LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

IN RE CONOCO INC and PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO TRADE LITIGATION Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: IRCIAPPCTL294276, CourtCode: FED, CourtName: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION II, State: OK Oklahoma, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>IRCIAPPCTL294276, Merger, Phillips, Respondents, Conoco, Proposed Order, Assets, Petroleum, Complaint, Commission, Agreement, Competition, Terminals, Market, Trade Commission Act, Lpps, Eastern Colorado, Propane, Consent Orders, Divestiture, Natural Gas, Federal Trade Commission, Fractionation, Light Petroleum Products, Northern Utah, Raise Prices, Gasoline, Pipelines, Southern Missouri, Relevant Product Market, Terminaling Services, Southern Illinois, Refineries, Complaint Alleges, Defs Board Members , ContentID: 120253826

Case Documents
1   COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 130394
14 pages
PDF
2   ANALYSIS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 130393
11 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 2 documents , 25 pages
Price: $ 24.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . COMPLAINT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONOCO
PHILLIPS
RESPONDENTS
MARKET
LPPS
PROPANE
TERMINALS
TRADE COMMISSION ACT
PIPELINES
SOUTHERN MISSOURI
PETROLEUM
EASTERN COLORADO
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKET
TERMINALING SERVICES
RAISE PRICES
NORTHERN UTAH
NATURAL GAS
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS
REFINERIES
COMPETITION
FRACTIONATION
SUBSTANTIAL BARRIERS
PERMIAN BASIN
DENSELY POPULATED AREAS
RAISING PRICES
BULK SUPPLIES
ECONOMICALLY ACCESS
CLAYTON ACT
                                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                   BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION





 In the Matter of



           Phillips Petroleum Company,

                      a corporation,                              Docket No. C-4058

                                  and

         Conoco Inc.,

                    a corporation.




                                                  COMPLAINT

          Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act, and by
virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission ("Commission"),
reason to believe that respondent Phillips Petroleum Company has entered into an agreement to merge
with Conoco Inc., all subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, in violation of Section 5 of
Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, that such merger, if consummated,
would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and that a proceeding in respect thereof would
be in the public interest, hereby issues this complaint, stating its charges as follows.

                                              I.     RESPONDENTS

                                             Phillips Petroleum Company

1.        Respondent Phillips Petroleum Company ("Phillips") is a corporation organized, existing,
          doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its office
          principal place of business at Phillips Building, Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004.

2.        Respondent Phillips is, and at all times relevant herein has been, engaged in, among
          the bulk supply, terminaling and marketing of light petroleum products, the bulk supply of
          propane, the gathering of natural gas and the fractionation of raw mix in the United


3.    Respondent Phillips had total revenues of  $47.7 billion in 2001.
SNIPPETS:
  • Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act, and by n 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
  • doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its office and
  • the bulk supply, terminaling and marketing of light petroleum products, the bulk supply of
  • Respondent Conoco is, and at all times relevant herein has been, engaged in, among other
  • Respondents Phillips and Conoco plan a "merger of equals" in a transaction executed and
  • The major buyers of LPPs in Eastern Colorado include wholesalers,
  • Refineries produce LPPs and either deliver them into storage tanks or terminals on the
  • Jobbers delivering LPPs in Eastern Colorado have no effective alternative to using local
  • Jobbers cannot economically access refineries and pipelines located outside of Eastern
  • Bulk suppliers can identify and price differently to buyers located in densely populated
  • Phillips' owns a pipeline and Conoco owns a refinery that provide bulk supplies of LPPs into
  • The market, as measured by shipments or capacity, is highly concentrated with the HHI rising
  • There are substantial barriers to entering the relevant market in Eastern Colorado.
  • Building additional refineries locally or additional pipelines from refineries located
  • Jobbers delivering LPPs in Northern Utah have no effective alternative to using local
  • After the Merger, the combined firm could effectively coordinate to reduce supply, slow
  • LPP marketers in Spokane only can receive terminaling services from terminals located in
  • A section of the country in which to analyze the effect of the Merger is the area located in
  • A section of the country in which to analyze the effect of the Merger is the area of Southern
  • Permian Basin natural gas producers contract with natural gas gatherers to transport and/or
  • The Merger likely would reduce competition by allowing fractionation competitors to share
  • One relevant product market in which to assess the effect of the Merger is the bulk supply of

