Breaking: Chesapeake Energy Buys Pier 1 Tower
by Kevin
Big real estate news - Chesapeake Energy has purchased the Pier 1 Tower.
“The purchase of this architecturally significant building in downtown Fort Worth clearly demonstrates Chesapeake’s commitment to a very long-term presence in the Barnett Shale play,” said Julie H. Wilson, Chesapeake’s vice president of corporate development, in a written statement. “This building will allow us to provide much needed office space to support our rapidly growing Barnett Shale activities and will give our employees the space, amenities and resources they need to perform their jobs at the highest level.”
Pier 1 will continue to occupy about 250,000 square feet and plans to enter into a seven year lease agreement at closing. The anticipated transaction closing is no later than June 30. The $104 million purchase price was disclosed in a Pier 1 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Interesting. I wonder if they’ll be turning the lights back on? There will surely be much discussion amongst us Fort Worth architecture geeks about this, not to mention the gas drilling angle.
Tip of the hat to Crystal Forester at the Fort Worth Business Press.
UPDATE: Chesapeake is making some fairly obvious hints that the building’s signature crown lighting will be coming back.
Tags: Barnett Shale, Chesapeake, downtown, gas drilling, Pier 1
27 Comments, Comments or Pings
Pete Wann
What a crock of shit!
“…clearly demonstrates Chesapeake’s commitment to a very long-term presence in the Barnett Shale play” ?!?!?!
Proving once again that Chesapeake doesn’t give a damn about FORT WORTH, they only care about the gassy goodness under our homes, offices, parks, waterways, and wilderness areas.
It’s all about the Barnett Shale for them. They don’t give a damn about our community OR our quality of life, and as soon as the “Barnett Shale play” is tapped out, they’re moving on to the next area ripe for the raping, taking all those jobs that are supposedly the engine driving our local economy with them.
Mar 31st, 2008
quaid
If a drilling rig goes on top of that building, I move to Dallas!
Pete is right. They are committed to profits, not Fort Worth.
Mar 31st, 2008
Jeff
You hippies are in the wrong town! I’m sure you hate having electricity and natural gas in your homes, I suppose you’d rather us get our resources from other terrorist harboring countries than produce the gas found in our own great state. Get real.
Mar 31st, 2008
Kevin
I don’t have a problem with gas drilling. I do have a problem with irresponsible gas drilling. Chesapeake has repeatedly shown that they don’t really care about this city.
XTO, I like. Chesapeake, not so much.
Mar 31st, 2008
peteg
Jeff–Agreed we should sever our dependence on foreign sources of energy. But Texas should become the leader in the future of Energy, not by shitting on its own porch in a desperate greedy grab for the last of the dino-fuels, but by pioneering new sources of Energy. We all want the same things in the world, but old ways of doing business aren’t going to get us there. It’s the 21st Century.
Mar 31st, 2008
Pete Wann
@Jeff - Dick Nixon called. He wants his outdated policies and shitty attitude back.
Mar 31st, 2008
Jeff
Touche Pete, touche
Mar 31st, 2008
Pete Wann
I think we’ve said repeatedly here that we don’t mind gas drilling. We’re not morons. We understand that we need natural gas to fire our power plants and to cook our hamburgers.
Instead of moving ourselves off of foreign-sourced fossil fuels which are in short supply to domestically sourced fossil fuels which are in even shorter supply, why the hell aren’t we working on new energy solutions?
Instead of spending all this money on finding new sources of oil and gas, why aren’t companies spending money on finding new energy sources that don’t require ruining our environment or sending our kids off to war? Imagine how much less dependent on unstable dictators we’d be if every house in the United States generated enough energy to power itself.
THAT, friends, should be our goal. We should be building new lifeboats, not killing each other over the last floating deck cushion.
Mar 31st, 2008
SteveB
I posted recently about the difference between “tactics and strategy” on my my site (fortworthblogorrhea.com). It seems this discussion always falls into the same binary trap between oil sucks/oil doesn’t suck.
I think the greatest thing missing in most discussions in our government is realism (compared, for example, with the liberal idealism of the Bush admin thinking it could turn the middle east into democracies with shock and awe.)
I’m pushing for the reunion tour of relativism. Strategically, dino-fuels (as Pete put it)are scarce and frought with strange bedfellows. We need to mitigate against them all we can. Gas is somewhat less environmentally destructive than petroleum (or the brown lignite coal that provides much of the worlds’ power.) But in the end, scarcity of fossil-fuels will drive up the price such that renewables will be more than competitive. Econ 101, right?
