Tag: Exxon Mobil Corp

Jim Cramer’s top 10 things to watch in the stock market Tuesday

Post By Oil and Gas , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My top 10 things to watch Tuesday, May 2

1. DuPont (DD) delivers a first-quarter earnings beat Tuesday, with adjusted earnings-per-share (EPS) of 84 cents, compared with analysts’ forecasts of 80 cents per share. But the materials giant cut its full-year revenue forecast, sending shares nearly 5% lower in premarket trading. DuPont also says it’s agreed to buy Spectrum Plastics Group from AEA Investors for $1.75 billion, in a deal that should be immediately accretive.

2. Club holding Morgan Stanley (MS) is planning to cut 3,000 jobs in the bank’s second round of layoffs in six months, Reuters reported Monday.

3. Tesla (TSLA) raises prices on some models of its electric vehicles in the U.S., China, Japan and Canada. The news come after several rounds of price cuts earlier this year.

4. Citi calls SoFi Technologies‘ (SOFI) post-earnings sell-off “unwarranted,” while reiterating a buy rating and $10-per-share price target. Meanwhile, Wedbush downgrades SOFI to neutral from outperform and lowers its price target to $5 per share, from $8.

5. TD Cowen raises its price target on health insurer Humana (HUM) to $616 per share, from $581, while reiterating an outperform rating. The Club holding last week delivered a first-quarter earnings beat and raised its guidance.

6. Uber Technologies (UBER) reports a first-quarter revenue beat of $8.82 billion, ahead of analysts’ forecasts for $8.72 billion, sending the stock soaring by nearly 10% in premarket trading. The company reports an EPS loss of 8 cents, compared with expectations for a 9 cent-per-share loss, while guiding for gross bookings of $33 billion to $34 billion in the second quarter.

7. BP reports stronger-than-expected first-quarter profits on Tuesday, with its underlying replacement cost profit coming in at $4.96 billion on the back of strong oil-and-gas trading. The British oil major expects to deliver share buybacks totaling $4 billion for the year, at the lower end of its capital expenditure range of $14 billion to $18 billion. Shares of BP were down roughly 5% in premarket trading.

8. Morgan Stanley raises its price target on Exxon Mobil (XOM) to $122 per share, from $118, while reiterating an overweight rating on the stock. The bank cites the U.S. oil major’s record first-quarter profit, which it reported last Friday.

9. Bank of America raises its price target on Brinker International (EAT) to $33 per share, from $29, reflecting a higher market multiple. But the firm maintains its underperform, or sell, rating on EAT stock.

10. The CEO of International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), Arvind Krishna, said the company plans to pause hiring for back-office roles that could be replaced by artificial intelligence (AI) in the coming years. “I could easily see 30% [roughly 7,800 jobs] of that getting replaced by AI and automation over a five-year period,” Krishna told Bloomberg.

(See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust.)

As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade.

THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY, TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER.  NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB.  NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.

Source link

#Jim #Cramers #top #watch #stock #market #Tuesday

Swiss central bank promises regulation review after collapse of Credit Suisse

Post By Oil and Gas , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thomas Jordan, president of the Swiss National Bank (SNB), speaks during the bank’s annual general meeting in Bern, Switzerland, on Friday, April 28, 2023.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The Swiss National Bank on Friday pledged to review banking regulations during its annual general meeting in Bern, following recent turmoil involving Credit Suisse.

Set against a backdrop of protest over its action on climate change and its role in the emergency sale of Credit Suisse to Swiss rival UBS, Thomas Jordan, chairman of the governing board at the SNB, said banking regulation and supervision will have to be reviewed in light of recent events.

“This will require in-depth analysis … quick fixes must be avoided,” he said, according to a statement.

The central bank played a key role in brokering the rescue of Credit Suisse over the course of a chaotic weekend in March, as a flight of deposits and plummeting share price took the 167-year-old institution to the brink of collapse.

The deal remains mired in controversy and legal challenges, particularly over the lack of investor input and the unconventional decision to wipe out 15 billion Swiss francs ($16.8 billion) of Credit Suisse AT1 bonds.

The demise of the country’s second-largest bank fomented widespread discontent and severely damaged Switzerland’s long-held reputation for financial stability. It also came against a febrile political backdrop, with federal elections coming up in October.

Jordan said Friday that future regulation will have to “compel banks to hold sufficient assets which they can pledge or transfer at any time without restriction, and which they can thus deliver as collateral to existing liquidity facilities.” He added that this would mean his central bank could would be able to provide the necessary liquidity, in times of stress, without the need for emergency law.

A shareholder holding a placard reading in German: “Invest in the planet and not in its destruction” takes part in a protest ahead of a general meeting of of the Swiss National Bank (SNB) in Bern on April 28, 2023. (Photo by Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP) (Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

Fabrice Coffrini | Afp | Getty Images

The SNB faced questions and grievances from shareholders about the Credit Suisse situation on Friday, but the country’s network of climate activists also sought to use the central bank’s unwanted spotlight to challenge its investment policies. Activists failed to gain traction with a vote to reprimand the SNB’s investment decisions, with just 0.8% of shareholders backing the move, according to Reuters.

Unlike many major central banks, the SNB operates publicly-traded company, with just over half of its roughly 25 million Swiss franc ($28.1 million) share capital held by public shareholders — including various Swiss cantons (states) and cantonal banks — while the remaining shares are held by private investors.

