Chevron moving headquarters to Houston...

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

2000 is more than enough to maintain a headquarters. Even for a company as big as chevron. And especially with the way WFM is revolutionizing the work environment, this is definitely more than possible.

As a matter of a fact, in my opinion, this move was ultimately designed to fit the modern WFM environment. Exxon’s howard Hughes office exodus was in large part for the same reason.

Could it happen? The possibility is absolutely there. But I wouldn’t wait for it to happen. Nor do I know why people want it to happen so much. They already have their largest employment base here. Houston already landed ExxonMobil so they already have the largest integrated energy company in USA meaning they bragging rights is already there.

And Chevron does make use of their Silicon Valley proximity on contrary to popular belief.

Yes, they want access to the tech titans, but they also want political cover. California has basically outlawed the gas-powered engine and unless Chevron either gets that mandate overturned or they diversify away from oil and gas altogether I don't see how they can stay in California past 2035 when the mandates are supposed to take effect.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Yes, they want access to the tech titans, but they also want political cover. California has basically outlawed the gas-powered engine and unless Chevron either gets that mandate overturned or they diversify away from oil and gas altogether I don't see how they can stay in California past 2035 when the mandates are supposed to take effect.

California is not banning ICE cars. The requirement is for all new cars sold in 2035 or later to be zero emission. Fossil fuels will still be used. I also don't see how they can make all of the agriculture equipment zero emission, or electric. Not when harvest requires 300hp tractors running 20 hours a day.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by WRM20

California is not banning ICE cars. The requirement is for all new cars sold in 2035 or later to be zero emission. Fossil fuels will still be used. I also don't see how they can make all of the agriculture equipment zero emission, or electric. Not when harvest requires 300hp tractors running 20 hours a day.

They aren’t doing zero admission. Rather they are doing net zero by balancing out. But as you stated, California outlawed the sale of ICE, not banned them outright. Additionally, Chevron (as is any other major oil company) is heavily involved in the power generation of electricity. And they enjoy being at Silicon Valley’s foot steps.

So yeah, very much agree this post very much. I would think it’s more likely that California taxes Chevron out of Texas rather than regulations take them away.

[DabOnEm]

A company does not need to be headquartered in the Bay Area ro take advantage of the SV. Several companies have tech offices in the Bay but arent HQed there. I'm sure Chevron might enjoy the convenience somewhat but it's not the end all be all.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

A company does not need to be headquartered in the Bay Area ro take advantage of the SV. Several companies have tech offices in the Bay but arent HQed there. I'm sure Chevron might enjoy the convenience somewhat but it's not the end all be all.

Likewise, they don’t need to be HQ’d in the energy capital of the world to have access to the talent that exists in it. They’ve had most of their engineers in Houston for a very long time. They didn’t need it before, they don’t need it now.

I’m not anti Chevron moving here by any means, I just don’t understand why people want it to happen so much. With ExxonMobil, I atleast understand the bragging rights associated with having America’s largest integrated energy company. Chevron being here wouldn’t give Houston anything it doesn’t already have.

Houston will gain other major companies via relocations and growth. And Chevron will continue to grow (or downsize) in Houston as needed. Sending some of their California workers is one example. Chevron also has the second largest lease at the Ion behind Microsoft which basically tells you that they atleast intend to grow here regardless of where their hq is.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

Likewise, they don’t need to be HQ’d in the energy capital of the world to have access to the talent that exists in it. They’ve had most of their engineers in Houston for a very long time. They didn’t need it before, they don’t need it now.

I’m not anti Chevron moving here by any means, I just don’t understand why people want it to happen so much. With ExxonMobil, I atleast understand the bragging rights associated with having America’s largest integrated energy company. Chevron being here wouldn’t give Houston anything it doesn’t already have.

Houston will gain other major companies via relocations and growth. And Chevron will continue to grow (or downsize) in Houston as needed. Sending some of their California workers is one example. Chevron also has the second largest lease at the Ion behind Microsoft which basically tells you that they atleast intend to grow here regardless of where their hq is.

All people have said is it looks like Chevron could move their HQ to Houston similar to how Exxon did even after saying they wouldn't. It's not a big deal, just speculation and one based on prior city history.

Chevron is 16th on the fortune 500 list. What city would not want to add that kind of corporation, regardless of where the jobs are spread nationwide? Gaining a company like that adds prestige. Now when Houston goes to market itself, they can say they're the proud HOME of Chevron, etc. There is this notion that HQs moving around is just a thing people in Houston care about but thats not true. Any city put into this situation would garner the same attention. People arent living and dying by Chevron's HQ if thats what you think. Just fun speculation on an internet forum.