Talk:Citgo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

We had two gas stations in LaFayette named Golden Gallon. They sold Citgo fuel. They are now Kangaroo Express and sell Amoco fuel. PrometheusX303 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to get the reference link working. I want to make that [1] next to the Sept 2006 news bring the page down to the external link section for the article I cited.


With the recent issues bewteen the US and Venezuela, it may be a good idea to protect this page from editing. Jon Darden

Agreed. CodeNaked 20:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7-Eleven[edit]

The claim that Chavez's UN Speech is a "major factor" in the 7-Eleven policy change is unsubstantiated. The break just happened at a time that allowed 7-11 to capitalize on current events to garner some good PR, as explained by the reference at the AP. CodeNaked 20:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited out the offending sentence and tried to insert one that was balanced and clear. I used that great CNN article as a reference. Good?

The A.P. quoted a named spokeswoman (Margaret Chabris) saying that "7-Eleven officials said Wednesday that the decision was partly motivated by politics" (in the A.P. article quoted.) Joseph 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original article goes on to explain that the PR representative is doing what PR representatives do--spinning and posturing to gain favor with the public. CodeNaked 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this article plainly states that there is NO relationship between Chavez's rhetoric and the policy change: "7-Eleven Inc. said on Wednesday the war of words between Venezuela's leftist government and the Bush administration had no part in its decision to drop gasoline supplier Citgo Petroleum Corp., which is owned by Venezuela's state oil company." CodeNaked 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The A.P. article provides a direct quote from a named Citgo spokeswoman saying it was partly based on political statements by Chavez. The other articles don't contradict this (and if they would, both stories should be quoted, not a deletion of one of them.)
The other article DOES contradict that statement, and saying that it does not makes it obvious that you did not read both articles.
The first line reads, "7-Eleven Inc. said on Wednesday the war of words between Venezuela's leftist government and the Bush administration had no part in its decision to drop gasoline supplier Citgo Petroleum Corp., which is owned by Venezuela's state oil company."
Read on to the second sentence and you will learn that Ms. Chabris personally recanted her first quote. "The contract expires on Sept. 30, 7-Eleven spokeswoman Margaret Chabris said, and the decision was made long before Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez called U.S. President George W. Bush 'the devil' last week."
Both stories need not be cited if one of them is inaccurate. The first article is clearly inaccurate, judging by the more current article's retraction. CodeNaked 16:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put in Chabris quote (both.) It does not seem to be a 'recanting', but nevertheless the article doesn't purport to indicate a strong position either way. It just provides the quote. Everyone should be satisfied with this.
The decision was made before Chavez' most recent attacks, but he had many times previously made anti-US attacks. Thats what the spokeswoman was saying (in her first comments) was partly why it didn't make Citgo prone to keep Citgo.
This is made clear by her saying that "Certainly Chavez's position and statements over the past year or so didn't tempt us to stay with Citgo." Her later statement doesn't recant that; it merely indicates that wasn't the sole (or perhaps primary) reason. But his statements over the past year os so certainly played a part in the reason. Qwertyqazqaz 16:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AP article [1] Venezuela's Citgo to stop gas sales to hundreds of U.S. stations - Jul 12 2006, contradicts the entire 7-Eleven entry. The repeated claim that 7-Eleven dropped the ball is highly questionable at best.

There appears to be intentional media deception at play with this story. Check out these two contradicting FOX news articles:
Citgo to Stop Selling Gas to 1,800 U.S. Stations - July 12, 2006

Citgo, which is wholly owned by Venezuela's state oil company, currently has to purchase 130,000 barrels a day from third parties in order to meet its service contracts at 13,100 stations across the U.S. This is less profitable than selling gasoline directly from its refineries. Instead, the Houston-based company has decided to sell to retailers only the 750,000 barrels a day that it produces at three U.S. refineries in Lake Charles, La., Corpus Christi, Texas and Lemont, Ill., according to a statement late Tuesday. That will mean that over the next year Citgo will cease distributing gasoline in 10 states and stop supplying some stations in four additional states, Citgo spokesman Fernando Garay said Wednesday.

7-Eleven to End Relationship with Venezuela-Backed Citgo - September 27, 2006

The second article (above) is full of misleading and contradictory statements, and it contains a great deal of unsourced editorial opinion.