More than 170 climate activists have now purchased a SNB share, according to the SNB Coalition, a dedicated pressure group spun out of Alliance Climatique Suisse — an umbrella organization representing around 140 Swiss environmental campaign groups.

Around 50 of the activist shareholders were attendance on Friday, and activists had planned to make around a dozen speeches on stage at the AGM, climate campaigner Jonas Kampus told CNBC on Wednesday. Protests were also held outside the event with Reuters reporting that the campaigners totaled 100, leading to tight security.

The group is calling for the SNB to dispose of its stock holdings of “companies that cause serious environmental damage and/or violate fundamental human rights,” pointing to the central bank’s own investment guidelines.

In particular, campaigners have highlighted SNB holdings in Chevron, Shell, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, Repsol, Enbridge and Duke Energy.

Members of a Ugandan community objecting to TotalEnergies’ East African Crude Oil Pipeline, were also set to attend on Friday, with one planning to speak on stage directly to the SNB directorate.

As well as a full exit from fossil fuel investments, activists are demanding that the SNB implement the “one for one rule,” — a capital requirement designed to prevent banks and insurers benefiting from activities that are detrimental for the transition to net zero.

In this context, the SNB would be required to set aside one Swiss franc of its own funds to cover potential losses for each franc allocated to financing new fossil fuel exploration or extraction.

Ahead of the AGM, the central bank declined on legal grounds to schedule three motions tabled by the activists, and said on Wednesday that it would not comment on protest plans, instead directing CNBC to its formal agenda. Yet Kampus suggested that just the process of submitting the motions itself had helped expand public and political awareness of the issues.

“From all sides, there is public pressure and also political pressure that the SNB needs to change things. At this moment, the SNB is really far behind in terms of their actions taken compared to other central banks,” Kampus told CNBC via telephone, adding that the SNB takes a “very conservative view” of its mandate regarding price stability and financial stability, which is “very narrow.”

The shareholders’ cause is also backed by a motion in parliament, with support from lawmakers ranging from the Green Party to the Centre [center-right party], which demands an extension of the SNB’s mandate to cover climate and environmental risks.

“While other central banks around the world are going well beyond the steps taken by the SNB in ​​this respect — the SNB has repeatedly taken the position that its mandate does not give it sufficient leeway to take climate risks fully into account in its decisions and monetary policy instruments,” reads the motion, filed on March 16 by Green Party lawmaker Delphine Klopfenstein Broggini.

Swiss National Bank chair: Maintaining stability is our main goal

“The present parliamentary initiative is intended to ensure this leeway and to make it clear that the SNB must take climate risks into account when conducting monetary policy.”

The motion argues that climate risks are “classified worldwide as significant financial risks that can endanger financial and price stability,” concluding that it is in “Switzerland’s overall interest that the SNB proactively address these issues” as other central banks are seeking to do.

Kampus and his fellow activists hope the national focus on the SNB after the Credit Suisse crisis provides fertile ground to advance concerns about climate risk, which he said poses a risk to the financial system that is “several times larger” than the potential fallout from Credit Suisse’s collapse.

“We feel that there is also a window of opportunity on the SNB side in that they maybe this time are a bit more humble, because they obviously also have done some things wrong in terms of the Credit Suisse crash,” Kampus said.

He noted that the central bank has always asserted that climate risk was incorporated into its models and that there was “no need for further exchange with the public of further transparency.”

Investor who predicted Credit Suisse decline says Swiss banking model is 'damaged'

“Very central to the SNB’s work is that the public just needs to trust them. Trust is something that is very important to the central bank, and to demand trust from the public without leading up to it or supporting it with further evidence that we can trust them in the long run is quite scary, especially when we don’t know what their climate model is,” he said.

The SNB has long argued that its passive investment strategy, which invests in global indexes, is part of its mandate to remain market neutral, and that it is not for the central bank to engage in climate policy. Activists hope mounting political pressure will eventually force a change in legislation to broaden the SNB’s mandate to accommodate climate and human rights as risks to financial and price stability.

UBS and Credit Suisse also faced protests from climate activists at their respective AGMs earlier this month over investment in fossil fuel companies.

Source link

#Swiss #central #bank #promises #regulation #review #collapse #Credit #Suisse

State leaders targeting climate investing have quiet stakes in the fossil fuel industry

Post By Oil and Gas , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In October, Scott Fitzpatrick, then-treasurer of Missouri, announced his state would pull $500 million out of pension funds managed by BlackRock.

He said he would move Missouri’s money away from the asset manager because it was “prioritizing” environmental, social and governance investing over shareholder returns. Fitzpatrick, a Republican who won election as the state’s auditor in November, used his office as treasurer to target BlackRock after years of criticizing Wall Street for a perceived turn toward investing focused on climate and social issues.

As he homed in on BlackRock, Fitzpatrick quietly held a financial stake in a massive fossil fuel company that could suffer from the broader adoption of alternative energy. Fitzpatrick and his wife owned a more than $10,000 stake in Chevron during both of 2022 and 2021, according to his latest financial disclosures filed with the state.

Fitzpatrick is among a group of powerful Republican state leaders who have waged similar fights against environmentally conscious investing as they held personal investments in, or saw political support from, the fossil fuel industry.

A handful of state financial officers who have similarly attacked ESG practices owned stock or bonds in oil, gas or other fossil fuel companies in recent years, according to the latest state financial disclosure reports reviewed by CNBC. Some of the state officials have received campaign donations from fossil fuel companies or their executives.

