SCHEDULE 14A

(Rule 14a-101)

 

Information Required in Proxy Statement

 

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

 

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Amendment No.          )

 

Filed by the Registrant [X]

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant [  ]

Check the appropriate box:

[  ] Preliminary Proxy Statement

[  ] Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

[X] Definitive Proxy Statement

[  ] Definitive Additional Materials

[  ] Soliciting Material Pursuant to § 240.14a-11(c) or § 240.14a-12

 

Hess Corporation

(Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

 

 

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement if other than the Registrant)

 

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

[X] No fee required.

[  ] Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11.

 

      1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

 

      2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

 

      3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (Set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

 

      4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

 

      5) Total fee paid:

 

[  ] Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

[  ] Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

 

      1) Amount Previously Paid:

 

      2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

 

      3) Filing Party:

 

      4) Date Filed:

 

 

 

HESS CORPORATION

1185 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS

NEW YORK, N.Y. 10036

 

March 27, 2008

 

Dear Stockholder:

 

The annual meeting of stockholders will be held at the Hess Office Building, 1 Hess Plaza, Route 9, Woodbridge, New Jersey, on Wednesday, May 7, 2008, at 2:00 P.M., local time. The formal notice of annual meeting and proxy statement, which are contained in the following pages, outline the action to be taken by the stockholders at the meeting.

 

You are cordially invited to attend this meeting. The Hess Office Building can be reached, if you travel by car, from Exits 127 (northbound) and 130 (southbound) of the Garden State Parkway or Exit 11 of the New Jersey Turnpike or, if you travel by train, from the Metropark station in Iselin, New Jersey.

 

It is important that your shares be represented at the meeting whether or not you are personally able to attend. Accordingly, you are requested to sign, date and return the enclosed proxy card promptly. Many stockholders will also be able to vote their shares by using a toll-free telephone number or over the internet. Please check your proxy card to see which methods are available to you and related instructions. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

Chairman of the Board

and Chief Executive Officer

 

HESS CORPORATION

1185 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS

NEW YORK, N.Y. 10036

 

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

Wednesday, May 7, 2008, at 2:00 P.M.

 

To the Stockholders:

 

The annual meeting of stockholders of Hess Corporation will be held at the Hess Office Building, 1 Hess Plaza, Route 9, Woodbridge, New Jersey, on Wednesday, May 7, 2008, at 2:00 P.M., local time, for the following purposes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

All stockholders are cordially invited to attend, although only stockholders of record at the close of business on March 17, 2008 will be entitled to vote at the meeting.

 

By order of the board of directors,

 

George C. Barry

Secretary

 

New York, New York

March 27, 2008

 

YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT

 

 

You are urged to date, sign and promptly return the accompanying form of proxy, or to use the telephone or internet method of voting, so that if you are unable to attend the meeting your shares can be voted.

 

HESS CORPORATION

 

PROXY STATEMENT

 

The enclosed proxy is solicited by the board of directors of Hess Corporation for use at the annual meeting of stockholders on May 7, 2008, at 2:00 P.M., local time.

 

The company’s principal executive office is located at 1185 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036. The approximate date on which this proxy statement is first being sent to stockholders is March 27, 2008.

 

Holders of record of common stock of the company at the close of business on March 17, 2008 will be entitled to vote at the annual meeting. Each share of common stock will be entitled to one vote. On March 17, 2008, there were 322,300,710 shares of common stock outstanding. There are no other voting securities of the company outstanding. A majority of the outstanding shares of common stock, present in person or represented by proxy, will constitute a quorum at the annual meeting. Abstentions and broker non-votes will be counted for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum for the transaction of business.

 

If you are a registered stockholder, you can simplify your voting by using the internet or calling the toll-free number listed on the enclosed proxy card. Internet and telephone voting information is provided on the proxy card. A control number, located on the instruction sheet attached to the proxy card, is designated to verify a stockholder’s identity and allow the stockholder to vote the shares and confirm that the voting instructions have been recorded properly. If you vote via the internet or by telephone, there is no need to return a signed proxy card. However, you may still vote by proxy by using the proxy card enclosed with this proxy statement.

 

Proxies in the form enclosed will be voted at the annual meeting in accordance with the specifications you make on the proxy. If you sign the proxy card and do not specify how your shares are to be voted, your shares will be voted:

 

 

 

 

You may revoke the proxy at any time prior to its use by delivering a written notice to the secretary of the company, by executing a later-dated proxy in a form permitted under Delaware law, or by attending the annual meeting and voting in person.

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 

At the annual meeting, five directors are to be elected to serve for a term of three years and until their successors are elected and qualified. It is intended that proxies will be voted for the nominees set forth herein. Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast. Accordingly, abstentions and broker non-votes will not affect tabulation of the vote for directors. It is expected that all candidates will be able to serve. However, if one or more are unable to do so, the proxy holders will vote the proxies for the remaining nominees and for substitute nominees chosen by the board of directors unless it reduces the number of directors to be elected.

 

The following table presents information as of February 1, 2008 on the nominees for election as directors of the company and the directors continuing in their respective terms of office:

 

Nominees for Director

 

Class II

For the three-year term expiring in 2011

 

Members of Board of Directors Continuing in Office

 

Class III

 

Term expiring in 2009

 

 

Class I

 

Term expiring in 2010

 

 

All of the nominees and directors named above have held substantially the positions or former positions indicated for the past five years, except as described below. Prior to serving as president of THK Consulting, LLC in 2005, Mr. Kean was president of Drew University for thirteen years. Mr. Matthews served as president and chief executive officer of NUI, Inc. from

February 2004 until December 2004. He served as vice chairman and chief operating officer of KeySpan Corporation from March 2001 to March 2002. Mr. Olson retired as chief executive officer of The Hertz Corporation at the end of 1999 and as chairman in 2003. Mr. Wilson retired as vice chairman of Johnson & Johnson in 2003 and was chairman of Caxton Health Holdings LLC from 2004 to 2007.

 

John B. Hess, Nicholas F. Brady and Thomas H. Kean may be deemed to be control persons of the company by virtue of their beneficial ownership of common stock as described under “Ownership of Voting Securities by Certain Beneficial Owners.”

 

The board of directors met 8 times in 2007, at regularly scheduled meetings. Each director attended at least 75% of the aggregate of all board of directors meetings and all meetings of the committees of the board of directors on which he or she served during 2007.

 

Non-management directors meet without members of management present generally after each regularly scheduled board meeting. The chairman of the corporate governance and nominating committee, Nicholas F. Brady presides at these meetings.

 

The company expects all directors to attend the annual meeting of stockholders. All directors attended last year’s annual meeting.

 

Director Independence

 

The board of directors has affirmatively determined that Mr. Brady, Ms. Holiday, Mr. Kean, Ms. Lavizzo-Mourey, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Olson, Mr. von Metzsch and Mr. Wilson are independent within the meaning of rules and standards of the New York Stock Exchange. The board determined that these directors not only met all “bright-line” criteria under these rules, but also that, based on all known relevant facts and circumstances, there did not exist any relationship that would compromise the independence of these directors. In particular, the board affirmatively determined that service by Messrs. Brady and Kean as executors of the estate of Leon Hess and as trustees of certain related trusts does not impair their independence because there are no factors relating to such service that would exert influence on their decisions with respect to matters affecting the company.