  • 2 . ANALYSIS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PROPOSED ORDER
    ASSETS
    RESPONDENTS
    COMPLAINT
    COMMISSION
    PETROLEUM
    AGREEMENT
    MERGER
    CONOCO
    COMPETITION
    CONSENT ORDERS
    DIVESTITURE
    LIGHT PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
    GASOLINE
    TERMINALS
    FRACTIONATION
    NATURAL GAS
    COMPLAINT ALLEGES
    EASTERN COLORADO
    DEFS BOARD MEMBERS
    TRADE COMMISSION ACT
    MERGED FIRM
    NATURAL GAS GATHERING
    MARKETING ASSETS
    UNITED STATES
    NORTHERN UTAH
    RAISE PRICES
    DISTRIBUTION
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
    
              Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment
    
                                  I. Introduction
    
       The Federal Trade Commission ("Commission" or "FTC") has issued a
       complaint ("Complaint") alleging that the proposed merger of Phillips
       Petroleum Company ("Phillips") and Conoco Inc. ("Conoco")
       (collectively "Respondents") would violate Section 7 of the Clayton
       Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
       Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. The Commission and Respondents have entered into
       an agreement containing consent orders ("Agreement Containing Consent
       Orders") pursuant to which Respondents agree to be bound by a proposed
       consent order that requires divestiture of certain assets and certain
       other relief ("Proposed Order") and a hold separate order that
       requires Respondents to hold separate and maintain certain assets
       pending divestiture ("Hold Separate Order"). The Proposed Order
       remedies the likely anti-competitive effects arising from Respondents'
       proposed merger, as alleged in the Complaint. The Order to Hold
       Separate and Maintain Assets preserves competition pending
       divestiture.
    
                 II. Description of the Parties and the Transaction
    
       Phillips, headquartered in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, is an integrated
       oil company engaged in the worldwide exploration, production, and
       transportation of crude oil and natural gas; gathering of natural gas;
       fractionation of raw mix into specification products; refining,
       marketing, and transportation of petroleum products; and production
       and marketing of chemicals. Phillips is the nation's third largest
       refiner and fourth largest gasoline marketer, with approximately 10
       percent of the United States refining capacity and 9 percent of
       gasoline marketing. In 2001, Phillips had revenues of $47.7 billion.
       Phillips has significant terminal facilities that it uses to
       distribute gasoline and other petroleum products to its customers.
       Phillips owns or licenses several gasoline brands under which gasoline
       is sold at approximately 11,700 stations throughout the United States.
       Phillips owns approximately 1,700 outlets in the Mid-Atlantic and
       Northeastern areas of the United States. These outlets currently sell
       gasoline under the Exxon and Mobil brands. Of the approximate 10,000
       other outlets, primarily located outside the Mid-Atlantic and
       Northeastern United States, the great majority are owned and operated
       by independent marketers and dealers. Phillips also owns slightly more
       than 30 percent of Duke Energy Field Services, LLC ("DEFS"). DEFS is a
       significant gatherer of natural gas throughout the United States and
       has interests in many fractionation facilities throughout the United
       States.
    
       Conoco, headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a fully integrated
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • The Federal Trade Commission has issued a complaint alleging that the proposed merger of
  • The Commission and Respondents have entered into an agreement containing consent orders
  • The Proposed Order remedies the likely anti-competitive effects arising from Respondents'
  • The Order to Hold Separate and Maintain Assets preserves competition pending divestiture.
  • Phillips, headquartered in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, is an integrated oil company engaged in
  • Phillips is the nation's third largest refiner and fourth largest gasoline marketer, with
  • DEFS is a significant gatherer of natural gas throughout the United States and has interests
  • Conoco, headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a fully integrated petroleum company engaged in
  • The Complaint alleges that the proposed merger and its consummation would violate Section 7
  • Count I of the Proposed Complaint concerns the bulk supply of light petroleum products for
  • The Complaint further alleges that the proposed merger would lead to higher prices for light
  • Count II of the Proposed Complaint concerns the bulk supply of light petroleum products for
  • Petroleum terminals are facilities that provide temporary storage of gasoline and other
  • Count VIII of the Proposed Complaint concerns natural gas gathering in several areas of the
  • Under the terms of the Proposed Order, the merged firm must: divest the Phillips refinery vided interest in Phillips' Wichita, Kansas, light petroleum products terminal; divest Phillips' nsitive information among Mont Belvieu fractionators.
  • The assets to be divested include Phillips' refinery located in Woods Cross, Utah, and
  • ConocoPhillips DEFS board members may not participate in any discussions with DEFS or Duke
  •    |