Sale finalized; future development of Exxon tank farm in Everett can proceed

S

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,612
Reaction score
1,352
I don't believe this development had its own thread previously. If it did, mods please merge.

AYCBLC47AZHUTGI7OB4ZAIKP24.png

^^^ image courtesy of the Globe.

plans for a multimillion-square-foot, mixed-use project at the site, which would be developed in phases starting with hundreds of apartments near Route 16.
Click to expand...

Last year, Davis backed out of its purchase-and-sale agreement with Exxon during a time of rapidly rising interest rates and construction costs. The developer’s exit prompted Exxon to put the land on the market for a second time. Davis eventually ended up winning the second contest, although with a lower price. (The original winning bid never became public.) Davis had an advantage this time around because of all the time the firm had spent analyzing the site and its potential.
Click to expand...

The site’s environmental cleanup will cost more than $100 million and could take up to four years. Davis said it has partnered with Waltham-based fuel company Global Partners for the cleanup and development of the site.

Davis has applied to a brownfields program overseen by the state attorney general’s office that would indemnify the developer from any future lawsuits over contamination by neighbors of the site. The developers plan to cap the site with up to 10 feet of soil, buffering it from storm surges and rising sea waters.
Click to expand...

Coinciding with the Davis deal: The Conservation Law Foundation reached an out-of-court settlement with Exxon over pollution and climate resiliency issues at the site. The settlement, which CLF declined to share, includes a restriction to prohibit the property from being used for bulk fossil fuel storage in the future.
Click to expand...

 
Are these storage tanks still in use by Exxon? If so, where do they intend to re-supply the local depots? Those tanks are huge.
 

Everett Waterfront Redevelopment | 52 Beacham Street | Everett

Mayor Carlo DeMaria announced via Facebook yesterday that an assemblage of 3 large parcels (95.5 acres) currently owned by Exxon-Mobil are being sold for redevelopment. Details on the listing for sale available at this link. This coupled with Everett's recently approved zoning changes for Lower...
archboston.com
 
citydweller said:
Are these storage tanks still in use by Exxon? If so, where do they intend to re-supply the local depots? Those tanks are huge.
Click to expand...
my thoughts exactly.
Not to diminish the potential of the development, which could be equal to Seaport in scale, but is worth questioning what's behind the selling/abandonment of energy infrastructure of that size, under the current circumstances with Oil prices & Oil reserves under enormous market pressure due to geopolitical events....
 
citydweller said:
Are these storage tanks still in use by Exxon? If so, where do they intend to re-supply the local depots? Those tanks are huge.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Most big cities have lots of energy infrastructure around them (just look at the stretch of I-95 from the GW Bridge down to Edison NJ). I assume this won't be relocated to Winchester? :)
 
This looks like one giant superfund site, I'm all set living there no matter what they do to remedy it
 
citydweller said:
Are these storage tanks still in use by Exxon? If so, where do they intend to re-supply the local depots? Those tanks are huge.
Click to expand...

Based on my reading of the language quoted below from a press release from Conservation Law Foundation yesterday, the site was still operational, but not currently being used for storage. That is, the tank farm was mothballed.

As pretrial discovery was about to start, ExxonMobil notified the court of its decision to cease all operations at the facility and the parties thereafter entered settlement discussions.
Click to expand...
“We welcome ExxonMobil’s decision to resolve this litigation, make the facility closure permanent, and market the site for cleaner and safer uses,” said CLF President Brad Campbell. In settling the case, CLF has obtained an enforceable prohibition on the property ever being used for polluting bulk fossil fuel storage.

“Closure of the facility will protect the community and eliminate a major pollution threat to Boston Harbor and its tributaries,” Campbell added “Forever prohibiting a similar facility on the site further reduces fossil fuel’s chokehold on Everett and the broader region’s energy system, landscape, and economy.”
Click to expand...


Bolding mine. The bolding language suggests to me that the oil tanks were empty, but Exxon retained the operational capability to re-fill them at some future point. The CLF press release did not reference the announcement of Exxon's sale of the property.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hufer said:
my thoughts exactly.
Not to diminish the potential of the development, which could be equal to Seaport in scale, but is worth questioning what's behind the selling/abandonment of energy infrastructure of that size, under the current circumstances with Oil prices & Oil reserves under enormous market pressure due to geopolitical events....
Click to expand...
Although I am not an expert, I assume that the sale and subsequent deactivation of these tanks doesn't have a material impact on oil market or pricing dynamics. There is no need for oil tanks to be in the center of a extremely high value metro when that land could have higher and better uses. This is exactly why the land sale was a viable economic proposition in the first place. I imagine other existing or maybe even new tanks somewhere else have fully taken up the slack created by taking these offline.

As for the oil market being under enormous pressure, here is text from the Wall Street Breakfast from Seeking Alpha email newsletter I received this morning (bolding my own):

Energy prices keep on slipping, with benchmark West Texas Intermediate (CL1:COM) so far down 22% in the fourth quarter and the average price of stateside gasoline falling 16% to $3.21 a gallon. It comes as the U.S. continues to pump crude at a record rate, cranking out a record 13.2M barrels a day, which is more than oil-exporting heavyweights Russia and Saudi Arabia. The developments have been a boon to the American consumer, as well as the Federal Reserve, which continues to receive much applause from the market for keeping inflation at bay.