 

Corporate Governance Guidelines

 

The board has approved a set of corporate governance guidelines in accordance with rules of the New York Stock Exchange. These guidelines set forth the key policies relating to corporate governance, including director qualification standards, director responsibilities and director compensation. The board has also approved a code of business conduct and ethics in accordance with rules of the New York Stock Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Commission applicable to all directors, officers and employees, including the chief executive officer, senior financial officers and the principal accounting officer. The code is intended to provide guidance to directors and management to assure compliance with law and promote ethical behavior. Copies of the company’s corporate governance guidelines and its code of business conduct and ethics may be found on the company’s website at www.hess.com and are also available without charge upon request to the company’s corporate secretary at its principal executive office set forth on the first page of this proxy statement.

Stockholder and Interested Party Communications

 

Any stockholder or interested party who wishes to communicate or request a meeting with members of the board of directors or with only non-management directors or any specified individual director may do so by writing to them in care of the Chairperson of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, Hess Corporation, P.O. Box 2694, Easton, Maryland 21601. The stockholders may also communicate directly to the chairperson of this committee by e-mail to directors@hess.com. Communications sent by mail or e-mail will be reviewed by the chairperson of the corporate governance and nominating committee and will be referred for resolution and response as deemed appropriate by the chairperson. If a stockholder requests a meeting, the corporate governance and nominating committee will decide whether the subject matter is a proper one to be addressed by the board and, if so, whether a meeting is warranted. The corporate governance and nominating committee will meet periodically to review all stockholder communications received.

 

Related Party Transactions

 

The company expects all directors and executive officers to bring to the company’s attention any related party transactions, including transactions which may be required to be disclosed under Item 4.04 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company’s code of business conduct and ethics provides that if any company representative, including a director or officer, considers conducting any transaction that reasonably would be expected to give rise to a conflict of interest between the representative and the company, such representative must disclose such transaction in advance to the company’s legal department for review. In addition, the company annually sends each director and executive officer a questionnaire requiring such person to describe any transaction contemplated under Item 4.04 or in the case of independent directors, any transaction that might compromise their independence. The company also annually conducts a review of its accounting records to determine whether any such related transaction occurred in the prior fiscal year. If any proposed or existing related transaction is identified, the transaction is brought to the general counsel for review. If the general counsel determines the transaction poses a conflict of interest, or would compromise the independence of a non-management director, the general counsel will advise the audit committee of the transaction and the audit committee will determine whether the transaction, if proposed, may proceed and if existing, may continue to exist.

 

Compensation and Management Development Committee

 

The compensation and management development committee of the board of directors is composed of Thomas H. Kean, Chairman, Nicholas F. Brady, Frank A. Olson, Ernst H. von Metzsch and Robert N. Wilson. The board has determined that each member of this committee is independent within the meaning of applicable rules of the New York Stock Exchange. This committee met four times in 2007.

 

The board of directors has adopted a written charter for the compensation and management development committee in accordance with applicable rules of the New York Stock Exchange. A copy of this charter is available on the company’s website, www.hess.com, and also available without charge upon request to the company’s corporate secretary at the

company’s principal executive office set forth on the first page of this proxy statement. As stated in the charter, this committee’s principal responsibilities are to:

 

 

The committee’s processes for determining executive compensation are described in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” on page 10.

 

Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and Consideration of Stockholder Recommended Candidates

 

The corporate governance and nominating committee is composed of Nicholas F. Brady, Chairman, Edith E. Holiday and Thomas H. Kean. The board of directors has determined that each member of this committee is independent within the meaning of applicable rules of the New York Stock Exchange. The corporate governance and nominating committee met two times in 2007.

 

The board of directors has adopted a written charter for the corporate governance and nominating committee in accordance with applicable rules of the New York Stock Exchange. A copy of this charter is available on the company’s website, www.hess.com, and is also available without charge upon request to the company’s secretary at the company’s principal executive office set forth on the first page of this proxy statement. As stated in this charter, this committee’s principal responsibilities are to:

 

 

This committee recommends for election as directors qualified candidates identified through a variety of sources, including stockholder suggestions. Stockholders may suggest candidates by writing to the committee, in care of the secretary of the company at the company’s principal executive office set forth on the first page of this proxy statement. Stockholder suggestions should include a summary of the candidate’s qualifications, the information required by Securities and Exchange Commission rules for director nominees and contact information for the candidate. In accordance with the company’s corporate

governance guidelines approved by the board of directors, nominees are reviewed and recommended based on a variety of criteria including:

 

 

The committee meets to recommend nominees for election at each annual meeting early in the year, generally at a February meeting. From time to time throughout the year, in advance of that meeting, members of the committee will be furnished appropriate materials regarding any new nominees and may from time to time meet with new potential candidates. Stockholder suggestions should be submitted no later than December 1 for consideration as nominees for election at the next annual meeting and otherwise in accordance with the company’s policy and by-laws. The committee follows the same process of identifying and evaluating nominees recommended by stockholders as that for candidates recommended by any other source.

 

Each of the nominees for election at the 2008 annual meeting was initially recommended either by the non-management directors on the corporate governance and nominating committee (or its predecessor committee) or the chief executive officer. The committee currently does not retain a search firm to identify potential candidates and has not paid fees to any third parties to assist in identifying or evaluating potential nominees.

 

Audit Committee

 

The audit committee of the board of directors is composed of Robert N. Wilson, Chairman, Edith E. Holiday, Craig G. Matthews, Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, John H. Mullin and Frank A. Olson. The board has determined that each member of the audit committee is independent within the meaning of applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange. The board has also determined that Craig G. Matthews is the “audit committee financial expert” as this term is defined under applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The audit committee met five times in 2007. In addition, the audit committee held four reviews of quarterly financial results with management and independent public accountants.

 

The board of directors has adopted a written charter for the audit committee in accordance with applicable rules of the New York Stock Exchange and the Securities and

Exchange Commission. A copy of the charter is available on the company’s website at www.hess.com and without charge upon request to the company’s corporate secretary at its principal executive office set forth on the first page of the proxy statement. As stated in the charter, the audit committee’s principal responsibility is to provide assistance to the board of directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibility to the shareholders, the investment community and others relating to:

 

 

Report of the Audit Committee

 

The audit committee of the board of directors oversees the company’s financial reporting on behalf of the board. Management is responsible for the system of internal controls and for preparing financial statements. The independent public accountants are responsible for expressing an opinion on the fair presentation of the financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The audit committee operates in accordance with a charter approved by the board of directors.

 

In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the audit committee reviewed the audited financial statements of the company for the year ended December 31, 2007 with management and the independent public accountants. Management represented to the committee that these statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The audit committee also discussed accounting policies, significant judgements inherent in the financial statements, disclosures and other matters required by generally accepted auditing standards with management and the independent public accountants. In addition, the committee has received from the independent public accountants the annual independence disclosures required by Independence Standards Board Standard No. 1 and discussed with them their independence from management and the company. In that connection, the audit committee considered the compatibility of all non-audit services with the auditors’ independence.

 

During 2007, the audit committee met with management, the internal auditors and the independent public accountants to discuss:

 

 

The audit committee also met separately with the independent public accountants and the internal auditors without management present.

