British Petroleum Chems Goes To Chicago Not Houston

[editor]

I heard that BP made it decision about its a couple of its chemical divisions. Houston and Chicago were competing to be the new headquarters. Chicago won. I'll post more information if I get any.

[citykid09]

Posted on Fri, Oct. 29, 2004

BP division picks Chicago for new headquarters

HERBERT G. McCANN

Associated Press

CHICAGO - British energy giant BP PLC picked Chicago over oil hub Houston as headquarters for the business it will spin off next year from its olefins and derivatives division.

BP Olefins & Derivatives is the temporary name of the new company, which will employ about 125 people at its headquarters when it is established as a stand-alone corporation in 2005, company officials said Friday.

Another 200 employees, including the U.S.-based staff of its global derivatives operating unit, will be based west of Chicago in nearby DuPage County.

The spinoff will be one of the five largest petrochemical companies in the world, with assets of about $8 billion and revenues of about $13 billion. It will employ about 7,500 people in 27 locations.

Olefins and derivatives are used in a variety of plastic goods, including automotive parts as well as food and drink containers and wrappings.

BP has no olefins and derivatives manufacturing in Illinois, and most of its U.S. employees work at five plants in Texas, where U.S. operations will be headquartered, according to Ralph Alexander, BP petrochemicals division chief executive and future chief executive of the new company.

Officials said the unit will separate from BP on Jan. 1. An initial public offering will take place in mid-2005, with BP likely retaining a major stake.

Mayor Richard M. Daley said his city won out over Houston because of Chicago's strong neighborhoods, good education institutions, and recreational and cultural attractions.

"I look forward to working with the leaders and employees of Chicago's latest hometown company, and I know everybody in the city will go out of their way to make them and their families feel at home," Daley said.

While Houston might have had an advantage because of BP's nearly 6,000 employees in Texas, Chicago had history on its side. It was the headquarters of Amoco, which London-based BP swallowed in 1998.

Alexander said BP was looking for a strong pro-business environment, global financial and trading market and a diverse population of highly skilled professionals in its choice for a headquarters city.

He added that a world-class cultural climate also was important for himself and the headquarters staff, which he says will be brought in from all over the world. He also pointed out that Chicago is a major international transportation hub.

Unlike its fight for Boeing Co., Chicago did not offer incentives to land the headquarters. In luring the giant aerospace company in 2001, the state of Illinois promised the company $41 million over 20 years. The city promised Boeing an additional $3 million in grants and $19 million in tax abatements.

Daley said his staff showed BP officials that Chicago was the best city in the world in which to do business.

"Thank God they agreed with us," he said.

[pineda]

Mayor Richard M. Daley said his city won out over Houston because of Chicago's strong neighborhoods, good education institutions, and recreational and cultural attractions.

Alexander said BP was looking for a strong pro-business environment, global financial and trading market and a diverse population of highly skilled professionals in its choice for a headquarters city.

He added that a world-class cultural climate also was important for himself and the headquarters staff, which he says will be brought in from all over the world. He also pointed out that Chicago is a major international transportation hub.

So, I'm hearing Daley say that Houston does not have "strong neighborhoods, good education institutions, and recreational and cultural attractions"?

And Ralph Alexander thinks Houston does not have a "strong pro-business environment, global financial and trading market and a diverse population of highly skilled professionals"?

And that Houston does not have a "world-class cultural climate" and Houston is not already "a major international transportation hub"?

This does not add up at all! I smell a rat, and I think these two boys are leaving some pieces of the story; the part having to do with money. Houston has all the things listed by these two fine gentlemen, and MORE! And, here's the best part, if they had moved to Houston, their employees would have been able to find AMPLE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK! Good luck finding that in Chicago!!!!

[H-Town Man]

After living in Chicago for three years, I can say that I have always liked Houston better than Chicago, and always will.

But after I visited Chicago again a couple of weeks ago and came back home... Houston never looked so ugly. When I drove out of Hobby Airport, I was so stunned by what I saw, my jaw was literally hanging open. Trash, billboards, vacant lots, dilapidated buildings, cracked sidewalks, junky neighborhoods...

I got on I-45 and drove across town, and the landscape didn't change. Signs, garbage everywhere. It looked like a city in which the entire population was a bunch of slobs. I had driven across town a thousand other times in the past year (I was a courier for four months) and it hadn't appeared this way to me then. I think when you live here, you get numb to it. But after seeing Chicago, a town full of landscaped boulevards, forested freeways with nary a billboard to be seen, and well planned neighborhoods that are protected from inappropriate developments, Houston looked like a big, swollen, festering sore.

