Chevron in the crosshairs for conflicting Proposition 87 statements
Proposition 87 remains contentious in California (see previous posts here and here). The latest battle of the tax on oil companies/alternative fuel funding proposition features attorney Thomas Girardi (whose case against Pacific Gas & Electric was turned into the movie "Erin Brockovich") writing to the Chevron oil company about the company's attacks on 87. In ads (as part of a $100 million No on 87 campaign with other companies), Chevron has stated California-based oil production will decrease as a result of the Proposition. But then Chevron's CFO Steven Crowe bemoaned that the proposition will cost Chevron $200 million at current prices and current production levels (Crowe made the comment when he announced Chevron's third quarter profits of $5 billion). Girardi's question is "Which is it?"
You can read Girardi's letter after the jump and find more info at these links:
- Ethanol fan Vinod Khosla on the No on 87 crowd's deceptive tactics
- Follow the money with Seeking Alpha's Phil Davis
Dear Mr. James:
I have been contacted to look into Chevron's conduct with respect to Proposition 87.
As you know, virtually every ad attempts to say that the consuming public will pay the tax. As Chevron knows in the very proposition, such a pass along would be illegal. The ads are clearly deceptive.
We now have heard one of Chevron's chief executives claim to the shareholders that if Proposition 87 passes, it would be a $200 million cost to Chevron. Clearly, this belies the ad claims that members of the public will have to pay the obligation under Proposition 87.
It also appears that some of the shareholders don't quite understand the ads by Chevron that it would abandon California (making California obtain foreign oil) on the one hand and have to pay the $200 million on the other.
The shell and pea game that Chevron is implying is despicable. I'm curious if Chevron is going to make an attempt to tell the truth to voters before Tuesday or tell the truth to the shareholders.
With kind regards,
Thomas V. Girardi
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
joanne 8:04AM (11/06/2006)
thanks for this information
Reply
Phil L. 11:19AM (11/06/2006)
Huh?
It's hardly a contradiction to:
- Note what a proposed measure would cost a company, given current conditions.
- Also state that an industry will likely take steps to minimize the effects the tax, should it be imposed.
This letter - as with most of the debate on this topic - are guilty of sloppy logic, at best.
Of course, such logic seems to be rampant in California. The "no new costs to consumers" aspect of the legislation is laughable. Let me know if you can read through this without snickering:
http://yeson87.org/index-tmp.php/pages/fact_no_costs_to_consumers
Reply