in terms of national politics, and all they can comprehend is neocon slogans like "tax and spend." Ask any Tulsan about their city govt and they'll tell you "tax and spend liberals." Ask for examples and proof, they don't know. They say, "well it's a fact, tax and spend liberals." That's not proof.

The don't realize that the civic level is where communities really have to come together and place trust in their govt. No doubt the govt can't shirk that trust, but without a successful public-private partnership, cities that don't have incredible corporate bases can't be successful. Tulsans do not want a public-private partnership, in fact they want nothing to do with the city govt. In that respect the failures of Tulsa fall squarely on the people of Tulsa. And even if the Tulsa govt is too corrupt to trust, that's even more reason to seek a public-private partnership.

But I can guarantee that nothing the City of Tulsa does is going to be responsible for the corporate exodus. The City isn't levying corporate taxes. The City isn't responsible for policy on illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion, or any of these other divisive issues that Tulsans desperately want to blame their city govt for when they talk about how liberal it is. That's putting off the actual issue, something Tulsans are better than anyone else about. They love to say they care about downtown and want to bring it back, but nobody is willing to do what it takes to do that. The last thing Tulsans want is another tax, which is what it will take to make Tulsa competitive again. Tulsans are too politically charged to accept another tax for civic progress like we are in OKC, a much more fair-minded city.

Well I can tell you it wasn't the City of Tulsa. People in Tulsa like to think of city government in terms of national politics, and all they can comprehend is neocon slogans like "tax and spend." Ask any Tulsan about their city govt and they'll tell you "tax and spend liberals." Ask for examples and proof, they don't know. They say, "well it's a fact, tax and spend liberals." That's not proof.

The don't realize that the civic level is where communities really have to come together and place trust in their govt. No doubt the govt can't shirk that trust, but without a successful public-private partnership, cities that don't have incredible corporate bases can't be successful. Tulsans do not want a public-private partnership, in fact they want nothing to do with the city govt. In that respect the failures of Tulsa fall squarely on the people of Tulsa. And even if the Tulsa govt is too corrupt to trust, that's even more reason to seek a public-private partnership.

But I can guarantee that nothing the City of Tulsa does is going to be responsible for the corporate exodus. The City isn't levying corporate taxes. The City isn't responsible for policy on illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion, or any of these other divisive issues that Tulsans desperately want to blame their city govt for when they talk about how liberal it is. That's putting off the actual issue, something Tulsans are better than anyone else about. They love to say they care about downtown and want to bring it back, but nobody is willing to do what it takes to do that. The last thing Tulsans want is another tax, which is what it will take to make Tulsa competitive again. Tulsans are too politically charged to accept another tax for civic progress like we are in OKC, a much more fair-minded city.

This is an awesome post. Well done. It would be good in that Tulsa thread, also.

Well I can tell you it wasn't the City of Tulsa. People in Tulsa like to think of city government in terms of national politics, and all they can comprehend is neocon slogans like "tax and spend." Ask any Tulsan about their city govt and they'll tell you "tax and spend liberals." Ask for examples and proof, they don't know. They say, "well it's a fact, tax and spend liberals." That's not proof.

The don't realize that the civic level is where communities really have to come together and place trust in their govt. No doubt the govt can't shirk that trust, but without a successful public-private partnership, cities that don't have incredible corporate bases can't be successful. Tulsans do not want a public-private partnership, in fact they want nothing to do with the city govt. In that respect the failures of Tulsa fall squarely on the people of Tulsa. And even if the Tulsa govt is too corrupt to trust, that's even more reason to seek a public-private partnership.

But I can guarantee that nothing the City of Tulsa does is going to be responsible for the corporate exodus. The City isn't levying corporate taxes. The City isn't responsible for policy on illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion, or any of these other divisive issues that Tulsans desperately want to blame their city govt for when they talk about how liberal it is. That's putting off the actual issue, something Tulsans are better than anyone else about. They love to say they care about downtown and want to bring it back, but nobody is willing to do what it takes to do that. The last thing Tulsans want is another tax, which is what it will take to make Tulsa competitive again. Tulsans are too politically charged to accept another tax for civic progress like we are in OKC, a much more fair-minded city.

That's a great post but if you think a city doesn't impact potential corporations coming into to town or staying in town you're wrong. Cities including Tulsa have people solely charged with recruiting corporations, I never once said Tulsa was solely responsible for the exodus of jobs, but they were in part responsible and ignoring that and pretending Tulsa is perfect is part of what got the city into its current mess.