I love Houston, and think that it has many other advantages to counteract these, and many beautiful areas not seen from the freeway. But after spending time in the two towns one after the other, I am not in the least surprised that they picked Chicago over Houston.

[pineda]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 27, 2004, 11:59PM

BP plant in Houston will anchor spinoff

From staff and wire reports

Energy group BP said Tuesday it will include its Chocolate Bayou plant in a new company it plans to spin off next year into a separate company that will hold more than half of its chemical operations.

The new company, which has not been named, will be run by Ralph Alexander. Although he is now based in London, the new company's chief executive is an American who used to run BP's exploration unit in Houston.

The new venture will include the giant oil company's Chocolate Bayou plant, which employees 640 workers in Houston, as well as its Green Lake plant near Port Lavaca, with 140 workers, and its idled Cedar Bayou facility.

London-based BP will most likely list its chemicals spinoff in New York, BP's Chief Financial Officer Byron Grote said Tuesday after the company unveiled plans for a flotation next year.

He also said BP expects initially to keep a majority stake.

The business represents just over half the $13 billion of capital BP employs in chemicals but produces only about a quarter of the division's profit.

BP values the spinoff, made up of its lower margin olefins and derivatives activities, at about $7 billion. However, analysts initially said this could be ambitious and flagged a figure between $3 billion and $4 billion assuming it is floated debt-free.

At BP's valuation, the firm would sit among Europe's top 10 chemical firms, although it would be dwarfed by U.S.-based Dow and DuPont.

Also Tuesday, BP reported a 22 percent rise in first-quarter net income, helped by a gain on the sale of its stakes in two Chinese companies and fatter profit margins in its refining business.

[J.A.S.O.N.]

So the Lake Jackson plant gets a new corporate name, is that it?

[Sunstar]

After living in Chicago for three years, I can say that I have always liked Houston better than Chicago, and always will.

But after I visited Chicago again a couple of weeks ago and came back home...  Houston never looked so ugly.  When I drove out of Hobby Airport, I was so stunned by what I saw, my jaw was literally hanging open.  Trash, billboards, vacant lots, dilapidated buildings, cracked sidewalks, junky neighborhoods...

I got on I-45 and drove across town, and the landscape didn't change.  Signs, garbage everywhere.  It looked like a city in which the entire population was a bunch of slobs.  I had driven across town a thousand other times in the past year (I was a courier for four months) and it hadn't appeared this way to me then.  I think when you live here, you get numb to it.  But after seeing Chicago, a town full of landscaped boulevards, forested freeways with nary a billboard to be seen, and well planned neighborhoods that are protected from inappropriate developments, Houston looked like a big, swollen, festering sore.

I love Houston, and think that it has many other advantages to counteract these, and many beautiful areas not seen from the freeway.  But after spending time in the two towns one after the other, I am not in the least surprised that they picked Chicago over Houston.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I also get this feeling when returning to Houston from a trip to just about anywhere. There does seem to be a sort of numbness to it all. The worst part is that it seems almost irreversible. And so we lose the Toyotas and the BPs to more "livable" cities. It's depressing to think about how far we've come in the last few years and yet how still very far away we are from being a desirable place to live.

[firstngoal]

I completely agree and couldn't put it any better. I view our unsightly highways as our #1 quality of life issue that needs to be addressed. Its downright embarrassing that such a great city cares so little about its appearance.

The mayor can tell us to "Put a smile on, company's coming!" (as he did during the Super Bowl)... but that means little when you haven't cleaned up, your clothes are dirty, and you smell. The company is still going to have a bad impression...

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

At least the Grand Parkway will be our only forested freeway because of the lack of feeders except for the segment in between Franz Rd.(in Katy), and the Southwest Freeway. Chicago's tree-lined boulevards aren't all that great. They got some cracked up sidewalks and everything over there. At least when I visited earlier this year for a business trip.

[firstngoal]

Chicago has some awesome boulevards and streetscapes. Michigan Avenue is beautifully landscaped and has generous, wide sidewalks. State Street has been impressively redeveloped with tasteful subway entries, trees, flowers, and again, wide sidewalks. Both sides of the Chicago River have been redesigned with nice landscaping and dramatic lighting at night.... and then there is Millinneum Park.

Mayor Daley has made a huge push to make Chicago one of the greenest and most environmentally responsible cities in North America. Its difficult to knock that... and even though I really like Houston, we could sure learn a thing or two from our friends to the north. Chicago's green movement is certainly an important component of their economic development strategy... and after attracting Boeing and BP Chemical - and others - I'd have to say its working.