Climate activists with Stop the Money Pipeline hold a rally in New York City to urge companies to end their support for the proposed Line 3 pipeline project and stop funding fossil fuels and forest destruction, April 17, 2021.

Erik McGregor | LightRocket | Getty Images

State leaders face possible conflicts of interest when they have a chance to see financial gains from the fossil fuel industry as they use their offices to defend the sector — or in some cases move their state’s dollars away from clean-energy investments, government ethics experts told CNBC. As the officials ramp up their criticism of Wall Street investment practices, a lack of state laws requiring regular stock disclosures makes it difficult for the public to monitor what personal stake their representatives could have in the actions they take in office.

Brandon Alexander, the chief of staff to the Missouri auditor’s office, told CNBC in an emailed statement that Fitzpatrick’s publicly traded securities are either in a trust or qualified retirement accounts that are managed by a financial advisor.

“Other than employer sponsored retirement accounts (the entirety of which are invested in target date funds over which he has no control), all of Auditor Fitzpatrick’s publicly traded securities, are held in a trust or in qualified retirement accounts which are actively managed by a financial advisor to whom he gives no direction,” Alexander said. “He has never ‘had private briefings tied back to the fossil fuel industry’ nor does he personally direct or execute trades himself. Auditor Fitzpatrick stands by his criticism of the ESG movement, especially as it relates to the application of ESG standards in the management of public funds.”

Unlike members of Congress, state financial officers in many cases only have to disclose their stock ownership once a year. In some states, they do not have to divulge their investments at all. In contrast with federal lawmakers, they also do not have to file regular records disclosing their new trades.

None of the officials mentioned in this story engaged in illegal conduct. But the fact that they have investments that could be helped by their high-profile campaigns against ESG investing may create trust issues with the people they represent, says ethics experts.

“This is a problem that we have elected officials at the federal and state level that are simply not willing to avoid personal financial conflicts of interest,” Richard Painter, who was the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, told CNBC in an interview. “You could have someone own stock in a company and pursue policy that could benefit that company. What’s good for Exxon Mobil’s stock is not necessarily good for America.”

Painter said that owning such stock is not illegal for state based leaders. Congressional lawmakers are also allowed to own stock but the 2012 STOCK Act disallows members of Congress to use non-public information to gain a profit and prohibits insider trading.

Another government ethics expert also cited an appearance of conflict as an issue for public officials.

“If an official has a financial interest in a company or an industry, it is reasonable to question whether that interest impacts how they approach their government work,” Donald Sherman, a senior vice president and chief counsel for watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNBC in an interview.

The fight against ESG investment standards has become a core issue for some Republicans at the federal and state level. Many of those officials have used their positions to target companies they believe are too politically active or, in some cases, are hurting certain industries, such as fossil fuels.

In the case of state financial officers, they have the power to shift public assets or pension funds away from certain firms and to other institutions.

Vocal ESG critics have fossil fuel ties

Georgia’s state treasurer, Steve McCoy, was appointed by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in 2020. He was among state financial officers, including Fitzpatrick in Missouri, who last year co-signed a letter to President Joe Biden opposing policies that promote ESG. The Biden administration has promoted environmentally conscious investing, and the president used his first veto on a measure that would have shot down a Labor Department rule that promoted ESG policies.

The letter said the state officials “believe the White House should be spearheading a call to invest in American energy instead of pursuing ESG initiatives that divide American energy businesses and discourage investment in these reliable energy industries.” The group went on to say that “freedom is the key to addressing climate change. The depth and breadth of American innovation is unparalleled globally, including the development of green technologies. However, oil, gas, coal, and nuclear are currently the most reliable and plentiful baseload power sources for America and much of the rest of the world.”

McCoy is one of the state financial officers who held an investment in fossil fuels. He had a stake in the industry as recently as 2020 — though changes in disclosure rules mean he has not had to disclose his assets more recently.

McCoy disclosed in 2020 that he owns bonds in fracking company Halliburton and a stake in the U.S. Oil Fund, an ETF that tracks the benchmark price of U.S. crude oil. The disclosure says that these stakes are either “more than 5 percent of the total interests in such business or investment, or [have] a net fair market value of more than $5,000.”

The 2020 disclosure was the last time McCoy filed a document showing his investments. Some states, including Georgia, do not require officials who hold key state positions to file full disclosure forms, and require those leaders to publish only a one-page affidavit, according to Haley Barrett, a spokeswoman for Georgia’s Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission.

Two of McCoy’s affidavits filed with the state say virtually nothing about his business dealings and stock holdings. McCoy’s most recent affidavit, from 2022, shows his titles as treasurer and as a member of a variety of boards, including the state Depository Board.

McCoy also had to sign a statement to confirm that he has taken “I have taken no official action as a public officer in the previous calendar year which had a material effect on my private, financial or business interests.” That affidavit and a 2021 version of the document does not say whether McCoy currently owns any stocks in the fossil fuel industry.

When asked about what the state ethics commission does to verify if those signed statements are accurate, Barrett said in an email that “once these documents have been filed with our office and reviewed, there is an opportunity to determine if there are any discrepancies in the filings. Investigations can be initiated internally through our office or by a third party complaint.”

McCoy and his office did not return requests for comment.

McCoy is far from the only ESG critic who has a financial or political interest in fossil fuel companies.

Texas’ state comptroller, Glenn Hegar, argued in letters to money managers last year that he believes firms such as BlackRock, HSBC and UBS are boycotting the energy industry, saying in a statement at the time that he believes “environmental crusaders” have created a “false narrative” that the economy can transition away from fossil fuels. Hegar co-signed an open letter in 2021 with other state financial officers that was addressed to the U.S. banking industry and defended the fossil fuel industry.