You're dead on about tax/spend liberals...as I've stated numerous times Tulsans are going to have to get over this no tax ever, period for anything...there are some poeple so dead set against taxes that it is absurd. On a national level I'm definately a fiscal conservative and the same could be said for the msot part on a state level...but on a city level I tend to be much more of a progressive and it seems most people seem to have trouble seperating the various forms of government and why our national constitution is structured the way it is...

You're right, OUGrad (and I think Tulsa desperately needs more reasonable people like you), but I still insist that the state is where a lot of corporate recruiting is done. I've done a lot of stuff with the OKC Chamber and from first-hand experience I would tell you that it's shocking how much has to do with the state leg. The biggest things we've done to attract more companies is Right to Work, Quality Jobs Act, Quality Investments Act, etc etc.. state incentive programs that bring companies to Oklahoma. Unfortunately these things have merely allowed us to keep up instead of falling behind because other states have followed our example.

When Stillwater was going to lose MerCruiser, Stillwater didn't offer up a ton of cash..they got the state to offer up a ton of cash (they still lost MerCruiser). The companies that have been attracted to Tulsa (not that many) have been attracted by these state programs. Companies like Google just east of Tulsa and Dell and AAA in OKC set their wages specifically at a certain level in order to take advantage of QJA rebates that are the reason for them coming to Oklahoma in the first place.

Yes, the marketing pitches fall squarely on Tulsa. But the content and business advantages that they're offering in those marketing pitches come from the state leg.

You're right, OUGrad (and I think Tulsa desperately needs more reasonable people like you), but I still insist that the state is where a lot of corporate recruiting is done. I've done a lot of stuff with the OKC Chamber and from first-hand experience I would tell you that it's shocking how much has to do with the state leg. The biggest things we've done to attract more companies is Right to Work, Quality Jobs Act, Quality Investments Act, etc etc.. state incentive programs that bring companies to Oklahoma. Unfortunately these things have merely allowed us to keep up instead of falling behind because other states have followed our example.

When Stillwater was going to lose MerCruiser, Stillwater didn't offer up a ton of cash..they got the state to offer up a ton of cash (they still lost MerCruiser). The companies that have been attracted to Tulsa (not that many) have been attracted by these state programs. Companies like Google just east of Tulsa and Dell and AAA in OKC set their wages specifically at a certain level in order to take advantage of QJA rebates that are the reason for them coming to Oklahoma in the first place.

Yes, the marketing pitches fall squarely on Tulsa. But the content and business advantages that they're offering in those marketing pitches come from the state leg.

Oh yeah for sure, the state has a major role to play, as a general rule especially when it comes to getting new jobs the state plays the biggest role. But when organizations are leaving as Tulsa experienced in the 80s and 90s the city can step up and offer some substantial incentives to keep jobs...something OKC started doing almost two decades ago and that Tulsa is just now really starting (see american airlines).

Cities have a great ability to hang onto jobs via property tax exemptions (handled through the county in most cases for obvious reasons) that benefit both cities and counties and obviously the citizens fo the city. Cities specifically and use TIF incentives (which I know you guys already know about so I wont explain them) to keep organizations...

But yeah I agree the state bears the brunt of creating and maintaining an environment but a city itself can greatly aid in hanging on to existing jobs...

But on a broader level our state really needs to become a more corporate friendly state, I think we've made progress the last ten years but not like I would have hoped...I guess we're venturing into topics for other threads though.

I agree. Our corporate and income taxes are unacceptable, we know it, legislators know it, and everyone outside Oklahoma knows it..what are we doing about it? Nothing. We're not going to reform our tax code in this state because it would cast too much light on what we actually spend our appropriations on. We're actually #1 for using federal transportation appropriations for [insert random project here], and lord knows how much we squander lining pockets of the good ol boy system.

Take these cable barriers ODOT has spent way too much for along every single stretch of interstate highway in Oklahoma. What a worthless project, considering Missouri spent 1/4 what we did and got the same result, and Texas spent half what we did.

Look at how ineffective our state departments are, particularly DHS which I think has to be the posterchild of a ridiculous state bureaucracy that has failed. Everybody knows it has failed. What are we doing about it? Nothing. Why? When you start looking at this from a very holistic standpoint, everything is economic development.

When we waste state revenues there's an economic development cost because those revenues came somewhere.. any good neocon will tell you "from the people" but the reality is that in most cases, those revenues (in a good anti-business state like ours) came from the corporate base.