[ssullivan]

At least the Grand Parkway will be our only forested freeway because of the lack of feeders except for the segment in between Franz Rd.(in Katy), and the Southwest Freeway. Chicago's tree-lined boulevards aren't all that great. They got some cracked up sidewalks and everything over there. At least when I visited earlier this year for a business trip.

I don't know how much of the Grand Parkway will be "forested," considering more than half of it will be built in areas where forest is already nonexistant. Let's not forget about the forested areas on the north and east sides of the city that will be destroyed to build the monster.

As for forested freeways, TxDOT is fortunately trying to help this situation with a number of major tree planting projects. The section of 610 that was rebuilt in 2000-2002 between North Braeswood and Bellaire is a good example. Similar planting projects have also been recently completed along the south loop. While you can't see some the massive number of trees that have been planted from the elevated sections of the freeway yet, in 5-10 years they'll have grown enough that they will have made a very positive impact in the appearance of these freeway sections. And what I've seen being planted along 610 are larger, healthier trees that have a much better chance of survival than some of the hasty, poorly done pre-Superbowl plantings that were done last year in places like the Eastex Freeway. Half of those trees were dead within six months.

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Your right, 610 at Main Street's trees are beautiful. Can't wait for the outcome in 7 years.

[Talbot]

True, Houston can learn a lot of things from many cities, but the City of Houston is stubborn, they play it by ear it seems.

[editor]

The great thing about planting trees along highways is that they not only look nice, they conceal litter, and cut down on noise.

The bad part is that when they're mature, they can be used by people who don't want to be seen. I've seen a lot of homeless camps set up in forested urban areas. Heck, there's one right off McKee Street downtown. I know a business in Southwest Houston that ended up tearing up the nice mature bushes that surrounded the building because the homeless guys would perform sex acts on each other in full view of the staff inside. They did it there because they couldn't be seen from Westpark. At first, the building owners installed sprinklers on timers hoping it would keep the undesireables away, but that didn't work, so the greenery had to go.

[MidtownCoog]

This is NOT a big deal.

BP has its NA HQ on I-10 already.

[Dallasite]

^ Maybe not a huge deal, except for the prestige and bragging rights factor.

Dallas lost Boeing to Chicago a few years back and now Houston has lost BP Chems to Chicago. As great as both cities are and as many strides as both cities have made, there is still work to be done.

Chicago is, by the way, a wonderful city.

[JR3985]

Looks as if Houston also won!!

BP spinoff to create 150 jobs in Houston

Jenna Colley

London-based oil and gas conglomerate BP plans to bring 150 employees to Houston as part of its move to spin off the company's petrochemical and plastics business.

BP, formed in 1998 from the merger of British Petroleum and Amoco, announced plans in April to spin off its petrochemicals business into a stand-alone entity.

But until Oct. 29, the company had yet to announce where those U.S. operations would be housed.

According to the company, the new firm will split its U.S. operations between Houston and Chicago -- bringing 150 jobs to Houston and 125 to Chicago.

BP (NYSE: BP) has not decided on a site for the new divisions. Several local office properties are being considered in the area; however, no lease agreements have been signed.

BP hopes to move into the new office locations in the next few months.

The new company, which has yet to be named, will have more than $8 billion in assets and the capability to produce about 17 million metric tons of petrochemicals per year - making it the fifth-largest company of its kind in the world. The division manufactures petrochemicals used to make a wide variety of plastic goods, including food and drink containers and wrappings, pipework, automotive parts and mouldings of all kinds.

The subsidiary is preparing for a sale of shares to the public next year.

Houston Mayor Bill White expressed his support for the move.

"This is very significant," White said in a prepared statement released by his office on Monday. "These are much-welcomed jobs and yet another clear sign that Houston is maintaining its momentum as the capital of the nation's energy sector. We're playing to one of our great strengths, and BP has reaffirmed that for us. We're happy to welcome them here."

[VelvetJ]

I think H-town Man was exactly right. Houstonians seem to become numb to the overall appearance of our city. We then develope narrow views like the owner of the Zone D'Erotica who probably didn't ask himself why he possibly shouldn't have opened a store of that magnitude in the most prestigious upscale shopping district in the city. Or Jim McInvale who stated, "I am proud of the appearance of I-45 because it shows free-enterprise". It's sort of like those that don't care what the city looks like, just as long as their particular subdivision is kept pleasant.