“We will each take concrete steps within our respective authority to select financial institutions that support a free market and are not engaged in harmful fossil fuel industry boycotts for our states’ financial services contracts,” the letter reads.

He also co-signed the 2022 letter to Biden from a slate of other state financial officers defending the fossil fuel industry.

Hegar has since escalated his campaign against the institutions. Hegar sent letters to fellow state money managers arguing that they have not done enough to cut ties with BlackRock and other firms that he said boycotted the oil and gas industry, Bloomberg reported in February.

In the lead-up to his anti-ESG push, Hegar owned stock in the oil and gas industry. In 2021, the Texas comptroller and his spouse owned between 100 and 499 shares of Devon Energy and up to 99 shares of ConocoPhillips, according to his latest financial disclosure.

His financial records from all of the previous years since he became state comptroller in 2015 do not show any stock in these two companies or in the fossil fuel industry at large.

Hegar’s political ambitions have also seen a boost from the oil and gas industry — a dominating force in Texas. During his 2022 reelection, Hegar received donations from a range of PACs and executives from the oil and gas business.

His campaign received $10,000 last year from Ben “Bud” Brigham, the chairman of oil and gas development company Brigham Exploration, according to state campaign finance records. The PACs of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Calpine Corp. and Valero Energy were among Hegar’s fossil fuel donors during his run for reelection last year, according to state records.

Hegar and his office did not return requests for comment.

Jimmy Patronis, Florida’s chief financial officer, has been railing against ESG investment standards since around the time he was reelected to the position in November. Patronis was also among the co-signers of the 2022 letter to Biden defending the fossil fuel industry.

By December, Patronis announced that the Florida Treasury would start divesting $2 billion of assets managed by BlackRock. In an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” in February, Patronis explained the decision.

“The bottom line: I’m seeing dollars are being siphoned off. I’m seeing individuals, like [BlackRock CEO Larry] Fink and others that are using the state of Florida’s money for a social agenda,” he said.

He added: “I just care about returns. And I’m not seeing that.”

Heading into 2022, he also had a financial interest in the fossil fuel industry.

Patronis owned 100 shares combined of Exxon Mobil and Chevron — the two largest gas companies in the world — at the end of 2021, according to his most recent publicly available disclosure.

His personal interest in fossil fuel companies has grown in recent years. In 2018, he disclosed only about 10 shares of Exxon and did not list any Chevron stock.

The document was the first time since 2018 that Patronis listed investments in the sector.

Frank Collins III, the state’s deputy chief financial officer, told CNBC in a statement that Patronis believes ESG efforts are part of a campaign to decimate the oil and gas industry. He said Patronis does not personally make trading or investment decisions for the state’s retirement systems.

“The CFO wants great returns for those in Florida’s retirement funds, nothing else. While the ESG movement has been on a campaign to erase America’s oil and gas industry from the map, those industries were making returns for investors,” Collins said.

Source link

#State #leaders #targeting #climate #investing #quiet #stakes #fossil #fuel #industry

The Russia-Ukraine war remapped the world’s energy supplies, putting the U.S. at the top for years to come

Post By Oil and Gas , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An LNG import terminal at the Rotterdam port in February 2022.

Federico Gambarini | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine a year ago has shifted global energy supply chains and put the U.S. clearly at the top of the world’s energy-exporting nations.

As Europe struggled with threats to its supply of natural gas imports from Russia, U.S. exporters and others scrambled to divert cargoes of liquified natural gas from Asia to Europe. Russian oil has been sanctioned, and the European Union no longer accepts Moscow’s seaborne cargoes. That has resulted in a surge in U.S. crude and refined product shipments to Europe.

“The U.S. used to supply a military arsenal. Now it supplies an energy arsenal,” said John Kilduff, partner at Again Capital.

Not since the aftermath of World War II has the U.S. been so important as an energy exporter. The Energy Information Administration said a record 11.1 million barrels a day of crude and refined product were exported in the week ended Feb. 24. That is more than the total output of either Saudi Arabia or Russia, according to Citigroup, and compares with 9 million barrels a day a year ago.

However, exports averaged about 10 million barrels a day over the four-week period ended Feb. 24. That compares with 7.6 million barrels a day in the year-ago period.

“It’s amazing to think of all those decades of concern about energy dependence to find the U.S. is the largest exporter of LNG and one of the largest exporters of oil. The U.S. story is part of a larger remapping of world energy,” said Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of S&P Global. “What we’re seeing now is a continuing redrawing of world energy that began with the shale revolution in the United States. … In 2003, the U.S. expected to be the largest importer of LNG.”

Yergin said the changing role of the U.S. oil and gas industry in the world energy order will be a topic of conversation among the thousands attending the annual CERAWeek by S&P Global energy conference in Houston from March 6-10. Among the speakers at the conference are CEOs from Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Baker Hughes and Freeport McMoRan, among others.

“One of the ironies, from an energy perspective, is if you only looked straight back, where we were the day before the invasion … if you look at price, you would say not much has happened,” said Daniel Pickering, chief investment officer at Pickering Energy Partners. “The price of global natural gas spiked but came back down. Oil is lower than where it was before the invasion. … The reality is we certainly have set in motion a rejiggering of global supply chains, particularly on the natural gas side.”

