Exxon to Operate Guyana ‘Business as Usual' If It Loses Chevron-Hess Arbitration
Exxon Mobil Corp. said it will be 'business as usual' in its massive Guyana oil field if it loses its arbitration case against Chevron Corp. and Hess Corp.
Exxon remains confident it will prevail in the case over the field's ownership at the International Chamber of Commerce, Neil Chapman, senior vice president, said at the Bernstein Strategic Decisions Conference in New York on Thursday. But there will be 'no change for us' if Exxon loses, he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Should You Invest $1,000 in ExxonMobil Today?
ExxonMobil is one of the best-run oil companies in the world. It leads its peers in several key categories. The oil company plans to deliver strong earnings and cash flow growth through 2030. 10 stocks we like better than ExxonMobil › ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) is an undisputed leader in the oil industry. With a roughly $450 billion market cap, it's the world's biggest international oil company (IOC) -- that is, not state-owned. It leads IOCs in nearly every metric that matters, including earnings, cash flow, and returns. While ExxonMobil is a leader in today's energy industry, its ability to maintain its leadership will be a crucial factor in fueling its ability to grow shareholder value in the future. Here's a look at whether ExxonMobil is worth investing $1,000 into today. ExxonMobil delivered industry-leading performance during the first quarter. Even more impressive is that the oil company didn't just beat its peers; it absolutely crushed them. For example, the company led all IOCs by producing $7.7 billion in earnings and $13 billion in cash flow from operations in the first quarter. Here's a look at how that compared with its peers in the period: One factor driving Exxon's much higher earnings is its industry-leading structural cost savings initiative. Since launching that program in 2019, Exxon has delivered a cumulative $12.7 billion in structural cost savings. That's more than all other IOCs combined. Exxon is on track to deliver a total of $18 billion in structural cost savings by 2030. That's more than most of its peers aim to deliver. For example, Chevron unveiled a plan last year to achieve $2 billion to $3 billion of structural cost savings by the end of next year. Exxon also leads its peers in several other crucial categories. It has a 7% net debt-to-capital ratio, and 12% after stripping out its massive cash balance, which leads all IOCs. That's well below the average leverage ratio of its peer group and for a company in the S&P 500, which is closer to 20%. The oil giant also leads in delivering value for shareholders. It returned $9.1 billion of cash to investors in the first quarter, including an industry-leading $4.8 billion of share repurchases. Exxon also leads the oil sector in dividend growth. It has increased its dividend payment for 42 straight years, a feat only 5% of companies in the S&P 500 have achieved. Exxon aspires to build an even better energy company in the coming years. By 2030, it aims to deliver the potential for $20 billion in additional annual earnings and $30 billion in cash flow, assuming a roughly $65 price for Brent oil, the global benchmark, which is right around the current level. That's a massive step up from the $33.7 billion of earnings and $55 billion in cash flow from operations it delivered last year, which was its third-best year in a decade, even though commodity prices were around their historical averages. This forecast implies that the company will deliver compound annual growth rates of 10% for its earnings and 8% for its cash flow over the next several years. A major factor fueling that growth is Exxon's plan to invest about $140 billion into major capital projects, including up to $30 billion of lower carbon investment opportunities, and its Permian Basin development program through 2030. It's pouring this capital into its lowest-cost and highest-margin assets. The company expects this capital to generate robust returns of more than 30% over the life of the investment. On top of that, the company plans to continue executing its structural cost savings program. Exxon anticipates those investments will generate about $165 billion in surplus cash over that period. That will give the oil giant more money to return to shareholders through a growing dividend and a meaningful share repurchase program. Assuming reasonable market conditions, the company plans to repurchase $20 billion of its shares this year and another $20 billion next year. The company's plan will also put it in a stronger position to weather lower oil prices in the future. By stripping out additional structural costs and investing in its lowest-cost assets, Exxon will steadily lower its breakeven level, enhancing its ability to produce strong earnings and cash flow at lower oil prices. ExxonMobil is the best-run company in the oil patch. It has a long history of wisely investing capital to grow shareholder value. The company currently plans to deliver 10% compound annual earnings growth through 2030, assuming a relatively conservative oil price point. Add that to its nearly 4%-yielding dividend, and Exxon has robust total return potential. While an unexpected plunge in oil prices could negatively affect Exxon's plan, it's putting itself in a better position to thrive at lower prices in the future. That makes Exxon look like a great place to invest $1,000 right now for those seeking a lower-risk way to invest in the oil sector. Before you buy stock in ExxonMobil, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and ExxonMobil wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,538!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $869,841!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 789% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Matt DiLallo has positions in Chevron. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Chevron. The Motley Fool recommends BP. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Invest $1,000 in ExxonMobil Today? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
ExxonMobil in the Crosshairs: The Trump Administration Is Cutting Funding for Projects Aimed at Capturing a Potential $4 Trillion Market Opportunity.