Gas will be around after petroleum is spent, then eventually it will become scarce. In the short term (tactics) we should use gas as a buffer against middle eastern petroleum as much as possible, so long as we play by the rules. The city, apparently, hasn’t played by the rules by allowing high-impact wells without allowing the people to speak.
Strategically, however, universities and energy companies that wish to being going concerns need to be doing much more for renewables. I’m always heartened when I see the big windmills headed west on I-20. Technology has enabled the Barnett Shale and will enable renewables as well. Energy companies with short-term visions will make their buck, cash-out, and haul ass. Really visionary energy companies will reinvest profits from dino-fuels into research on renewables. It appears to me that Chesapeake are just carpetbaggers. XTO has made significant investments in local real estate, but what are they doing to remain a player after the well runs dry? What happens to all the XTO buildings downtown?
On another matter, I’m interested in the internal W&C discussions of this topic. I know Kevin would like nothing more than to see the Pier 1 building lit up again, but Pete (and maybe Steve) are anti-Chesapeake. Cage match?
Mar 31st, 2008
John Peter Smith
Let me see if I understand. The prevailing “wisdom” here is that Chesapeake is investing $104,000,000.00 in a city they intend to make an environmental wasteland?
Okay, then tell me who on Earth is going to buy their building once they’re finished “raping” the land and destroying our quality of life?
No, you can be sure that if Chesapeake is spending that kind of dough on office space they either expect to be there a long time, to be able to resell the building later to recoup their investment, or both.
Mar 31st, 2008
Pete Wann
JPS, I think Chesapeake’s intentions are perfectly clear as evidenced by the
press flack’sVP of Corporate Development’s statement. “Commitment to… the Barnett Shale play.” (Ellipses added to remove marketing fluff/equivocation.)I don’t think Chesapeake’s management gives a damn about the condition they leave Fort Worth in when they’re done, regardless of whether they own an office building here or not. They’ll get their use out of the building, take their tax break, and move along to the next part of the world floating on a bubble of dino farts.
Say they stick around for 20 years. They could easily spend $104 million in that time shuttling executives back and forth from OKC and renting office space around the county. Buying the building gives them a depreciable asset AND a revenue source in the future because they can rent out whatever they’re not using, like they are currently with Pier 1.
I know they intend to resell the building and recoup their investment both in money saved and in real dollar terms. But that doesn’t make them any more committed to Fort Worth and its residents, which is our complaint with them.
Mar 31st, 2008
client#8
But doesn’t the purchase make you feel like Chesapeake is now more committed to Fort Worth and its residents, not less? To me, it’s more advantageous for our community if these companies come here and make investments rather than just flying people in each week and renting office space. Hopefully becoming part of our community will make Chesapeake a better corporate citizen, much as it has been in Oklahoma City. This seems like a step forward, not backward.
Apr 1st, 2008
Pete Wann
I must be feeling more generous today, because the searing rage that I felt yesterday has turned into a dull dissatisfaction today.
Client#8, you ask if the purchase makes me feel like Chesapeake is more committed to FW and its residents now? No, not really. Again, I go back to the press statement from Ms. Wilson: “The purchase of this architecturally significant building in downtown Fort Worth clearly demonstrates Chesapeake’s commitment to a very long-term presence in the Barnett Shale play.” To me, this says they’re committed to sucking the Barnett Shale dry, not contributing to FW or its residents.
It’s funny how our choice of words can really affect how people perceive things if those people are paying attention. If she’d just said “…Chesapeake’s commitment to Fort Worth.” and ended the sentence there, I doubt I’d have gone off so much. I admire her commitment to building shareholder value, but she’s got to realize that there are other stakeholders involved in a high-impact business such as hers.
Your point is taken, however, and you have helped me find the silver lining in this stormcloud. Perhaps you’re right and making FW a slightly more permanent home will have an effect on the corporate culture at Chesapeake.
Apr 1st, 2008
LB
Hi all, I am new to the site.
I have no love of Chesapeake but I don’t have a problem with them buying the Pier 1 building. I however do not consider it an architecturally significant building so that may be why.
Apr 1st, 2008
Kevin
LB,
I have to disagree on the building itself. I do consider it a significant building from an architectural perspective. It’s actually not often that I like a modern glass tower - but I love the Pier 1 building (though I hate the site plan).