 

In reliance on the reviews and discussions with management and the independent public accountants, the audit committee recommended to the board of directors, and the board approved, the inclusion of the audited financial statements in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The audit committee has also selected Ernst & Young LLP as independent public accountants for 2008. The board has proposed that the stockholders ratify this selection at the annual meeting.

 

Robert N. Wilson, Chairman

Edith E. Holiday

Risa Lavizzo-Mourey

Craig G. Matthews

John H. Mullin

Frank A. Olson

 

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

 

On December 14, 2007, the company filed a Form 4 on behalf of Mr. Lawrence Ornstein, a senior vice president of the company, reporting his sale of 5,000 shares of the company’s common stock on December 4, 2007. This sale should have been reported on Form 4 by December 6, 2007. Mr. Ornstein notified appropriate company personnel of the sale in sufficient time to make a timely filing. However, company personnel inadvertently did not make the filing in a timely manner.

 

Executive Compensation and Other Information

 

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

 

Total Compensation Objectives and Policies

 

The compensation and management development committee of the board of directors approves and oversees our executive compensation programs. The objective of our executive compensation programs is to attract and retain executives and motivate them to achieve our business goals through a combination of cash and stock-based compensation. We attempt to reinforce the link between pay and performance by putting a portion of executive compensation at risk, so that executives are rewarded if corporate, business unit and individual performance goals are achieved. Moreover, the committee believes that a significant portion of compensation should be related to our common stock in order to align senior management interests more closely with those of our stockholders and to provide incentives to work for the long-term profitable growth of the company. The principal elements of an executive’s total compensation consist of:

 

 

However, we also review other elements of compensation, including retirement benefits, life insurance, savings, health and welfare plans and other benefits offered to employees generally in order to value the entire compensation package offered to executives.

 

Processes and Procedures for Determining Compensation and Role of Compensation Consultants

 

The compensation and management development committee has exclusive authority for approving the compensation of the chief executive officer and the other named executive officers. The human resources department, acting under the supervision of the chief executive officer, develops compensation recommendations for all officers and employees, including the named executive officers, in accordance with the compensation objectives and policies more fully described elsewhere in this compensation discussion and analysis.

 

To assist its review of the compensation recommendations, the committee has engaged the firm of Towers Perrin as compensation consultant. In this capacity, Towers Perrin reports exclusively to the compensation and management development committee, which has sole authority to hire, dismiss and approve the terms of engagement of the consultant. In late 2007, the company engaged International Survey Research, an affiliate of Towers Perrin, to develop a customized worldwide employee survey that will be implemented and compiled in 2008.

 

Although the consultant interacts with senior executives in our human resources department and with senior management in developing compensation recommendations, the consultant meets privately with the committee in advising on compensation levels for the chief executive officer and the other named executive officers. Final decisions on compensation for these individuals are made solely by the committee.

 

The compensation consultant’s principal responsibility is to advise the compensation and management development committee on compensation recommendations for the named

executive officers, as well as on general matters relating to executive compensation strategy and programs. The compensation consultant also compiles and assists in analyzing survey data from comparative groups used for analysis of competitive compensation levels.

 

The compensation recommendations are reviewed annually by the compensation and management development committee, usually at its February meeting. The chief executive officer meets with the compensation and management development committee and the compensation consultant to review compensation recommendations for executive officers directly reporting to him, including the other named executive officers. Thereafter, the compensation and management development committee meets privately with the compensation consultant to review the compensation recommendations. The compensation and management development committee then determines the executives’ compensation based on the advice of the compensation consultant in accordance with the compensation objectives and policies described below.

 

In accordance with its charter, the corporate governance and nominating committee periodically reviews and determines appropriate levels of compensation for directors. To assist in conducting this review and making these determinations, this committee has engaged a consultant, Mercer Human Resources Consulting, to compile comparative data and make recommendations. The corporate governance and nominating committee last reviewed director compensation in September 2006.

 

Total Compensation Methodology and Comparator Group

 

In order to ensure that our compensation and benefit programs are competitive within our industry, the committee reviews data from a comparative group of companies. In 2007, for the named executive officers, comparative data was collected by the compensation consultants from the following group of oil and gas companies:

 

• Anadarko Petroleum Corporation		• Marathon Oil Corporation
• Apache Corporation		• Murphy Oil Corp.
• Ashland Inc.		• Occidental Petroleum Corporation
• BP plc		• Shell Oil Corporation
• Chevron Corporation		• Sunoco, Inc.
• Conoco Phillips		• Tesoro Petroleum Corporation
• Devon Energy Corporation		• The Williams Companies, Inc.
• ExxonMobil Corporation		• Valero Energy Corporation

 

Total Direct Compensation

 

Generally, our objective is to deliver top-tier total direct compensation, consisting of cash salary, cash bonus and long term equity compensation, if specified corporate and business unit performance metrics and individual performance objectives are met. We choose to pay this level of compensation in order to remain competitive in attracting and retaining talented executives. Many of our competitors are significantly larger and have financial resources greater than our own. The competition for experienced, technically proficient executive talent in the oil and gas industry is currently particularly acute, as companies seek to draw from a limited pool of such executives to explore for and develop hydrocarbons that increasingly are in more remote areas and are technologically more difficult to access. We believe that it is necessary to pay at this level to attract talented professionals who might otherwise believe that

they are not sufficiently rewarded for the risk of relocating from a larger to a smaller competitor in the oil and gas industry. Variations in total direct compensation among the named executive officers reflect differences in competitive pay for their positions as well as the size and complexity of the business units or functions they oversee, the performance of those business units or functions and individual performance.

 

We structure total direct compensation to the named executive officers so that most of this compensation is delivered in the form of equity awards in order to provide incentives to work toward long-term profitable growth that will enhance stockholder returns. We also structure their cash compensation so that a significant portion is at risk under the cash bonus plan, payable based on corporate, business unit and individual performance. In the following sections, we further detail each component of total direct compensation. The graphs below illustrate the portions of total direct compensation of each of the named executive officers paid as salary, annual cash incentive and long-term equity incentive compensation for 2007:

 

 

 

In determining base salary level for executive officers, the committee considers the following qualitative and quantitative factors:

 

 

We review base salaries annually, but we do not necessarily award salary increases each year. From time to time base salaries may be adjusted other than as a result of an annual review, in order to address competitive pressures or in connection with a promotion.

 

In February 2007 the committee approved cash salary increases averaging 6% for our executive officers. The salary increases for each of the named executive officers were as follows: Mr. Hess, 8%; Mr. O’Connor, 9%; Mr. Walker, 6%; Mr. Collins, 3%; and Mr. Rielly, 6%. These increases were approved in view of the company’s improved financial and operational performance and individual performance in 2006.

 

Elements of Cash Bonus Plan. The annual cash bonus plan for executive officers has both quantitative and qualitative elements. We establish a target bonus for each executive officer, based on his or her job level and responsibility and competitive levels for similar positions. For executive officers, including the named executive officers:

 

 

We developed these weightings to link two-thirds of the bonus to quantifiable performance measures but also to permit discretion to recognize individual performance. Payouts may range from 0% to 150% for each component of the target bonus, depending upon the percent of attainment of the corporate and business unit performance measures and, with respect to the individual performance component, the committee’s determination of an appropriate amount. In determining the individual performance component, the committee may also take into consideration the desired level of total direct compensation for a particular executive officer.

