“Chevron’s 2012 results demonstrate that we have the people, portfolio
and financial strength to deliver superior stockholder value,” said
Watson discussed Chevron’s strong 2012 financial and operational
performance, with earnings exceeding
Watson reiterated Chevron’s long-standing dedication to safe, reliable
operations, noting that
Kirkland noted that Chevron Upstream had industry-leading performance in
both safety and financial performance in 2012. Earnings per barrel have
averaged almost
Kirkland also discussed Chevron’s Downstream and Chemicals business,
which performed very well in 2012, marked by an improvement in ROCE of
more than 10 percentage points since 2009. Chevron Downstream and
Chemicals growth projects focus on lubricants and chemicals, including
the
Stockholders voted on 13 items and supported the board’s recommendation
on each. As of
- Item 1: An average of 97 percent of the votes cast were voted for each of the 11 nominees for election to the board of directors.
-
Item 2: Approximately 99 percent of the votes cast were voted to
ratify the appointment of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm for the company. - Item 3: Approximately 94 percent of the votes cast were voted to approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation for the company’s named executive officers.
- Item 4: Approximately 91 percent of the votes cast were voted to approve amendments to the company’s Long-Term Incentive Plan.
- Item 5: Approximately 69 percent of the votes cast were voted against the stockholder proposal regarding shale energy operations.
- Item 6: Approximately 92 percent of the votes cast were voted against the stockholder proposal regarding offshore oil wells.
- Item 7: Approximately 92 percent of the votes cast were voted against the stockholder proposal regarding climate risk.
- Item 8: Approximately 75 percent of the votes cast were voted against the stockholder proposal regarding lobbying disclosure.
- Item 9: Approximately 96 percent of the votes cast were voted against the stockholder proposal regarding the use of corporate funds for political purposes.
- Item 10: Approximately 73 percent of the votes cast were voted against the stockholder proposal regarding cumulative voting.
- Item 11: Approximately 67 percent of the votes cast were voted against the stockholder proposal regarding special meetings.
- Item 12: Approximately 78 percent of the votes cast were voted against the stockholder proposal regarding an independent director with environmental expertise.
- Item 13: Approximately 78 percent of the votes cast were voted against the stockholder proposal regarding country selection guidelines.
Final voting results will be reported on Form 8-K, which will be filed
with the
CAUTIONARY STATEMENTS RELEVANT TO FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF "SAFE HARBOR" PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995
This press release contains forward-looking statements relating to
Chevron’s operations that are based on management’s current
expectations, estimates and projections about the petroleum, chemicals
and other energy-related industries. Words such as “anticipates,”
“expects,” “intends,” “plans,” “targets,” “forecasts,” “projects,”
“believes,” “seeks,” “schedules,” “estimates,” “budgets,” “outlook”, “on
track” and similar expressions are intended to identify such
forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of
future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and
other factors, many of which are beyond the company’s control and are
difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ
materially from what is expressed or forecasted in such forward-looking
statements. The reader should not place undue reliance on these
forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this
press release. Unless legally required,
Among the important factors that could cause actual results to differ
materially from those in the forward-looking statements are: changing
crude oil and natural gas prices; changing refining, marketing and
chemicals margins; actions of competitors or regulators; timing of
exploration expenses; timing of crude oil liftings; the competitiveness
of alternate-energy sources or product substitutes; technological
developments; the results of operations and financial condition of
equity affiliates; the inability or failure of the company’s
joint-venture partners to fund their share of operations and development
activities; the potential failure to achieve expected net production
from existing and future crude oil and natural gas development projects;
potential delays in the development, construction or start-up of planned
projects; the potential disruption or interruption of the company’s
production or manufacturing facilities or delivery/transportation
networks due to war, accidents, political events, civil unrest, severe
weather or crude oil production quotas that might be imposed by the
Source:
Chevron Corporation
Morgan Crinklaw, 925-790-6908