IMO, it's not so much as the trash along our freeways (which is a major issue) as much as it's the "trashy" looking businesses along the freeways. It's the single story motels next to the sleazy strip clubs, next to the Bean Bag company, next to the tractor rental place, next to the vacant lot, next to the fast food joint, next to used car lot, next to the Walmart Supercenter, next to the cheap furniture store. It all gives the city a trashy look especially if every freeway looks that way.

I honestly can't think of an answer particularly for I-45 from our airports. If designed walls and trees are planted like the stretch of the westloop south through Bellaire, it would block those businesses, which the city is not going to allow. A "uniformed" look of the businesses and the types of businesses that can be allowed would be viewed as zoning and restriction. What can be done? Is it reversable?

I responded to this because I also get the same feeling as some of the other posters. After returning from Atlanta or even Los Angeles, Houston can look like a junk yard, and in a "shockingly/ slap in the face" type way.

[houstonsemipro]

Yes, we still won. We will have more employees moving here then chicago. 150 in houston, and 125 in chicago. So we're both winners.

[houstonsemipro]

As reading the article. BP spinoff company still hasn't found a location for it's headquarters.

[jt16]

Headquarters mean jack. It simply means that's where the Chief Executive wants to live or entertain business associates. Jobs are what truly matter. Seattle has handled the Boeing departure in much better shape than most anticipated. A good example is ChevronTexaco which is moving 500 jobs to Houston. The headquarters will always be in Northern CA, but the jobs move here. That's a fair trade in my book.

[editor]

Headquarters mean jack.  It simply means that's where the Chief Executive wants to live or entertain business associates.  Jobs are what truly matter.  Seattle has handled the Boeing departure in much better shape than most anticipated.  A good example is ChevronTexaco which is moving 500 jobs to Houston.  The headquarters will always be in Northern CA, but the jobs move here.  That's a fair trade in my book.

But aren't the corporate taxes paid to where the headquarters is? Isn't that why companies move offshore?

[Dallasite]

Headquarters mean jack.  It simply means that's where the Chief Executive wants to live or entertain business associates.  Jobs are what truly matter.  Seattle has handled the Boeing departure in much better shape than most anticipated.  A good example is ChevronTexaco which is moving 500 jobs to Houston.  The headquarters will always be in Northern CA, but the jobs move here.  That's a fair trade in my book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are forgetting "bragging rights".

[Montrose1100]

"Houston should look more to the northern neighbors..."

"Los Angeles, Chicago..."

"Trashy, Houston..."

This is just a broken record everyone is repeating...

Only when you compare it on certain levels, makes somthing better or worse. Its all about opion, first impression, blah blah blah... Los Angeles wasn't always a sparkling diamond, and neither was Chicago. They all had to start some where, right? Thats exactly where we are. Where barly a "new" city! Chicago started way before us, and had an earlier jump, from the time they started, till now, compared to us, is not even close. Where so not there yet... So, until Houston is hitting it up 5 mill. (city), and we are still bitching about all of this, and comparing it to other cities, then you can babble about how ugly Houston is compared to Chicago/LA whatever... Gosh, Houston has so much growth + developement to do before its even comparable to the lenghts that Chicago has gone threw (and time) to get where they are now...

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Seriously, Chicago has been started since the 18th or 19th century. When was Houston started? Chicago has a 200 year, at least, head start on us so cut Houston some slack.

[Subdude]

When was Houston started?

1836, right?

[editor]

Seriously, Chicago has been started since the 18th or 19th century. When was Houston started? Chicago has a 200 year, at least, head start on us so cut Houston some slack.

Chicago was founded August 12, 1833.

Houston was founded April 21, 1836.

Chicago had a 2 1/2 year head start. Bastards!

[CincoRanch-HoustonResident]

Sorry, I need to check my facts.

[ssullivan]

Seriously, Chicago has been started since the 18th or 19th century. When was Houston started? Chicago has a 200 year, at least, head start on us so cut Houston some slack.

Check your US history. If Chicago was founded 200 years before Houston, that would mean the Pilgrims had barely been here 15 years when Chicago was founded. At 100 years before Houston, the American Revolution was still nearly a generation away.

Other than New Orleans (I'm not counting Spanish mission outposts that really weren't cities like San Antonio), there are no cities that really pre-date very late 1700s/very early 1800s west of the Atlantic coastal states.

[jt16]

They pay property taxes. Houston may have started about the same time as Chicago, but I would guess that inhabitating Houston lagged many years behind Chicago. It's just a guess, but the nations population had to be in the northern and mid-western states in the early to mid 1800s.