 

Determination of Metrics. Business unit metrics vary from exploration and production and marketing and refining and also vary among units within each division. Business unit metrics for exploration and production executives may include, for example, reserve replacement, production growth, and controllable cost. Metrics for marketing and refining executives may include, for example, sales, income and net operating cost. The specific targeted levels of corporate and business unit performance that are to be attained are established with the intention of motivating continued improved performance in an effort to attain first quartile performance compared to our peers. For the years 2004 through 2007, attainment of maximum payout on the business unit metrics for exploration and production and marketing and refining on average was never achieved, and attainment of target payout on business unit metrics for marketing and refining was not achieved in three of those years.

 

Assessment of Individual Performance. We assess individual performance on a discretionary basis in view of specific performance objectives developed for each executive at the beginning of each year. Each executive’s manager, in consultation with the executive, develops a set of strategic, financial and operational objectives that the executive will attempt to achieve during that year. At the end of the year, the manager reviews with the executive the extent to which each of these objectives was attained. The chief executive officer conducts these performance reviews for the other named executive officers and makes compensation recommendations to the committee based on these reviews. The committee then reviews the chief executive officer’s attainment of his performance objectives. Attainment of an executive’s performance objectives influences not only the individual performance component of his or her annual cash bonus, but also the levels of long-term equity compensation and base salary.

 

2007 Cash Bonus Plan Payouts. Payouts to the named executive officers for corporate and business unit performance are shown in column (g), and payouts for individual

performance are shown in column (d), of the Summary Compensation Table. In 2007, the company attained maximum payout on the corporate performance goal. The amount of the corporate goal attained in 2007 was $2,067,000,000, which is determined by adding net income as shown on page 45 of our 2007 annual report on Form 10-K, certain items of income (expense) included in net income as shown in the first table on page 21 of the Form 10-K (expressed as a positive number), and after-tax interest expense as shown in the first table on page 27 of the Form 10-K.

 

Payouts for the business unit component of the 2007 cash bonus were determined as explained below.

 

John J. O’Connor.  Business unit metrics for exploration and production for 2007 included approximately 10 financial and operational metrics. Key metrics that affected exploration and production business unit performance in 2007 were reserve additions, exploration prospect additions, production growth, workplace safety and operating cost and capital expenditure control. We significantly increased our proved reserves, as reflected in our replacing 167% of production in 2007, and added new exploration prospects in Australia, Colombia and the Gulf of Mexico. Performance on these and other metrics resulted in an above-target payout of the business unit component of Mr. O’Connor’s 2007 bonus.

 

F. Borden Walker.  Business unit metrics for marketing and refining included approximately 20 financial and operating metrics. Key metrics that affected marketing and refining business unit performance in 2007 were earnings, controllable cost improvement, and energy marketing growth. Our energy marketing operations significantly increased sales volumes of electricity and natural gas, with electricity volumes doubling from 2006 to 2007. While controllable cost control initiatives were successful in 2007, overall marketing and refining earnings were adversely affected by lower margins prevailing in both the retail marketing and refining industry environments. As a result of performance on these and other metrics, the business unit component of Mr. Walker’s 2007 bonus was below target.

 

John B. Hess, J. Barclay Collins and John P. Rielly.  The business unit component of the cash bonus for corporate staff, including Messrs. Hess, Collins and Rielly, is determined as a composite of business unit performance across the exploration and production and marketing and refining business units. This resulted in a business unit component payout for these named executive officers that was moderately above target for 2007.

 

As explained above, we assess individual performance on a discretionary basis in view of performance objectives developed for each named executive officer at the beginning of each year. Certain objectives in 2007 were common to each of these officers, such as developing succession plans for themselves as well as senior staff within their organizations and overseeing performance evaluation and recruiting and talent management and development programs within their organizations. The committee took note of the considerable progress made in 2007 in these areas, reflected in the finding of replacements for certain key management positions, the successful recruitment of over 300 technical and managerial professionals in a highly competitive environment, a 97% acceptance rate from new hires for exempt positions, the full implementation of new performance management system and of mentoring programs for young professionals. In addition, in assessing individual performance of the named executive officers, the committee considered the achievements described below, together with certain other principally external factors that negatively affected

performance, such as a lower than expected margin environment in marketing and refining and technical drilling challenges and poorer than expected operational performance by contractors and other third parties in exploration and production.

 

John Hess.  Mr. Hess’ key objectives for 2007 were to lead the continued execution of the company’s strategy for long-term profitable growth to increase shareholder value, to pursue strategic business initiatives that create optionality for future growth, to ensure organizational capability through talent and performance management and management succession processes, and to foster and enhance the company’s relationships with its stakeholders, including investors, national oil companies, business partners, employees and countries and communities in which we operate. In 2007, under Mr. Hess’ leadership, the company:

 

 

 

John O’Connor.  Mr. O’Connor’s key objectives for 2007 were to lead the execution of the exploration and production business strategy to profitably grow reserves and production on a sustainable basis and promote operational efficiency through continued business process improvements. In 2007 the company:

 

 

 

F. Borden Walker.  Mr. Walker’s key objectives for 2007 were to lead the execution of the marketing and refining business strategy to generate earnings and free cash flow and drive operational improvements. In 2007 the company:

 

 

 

John Rielly.  Mr. Rielly’s key objectives for 2007 were to oversee the company’s accounting, financial, tax, risk management and information systems functions to improve the company’s financial strength, create greater visibility for senior management to assess financial issues and risks, and to safeguard and enhance the company’s system of internal controls. In 2007 the company:

 

 

J. B. Collins.  Mr. Collins’ key objectives for 2007 were to provide continued leadership of the company’s legal and compliance functions and to further the company’s environment, health, safety and social responsibility programs. In 2007 the company:

 

 

Long-Term Compensation

 

General Objectives. Long-term compensation is a major portion of an executive officer’s total compensation package and is an important incentive and retention tool. The committee has authority to grant a variety of stock-based compensation under the long-term incentive plan, last approved by stockholders in 2004. Awards to executive officers under the plan have consisted of restricted stock and stock options. We believe the combination of these two types of stock awards gives executives considerable incentive to maximize long-term financial growth for stockholders and helps retain individuals necessary for future growth and profitability.

 

Timing of Awards. We have adopted a policy generally to make long-term equity compensation awards annually, at the committee’s regular February meeting. We believe this is the appropriate time to make awards and set prices for options, because it is soon after

the date in late January when we publicly disclose our earnings for the prior fiscal year and other material information. However, the committee retains discretion to vary the timing of awards as it deems appropriate. For example, the committee did not make awards of long-term equity compensation for 2003, following a year in which the company had a net loss, and did not make further awards until June 2004, after stockholders approved an increase in the number of shares authorized for award under the long-term incentive plan. Commencing in 2008, awards of restricted stock and payout of cash bonuses to the named executive officers will be made in early March after our financial statements have been audited by our independent public accountants, as required by our performance incentive plan for senior officers approved by stockholders in 2006 to permit deductibility of these compensation expenses under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. Awards of options and restricted stock to newly-hired employees and special merit awards to existing employees are made on the date of the next regularly scheduled board meeting following commencement of employment or the date management recommends a special award. Prior to the adoption of our current policy, awards to newly-hired employees were granted by the committee on the date they commenced employment. Option exercise prices have not been set on any date other than the date of grant. The committee has never opportunistically selected grant dates to achieve more favorable option exercise prices, nor have options ever been repriced to increase the value of an award.