Bigger picture: OPEC members have been forced to respond to record U.S. production, with tensions most apparent in the reactions from kingpin Saudi Arabia. So far the Kingdom's strategy has been to slash more output, but the deeper cuts have not resonated with oil bulls and have even formed some cracks within the OPEC+ group. Economic weakness in China, Russia's shadow fleet and the removal of fear premiums from the Israel-Hamas war have also helped contribute to oil's decline, and the Saudis are hesitant to go nuclear by opening the taps, which would dent U.S. shale but cause it to lose many OPEC friends in the interim.

Many have also been eyeing recent developments to see whether the U.S. will refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has fallen to its lowest level since the 1980s following the release of 180M barrels last year. At the time, the Biden administration said it would consider refills "at or below about $67 to $72 per barrel," but there have been opportunities that have been passed up when oil retook that range. WTI crude is now trading at around $71, and while the administration has been adding to the SPR, the buybacks have been limited to about 3M barrels per month given physical constraints in "the way the caverns are set up."

The technicals: "The price of crude oil is likely to continue falling from current levels before settling at $70 at the major support," writes SA analyst Damir Tokic. "Even though I agree with the bearish outlook, I would not recommend shorting crude oil - the geopolitical situation could change in a moment. In this situation, a long-put option strategy seems appropriate."
 
awood91 said:
Although I am not an expert, I assume that the sale and subsequent deactivation of these tanks doesn't have a material impact on oil market or pricing dynamics. There is no need for oil tanks to be in the center of a extremely high value metro when that land could have higher and better uses. This is exactly why the land sale was a viable economic proposition in the first place. I imagine other existing or maybe even new tanks somewhere else have fully taken up the slack created by taking these offline.

As for the oil market being under enormous pressure, here is text from the Wall Street Breakfast from Seeking Alpha email newsletter I received this morning (bolding my own):

Energy prices keep on slipping, with benchmark West Texas Intermediate (CL1:COM) so far down 22% in the fourth quarter and the average price of stateside gasoline falling 16% to $3.21 a gallon. It comes as the U.S. continues to pump crude at a record rate, cranking out a record 13.2M barrels a day, which is more than oil-exporting heavyweights Russia and Saudi Arabia. The developments have been a boon to the American consumer, as well as the Federal Reserve, which continues to receive much applause from the market for keeping inflation at bay.

Bigger picture: OPEC members have been forced to respond to record U.S. production, with tensions most apparent in the reactions from kingpin Saudi Arabia. So far the Kingdom's strategy has been to slash more output, but the deeper cuts have not resonated with oil bulls and have even formed some cracks within the OPEC+ group. Economic weakness in China, Russia's shadow fleet and the removal of fear premiums from the Israel-Hamas war have also helped contribute to oil's decline, and the Saudis are hesitant to go nuclear by opening the taps, which would dent U.S. shale but cause it to lose many OPEC friends in the interim.

Many have also been eyeing recent developments to see whether the U.S. will refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has fallen to its lowest level since the 1980s following the release of 180M barrels last year. At the time, the Biden administration said it would consider refills "at or below about $67 to $72 per barrel," but there have been opportunities that have been passed up when oil retook that range. WTI crude is now trading at around $71, and while the administration has been adding to the SPR, the buybacks have been limited to about 3M barrels per month given physical constraints in "the way the caverns are set up."

The technicals: "The price of crude oil is likely to continue falling from current levels before settling at $70 at the major support," writes SA analyst Damir Tokic. "Even though I agree with the bearish outlook, I would not recommend shorting crude oil - the geopolitical situation could change in a moment. In this situation, a long-put option strategy seems appropriate."
Click to expand...

Exactly - - this is objective data - I don't know what Hufer was alluding to in his/her post.

WTI Crude, as I type, is $69.60/barrel and has been under $70 for most of this week.
 
Could Kraft move the potential Revs stadium to this plot instead of the other (much nicer, waterfront) plot?
 
kingofsheeba said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

He's running a business making a real estate decision. People in the sports business don't usually give up "much nicer waterfront properties" next to mega casinos and entertainment venues in exchange for...........???????

Thought that was obvious. But would love to hear your, or the poster I was addressing, reasoning.
 
Because according to the other postings about that site it's not happening anymore. Of course that site is much better, but if can't get approval there for various reasons, maybe this could be an alternative.
 
I suppose if you live in Boston and the immediate suburbs then the Rev's in Everett will be very appealing. But for those living outside of 495, it's a non-starter. Getting to Everett sucks.
 
citydweller said:
I suppose if you live in Boston and the immediate suburbs then the Rev's in Everett will be very appealing. But for those living outside of 495, it's a non-starter. Getting to Everett sucks.
Click to expand...

Wait. You seriously believe Kraft is more focused on the futbol fan market outside 495 as opposed to the market inside 495????

We're talking Capitalism, no?
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
Wait. You seriously believe Kraft is more focused on the futbol fan market outside 495 as opposed to the market inside 495????

We're talking Capitalism, no?
Click to expand...
Apparently, you never had to commute through/to Everett.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top