According to the Department of Energy, the U.S. has been an annual net total energy exporter since 2018. Up to the early 1950s, the U.S. produced most of the energy it consumed, but in the mid-1950s the nation began to increasingly import greater amounts of crude and petroleum products.

U.S. energy imports totaled about 30% of total U.S. consumption in 2005.

“There’s a global LNG boom that has become much more apparent and visible to the market,” said Pickering. “We’ve shifted around who consumes what kind of crude and products. We’ve meaningfully changed where Russian oil moves to.”

India and China are now the biggest importers of Russia’s crude. “You look at those things, and to me, we very clearly adjusted the way the world is thinking about supply for the next four or five years.”

But a year ago, when Russia invaded Ukraine, it was not clear that the world would have sufficient supply or that oil prices would not spike to sharply higher levels. That is particularly true in Europe, where supplies have been sufficient.

Stock Chart IconStock chart icon

oil

RBC commodities strategists said there were a number of factors at play that helped Europe get by this winter.

“A combination of warm weather, mandated conservation measures, and additional supplies from alternative producers such as the United States, Norway and Qatar, helped stave off such a worst-case scenario for Europe this winter,” the strategists wrote. “Countries that had relied on low cost Russian gas to meet their economic needs, such as Germany, raced to build new LNG import infrastructure to prepare for a future free from Moscow’s molecules.”

But they also point out that Europe is not in the clear, especially if the military conflict continues. “Key gas producers have warned that it could be difficult for Europe to build storage this summer in the absence of Russian gas exports and a colder winter next year could cause considerable economic hardship,” the strategists added.

Qatar has promised to send more gas to Europe, and the U.S. is building out more capacity. “In gas, we’re going to be a very real player. We’re trustworthy. We have rule of law. We have significant resources, and our projects are reasonably quick, compared to a lot of other potential projects around the world,” said Pickering. “My guess is we will go from [capacity of] 12 [billion cubic feet] of exports a day to close to 20, and we will be a big supplier to Europe.”

Pickering said U.S. exports are currently around 10 Bcf a day.

Among the companies he finds attractive in the gas sector are EQT, Cheniere, Chesapeake Energy and Southwestern Energy.

The oil story is different. Pickering said the U.S. industry chose not to be the global swing producer. “We’re not the swing producer because we decided not to be with our capital discipline,” he said.

Energy companies now have earnings visibility that they did not have before, and that could be the case for another five years or so, Pickering said. Oil companies have not been overproducing, as they had in the past, and they did not jump in to crank up production despite calls from the White House in the past year.

The White House has also been critical of the energy industry’s share repurchase programs, which many have.

“They’re generating a lot of cash. They’re being rewarded by shareholders for being disciplined with that cash,” Pickering said. “You did see companies signal their optimism, like with Chevron’s $75 billion share repurchase.” 

“The Russia, Ukraine dynamic may have ushered in an era where it’s cool to bash big oil, but my expectation is you can bash all the way to the bank and the political dynamic is very different than the financial and economic dynamic,” he said.

The U.S. now produces about 12.3 million barrels of oil a day, and Pickering does not expect that number to race higher. Producer discipline has helped support their share prices. The S&P energy sector is up 18% over the past 12 months, the best-performing sector and one of just three of 11 sectors that are showing gains. The next best was industrials, up 1.7%.

“Our absolute production levels are as high as they’ve been when you combine oil and natural gas. We were a net importer, and we’ve dramatically reduced that. It’s a massive shift,” said Pickering. “The shale boom benefited the energy sector. It benefited U.S. consumers. It was a terrible stretch for producers. They did their jobs too well. They overproduced. When we went from 5 million barrels a day to 13 million barrels a day, we were taking the most barrels away from OPEC. That was when we were most influential. We were the swing producer.”

Source link

#RussiaUkraine #war #remapped #worlds #energy #supplies #putting #top #years

Critical for Kazakhstan to pursue oil export options outside of Russia, investor says

Post By Oil and Gas , , , ,

Bill Ross | The Image Bank | Getty Images

Kazakhstan’s ability to diversify its seaborne crude oil export routes away from Russian territory is critical to the country’s economy, the developer of an alternative port told CNBC.

“I believe it’s less political, more existential question, and we hope that also international community is going to support that initiative to have alternative routes in order to minimize the effects of any supply shortages,” Nurzhan Marabayev, CEO of Kazakh infrastructure investor Semurg Invest, told CNBC’s Dan Murphy and Hadley Gamble.

His company has been working to develop the Kuryk port on the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea — a project that includes a bulk cargo terminal, designed for the transshipment of oil, bulk oil cargo and liquefied petroleum gas. 

Once complete, the port could provide an alternative to Kazakhstan’s main seaborne crude oil export route, which currently transports volumes across Russian territory via the 1,511-kilometer (939-mile) Caspian Pipeline Corporation’s pipeline, for later shipment from the CPC terminal near Russian port Novorossiysk.

Since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year, concerns have mounted that Kazakhstan’s reliance on cooperation with Russia — with whom Kazakhstan shares a 7,644-kilometer (4,750 miles) border and a history of close political alignment — could endanger its oil supplies. Exports from the CPC terminal were intermittently disrupted in 2022, with Russia citing technical and regulatory issues. This included a delay in the port’s restart after storm damage, while Russian technical watchdog Rostekhnadzor carried out an unscheduled inspection, and a brief and unenforced Russian court ruling for CPC to halt exports for 30 days.