 

Terms of Awards. Restricted stock awards generally vest in three years from the date of grant and options vest pro-rata over a three-year period and remain exercisable until 10 years after the date of grant. We believe these vesting periods promote retention and are consistent with market practices. The exercise price of an option is set at the closing market price on the date of grant, and the option may not be repriced or adjusted, except to reflect customary anti-dilution adjustments, such as for a stock split or stock dividend.

 

Shares of restricted stock are issued and outstanding from the date of grant, but are held in escrow until the vesting date. Restricted shares are therefore entitled to dividends if and when paid on shares of common stock generally. Dividends accrued on shares of restricted stock, together with interest on these dividends at short-term market rates, are paid upon vesting. For accounting purposes, in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, the expense associated with a restricted stock award is the fair value of the award on the date of grant and this expense is amortized over the vesting period. Expense associated with a stock option award is the grant date fair value determined using a Black-Scholes valuation model, and this expense is also amortized over its vesting period, also in accordance with this standard.

 

Value of Awards. We structure long-term compensation awards to deliver value through a mix of restricted stock and stock options, based on grant date valuations. We believe this approach balances the goals of retention and motivating performance and also reflects our desired level of annual share utilization. Annual grant levels depend on the company’s performance as well as comparative market data. As with cash compensation, we aim to provide long-term awards such that together with cash compensation, total direct compensation is valued to deliver top-tier compensation if specified performance criteria and individual performance objectives are met. The committee bases individual award levels on comparative market data for the executive’s job level and individual performance. In

making awards to any individual the committee does not consider his or her gains made, or failure to achieve gains, on prior restricted stock or option awards.

 

2006 Awards. In February 2007, the committee granted stock options and restricted stock in an aggregate amount of approximately 3.8 million shares. Since these awards, including those shown for the named executive officers in the Summary Compensation Table, were made in early 2007, they reflect 2006, not 2007, performance. The awards of restricted stock and stock options to the chief executive officer and named executive officers were consistent with our objective to deliver top-tier total direct compensation if corporate, business unit and individual performance objectives are met. We believe these levels were warranted given the company’s continued financial and operational improvements during 2006.

 

Other Benefits

 

We have adopted certain broad-based employee benefits plans in which executive officers are permitted to participate on the same terms as other eligible employees of the company, subject to applicable limits imposed on contributions and benefits under applicable law. We believe it is necessary to maintain these plans to remain competitive with the overall compensation packages offered by other companies in the oil and gas industry. Our objective is that the value of these benefits approximates the middle tier of that offered by other oil and gas companies. In addition to group life insurance and health and welfare plans, we have a savings plan under which participants can elect to invest (subject to contribution limits imposed by law) up to 25% of pre-tax salary in a variety of funds, one of which invests in our common stock, and the company provides matching contributions up to 6% of pre-tax salary for each participant, which are invested at the discretion of the participant.

 

As explained later in this proxy statement, we have a qualified defined benefit pension plan, and a non-qualified supplemental plan that provides only the benefits that would otherwise be paid to participants under the qualified pension plan but for limitations imposed by the Internal Revenue Code. The committee has granted additional years of credited service under our supplemental pension plan (the restoration plan referred to in the Pension Benefits table) to Messrs. O’Connor, Walker and Rielly as part of the compensation packages necessary to recruit them. The additional years of service are equal to their service with their prior employers and their supplemental benefits are offset by their pension benefits from their prior employers. Mr. O’Connor had 33 years of oil industry experience prior to joining the company, having previously been the head of global exploration and production at Texaco. The committee believed that a seasoned senior executive of Mr. O’Connor’s stature would not have joined the company without the award of credited service and could have been offered a similar award by one of the company’s competitors. Similarly, Messrs. Walker and Rielly had more than 19 and 16.5 years experience with Mobil Oil Corporation and Ernst & Young, LLP, respectively. Each of these executives had successful careers at their prior employers and would have continued to accrue years of service under the pension plans of their prior employers. Again, the committee believed that awards of credited service were necessary to compensate these executives for the loss of pension benefits and to induce them to join the company.

 

The company did not provide perquisites valued at $10,000 or more to named executive officers in 2007.

Change in Control Agreements

 

As explained in greater detail later in this proxy statement, we have change in control agreements for certain executives, including the named executive officers, that provide for a lump sum cash payment equal to a multiple of the executive’s compensation if (1) there is a change of control, as defined in the agreements, and (2) the executive is actually or constructively terminated within 24 months following a change in control, as well as other benefits. In view of continuing consolidation within the oil and gas industry, we believe these agreements are necessary to remain competitive with the overall compensation packages afforded by other companies in the oil and gas industry. We also believe these agreements work to provide security to executives, many of whom would have key roles in effecting or resisting a potential change in control transaction, and motivate them to act in the best long-term interests of all stockholders.

 

Management Stock Ownership Guidelines and Hedging Policy

 

In order to further align the interests of management and stockholders, following approval and recommendation by the committee, the board of directors approved management stock ownership guidelines for corporate officers of the company. The guidelines require that each officer attain a specified level of ownership of shares of the company’s common stock, as set forth below, equal in value to a multiple of the officer’s base salary within five years of the later of the date of adoption of the guidelines and the officer’s first election to his or her office:

 

 

The committee has authority to determine the types of stockholdings that will be counted for determining stock ownership and otherwise administer the guidelines. Currently, shares owned outright by an executive and stock held in an executive’s savings plan account are counted for purposes of determining stock ownership levels. Stock options and unvested restricted stock, however, are not counted. Each of these officers has attained, or is making progress in attaining, his or her required level of ownership.

 

We do not permit executive officers to trade in equity derivative instruments in order to hedge the economic risks of holding the company’s stock. The purpose of these guidelines is to align the interests, including the economic risk of ownership, of management and stockholders. This intent would be undermined if executives were to insulate themselves from economic loss on their stock.

 

Deductibility of Compensation Expense for Named Executive Officers

 

Generally, we deduct compensation expense on our federal corporate income tax return. However, Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code disallows deductions by corporations for certain compensation expense to the chief executive officer and the three other most highly paid executive officers, other than the chief executive officer and chief financial officer in excess of $1 million in any year. In 2006, stockholders approved a performance incentive plan for senior officers to permit deductibility of compensation expense for restricted stock

and cash bonuses. The plan limits awards of incentive cash compensation and restricted and deferred stock granted in any year to each participant to 1%, and to all participants in the aggregate to 5%, of adjusted net cash flow from operations for the prior year minus a specified amount of not less than $550 million. The plan is not intended to increase award levels beyond those that the committee would otherwise approve consistent with its compensation policies described previously. Participants in the plan include the named executive officers and any other senior officers that the committee may designate. For 2007, the aggregate value of cash bonus and restricted stock awards for each of the named executive officers was substantially less than the maximum amount permitted for each of those individuals. The committee exercised discretion to award aggregate amounts of cash bonus and restricted stock less than that amount for each of the named executive officers consistent with its policies previously explained. The plan does not cover stock options, because they already qualify as performance-based compensation under this section of the code. Cash salary in excess of $1 million to any named executive officer in any year is not deductible. We believe it is important for the committee to retain discretion to pay types and amounts of compensation even if it is not deductible, as it deems appropriate.