Apr 1st, 2008
LB
I guess it’s location makes it significant but as a piece of architecture I don’t see it. I find the proportions odd much like the Frost Tower in Austin altough not as bad as Austin. It’s like they designed it to be much taller then they chopped the bottom half off. The site planning and the building is desinged like it was suppose to go in a suburban development somewhere. But I guess that should be discussed in a different thread.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Southside Dude
What this discussion hasn’t addressed is the impact this has on the relationship between Cheseapeake and the FW City Council. There undoubtedly TIF’s and incentives involved in this Pier One Building - Pier One undoubtedly got multiple goodies for building downtown instead of fleeing to a cheaper area. If any incentives are connected with the Building ownership rather than the Pier One corporate entity itself, then Council has suddenly become a lot more interested in listening to Chesapeake than ever before. This move is, frankly, a little scary. It makes me more nervous than I was before, for example, about the possibility of council allowing a wellsite on 8th Avenue. Chesapeake is now more than just a bunch of yah-hoos from OK.
Yikes.
Apr 2nd, 2008
LB
I am not sure Chesapeak can have any more influence than they already have, (they seem to get whatever they want) but Southside has a point.
Apr 3rd, 2008
Marcus
For the most part I do not agree with the viewpoints expressed on this site. What free market company is not committed to profits, as long as it is ethical and within the law?
However, that said I will defend to the death your right to express your viewpoints, as I will my own. That is what makes us Amercans.
Apr 9th, 2008
Bernie
God Bless Amerca.
Apr 9th, 2008
peteg
Marcus, fair enough, but where are the free markets?
Apr 9th, 2008
Suzette
Ethical? What about the billboards around town that read “Chesapeake, doing a world of good for Fort Worth” with a picture of a deer or flowers or Bass Hall? Is that suppose to “trick” us into thinking that Chesapeake is an “ethical” company? When our drinking water is so polluted because of the crap that Chesapeake is pumping into it because it’s the most “profitable” thing to do and to hell with the citizens, is that ethical? I don’t think so!
Apr 9th, 2008
Pete Wann
I wasn’t sure I was going to post this or not, but what the hell…
Did anyone else see that full-page ad in the Startlegram today? The one with Vince Puente smiling about how much he loves Chesapeake and the Barnett Shale?
He should. He owns a piece of one of their wells.
Is that ethical?
Apr 9th, 2008
Marcus
Peteg, well if you cannot see them then I am afraid there is not much I can do to help you see the light. You live in the greatest country on earth, albeit with all it’s faults. Do you think the markets of Casear Chavez are better? Come on. Pete, so Vince has no right to own a piece of a Chesapeake well? And no I do not work for Chesapeake, but last time I heard being an investor was not a crime. What would you have us do for energy? Depend more on the Saudis and Opec? That sure has worked out well for us? Bush blundered going into Iraq and the oil markets are more screwed up than ever, and we are stuck in an unnecessary war spending about $3 billion a week. Did any of you cry 20 years ago when the domestic oil and gas business was decimated by green mailers like Boone Pickens? Independent oil and gas companies disappeared and over 300,000 people lost their jobs. Everyone loved $10 BBL oil back in 1986-1987, and now we are ALL paying the price. We need all forms of energy including oil and natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear, you name it. Go look around your house. Plastics, etc. come from hydrocarbons. We are going to need a moon shot to get this country off dependence on Opec. We have already waited 20 years too late.
Whoever the next President of this country is, God help them for all the problems they will inherit.
Apr 10th, 2008
Pete Wann
Never said it was a crime. I just think it’s unethical to portray him as an “average citizen” in their advertising, when he clearly has financial ties to the project. (Not to mention that he’s about as far from “average citizen” as you can get, considering his wealth.) I don’t begrudge him his success or status one bit. He’s worked hard for it.
I’m done responding to these threads. They put me in a bad mood.
Apr 10th, 2008
peteg
Marcus, you and I are actually in agreement about a great many things, and like you I am amazed when I talk to people that don’t realize plastics come from hydrocarbons.
I was being fascetious when I asked about free markets. Even if a fella believes in the concept of the Free Market, it’s critical to understand how corrupting externalities are on the American market.
I love America. I love the principles our country was founded upon. Because I love America, it’s hard for me to ignore the faults when I know we can (and have to) do better.
Apr 11th, 2008
Marcus
Pete, cheer up, it’s Friday man. Plus I like your website.
Peteg, you appear to be all right. When we all start agreeing about everything then I start to get worried. Different viewpoints are good, and we can do better, I agree.
Watch the HBO special John Adams. Talk about disagreements. After reading the book and watching this fantastic mini-series you wonder how they ever got agreement on the Constitution.
Apr 11th, 2008
Reply to “Breaking: Chesapeake Energy Buys Pier 1 Tower”