The Trump administration is cutting funding for several clean energy projects. Exxon will lose funding for its Baytown project, while a key customer will lose funding for another project in the area. The oil company has plenty of fuel to continue growing in the near term, even with these potential losses. 10 stocks we like better than ExxonMobil › The Trump administration is cutting funding to 24 green energy projects totaling $3.7 trillion, 70% of which received approval toward the tail end of the Biden administration. Oil giant ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) got caught in the crosshairs of these cuts. It stands to lose $332 million in funding for a carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project at its refinery complex in Baytown, Texas. Meanwhile, one of its customers will lose funding for a project linked to Exxon. Exxon believes carbon capture and storage could eventually grow into a $4 trillion global market opportunity in the coming decades. Here's a look at the projects getting funding cuts and whether it will impact the oil stock's ability to grow shareholder value in the future. Exxon is working to develop the world's largest low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia production facility at its Baytown refinery complex. The facility would produce 1 billion cubic feet of low-carbon hydrogen per day from natural gas and more than 1 million tons of low-carbon ammonia per year. The company will use the hydrogen for its olefins plant at Baytown, which makes building blocks for things like plastics, detergents, and adhesives. It will sell the low-carbon ammonia to global customers (Exxon inked a deal to sell 250,000 tonnes per year to Japan's Marubeni last month). A key aspect of this facility is an associated carbon capture and sequestration project, which would be one of the largest in the world. The project would have the capacity to store up to 10 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, equal to the emissions of over 2 million cars. The company estimates that the project would capture 98% of the associated carbon dioxide produced by the facility each year. That low emission profile is appealing to customers like Marubeni. The Japanese company plans to use low-carbon ammonia to fuel a power plant supporting its steelmaking operations. That company agreed to acquire an equity interest in Exxon's project to support its development. Exxon has called Baytown a landmark project and a game changer for its ability to produce low-carbon fuels. The company had hoped to make a positive Final Investment Decision (FID) on the project this year, putting it on track to start producing in the 2027-2028 time frame. However, the FID is contingent on a supportive government policy, which no longer appears to be the case. Exxon could also feel an indirect impact from the Trump administration's cuts. Power producer Calpine had previously received up to $270 million in funding for its Baytown CCS project in Texas and a second $270 million award for another project in California. The Texas project would capture 95% of the carbon dioxide emissions of its Baytown Energy Facility. This cut could also have an impact on Exxon's CCS ambitions. The oil company inked a deal with Calpine in April to transport and store up to 2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from its Baytown Energy Center. That would have enabled the energy company to deliver even lower-carbon-natural gas power to customers. That deal was Exxon's sixth contract with customers to transport and store carbon dioxide through its integrated network of pipelines and underground storage hubs. ExxonMobil sees a huge opportunity ahead for lower-carbon energy. The oil giant is pursuing up to $30 billion in lower emissions investment opportunities like Baytown and CCS transportation and storage projects to support companies like Calpine. It has the potential to add new sources of growth for the oil giant. Further, many of its low-carbon projects would produce less volatile earnings than its oil and gas business because long-term, fixed-rate contracts would back these investments. However, while CCS is a potentially massive opportunity, it's not a major near-term growth driver for Exxon. The company expects to invest $140 billion into major capital projects and its Permian Basin development plan over the next several years, which it believes will fuel $20 billion of additional earnings and $30 billion in incremental cash flow by 2030. So, the potential loss of the Baytown projects shouldn't derail the oil giant's plan to grow shareholder value in the coming years. Before you buy stock in ExxonMobil, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and ExxonMobil wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $651,049!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $828,224!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 979% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Matt DiLallo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. ExxonMobil in the Crosshairs: The Trump Administration Is Cutting Funding for Projects Aimed at Capturing a Potential $4 Trillion Market Opportunity. was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Yahoo
What's likely to survive from Biden's climate law? The controversial stuff.
Dig down about a mile or two in parts of the United States and you'll start to see the remains of an ancient ocean. The shells of long dead sea creatures are compressed into white limestone, surrounding brine aquifers with a higher salt content than the Atlantic Ocean. Last summer, ExxonMobil sponsored week-long camps to teach grade school students from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi about the virtues of these aquifers, specifically their ability to serve as carbon capture and sequestration wells, where oil, gas, and heavy industry can bury harmful emissions deep underground. In one exercise, students were given 20 minutes to build a model reservoir out of vegetable oil, Play-Doh, pasta, and uncooked beans. Whoever could keep the most vegetable oil (meant to represent liquified carbon dioxide) in their aquifer, won. This kind of down-home carbon capture boosterism is a relatively new development for the oil and gas giant. Over recent years, ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies have spent millions lobbying for government support of what they see as industry-friendly green technology, most prominently carbon capture and storage, which many scientists and environmental activists have argued is ineffective and distracts from eliminating fossil fuel operations in the first place. According to Exxon's website, it's evidence that they are leading 'the biggest energy transition in history.' Now that Congress has turned its attention to rolling back government spending on renewable energy, it appears that most of the climate 'solutions' being left off the chopping block are the ones favored by carbon-intensive companies like Exxon. Corporate tax breaks for carbon capture and storage, for instance, were one of the few things left untouched when House Republicans passed a budget bill on May 22 that effectively gutted the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, the Biden administration's signature climate legislation. What remained of the IRA's clean energy tax credits were incentives for nuclear, so-called clean fuels like ethanol, and carbon capture. When the IRA was passed in 2022, there was immediate backlash against the provisions for carbon capture. 