|Bid||111.39 x 800|
|Ask||111.40 x 1000|
|Day's range||110.77 - 111.62|
|52-week range||109.98 - 127.34|
|Beta (5Y monthly)||1.02|
|PE ratio (TTM)||15.95|
|Earnings date||30 Jan 2020|
|Forward dividend & yield||4.76 (4.31%)|
|Ex-dividend date||14 Nov 2019|
|1y target est||136.29|
With the Q4 reporting cycle gaining pace slowly, investors should look for stocks that are less debt-ridden compared to others instead of considering earnings growth only.
ExxonMobil (XOM), Chevron (CVX), Royal Dutch Shell plc (RDS.A) and BP plc (BP) are scheduled to come out with fourth-quarter earnings in the next few days.
(Bloomberg) -- U.S. tech giants including Alphabet Inc.’s Google led the way as corporations raised the amount of clean energy they bought in 2019 by about 40%. Moving forward, peer pressure by asset managers led by BlackRock Inc. could boost it even more.Corporations and public institutions globally acquired a record 19.5 gigawatts of clean energy through long-term power-supply agreements in 2019, easily beating a record set in 2018, according to a report Tuesday by BloombergNEF. Google topped the list with contracts for more than 2.7 gigawatts, roughly equaling the power of three nuclear reactors.In a letter to CEOs this month, BlackRock Chief Executive Larry Fink said his firm, with $7.4 trillion in assets under management, would prioritize climate change as a “defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects” and that a global climate emergency might upend business sooner than expected.“When investors like BlackRock make commitments, everyone below them doesn’t have a choice but to follow,” Kyle Harrison, the report’s lead author, said in an interview. At the same time, he said a wide range of companies are now “getting pressure from their investors, employees and from companies within their supply chain.”While tech companies dominated clean-energy procurement, a growing number of oil and gas companies are signing deals, including Occidental Petroleum Corp., Chevron Corp. and Energy Transfer Partners LP.The U.S. wasn’t the only growing market for power-supply agreements in 2019. Europe, the Middle East and Africa all had record years in 2019, according to the BloombergNEF report. In Latin America, which recorded three-fold growth, Brazil and Chile have emerged as top markets.“Corporations have purchased over 50GW of clean energy since 2008,” Jonas Rooze, lead sustainability analyst at BNEF, said in statement. “That is bigger than the power generation fleets of markets like Vietnam and Poland.”To contact the reporters on this story: Natalia Kniazhevich in New York at email@example.com;Brian Eckhouse in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Ryan at email@example.com, Reg Gale, Joe CarrollFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Big Oil has faced an onslaught of negative sentiment in recent years as climate activists ramp up their rhetoric, but the supermajors aren’t going anywhere anytime soon
Growing transported volumes of gasoline, diesel and crude oil are likely to have contributed to Magellan Midstream's (MMP) Q4 Earnings.
Chevron (CVX) is contemplating the potential sale of its stake in the Indonesian Deepwater Development gas project to control costs and prepare for long-term low prices.
As far as earnings surprises are concerned, CNX Midstream Partners (CNXM) has a good record, having gone past the Zacks Consensus Estimate in three of the last four reports.
Chevron (CVX) doesn't possess the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
Fears that the coronavirus outbreak in China would have a severe impact on oil demand was enough to offset the impact of U.S. Energy Department's latest inventory release.
(Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil dodged a bullet last month when a judge rejected a novel climate-change lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general. The case began with a promise from state officials that there would be a historic reckoning for the fossil fuel giant.It ended ignominiously as a failed accounting fraud claim.But that was just the beginning. Globally, humans are on the hook for trillions of dollars if they want to sufficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions, acclimate to the damage already done and prepare for what is yet to come. As more governments and taxpayers find themselves staring down the barrel at rising climate costs, they are increasingly turning to the courts to hold Big Oil accountable.The New York case was an outlier—it sought to make Exxon Mobil investors whole for an alleged bookkeeping bait-and-switch. The majority of U.S. climate litigation out there takes a more direct approach, seeking damages in so-called public nuisance lawsuits. Fossil fuel use runs counter to the inherent right to exist in a non-warming world, the argument goes, and the energy companies knew that right would be infringed when enough of it was burned.About a dozen cities, counties and states have sued Exxon, Chevron, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and their peers. The suits seek to reimburse taxpayers for the costs associated with adapting to climate change—from building multibillion-dollar sea walls to repairing damage from powerful storms and, perhaps soon, moving whole communities inland.Federal appeals courts on both sides of the country are considering whether such cases may proceed. Their rulings—one of which may come any day—will have a powerful effect on the future of climate change litigation.“Through these cases, we will learn with great detail what the industry knew and when they knew it, and what they did to deceive the public about that knowledge,” said Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, a charity that focuses in part on sustainability issues. “They are now leaving the public with an enormous bill.”And it’s not just Americans who are litigating the consequences of global warming. In the Netherlands, the supreme court recently upheld a landmark ruling forcing the government to combat climate change. The case has inspired similar lawsuits in France, Germany, New Zealand and Norway.In the U.S., there is precedent for such a massive attempt at legal redress. A few decades back, the tobacco industry was taken to court by a group of states after decades of holding individual litigants at bay. In the end, the companies settled for $246 billion and agreed to changes in the sale and marketing of cigarettes.But before history can repeat itself, climate litigants have to persuade judges (and the fossil fuel industry) that their lawsuits have a chance of succeeding. So far, their track record hasn’t been that great.Just last week, a novel case filed by a group of young Americans trying to force the government to address climate change was derailed by a federal appeals court panel. The two-judge majority concluded there is no constitutional right to a livable climate. (The plaintiffs say they will appeal.) Moreover, courts have been quick to note (as have defendants) that the production and use of fossil fuel by energy companies, utilities and manufacturers has been central to building modern civilization as we know it.Congress, and not the courts, is where the answer lies, industry lobbyists and lawyers say.Phil Goldberg serves as a special counsel to the National Association of Manufacturers. As such, he’s assumed a leading role in pushing back against climate litigation (an Exxon spokesperson deferred to him when asked about cases filed by Baltimore and Marin County, California). Goldberg argues that federal laws regulating the environment prevent states from foisting their own de facto regulation on the energy industry, and that nuisance suits are just regulation by another name.“They’re claiming that the mere act of selling oil, gas and other energy products is a liability-causing event because there’s downstream impacts from the use of their products,” he said. “There’s no liability if there are downstream impacts from legally using their products.”But since those “downstream impacts” are an accelerating global catastrophe, states and municipalities faced with a deadlocked Congress and a White House bent on unraveling existing climate regulations say the courts are their only hope. “Litigation,” said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy and chief climate scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, “is essential to hold Big Oil accountable.”Public nuisance claims (what one judge recently called the “unreasonable interference” with a right “common to the general public”) have been made with varying degrees of success when it came to suits and settlements over lead paint, asbestos, opioids and of course tobacco. But making the theory work with fossil fuels is a different matter altogether.While “the potential liability is far greater,” Wasserman said, “courts have been known to shy away from their responsibility and pass the buck to another branch of government.”But just getting in the door may be enough, said Matt Pawa, a lawyer representing New York City in its climate litigation. If a city or state can survive a motion to dismiss its lawsuit, it usually means a company will be compelled to open its files and submit to depositions.“Important information comes out in litigation—the public learns what’s going on,” Pawa said. “The lawsuits, in a way, are shining a bright light on wrongful conduct.”The evidence climate litigants most want is proof of deception. Energy companies not only sold products they knew would damage the environment, plaintiffs claim, but spent millions of dollars over the decades purposely casting doubt on climate science.