_____________________________
completely unrelated thought:

I think though that you're looking at economic development, in Tulsa, from the same perspective as landing a retail development. In OKC, and to a larger extent in Texas, they use property tax exemptions and TIFs to lure retail developments. Tulsa does this a LOT, particularly with strip malls such as Tulsa Hills (waste of a TIF imo)..just more proof that Tulsa can't face reality, stuck in the past, etc. I think that TIFs, in terms of corporate relocations, can help a company build a "cooler" headquarters but it's really not going to bring a company to Tulsa in the first place, so much as the QIA/QJA stuff is.

Don't forget that when OKC tried doing city-level incentives for companies to come (back before MAPS) it didn't work. That was the first step toward the renaissance, but it was the first thing that we tried, that failed, that led us to something more successful..quality of life improvements. Notice how everything that works has to do with "quality" in some way. Quality jobs (the jobs meet a certain salary threshold as being liveable), quality investments, quality of life.. economic development is about quality, not quantity. You have to have a quality place, not a big place, to attract jobs. Look at California and Florida right now.

I agree. Our corporate and income taxes are unacceptable, we know it, legislators know it, and everyone outside Oklahoma knows it..what are we doing about it? Nothing. We're not going to reform our tax code in this state because it would cast too much light on what we actually spend our appropriations on. We're actually #1 for using federal transportation appropriations for [insert random project here], and lord knows how much we squander lining pockets of the good ol boy system.

Take these cable barriers ODOT has spent way too much for along every single stretch of interstate highway in Oklahoma. What a worthless project, considering Missouri spent 1/4 what we did and got the same result, and Texas spent half what we did.

Look at how ineffective our state departments are, particularly DHS which I think has to be the posterchild of a ridiculous state bureaucracy that has failed. Everybody knows it has failed. What are we doing about it? Nothing. Why? When you start looking at this from a very holistic standpoint, everything is economic development.

When we waste state revenues there's an economic development cost because those revenues came somewhere.. any good neocon will tell you "from the people" but the reality is that in most cases, those revenues (in a good anti-business state like ours) came from the corporate base.

It's ridiculous, the state had one party rule for decades and now we've got a good governor (or at least in my opinion) with a legislature that switched party hands and yet we haven't really made any progress, its incredibly disappointing. I am hoping that we'll see some continued progress, I'm kinda worried about republicans taking over the entire government (to be fair I am a registered repub) and squandering the opportunity for real change. They have had several chances to affect real change that I believe Henry woudl go for but instead they're sitting on their asses waiting on a republican governor so the party gets the credit (at least thats how I see it) :( I'm pretty frustrated with our state government and federal government at teh moment.

We need to get rid of all corporate taxes because as anyone whose taken any sort of business or econ classes knows, there isn't really any such thing as a corporate tax. Those are costs pushed through the entire system in the form of lower wages, lower employment, lower returns to shareholders or higher costs...generally its some combination of all of the above but you get the point.

No corporate tax and switch to a property tax similar to what is in use in Texas would be the best option for our state. But then again that is just my opinion...

According to Yahoo finance, Chesapeake insiders own less than 4% of the company, and Devon less than 1% Sandridge insiders have more control at 25%

It seems to me that the large institutional investors(mutual funds, etc) hold almost the entire deck of votes in chk and dvn. If the price was right, I'm not sure much could be done to stop a sale other than a poison-pill. Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture, though.

As a side note, how is it that Larry Nichols owns so little of his family corporation?

It's ridiculous, the state had one party rule for decades and now we've got a good governor (or at least in my opinion) with a legislature that switched party hands and yet we haven't really made any progress, its incredibly disappointing. I am hoping that we'll see some continued progress, I'm kinda worried about republicans taking over the entire government (to be fair I am a registered repub) and squandering the opportunity for real change. They have had several chances to affect real change that I believe Henry woudl go for but instead they're sitting on their asses waiting on a republican governor so the party gets the credit (at least thats how I see it) :( I'm pretty frustrated with our state government and federal government at teh moment.

We need to get rid of all corporate taxes because as anyone whose taken any sort of business or econ classes knows, there isn't really any such thing as a corporate tax. Those are costs pushed through the entire system in the form of lower wages, lower employment, lower returns to shareholders or higher costs...generally its some combination of all of the above but you get the point.

