Which site is safer: DPK or SPM? I recently got a job offer for SPM but I’d have to move my family from TX to PA. Thats a huge change considering it’s PA.
9 replies (most recent on top)
Neither. But honestly both will probably keep running after Shell sells to new management. Maybe even be profitable after the chemicals slump is over. I would think about this...would you rather be outside of Pitt or in Houston if one did get laid off? For my money Houston is the petrochem hub of the US. Would be hard to jump back into petrochem in PA.
When I say "safer," know my true intent: 'Tis layoff risk, not safety's measured score.
No LNG from these, their purpose spent, So Shell seeks buyers knocking at the door.
The SPM plant, a high-flown, costly dream, Might be shut down if no sale comes to pass.
It is the "newness" where the bright eyes gleam, A haven now for Shell's high-potential class.
But DPK, by Pemex dearly bought, Found staff depart for salaries more grand.
It lacks the pressure, is less highly thought, And takes the "unwanted" to command.
Thus DPK, grounded, firm, and free of stress, Holds safer ground in Houston's wilderness.
@ej yep geismar prints money. The only concern is it may not be shell long term, but idk who would buy chemicals from shell if they have to deal with Trading.
@dy with the overbuild of ethylene plants I can agree with this. I don’t know anything about the polymers market to infer about SPM but a technical authority we hired from Dow says our logistical advantage of being close to end customers doesn’t offset that lack of knowledge we have in the homogeneous catalyst space with polymer technology. We buy that catalyst from Dow and it’s improving every few years. The efficacy of that consumable catalyst is what makes polymer manufacturing profitable apparently. Dow and Exxon understand this and it appears we lost that institutional knowledge when we spun off Kraton Polymers in 2003. We ignored that and decided logistics of being close to customers was the play to increase our competitiveness. I dunno, seems like Norco is best bet. We’ll never get rid of Norco just because trading needs the physical asset in USGC and it’s the only one left. Good riddance to Huibert for fu--ing that up. We spun off Kraton in early 2000s just to come back in 2009 to have sellers remorse. We bought East Resources in PA for a gas supply in 2009 and buy a site to build SPM. Didn’t have the plant operational until 2021 and sold that gas supply for 15% of purchase price. Covid aside, that’s embarrassing, especially with a $14 billion price tag. How many polymers plants were built in the US in that span? And how many were built outside of the USGC? I know not many. SPM just seems like Shell arrogance again. Try to get to Norco if you want to be in downstream. Geismar second choice.
i will never forget them just turning convent off
SPM when fully operational can print money. It can make at least $100M/mo and make over $1B/yr. I would view it safer than Deer Park. All of chemicals is for sale, but I feel SPM and Geismar would not be shutdown. Deer park I feel like could be shutdown in the near future.
@bj Its up for sale ... I recall It mentioned in one of YLs townhalls
@a5 agree with your points, but is Monaco even making money? Chemicals industry is in the toilet right now. Would not be surprised to see it sold off soon
Waynesburg PA would be so much better than Houston TX. Get out of the hot, humid swampy city to a smaller town that’s family oriented with a 4 season climate, plus natural scenery.
Gotta be a better career climate, too.