“Approximately 95% of oil is going through Russian territory, and we have seen some disturbance last year, and actually … it’s quite a threat to the Kazakhstan economy, because we are depending on the oil revenues,” Marabayev told CNBC on Wednesday.

Oil major ExxonMobil — which holds a 16.8% interest in the Kasahagan field and a 25% stake in the Tengizchevroil consortium that operates the Tengiz and Korolev fields — signaled similar concerns in a Feb. 22 securities filing.

“In the event that Russia takes countermeasures in response to existing sanctions related to its military actions in Ukraine, it is possible that the transportation of Kazakhstan oil through the CPC pipeline could be disrupted, curtailed, temporarily suspended, or otherwise restricted,” the company said, warning of a “loss in cash flows of uncertain duration” under such circumstances. ExxonMobil’s after-tax earnings linked to its Kazakh interests were roughly $2.5 billion in 2022.

Kazakhstan is the second largest producer of the non-OPEC contingent of the OPEC+ coalition and has typically aligned itself with Russia in the group’s petropolitics. Kazakh output slipped to 1.66 million barrels per day in January, according to the February issue of the International Energy Agency’s Oil Market Report.

The country has been studying potential alternative transport routes beyond Moscow’s borders, including the possibility of sending oil shipments via Azerbaijan’s Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and through the incomplete Kuryk port project.

“Major infrastructure has been done, but still we need more support and attention to the port in order to fast-track the development of the private terminals,” Marabayev said. Development began in 2010, with operations starting six years ago.

U.S. outreach

Russia and Kazakhstan have historically observed a tight alliance, with Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev last year calling on the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization to send paratroopers into Kazakh territory after nationwide protests erupted over fuel price increases.  

But Russia’s war in Ukraine has stranded Kazakhstan in a precarious balancing act between Western powers and the Moscow administration of Vladimir Putin. Tokayev deepened engagement with Washington during the Tuesday visit of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who repeatedly stressed that the U.S. backed Kazakhstan’s “territorial integrity.”

“Ever since being the first nation to recognize Kazakhstan in December of 1991, the United States has been firmly committed to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of Kazakhstan – and countries across the region,” Blinken said.

“In our discussions today, I reaffirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Kazakhstan, like all nations, to freely determine its future, especially as we mark one year since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in a failed attempt to deny its people that very freedom.”

Russian flows

The world’s third-largest oil producer, Russia has found its footing in the crude markets destabilized by EU and G-7 sanctions implemented against its seaborne exports of crude oil and oil products in December and February, respectively. Kazakh oil has been exempted from the measures despite transiting and exiting a port on Russian grounds.

The G-7 has put in place a scheme that allows Western providers to facilitate critical financial and shipping services to non-G-7 countries that purchase Russian volumes below a specific price. Moscow has repeatedly denounced this measure and threatened to deny its crude and oil products to those who observe such a price cap.  

The withdrawal has pressured its production levels, which the IEA pegged down to 9.77 million barrels per day in January. Moscow announced it would reduce crude oil output by 500,000 barrels per day in March. 

Russia has also been pushed farther into the Asia markets, now primarily relying on Chinese and Indian purchases:

“I think Russia, effectively, is an Asian nation by now. I think India and China will, for a long period, be the main buyers of Russia. It’s going to become the new norm,” Viktor Katona, lead crude analyst at Kpler, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe.”

“I think that’s going to be the end result Russia out of Europe, Russia perennially into Asia, there’s going to be new links into those countries, and that’s pretty much it.”

Source link

#Critical #Kazakhstan #pursue #oil #export #options #Russia #investor

ExxonMobil, Chevron’s big cash shows cheap gas isn’t coming back

Post By Oil and Gas , , , , , , , ,

If you want a quick outlook on whether U.S. gas prices are likely to return to pre-Covid levels, a good place to start is earnings reports from Chevron and Exxon in the last week.

The outlook: Don’t count on it. In their fourth-quarter earnings reports, both companies showed clear signs of Big Oil’s renewed focus on managing costs, widening profit margins as oil prices stayed relatively high even after coming down considerably from last year’s highs, and confidence that they will be able to keep passing the rewards back to shareholders.

On Jan. 25, Chevron announced a $75 billion share buyback, which will allow it to use excess cash flow to cut the number of shares by up to as much as 20% — over multiple years and contingent on shares also used for employee options programs and M&A rather than just earnings per share increase. Chevron also raised its dividend to about 3.4%, double that of the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index. On Jan. 31, Exxon announced it had spent $15.2 billion to acquire stock in 2022 – up from $155 million a year earlier, and authorized another $35 billion this year and next.

The moves are the latest page in the industry’s post-2020 playbook: To satisfy investors who pushed energy stocks down more than 40% in a rising stock market between 2014 and 2019, oil companies slowed down drilling overinvestment that had caused cash-flow losses estimated as high as $280 billion. With the conserved cash, they raised dividends and boosted stock buybacks – moves that helped oil stocks double in the year after the 2020 election, as U.S. gasoline prices rose by more than half.

Rob Thummel, senior portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital Advisors, which advises mutual funds on energy investing, said Chevron and Exxon are in position to increase the dividend, increase production, and buy back stock. “They are doing what mature companies do – generate a lot of cash and return it to shareholders,” he said.

Big oil sees political pushback on buybacks

Fuel prices at a Chevron gas station in Menlo Park, California, on Thursday, June 9, 2022.