No corporate tax and switch to a property tax similar to what is in use in Texas would be the best option for our state. But then again that is just my opinion...

I think Drew Edmondson becoming gov is the most likely scenario..Mary Fallin would be fairly pro-business, but if Jari Askins gets in..God save us all. Let's just rename I-35 Southbound the "Corporate Relocation Expressway."

I think Drew Edmondson becoming gov is the most likely scenario..Mary Fallin would be fairly pro-business, but if Jari Askins gets in..God save us all. Let's just rename I-35 Southbound the "Corporate Relocation Expressway."

Edmondson and Fallin are both good choices, I've dealt with Fallin at various times in the past i really like her a lot...I'm not a big Askins fan either...I dont see that happening though.

Why does everyone insist we're so anti-business? I don't see it. I understand the desire for tort reform and the like, but there is very little in place to discourage corporate relocation here other than the lack of skilled workers.

I've talked to all kinds of site relo people and they've told me the number one and two things companies are looking for are 1) skilled, available talent, and 2) quality of life.

As has been discussed here on other threads, Oklahoma doesn't really tax people more than other states.

I HAVE heard, however, companies voicing concerns about the quality of our infrastructure and the low statewide investment we make on public education.

The kinds of companies we want (high wage) want educated people and a nice place to live. They can work with the rest.

The bottom feeder companies (low wage) want the absolute cheapest operational environs, period. They don't care about anything else. But these aren't really the companies we're seeking.

Finally, the whole "recruit x company to relo to your state" thing is pretty dated.

Business is much more organic. We need to create an entrepreneurial environment where creative people want to live. Those are the people who build companies.

OKC is doing the right things in this area, IMO. The state has problems, mostly because of its poor reputation with regard to how it educates its citizens.

Why does everyone insist we're so anti-business? I don't see it. I understand the desire for tort reform and the like, but there is very little in place to discourage corporate relocation here other than the lack of skilled workers.

I've talked to all kinds of site relo people and they've told me the number one and two things companies are looking for are 1) skilled, available talent, and 2) quality of life.

As has been discussed here on other threads, Oklahoma doesn't really tax people more than other states.

I HAVE heard, however, companies voicing concerns about the quality of our infrastructure and the low statewide investment we make on public education.

The kinds of companies we want (high wage) want educated people and a nice place to live. They can work with the rest.

The bottom feeder companies (low wage) want the absolute cheapest operational environs, period. They don't care about anything else. But these aren't really the companies we're seeking.

Finally, the whole "recruit x company to relo to your state" thing is pretty dated.

Business is much more organic. We need to create an entrepreneurial environment where creative people want to live. Those are the people who build companies.

OKC is doing the right things in this area, IMO. The state has problems, mostly because of its poor reputation with regard to how it educates its citizens.

Great post, but yours usually are...

With other states offering far better taxation methods (from a stability standpoint even if rates are similar) and in many cases lower or no rates on corporations we have to drastically change our model to get attention.

The state is generally competitive (I think I read we were 17 out of the 50 states as most corporate friendly?) but nothing outstanding. I can't remember if I read that in Forbes or in the Journal...but the state was either 17 or 21 and I can't remember which...but in either case its neither exceptionally bad nor good. So everyone thats on the fence probably wont choose oklahoma, our infrastructure is poor, our k-12 education is poor and our taxation and corporate environment is nothing special. So they go to places like Colorado or Texas...

I also think our cities would do themselves a huge favor by canning the sales tax idea and switching to a property tax.

edit: here's what I was talking about, not sure which publication I originally read it in

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/1369.html

And... hijacked.

No corporate tax and switch to a property tax similar to what is in use in Texas would be the best option for our state. But then again that is just my opinion...
All states/cities are going to get "their" money, they just use different terminology and different ways to skin the cat. You are right though, "business taxes" are anything but, it is just a cost that gets passed on down the line and politicians are downright stupid to think that the "soak the rich" mantra does anything but drive them somewhere else.

We have a "corporate tax" down here in Texas, it is called a "franchise tax". It was expanded in recent years to encompass every form of business other than a sole proprietorship. To me it is no different than any other states "corporate tax".