 

Conclusion

 

We believe that our compensation philosophy and programs align with the interests of the company and shareholders, link compensation to corporate performance and assist in attracting and retaining talented executives. The committee will continue to monitor our programs to ensure that they are consistent with our compensation objectives and policies.

 

Compensation Committee Report

 

The compensation and management development committee of the board of directors of the company has reviewed and discussed the compensation discussion and analysis with management, and based on this review and discussion, the compensation and management development committee recommended to the board of directors that the compensation discussion and analysis be included in this proxy statement and incorporated by reference into the 2007 annual report on Form 10-K.

 

Thomas H. Kean, Chairman

Nicholas F. Brady

Frank A. Olson

Ernst H. von Metzsch

Robert N. Wilson

 

  Summary of Compensation

 

The following table sets forth information regarding compensation paid or accrued for the last two fiscal years to the chief executive officer, the chief financial officer and the three other most highly compensated executive officers, for services in all capacities to the company and its subsidiaries.

 

Summary Compensation Table

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On February 7, 2007, the compensation and management development committee approved awards of non-qualified stock options and restricted stock and established target bonuses. The following table sets forth information concerning possible payouts under the annual cash bonus plan for 2007 and individual grants of stock options and restricted stock made under the incentive plan for the last fiscal year to each of the named executive officers:

 

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

 

 

 

 

We have no employment agreements with our named executive officers other than agreements relating to credited service discussed under “Pension Benefits” and change of control agreements discussed under “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control.”

 

The stock options shown in the “All Other Option Awards” column of the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table vest in three equal installments on the first, second and third anniversaries of the grant date, except that options may become exercisable earlier in full in cases of death, disability, normal retirement or change in control. At the discretion of the compensation and management development committee, upon early retirement of an awardee, options not then exercisable may become exercisable in proportion to the calendar days

elapsed in the vesting period up to the early retirement date. The options remain exercisable until the tenth anniversary of the date of grant, except in cases of termination of employment for reasons other than death, disability or normal retirement, in which case options remain exercisable only for specified periods. If a grantee’s employment terminates (other than by reason of death, disability or retirement) before these options become exercisable, they will be forfeited. The shares of restricted stock shown in the “All Other Stock Awards” column of the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table (i) vest on the third anniversary of the grant date, except that they may vest earlier upon retirement, death, disability or a change in control (with proportional vesting of restricted stock in the case of early retirement at the discretion of the committee) and (ii) dividends on the shares are accrued and held in escrow until the vesting date, at which time they are paid with interest at short-term market rates (the dividends are forfeited if the shares of restricted stock are forfeited).

 

Non-equity incentive plan awards are discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis under the heading “Cash Compensation — Cash Bonus Plan.”

 

 

The following table shows outstanding equity awards held by the named executive officers at the end of the last fiscal year. The market value of shares of unvested restricted stock shown in column (g) is determined by multiplying the number of shares shown in column (f) by the closing price of the company’s common stock at the end of the last fiscal year.

 

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End

 

 

The following table sets forth information as to the named executives regarding the exercise of stock options and the vesting of restricted stock under the incentive plan during the last fiscal year:

 

Option Exercises and Stock Vested

 

Pension Benefits

 

The following table shows the number of years of credited service and present value of the accumulated benefit under these plans as of the end of the last fiscal year for each of the named executive officers.

 

 

 

We maintain an employees’ pension plan, a qualified defined benefit plan under the Internal Revenue Code, and a non-qualified supplemental plan, called the pension restoration plan, that provides benefits that would otherwise be payable to participants under the employees’ pension plan but for limitations imposed by the Internal Revenue Code, with certain modifications discussed below. Employees participate after one year of service in the employees’ pension plan and vest in a retirement benefit after five years of service. Annual retirement benefits for a participant at normal retirement age are determined by multiplying 1.6% of the participant’s final average compensation by his or her years of service and are then reduced by an offset for social security benefits. Under the employees’ pension plan, final average compensation is the average of any three years of highest annual compensation (consisting of salary and cash bonus as shown in columns (c), (d) and (g) of the Summary Compensation Table) paid to the participant during the 10 years immediately preceding his or her retirement date. Under the restoration plan, final average compensation is the average of any three years of highest annual salary (as shown in column (c) of the Summary Compensation Table) plus the average of any three years of highest cash bonus (as shown in columns (d) and (g) of the Summary Compensation Table) paid to the participant during the 10 years immediately preceding his or her retirement date.

 

Normal retirement under the plans means retirement at age 65, but a participant retiring from active service is entitled to an unreduced benefit at age 60. A participant may elect early

retirement if the participant is at least 55 years old and has 10 years of service. Mr. Collins is the only named executive officer currently eligible for early retirement under the employees’ pension plan, and Messrs. Collins and O’Connor are the only named executive officers eligible for early retirement under the restoration plan. The Company awarded credited service for prior employment under the restoration plan for Messrs. O’Connor, Walker and Rielly for the reasons discussed in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis”. Under both plans, retirement benefits paid upon early retirement from active service at the age of 55 are reduced by 25% of the retirement benefit otherwise payable, with proportionately lower reductions for early retirement between ages 55 and 60. Early retirement reductions are greater if employment terminates prior to age 55. Retirement benefits under the employees’ pension plan are payable as a straight life annuity or in other forms of annuities actuarially equivalent to a straight life annuity. Retirement benefits under the restoration plan are payable as a lump sum 6 months after retirement. A participant’s right to payment under the restoration plan constitutes a general unsecured claim against the company.

 

The valuation method and material assumptions used in quantifying the present value of the accumulated benefit shown in the table are explained in Note 10. Retirement Plans, to our consolidated financial statements in our annual report on Form 10-K for year ended December 31, 2007. As explained in footnotes to the table above and in the compensation discussion and analysis, Messrs. O’Connor, Rielly and Walker were granted years of credited service under the restoration plan for employment with prior employers by the compensation and management development committee. Retirement benefits payable under the restoration plan are offset by retirement benefits payable by their prior employers.

 

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

 

 

 

We maintain a deferred compensation plan for certain highly-paid employees selected by us as eligible to participate under which a participant may elect in advance of any year to defer payment of up to 50% of salary and 100% of cash bonus payable for that year to a date no earlier than three years from the date of election, except that payments may be made earlier in the case of termination, death, disability, retirement or a change of control. Amounts deferred are deemed invested in investment vehicles identical to those offered under our qualified employees’ savings and stock bonus plan as the participant elects, except that the deferred compensation plan does not offer a fund for investing in the company’s stock, and earnings thereon are payable together with the deferred compensation. Payments may be made in a lump sum or in annual installments over a five year period, as the participant elects. The right

of any participant to receive a payment constitutes a general unsecured claim against the company.

 

Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control

 

Termination

 

In the event any of the named executive officers had terminated employment at the end of the last fiscal year, the officer would be entitled to the officer’s accumulated retirement benefits in accordance with the provisions of our retirement plans as described under “Pension Benefits” on page 25. Retirement benefits under the employees’ pension plan are payable solely in the form of an annuity. Retirement benefits under the restoration plan are payable only in the form of a lump sum.