David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The industry’s reallocation of money to shareholders from new drilling comes as political leaders, including President Joe Biden, criticize oil companies for not restraining the price of gasoline as crude oil rose from $53 when Biden took office in 2021 to $77.50 now.  Exxon’s fourth-quarter profit margin of almost 14% of revenue compares to 11% a year ago.

“My message to the American energy companies is this: You should not be using your profits to buy back stock or for dividends,” Biden said in October. “Not now. Not while a war is raging. You should be using these record-breaking profits to increase production and refining.”

The White House attacked both companies again this week after the buyback announcements.

In the market, and at the oil companies headquarters, it seems the opinions issued from the White House aren’t much of a factor in setting financial priorities. The price of oil is set on world markets, rather than by individual producers, Thummel said. The role of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Saudi Arabia, in limiting production is the biggest factor in world prices. U.S. oil production, which does not have a central organization setting prices, has rebounded from a post-Covid low reached in April 2021, and reached 383 million barrels per month in October, closing in on the all-time high of 402 million in December 2019, according to U.S. government data.

Gas prices are also being hit by a loss of refining capacity. Part of this is longer-term, as refiners phased out less profitable facilities during the Covid-related demand drop, and following a wave of mergers forced by declining cash flow and share prices. And part of it stems from temporary shutdowns for maintenance made necessary by the cold wave in much of the country in December, CFRA Research analyst Stewart Glickman said.

Of the two biggest U.S. oil producers, Chevron made the more dramatic changes in the fourth quarter earnings releases, since Exxon had announced its buyback acceleration earlier, Glickman said.

The benchmark now is to spend roughly a third of operating cash flow on capital investment, a third on dividends and a third on stock buybacks. The buybacks can be dialed back if oil prices fall, and would likely be the first big cost cut oil producers would make if crude fell back to $60 a barrel from the current range about $77, he said. Buybacks, unlike dividends, aren’t treated as a “must” by investors each quarter, while cutting a dividend can lead to mass selling by investors.

Chevron is pretty close to Glickman’s recipe, with $49.6 billion of 2022 cash flow yielding $11 billion in dividend payments, $11.3 billion in share buybacks that were accelerating as the year ended to the $15 billion annual pace, and $12 billion in capital investment – enough to boost U.S. production by about 4% even as its international production dropped. Exxon made $76.8 billion in operating cash flow, invested $18 billion back into the business, spent $14.9 billion on dividends and $15.2 billion in stock purchases, according to its cash flow statement.

“What we learned from [earnings announcements] is that the industry is very committed to a conservative approach to spending,” Glickman said. “They could [drill more], but they would have to sacrifice their return thresholds, and neither they nor their shareholders are interested. I don’t blame them.”

Oil production is increasing

Despite the push to pay out more money, the companies have begun to produce slightly more oil in the U.S.

Chevron said its U.S. oil production gain was led by a double-digit increase in the Permian Basin of Texas. Exxon also said Permian production led its U.S. results, rising by nearly 90,000 barrels per day.

“Growth matters when it’s profitable,” Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said on the company’s earnings call on Jan. 27. Chief Financial Officer Pierre Breber said the company’s four major financial goals are dividend growth, buyback growth, capital spending and reducing debt.

Slower growth and cash distribution is the right path for an industry that is growing more slowly, Thummel said, especially since the government is prodding utilities away from relying on natural gas to make electricity and offering consumers tax credits to swap gasoline-powered cars and SUVs for electric models. 

In the early part of the last decade, investors applauded energy companies for investing more than their entire operating profit in new wells, believing that hydraulic fracking would propel the sector to a new wave of growth, Glickman said. And while U.S. production more than doubled during the fracking boom, it failed to produce the expected profit. Today, politicians are trying to foster a transition away from fossil fuels, making it dicey for Big Oil to invest in large offshore drilling plans that may need decades to pay off, he added.

“Why on earth would these companies agree to play ball with that kind of attitude?” he said.

The oil companies’ new approach stands in sharp contrast to that of EV maker Tesla, which has resisted shareholder pressure to begin buying back stock as it begins taking share in a market entwined with the oil companies. Tesla has hung on to its cash flow even as it completes a major factory-building campaign that has seen it add new plants in Texas, China, and Germany to its initial production facility in California. The company also produces batteries for its vehicles in Nevada.

That path works for Tesla because it is addressing a fast-growing market for EVs, while oil companies are trying to milk the cash from their existing, low-growth businesses and invest in new ones like carbon capture before current sources of cash flow like gasoline sales begin to shrink, Glickman said. But even Tesla should be returning cash to holders after a sharp decline in shares last year, Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said.

“Our view is that it’s a no-brainer that Tesla should do a buyback now,” Ives said. “Tesla is in a robust position financially and this would send an important signal. The biggest capital spending is in the rearview mirror for now.” 

But Tesla’s most obvious short-term use of its $22 billion cash hoard might be preparing for any possible impact on profits of the price cuts it announced Jan. 13. 

Source link

#ExxonMobil #Chevrons #big #cash #shows #cheap #gas #isnt #coming

The big new Exxon Mobil climate change deal that got an assist from Joe Biden

Post By Oil and Gas , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Could it be that Big Oil’s next big thing got a big assist from Joe Biden?

Maybe, if carbon capture and storage is indeed as big a deal as ExxonMobil’s first-of-its-kind deal to extract, transport and store carbon from other companies’ factories implies.