The property taxes down here are ridiculous, I know some that have moved out of Texas to get away from those and they fee you to death for everything else. I can tell you the tax burdens are virtually the same for me (percentage wise) as it was in Oklahoma 6.5 years ago even without an income tax. We just got our property tax bill, we live in a 1,300 sf house in South Austin, everything in the neighborhood is selling for 110-120,000 and the county "values" it at 150,000 for tax purposes. Our tax bill (which we pay out of pocket, not lumped into our mortgage payment) is 3,000 this year. My sister has an 1,800 sf house in West OKC, valued at 125,000 and hers is something like 800. We are looking at vacant lots in Lago Vista (North shore of Lake Travis) at around 10-14,000 a piece and many valued lower by the same county and their taxes are around 500.

It doesn't matter, they are going to get "theirs".


Finally, the whole "recruit x company to relo to your state" thing is pretty dated.

Business is much more organic. We need to create an entrepreneurial environment where creative people want to live. Those are the people who build companies.
I agree, the problem with relying on corporate relocations is most of those companies will just go find a cheaper whore...I mean state when it suits them. I know a bunch of companies that relocated here to Austin have moved onto someplace else after the incentives run out.

Great post, but yours usually are...

With other states offering far better taxation methods (from a stability standpoint even if rates are similar) and in many cases lower or no rates on corporations we have to drastically change our model to get attention.

The state is generally competitive (I think I read we were 17 out of the 50 states as most corporate friendly?) but nothing outstanding. I can't remember if I read that in Forbes or in the Journal...but the state was either 17 or 21 and I can't remember which...but in either case its neither exceptionally bad nor good. So everyone thats on the fence probably wont choose oklahoma, our infrastructure is poor, our k-12 education is poor and our taxation and corporate environment is nothing special. So they go to places like Colorado or Texas...

I also think our cities would do themselves a huge favor by canning the sales tax idea and switching to a property tax.

edit: here's what I was talking about, not sure which publication I originally read it in

The Tax Foundation - Study Reveals Which States Have Business-Friendly Tax Codes, Which Don't (http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/1369.html)

I suspect you and I may have some underlying philosophical differences here, but I would like to mention that the property tax is not the panacea it's described to be. There have been near revolts in Tejas in the last few years about property tax increases.

I do agree with you that sales taxes are regressive, in that they hurt the poor the most (especially here, where we tax GROCERIES, ugh.) I also agree that we need a more stable form of taxation.

We are very vulnerable to the wellhead tax's booms and busts. With the low natty gas prices, it's busting right now and the state budget is getting killed.

I suspect you and I may have some underlying philosophical differences here, but I would like to mention that the property tax is not the panacea it's described to be. There have been near revolts in Tejas in the last few years about property tax increases.

I do agree with you that sales taxes are regressive, in that they hurt the poor the most (especially here, where we tax GROCERIES, ugh.) I also agree that we need a more stable form of taxation.

We are very vulnerable to the wellhead tax's booms and busts. With the low natty gas prices, it's busting right now and the state budget is getting killed.

Yeah we may have some differences and thats fine...

I'm not necessarily against a sales tax but a sales tax in todays economy has a couple of substantial problems...
1) the tax is prohibitive on big ticket items that can now be purchased online with little or no tax, in addition many items that are smaller and are not "must have now" items are ordered online to save money and in many cases this money saved is the taxes or only slightly more than taxes. So you lose potential tax revenue to an online source but more importantly a local business loses patronage. Eliminating the sales tax or at least greatly scaling it back perhaps to a county only sales tax would help in this regard.

2) Sales taxes are widely unpredictable. Drastic increases and surpluses during economic booms to drastic shortfalls in recessions. The problem with government is it rarely hesitates to increase spending, once new spending is son the books it can be quite painful to cut it back. Property taxes smooth out this cycle especially in a state like Ok/Tx/Wy etc where property values don't typically go on roller coaster rides.

I'm in no way saying it is a perfect solution, any time taxes are involved it wont be perfect, but taxes are a necessary evil and I think over the next 10 years we'll probably see even more tax base errosion cutting into municipality budgets as online purchasing becomes easier, faster and even more convenient. Cities have to provide services and should provide services and infrastructure, but as the tax base errodes the knee jerk reaction of piling onto the sales tax simply wont work because that will drive even more purchases online.

I think ultimately a new method of taxation is necessary and in this case I tend to believe the property tax is the best option, while not perfect it will do the job and I am NOT comfortable with the city dipping into my wallet via sales taxes and property taxes...but that may be inevitable was governments seek to find viable solutions to potential budget shortfalls in the future.