The 7-Eleven entry has to be modified to show that Citgo dropped 7-Eleven on July 12/06, which was well before media sources made the contradictory claim that it was 7-Eleven that dropped Citgo. The news sources that contain misleading and unsourced editorial opinion should be dropped, or better yet, cited as examples of how a false story was manufactured and sold to the public.

Can someone point me to the nearest Citgo? It'll be my little way of prostesting against the Bush regime. Excuse me, I mean the Cheney regime (and his retarded flunky)... 65.69.81.2 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote where you claim she later recanted was nowhere in your reference. I therefore deleted it. Judging by your comments, you seem like the last person who should be allowed to edit anything in this article and I suggest that all of your changes be reviewed, if not simply outright reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.191.28 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by Felix Rodriguez was not referenced and was therefore deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.191.28 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I represent CITGO in its Wikipedia outreach efforts. CITGO would like the following text from the current version of the 7-Eleven article added to the first paragraph under the Venezuelan controversy section.

Later she said that "People are making it out to be more than it is."[1] Citgo's Chief Executive Felix Rodriguez responded with a correction the following day, accusing 7-Eleven of exploiting the situation to score political points against Chavez, and pointing out that Citgo's decision to terminate the contract with 7-Eleven had been made in July, for practical and economic reasons: "[The reports are] a manipulation because ever since the month of July have we announced that we did not intend to renew a contract with 7-Eleven, which was 20 years old and that was part of a bad business deal for Venezuela."[2] A statement found on Citgo's homepage stated, "The 7-Eleven contract did not fit within CITGO's strategy to balance sales with refinery production after the sale of its interest in a Houston area refinery."

Please either add it or let me know if I can add this text. Thank you. --Digistrat (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC) If this revision is not deemed suitable for this article, I would appreciate an explanation of that reasoning. --74.95.80.113 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 7-Eleven Drops Citgo As Gas Supplier[dead link], International Business Times, September 27, 2006.
  2. ^ Venezuela's Citgo Says it Decided to Discontinue 7/11 Contract Two Months Ago, Venezuelanalysis.com, September 28, 2006.

Redundant[edit]

This statement: "PDVSA is controlled by the Venezuelan government", seems redundant, as it states earlier that the company is Venezuela state owned. 69.95.208.155

Pronunciation[edit]

I'm not an american so I've never encountered this company, but I would like to know, and I'm sure others would as well, the typical pronunciation of CITGO. It seems like a useful addition to the article. --Blair Mitchelmore (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check around, but I've always heard it pronounced as "sit go". Postoak (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about 1982?[edit]

Citgo, aka Cities Services, was involved in one of the landmark takeover battles of the early 1980s, against Boone Pickens' Mesa Petroleum. Surely that should be in here somewhere? --Christofurio (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the bad fuel incidents?[edit]

They must be mentioned too. There are plenty of those. Sources: http://www.google.com/#hl=es&source=hp&q=citgo+contaminated+fuel&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=60b33ee4bc136d36

-Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.152.109.66 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty? All I see is an unverified complaint entered by the same person all within the last week. We need a reliable source. Also, why did you vandalize the article here? [2]Postoak (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overly broad claim in Citgo Sign section[edit]

I've flagged the sentence regarding the claim that many individuals across the country object to the sign because of the Venezuelan connection. For starters, the cite on that was about a single Boston councilman who was objecting--incidentally, said cite is now a dead link and flagged as such. Second, a quick Google search would suggest that said councilman is pretty much the ONLY person to raise that issue. Finally, this objection was raised more than 6 years ago and doesn't seem to have come up again, most noticeably when the sign was re-lit after refurbishing. That statement really doesn't contribute to the discussion of the sign as it seems to have never gone anywhere, and the Venezuelan issues are covered adequately in their own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.222.202 (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CITGO not Citgo?[edit]

Shouldn't it be CITGO not Citgo? Their website uses CITGO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.8.49 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bounds Change[edit]

Petróleos de Venezuela SA will offer to swap $7 billion of bonds maturing in April and November next year for new 8.5 percent notes with payments staggered over the next four years. The new bonds will be backed by a 50.1 percent stake in Citgo Holding Inc., the unit that owns its U.S. refining arm. pdvsa-swap-surprise--Eduardo Vaquez (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citgo 6[edit]

How is the Citgo 6 scandal not included under "controversies"?--98.111.164.239 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, it's probably because the Citgo 6 is Venezuela's controversy, not Citgo's        — BoringJim (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citgo&oldid=1194722688"