The deal, announced last month, calls for ExxonMobil to capture carbon emitted by CF Industries‘ ammonia factory in Donaldsonville, La., and transport it to underground storage using pipelines owned by Enlink Midstream. Set to start up in 2025, the deal is meant to herald a new stage in dealing with carbon produced by manufacturers, and is the latest step in ExxonMobil’s often-tense dialogue with investors who want oil companies to slash emissions.

The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in August, may determine whether deals like Exxon’s become a trend. The law expands tax credits for capturing carbon from industrial uses in a bid to offset the high up-front costs of plans to capture carbon from places like CF’s plant, as other tax credits in the law lower costs of renewable power and electric cars. 

The Inflation Reduction Act and Big Oil

The law may help oil companies like ExxonMobil build profitable businesses to replace some of the revenue and profit they’ll lose as EVs proliferate. Though the company isn’t sharing financial projections, it has committed to investing $15 billion in CCS by 2027 and ExxonMobil Low-Carbon Solutions president Dan Ammann says it may invest more.

“We see a big business opportunity here,” Ammann told CNBC’s David Faber. “We’re seeing interest from companies across a whole range of industries, a whole range of sectors, a whole range of geographies.”

The deal calls for ExxonMobil to capture and remove 2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide yearly from CF’s factory, equivalent to replacing 700,000 gasoline-powered vehicles with electric versions. 

Each company involved is pursuing its own version of the low-carbon industrial economy. CF wants to produce more carbon-free blue ammonia, a process that often involves extracting ammonia’s components from carbon-laden fossil fuels. Enlink hopes to become a kind of railroad for captured CO2 emissions, calling itself the would-be “CO2 transportation provider of choice” for an industrial corridor laden with refineries and chemical plants. 

An industrial facility on the Houston Ship Channel where Exxon Mobil is proposing a carbon capture and sequestration network. Between this industry-wide plan and its first deal for another company’s CCS needs, ExxonMobil is hoping that its low-carbon business quickly scales to a legitimate source of revenue and profit.

CNBC

Exxon itself wants to develop carbon capture as a new business, Amman said, pointing to a “very big backlog of similar projects,” part of the company’s pledge to remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as Exxon itself emits by 2050.  

“We want oil companies to be active participants in carbon reduction,” said Julio Friedmann, a deputy assistant energy secretary under President Obama and chief scientist at Carbon Direct in New York. “It’s my expectation that this can become a flagship project.”

The key to the sudden flurry of activity is the Inflation Reduction Act.

“It’s a really good example of the intersection of good policy coming together with business and the innovation that can happen on the business side to tackle the big problem of emissions and the big problem of climate change,” Ammann said. “The interest we are seeing, the backlog, are all confirming this is starting to move and starting to move quickly.”

The law increased an existing tax credit for carbon capture to $85 a ton from $45, Goldman said, which will save the Exxon/CF/Enlink project as much as $80 million a year. Credits for captured carbon used underground to enhance production of more fossil fuels are lower, at $60 per ton.

“Carbon capture is a big boys’ game,” said Peter McNally, global sector lead for industrial, materials and energy research at consulting firm Third Bridge. “These are billion-dollar projects. It’s big companies capturing large amounts of carbon. And big oil and gas companies are where the expertise is.” 

Goldman Sachs, and environmentalists, are skeptical

A Goldman Sachs team led by analyst Brian Singer called the law “transformative” for climate reduction technologies including battery storage and clean hydrogen. But its analysis is less bullish when it comes to the impact on carbon capture projects like Exxon’s, with Singer expecting more modest gains as the law accelerates development in longer-term projects. To speed up investment more, companies must build CCS systems at greater scale and invent more efficient carbon-extraction chemistry, the Goldman team said.

Industrial uses are the third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., according to the EPA. That’s narrowly behind both electricity production and transportation. Emissions reduction in industrial uses is considered more expensive and difficult than in either power generation or car and truck transport. Industry is the focus for CCS because utilities and vehicle makers are looking first to other technologies to cut emissions.

Almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity last year came from renewable sources that replace coal and natural gas and another 19 percent came from carbon-free nuclear power, according to government data. Renewables’ share is rising rapidly in 2022, according to interim Energy Department reports, and the IRA also expands tax credits for wind and solar power. Most airlines plan to reduce their carbon footprint by switching to biofuels over the next decade.

More oil and chemical companies seem likely to get on the carbon capture bandwagon first. In May, British oil giant BP and petrochemical maker Linde announced a plan to capture 15 million tons of carbon annually at Linde’s plants in Greater Houston. Linde wants to expand its sales of low-carbon hydrogen, which is usually made by mixing natural gas with steam and a chemical catalyst. In March, Oxy announced a deal with a unit of timber producer Weyerhauser. Oxy won the rights to store carbon underneath 30,000 acres of Weyerhauser’s forest land, even as it continues to grow trees on the surface, with both companies prepared to expand to other sites over time.

Still, environmentalists remain skeptical of CCS.

Tax credits may cut the cost of CCS to companies, but taxpayers still foot the bill for what remains a “boondoggle,” said Carroll Muffett, CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law in Washington. The biggest part of industrial emissions comes from the electricity that factories use, and factory owners should reduce that part of their carbon footprint with renewable power as a top priority, he said.

“It makes no economic sense at the highest levels, and the IRA doesn’t change that,” Muffett said. “It just changes who takes the risk.” 

Friedman countered by saying economies of scale and technical innovations will trim costs, and that CCS can reduce carbon emissions by as much as 10 percent over time.

“It’s a rather robust number,” Friedmann said. “And it’s about things you can’t easily address any other way.” 



Source link