I suspect you and I may have some underlying philosophical differences here, but I would like to mention that the property tax is not the panacea it's described to be. There have been near revolts in Tejas in the last few years about property tax increases.
They raise rates and valuations every year, when I moved here in 2003 my wife had been in this house for 7 years, the property taxes that year was around 1,600, here seven years later the taxes are 3,000...almost doubled. The "value" of the home according to the county has gone up from 110,000 to 150,000, the REAL MARKET VALUE in this neighborhood is 110-120,000.

Why does everyone insist we're so anti-business? I don't see it. I understand the desire for tort reform and the like, but there is very little in place to discourage corporate relocation here other than the lack of skilled workers.

I've talked to all kinds of site relo people and they've told me the number one and two things companies are looking for are 1) skilled, available talent, and 2) quality of life.

As has been discussed here on other threads, Oklahoma doesn't really tax people more than other states.

I HAVE heard, however, companies voicing concerns about the quality of our infrastructure and the low statewide investment we make on public education.

The kinds of companies we want (high wage) want educated people and a nice place to live. They can work with the rest.

The bottom feeder companies (low wage) want the absolute cheapest operational environs, period. They don't care about anything else. But these aren't really the companies we're seeking.

Finally, the whole "recruit x company to relo to your state" thing is pretty dated.

Business is much more organic. We need to create an entrepreneurial environment where creative people want to live. Those are the people who build companies.

OKC is doing the right things in this area, IMO. The state has problems, mostly because of its poor reputation with regard to how it educates its citizens.

You're absolutely right, soonerguru. In a previous thread I mentioned how the buzzword in economic development is "quality". The things that have worked for us are Quality Investments Act, Quality Jobs Act, and quality of life issues...that's what we've put all of our economic development effort into. And that's what's paid off. When we get into focusing on specific companies, that's wherever we've had big failures. Look at Great Plains Airlines as a huge case-in-point. Rocketplane is another even more ominous case-in-point reminder of big-time failed economic development attempts and squandered state money. In fact, in my rant about how bad DHS and ODOT waste money, arguably ODOC is also a huge waster of money on things like GPA and Rocketplane.

Growing business and economic development is about quality, not backdoor deals, and not buying key people off.

There was a good segment on the Kudlow report with Larry Nichols regarding the XTO takeover. I tried to find a link but no luck.

Video - CNBC.com (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=1358974581)

Larry Nichols video from Kudlow report

Video - CNBC.com (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=1358974581)

Larry Nichols video from Kudlow report

Hmmmmmmm

Video - CNBC.com (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=1358974581)

Larry Nichols video from Kudlow report

He sounds perfectly reasonable to me...nothing that catches me as wierd or odd...

Well he could have been a little more adamant that his company is not for sale.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that Chesapeake, Devon, Sandridge, etc. might be the buyer rather than the bought? Wouldn't it be great to see some of these jobs coming back to OKC from Houston?

Well he could have been a little more adamant that his company is not for sale.

No he can't, its publicly traded, it is not HIS company, it is the shareholders. He has little control over a buyout as he stated it can't be ruled out.

If he had gone all out to assure us it wasn't for sale I really would have been skeptical, he has virtually no control over it.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that Chesapeake, Devon, Sandridge, etc. might be the buyer rather than the bought? Wouldn't it be great to see some of these jobs coming back to OKC from Houston?

Devon is the only one in financial position to do any substantial purchasing.

I think we can at least ALL agree that we hope NONE of these companies get bought out.

I think we can at least ALL agree that we hope NONE of these companies get bought out.

Yeah that could be a disaster if the jobs left the state.

Devon is the only one in financial position to do any substantial purchasing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Devon by some other fledgling drilling company or its assets or something like that, like a month ago?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Devon by some other fledgling drilling company or its assets or something like that, like a month ago?

Not that I'm aware of, Devon has been de-leveraging a bit...could have happened but if it did I was not aware and I generally keep up with that stuff since I work in the industry.

You may be thinking of a proposed merger of another OKC-based company Chaparral Energy with United Refining Energy owned by billionaire John Catsimatidis. The deal fell through a few days ago.

Devon is the only one in financial position to do any substantial purchasing.

Perhaps you were speaking on a "go-forward" basis, but $800 million of purchasing falls into the "substantial" category for me: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjQ5NTd8Q2hpbGRJRD0 tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

Why hasn't anyone mentioned that Chesapeake, Devon, Sandridge, etc. might be the buyer rather than the bought? Wouldn't it be great to see some of these jobs coming back to OKC from Houston?

This typically occurs in smaller assets acquisitions, not big takeovers.