Talk:Chevron Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Condoleeza Rice Connection

I've added info from another wiki outlining this.

--TresRoque 20:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Standard station list

I have removed the list of Standard stations:

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

I removed the list because:

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

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

Sent by email:
Hello Scott, I found your list of Standard Stations on Wikipedia to be useful. The list looked mostly accurate to me. There are photos of several standard stations on my website. It is true that Chevron changes the location of stations branded Standard in some states from time to time. The Standards in Washington and California have been branded thus for several years. I know that the Standard Station in Bellevue was built as a Standard Station in the 1970s. The Standard in Milwaukie, Oregon moved a few years ago from a location on ORE 99E, formerly US 99 E, to a location just off ORE 224. The Boise Standard also moved sometime in the late 1990s from a station just off I-84 near the airport to a station near the Idaho Transportation Department headquarters. I called Chevron's customer services department before visiting Las Vegas in 2004 and they gave me an address that turned out to be a boarded up gas station. I found the new Standard Station on Tropicana just west of I-15. I think that you should add the list back to the article with the caveat that these stations change from time to time. -Mark
Mark - I'm glad to hear that the list is mostly correct, however, this is not enough to warrant adding it back. I suppose I would be ok with adding a list that was verified to be 100% accurate, such as if a list were obtained from Chevron. -SCEhardT 05:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Updated refinery explosion info

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

[edit] American criminals categorization

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

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

[edit] The new Chevron look

I will post a photo next week of a gas station in Redwood City, California that has been renovated to the new Chevron look (with the new logo and so on). Does anywhere else in the country have gas stations with the new look yet? --Coolcaesar 06:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone take a better picture of headquarters?

I am posting my best attempt at getting a photo of the entrance to the headquarters compound. Photographing Chevron headquarters is extremely difficult due to the security perimeter. Can someone take a better photo? --Coolcaesar 05:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some discrepancies

With regard to the following piece of text under critisism:

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

I pretty much agree. Most countries in the developing world have some rules about local content (clarification to others: meaning at least a certain of your workforce has to be from that country). And strictly from an economic perspective, it's not as if all of the cooks, caterers, janitors, roughnecks, roustabouts, maintenance crew, operators, etc. are flown in from the U.S. when Angolan salaries there are probably sometimes 1/50th of U.S. expat salaries. This point can be easily proven and sourced, but I'll leave that to somebody else if there's a serious objection here.
Also, although ESS is throughout the world, they often hire local people as well. They don't need to import cooks from Europe or North America to cook the food they serve. Their food isn't exactly top-notch gourmet meals. Ufwuct 14:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Does Gordeonbleu work for Chevron? Deleting the criticism section and replacing it with a link to a *non-existant* article is inappropriate. The attack on protestors on the platform in Nigeria is serious business and shouldn't be whitewashed like this. The criticism section should be restored, especially those parts which are specific to Chevron. — Efalk

[edit] Venezuela Connection

Given all the controversy about this, especially Mr. Chavez' political actions in the past year, as well as their recent ad campaign to provide free natural gas to the underpriviledged (which was rejected by a town in Alaska), why is there no mention or citation of a major political effect of the company? - Taospark (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Incorrect article. Disregard. -Taospark (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] use of unacceptable sources and material

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

Evironmentally Friendly

With growing environmental concern, Chevron has started to show an interest in becoming cleaner and more environmentally friendly through new research and redesigned policy. [1] The Bay Area's Calpine Corp., Chevron Corp. and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. have taken specific steps to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases and pursue cleaner forms of energy. Oil giants BP and Chevron, for example, have addressed the topic in high-profile ad campaigns. San Ramon's Chevron, which invests in alternative energy sources and has set targets for reducing its own emissions, scored highest among U.S. oil companies. [2] Chevron is the world's largest producer of geothermal energy, a renewable resource that harnesses the natural power of steam from the earth to generate electricity while producing almost no greenhouse emissions, and providing enough power for over 7 million homes! [3]

here are the problems:

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

references for the above:

  1. ^ www.pitt.edu/~tas77/companies.html
  2. ^ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/03/22/BUGKPHRTJ71.DTL&type=business
  3. ^ http://www.chevron.com/Stories/#/stories/re_geo/geo_ov/

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edits to "Environmental Record" section

I made several changes to the section on Ecuador under Chevron's environmental record:

1. The previous text inappropriately conflated two separate court cases. I clarified the difference between the larger, ongoing class-action suit in Ecuador, and a smaller case that was dismissed in the United States and its lawyer sanctioned for misconduct.

2. Added information about the multi-billion dollar damages assessment against Chevron that was released in April 2008 in Ecuador. This was widely covered in major media.

3. Linked statement about the Goldman Environmental Prize to a credible source - previous citation didn't contain any actual information on the topic.

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