 

Mr. Collins would also be entitled to the amount shown in the “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation” table on page 26. In addition, because Mr. Collins was eligible for early retirement under the employees’ pension plan, a pro rata portion of his unvested equity awards would become vested at the discretion of the compensation and management development committee based on the number of calendar days elapsed in the applicable vesting period and he would be entitled to exercise all vested stock options until the option expiration date shown in the “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End” table on pages 23 and 24.

 

Each named executive officer other than Mr. Collins would also be entitled to exercise the stock options shown in the “Option Awards — Exercisable” column of the “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End” table on pages 23 and 24 for a period of 60 days from the date of termination. If any of the named executive officers had terminated employment due to death or disability (i) stock options in the “Option Awards — Unexercisable” column of the “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End” table would have become fully exercisable, (ii) all stock options in the “Option Awards” columns of that table would remain exercisable until the option expiration date shown in the table, and (iii) all restricted stock awards listed in that table would have become fully vested. See that table for the market value of the unvested shares of restricted stock at the end of the last fiscal year.

 

Change in Control

 

Equity Awards.  In the event of a change in control of the company, pursuant to the incentive plan all unexercisable stock options and all nonvested shares of restricted stock awarded to the named executive officers would immediately become fully exercisable and vested. See the “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End” table on pages 23 and 24 for the number of unexercisable options and unvested shares of restricted stock held by each named executive officer at the end of the last fiscal year. The named executive officers would also be able to exercise the stock options shown in the “Option Awards-Exercisable” column of that table.

 

For purposes of the incentive plan “change in control” means (i) acquisition by a person or group of 20% or more of the company’s common stock or voting securities, (ii) a change in majority of the board of directors, (iii) shareholder approval of a reorganization, merger or consolidation in which the owners of the company’s common stock and voting securities

immediately prior to the transaction do not own more than 51%, respectively, of the common stock and voting securities of the surviving entity, or (iv) shareholder approval of a liquidation, dissolution or sale of all or substantially all of the company’s assets in which the owners of the company’s common stock and voting securities immediately prior to the transaction do not own more than 51%, respectively, of the common stock and voting securities of the surviving entity.

 

Severance Payments.  The company has entered into change in control termination benefit agreements with executive officers and certain other officers of the company. These agreements provide for lump sum cash payments equal to a multiple of an executive’s annual compensation if within 24 months following a change in control the employment of the executive is terminated by the executive for good reason or by the company without cause. For these purposes, annual compensation consists of the executive’s base pay at the date of his termination or immediately before the change in control, whichever is higher, plus the greater of his or her target bonus for the year in which the change in control occurs or the highest bonus earned in the three fiscal years preceding the change in control. The multiple of annual compensation received is three times for the named executive officers (other than Mr. Rielly) and two times for Mr. Rielly and all other officers with whom such agreements were made.

 

In addition, the executive is entitled to receive a pro rata portion of his or her target bonus for the fiscal year in which termination occurs, and continuation of medical, dental and other welfare benefits. The benefits continuation period is 36 months following termination for the named executive officers (other than Mr. Rielly) and 24 months following termination for Mr. Rielly and all other officers with whom such agreements were entered into. The agreements provide for immediate vesting of retirement benefits upon termination, deemed age and service credit in determining retirement benefits for the number of years equal to the severance multiple, and deemed compensation in determining retirement benefits equal to the salary and bonus taken into account in determining the lump sum severance payment. The named executive officers are also entitled to a “gross-up” payment from the company for any “golden parachute” excise tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code on “excess parachute payments” resulting from a change in control.

 

Value of Change in Control Payments and Benefits.  Set forth below is the estimated value, assuming that a change in control occurred at the end of the last fiscal year and the employment of each named executive officer terminated on that date under circumstances entitling them to severance payments and benefits under the change in control termination benefit agreements, as well as the value of their unvested equity awards at the end of the last fiscal year.

 

 

 

The amounts in the table above were calculated: assuming a change in control occurred on December 31, 2007; using the closing price of our common stock on December 31, 2007 (the last trading day of our fiscal year) of $100.86 per share; using the intrinsic value of stock options (i.e., the result of multiplying the number of unvested options by the difference between the December 31, 2007 closing price of our common stock and the exercise price) and for purpose of the golden parachute excise tax (i) assuming each of the named executive officers is subject to the maximum federal and state income tax rates, (ii) using the applicable federal rates for December 2007 to calculate the present values of accelerated payments and (iii) assuming that the five-year period for determining the average total compensation of each named executive officer (i.e., the base amount under the golden parachute rules) ended on December 31, 2006.

 

The definition of “change in control” under the termination benefits agreements is substantially similar to the definition of change in control in the incentive plan, except that the change in a majority of board of directors must occur within a 24-month period, the applicable event for reorganization, merger or consolidation is consummation rather than shareholder approval, and the exception for reorganization, merger, consolidation, liquidation, dissolution and asset sale is 60% rather than 51%.

 

For purposes of these agreements, good reason is defined as a failure to maintain the executive in the office or position held immediately prior to the change in control (or a substantially equivalent position), the removal of the executive as a director if the executive was a director immediately prior to the change in control, a material adverse change in the nature or scope of the executive’s authorities, responsibilities or duties, a reduction in base salary or target annual bonus, termination of the ability of the executive to participate in the company’s welfare benefit plans or retirement plans as in effect immediately prior to the change in control or a material reduction in the scope or value of those welfare or retirement benefits, a relocation of the executive’s principal work location of more than 30 miles from the executive’s location immediately prior to the change in control, or an increase in the

executive’s required business travel of more than 20% (based on days in any calendar quarter or year) than required in any of the three full years immediately prior to the change in control. Cause for purposes of these agreements is defined as conviction of a felony, gross and willful misconduct by the executive in performing the executive’s duties, or willful and continued failure of the executive to substantially perform the executive’s duties after written demand.

Director Compensation

 

The following table shows compensation paid to directors in 2007.

 

 

 

In 2007, each director who was not an employee of the company or any of its subsidiaries received an annual fee of $75,000 for membership on the board of directors and a fee of $2,000 for each board of directors’ and stockholders’ meeting attended. These directors received an additional annual fee of $5,000 for membership on each committee of the board of directors on which such director served, except for audit committee members who each received an annual fee of $7,500, and a fee of $2,000 for each committee meeting, and in the case of audit committee members each quarterly financial review, attended. The chairperson of each committee received an annual fee of $7,500, except for the chairman of the audit committee, who received an annual fee of $15,000. In addition, in February 2007 each non-employee director received 2,820 shares of common stock (constituting approximately $150,000 in value on the date of award). These awards are made from shares purchased by the company in the open market.

Ownership of Voting Securities by Certain Beneficial Owners

 

The following table sets forth, as of the most recent practicable date, information as to the ownership of more than 5% of any class of the company’s voting securities by beneficial owners known by the company to hold more than 5% of any such class:

 

 

(a) The information in this table and in the notes thereto was obtained, with respect to FMR LLC and Janus Capital Management LLC (“Janus Capital”), from Schedules 13G filed by such reporting persons with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March and February 2008. Information with respect to Messrs. Hess, Brady and Kean is as of March 5, 2008, with respect to FMR LLC is as of March 10, 2008 and with respect to Mr. Schreyer and Janus Capital is as of December 31, 2007. The individual amounts and percentages shown for Messrs. Hess, Brady, Kean and Schreyer should not be added because they reflect shared beneficial ownership.