'Essentially, we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing a private sewer system for oil and gas,' said Sandra Steingraber, a senior scientist at the nonprofit Science and Environmental Health Network. The tax credits for nuclear power plants, which produce energy without emitting greenhouse gases, are meant to spur what President Donald Trump hopes will be an 'energy renaissance,' bolstered by a flurry of pro-nuclear executive orders he issued a day after the budget bill cleared the House. Projects will be able to use the tax credits if they begin construction by 2031; wind and solar companies, however, will lose access to tax credits unless they begin construction within 60 days of Trump signing the bill, and are fully up and running by 2028. That the carbon capture tax credit was never in danger of being revoked is a testament to its importance to the oil and gas industry, said Jim Walsh, the policy director at the nonprofit Food and Water Watch. 'The major beneficiaries of these tax credits are oil and gas companies and big agricultural interests.' The carbon capture tax credit was first established in 2008, but the subsidies were more than doubled when it was tacked on to the IRA in order to get former Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia's vote. Companies now receive $60 for every ton of CO2 captured and used to drive oil out of the ground (a process known as 'enhanced oil recovery') and up to $85 for a ton of CO2 that is permanently stored. As roughly 60 percent of captured C02 in the United States is used for enhanced oil recovery, detractors see the tax credit as something of a devil's bargain, a provision that props up an industry at taxpayer expense. How much carbon is actually captured by these projects is also a matter of debate. The tax credit requires companies that claim it to self-report how much CO2 they inject to the Internal Revenue Service. The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, is in charge of tracking leaks. There are tax penalties if captured carbon ends up leaking, but those penalties only apply if the leaks occur in the first 3 years after injection. Holding companies accountable is made more complicated by the fact that tax returns are confidential, and Walsh cautions that there is very little communication between the EPA and the IRS. Oversight is 'very, very minimal,' added Anika Juhn, an energy data analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a research firm. 'You can keep some really played out oil fields going for a long time, and you can get the public to pay for it,' said Carolyn Raffensberger, the executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, explaining the potential impact of the budget bill. 'So the argument is, 'This is a win for the climate, it's a win for energy dominance.' [But] it's really a budget buster with no guardrails at all.' Existing carbon-capture facilities have been plagued by technical and financial issues. The country's first commercial carbon capture plant in Decatur, Illinois, sprung two leaks last year directly under Lake Decatur, which is the town's main source of drinking water. When concentrated CO2 hits water it turns into carbonic acid, which then leaches heavy metals from rocks within the aquifer and poisons the water. Although a certain level of public health concerns come with many emerging technologies, critics point out that all of this risk is being taken for a technology that has not been proven to work at scale, and may actually increase emissions by incentivizing more oil and gas production. It could also strain the existing electrical grid — outfitting a natural gas or coal plant with carbon capture equipment can suck up about 15 to 25 percent of the plant's power. The tax credits exist 'to pollute and confuse people,' said Mark Jacobsen, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, who has argued that there is essentially no reasonable use for carbon capture. They 'increase people's [energy] costs and do nothing for the climate.' But the technology does have its defenders among scientists. The 2022 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called an increase in carbon capture technology 'unavoidable' if countries want to reach net-zero emissions. Jessie Stolark, the executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, an umbrella organization of fossil fuel companies, unions, and environmental groups, contends that arguments like Jacobsen's unnecessarily set the technology against renewables. 'We need all the solutions in the toolkit,' she said. 'We're not saying don't deploy these other technologies. We see this very much as a complementary and supportive piece in the broader decarbonization toolkit.' Stolark said that carbon capture didn't make it out of the budget process entirely unscathed, as the bill specified that companies could no longer sell carbon capture tax credits. So-called 'transferability' — the ability to sell these tax credits on the open market — has been invaluable to small energy startups that have struggled to secure financing in their early stages, according to Stolark. The Carbon Capture Coalition is urging lawmakers to restore transferability now that the bill has moved from the House to the Senate. Still, the kinds of companies likely to claim carbon capture tax credits — often major players in oil and gas, ammonia, steel, and other heavy industries — are less likely to rely on transferability than more modest companies (often providers of renewable energy), whose smaller tax bills makes it harder for them to realize the value of their respective tax credits. 'A lot of the factories, the power plants, the industrial facilities deploying within the next ten years or so, are expected to be these really big [facilities] with the big tax burdens,' said Dan O'Brien, a senior modeling analyst at Energy Innovations, a clean energy think tank based in San Francisco. 'They're not the type of smaller producers — like small solar companies — that are reliant on transferability in order to monetize the tax credit.' To some observers, keeping the carbon capture credit looks like a flagrant giveaway to the oil and gas industry. Juhn estimated that the credit could end up costing taxpayers more than $800 billion by 2040. Given the House bill's aggressive cuts to social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Juhn finds the carbon capture credit offensive. 'When we look at these other programs, where we're nickel and diming benefits to folks that could really use them, what does that mean? It's gross.' This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What's likely to survive from Biden's climate law? The controversial stuff. on May 30, 2025.