 

(b) This amount includes 11,133,229 shares held by a charitable lead annuity trust established under the will of Leon Hess. Mr. John B. Hess has sole voting power over the stock held by this trust and shares dispositive power over such stock with Messrs. Schreyer, Brady and Kean.

 

(c) This amount includes 8,282,686 shares held by a limited partnership. Messrs. Hess, Brady and Kean serve on the management committee of the general partner of this limited partnership and share voting and dispositive power with respect to shares held by the limited partnership.

 

(d) This amount includes 6,436,881 shares held by the Hess Foundation, Inc. of which Messrs. Hess, Kean and Schreyer are directors and as to which Mr. Hess has sole voting power and shares dispositive power with Messrs. Kean and Schreyer.

 

(e) This amount includes:

 

 

(f) This amount includes:

 

 

(g) This amount includes 157,974 shares held directly by Mr. Brady, as to which he has sole voting and dispositive power, 6,000 shares held by a limited liability company of which Mr. Brady is the managing member and as to which he has sole voting and dispositive power. This amount also includes 9,966 shares held by two trusts of which Mr. Brady is a co-trustee, and 24,915 shares held by a charitable foundation in each case as to which Mr. Brady shares voting and dispositive power.

 

(h) This amount includes 24,444 shares held directly by Mr. Kean, as to which he has sole voting and dispositive power.

 

(i) Fidelity Management & Research Company (“Fidelity”), 82 Devonshire Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, a wholly-owned subsidiary of FMR LLC and an investment adviser registered under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, is the beneficial

owner of 34,552,969 shares or 10.778% of the common stock outstanding of the company as a result of acting as investment adviser to various investment companies registered under Section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

 

Edward C. Johnson 3d and FMR LLC, through its control of Fidelity, and the funds each has sole power to dispose of the 34,552,969 shares owned by the Funds.

 

Members of the family of Edward C. Johnson 3d, Chairman of FMR LLC, are the predominant owners, directly or through trusts, of Series B voting common shares of FMR LLC, representing 49% of the voting power of FMR LLC. The Johnson family group and all other Series B shareholders have entered into a shareholders’ voting agreement under which all Series B voting common shares will be voted in accordance with the majority vote of Series B voting common shares. Accordingly, through their ownership of voting common shares and the execution of the shareholders’ voting agreement, members of the Johnson family may be deemed, under the Investment Company Act of 1940, to form a controlling group with respect to FMR LLC.

 

Neither FMR LLC nor Edward C. Johnson 3d, Chairman of FMR LLC, has the sole power to vote or direct the voting of the shares owned directly by the Fidelity Funds, which power resides with the Funds’ Boards of Trustees. Fidelity carries out the voting of the shares under written guidelines established by the Funds’ Boards of Trustees.

 

Strategic Advisers, Inc., 82 Devonshire Street, Boston, MA 02109, a wholly-owned subsidiary of FMR LLC and an investment adviser registered under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, provides investment advisory services to individuals. As such, FMR LLC’s beneficial ownership includes 2,440 shares, or 0.001%, of the common stock outstanding of the company, beneficially owned through Strategic Advisers, Inc.

 

Pyramis Global Advisors, LLC (“PGALLC”), 53 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of FMR LLC and an investment adviser registered under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, is the beneficial owner of 20,600 shares or 0.006% of the outstanding common stock of the company as a result of its serving as investment adviser to institutional accounts, non-U.S. mutual funds, or investment companies registered under Section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 owning such shares.

 

Edward C. Johnson 3d and FMR LLC, through its control of PGALLC, each has sole dispositive power over 20,600 shares and sole power to vote or to direct the voting of 20,600 shares of common stock owned by the institutional accounts or funds advised by PGALLC as reported above.

 

Pyramis Global Advisors Trust Company (“PGATC”), 53 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of FMR LLC and a bank as defined in Section 3(a)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, is the beneficial owner of 278,487 shares or 0.087% of the outstanding common stock of the company as a result of its serving as investment manager of institutional accounts owning such shares.

 

Edward C. Johnson 3d and FMR LLC, through its control of Pyramis Global Advisors Trust Company, each has sole dispositive power over 278,487 shares and sole power to vote or to direct the voting of 274,087 shares of common stock owned by the institutional accounts managed by PGATC as reported above.

 

FIL Limited, formerly known as Fidelity International Limited (“FIL”), Pembroke Hall, 42 Crow Lane, Hamilton, Bermuda, and various foreign-based subsidiaries provide investment advisory and management services to a number of non-U.S. investment companies and certain institutional investors. FIL, which is a qualified institution under section 240.13d-1(b)(1) pursuant to an SEC no-action letter dated October 5, 2000, is the beneficial owner of 540,800 shares or 0.169% of the common stock outstanding of the company.

 

Partnerships controlled predominantly by members of the family of Edward C. Johnson 3d, Chairman of FMR LLC and FIL, or trusts for their benefit, own shares of FIL voting stock with the right to cast approximately 47% of the total votes which may be cast by all holders of FIL voting stock. FMR LLC and FIL are separate and independent corporate entities, and their boards of directors are generally composed of different individuals.

 

FMR LLC and FIL are of the view that they are not acting as a “group” for purposes of Section 13(d) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”) and that they are not otherwise required to attribute to each other the “beneficial ownership” of securities “beneficially owned” by the other corporation within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 promulgated under the 1934 Act. Therefore, they are of the view that the shares held by the other corporation need not be aggregated for purposes of Section 13(d). However, FMR LLC is making this filing on a voluntary basis as if all of the shares are beneficially owned by FMR LLC and FIL on a joint basis.

 

FIL has sole dispositive power over 540,800 shares owned by the international funds. FIL has sole power to vote or direct the voting of 527,500 shares and no power to vote or direct the voting of 13,300 shares of Common Stock held by the International Funds as reported above.

 

(j) Janus Capital has an indirect 86.5% ownership stake in Enhanced Investment Technologies LLC (“INTECH”) and an indirect 30% ownership stake in Perkins, Wolf, McDonnell and Company, LLC (“Perkins Wolf”). Due to the above ownership structure, holdings for Janus Capital, Perkins Wolf and INTECH are aggregated for purposes of Janus Capital’s filing. Janus Capital, Perkins Wolf and INTECH are registered investment advisers, each furnishing investment advice to various investment companies registered under Section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and to individual and institutional clients (collectively referred to herein as “Managed Portfolios”).

 

As a result of its role as investment adviser or sub-adviser to the Managed Portfolios, Janus Capital may be deemed to be the beneficial owner of 23,669,807 shares or 7.4% of the shares outstanding of common stock held by such Managed Portfolios. However, Janus Capital does not have the right to receive any dividends from, or the proceeds from the sale of, the securities held in the Managed Portfolios and disclaims any ownership associated with such rights.

 

As a result of its role as investment adviser or sub-adviser to the Managed Portfolios, Perkins Wolf may be deemed to be the beneficial owner of 614,867 shares or 0.2% of the shares outstanding of common stock held by such Managed Portfolios. However, Perkins Wolf does not have the right to receive any dividends from, or the proceeds from the sale of, the securities held in the Managed Portfolios and disclaims any ownership associated with