“For us, sea level rise is real, it’s not an abstraction.”California’s Marin County, at the northern end of the Golden Gate Bridge, was among the first municipalities to file a nuisance claim against the oil industry. Kate Sears, a county supervisor, said the decision in 2017 was based on actual changes to the physical environment rather than projections. A critical roadway in her community floods regularly due to rising waters from the nearby bay.“For us, sea level rise is real, it’s not an abstraction,” Sears said. “I don’t think it’s appropriate that my taxpayer residents should be on the hook to pay for damages caused by the actions of this industry.”Rhode Island sued oil and gas producers the following year, accusing them of putting its 400 miles of economically crucial coastline at risk. “They profited from what they did, and they knew the effects of what was coming, and they tried to cloud the science,” Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said in an interview.In the Marin County case, defendant energy companies said the lawsuit “wrongfully calls into question” federal policies. In the Rhode Island litigation, the industry claimed the state is blaming oil companies for “global greenhouse gas emissions of countless actors, including Rhode Island and its residents.”These climate lawsuits, said Chevron spokesman Sean Comey, are “designed to punish a few companies in one industry who lawfully deliver” products to consumers. Exxon, Shell and BP either declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests seeking comment.Comey’s assertion does illustrate a problem with ascribing specific liability for global warming. Though the starring role of oil, gas and coal producers in the global climate crisis is irrefutable, figuring out how much of global warming is their fault as a whole—not to mention individual companies—may be impossible.For now, most climate cases are bogged down in fights over whether they belong in state or federal court. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed three state court lawsuits to proceed while the jurisdiction fight proceeds. But lower-court federal judges have largely sided with defendants, rejecting nuisance suits by New York City, San Francisco and Oakland. All have been appealed. Other pending nuisance cases have been filed by King County, Washington; Boulder, Colorado; and the cities of Imperial Beach, Santa Cruz and Richmond, California.“Their theory rests on the sweeping proposition that otherwise lawful and everyday sales of fossil fuels, combined with an awareness that greenhouse gas emissions lead to increased global temperatures, constitute a public nuisance,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco in a 2018 decision tossing out a climate lawsuit. That same year, U.S. District Judge John Keenan said, in dismissing New York City’s case against Exxon, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell, that the “immense and complicated problem of global warming” is for Congress and the administration to fix.A federal appeals court could decide on New York City’s challenge to Keenan’s ruling in the coming weeks, while oral arguments of appeals by San Francisco and Oakland are slated for Feb. 5 before another appellate panel. Decisions in those cases are likely to inform climate litigation choices by other states and cities.Chris Chrisman, a corporate defense lawyer with Holland & Hart in Denver, predicts the courts will ultimately side with the energy industry.“It’s a recognition of the limitations of what state nuisance laws were designed to accomplish,” said Chrisman, who represents energy companies but isn’t involved in the nuisance cases. “They might be able to address the adverse effects of a smokestack going up right next door to your house, but they’re not designed to address a global problem like climate change.”Unsurprisingly, lawyers for the plaintiffs don’t see it that way. They argue their nuisance claims are bolstered by evidence that fossil fuel companies knew the damage their products did, and actively sought to steer public debate elsewhere. Many of the suits also allege negligence for “failure to warn,” negligence for design defects, strict liability and trespass.“For us, sea level rise is real, it’s not an abstraction.”In a lawsuit filed by the City of Baltimore, lawyers said energy companies were on notice about their impact on the Earth’s atmosphere in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson’s scientific advisory committee on environmental pollution warned that by 2000, humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions would “modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate … could occur.”Instead of taking action to prevent global warming, Baltimore said the defendants “embarked on a decades-long campaign designed to maximize dependence on their products and undermine national and international efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.”Marin County pointed to a now-defunct industry group whose members included “affiliates, predecessors and/or subsidiaries” of some of the defendants. In 1991, the county alleged in its complaint, the group launched a national climate denial campaign that targeted “less-educated males” in order to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” One of the group’s ads stated “Who told you the Earth was warming ... Chicken Little?”Goldberg, special counsel to the National Association of Manufacturers, said such allegations of corporate deception are “all window dressing to try to drive the public opinion and judicial reaction to it.” The legal effort by climate litigants is evolving, however. In October, a state court case filed by Massachusetts included claims under consumer protection laws, arguing that Exxon misled residents and investors about the environmental impact of the gasoline they buy.“It’s a different kind of case,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said in an interview. “Exxon made misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts about systemic climate change risks.”Exxon, having moved the case to federal court for now, claimed in a November filing that Healey is trying to stop the company “from producing and selling fossil fuels.” In a response filed this month, Healey rejected the company’s argument. She instead compared her claims to tobacco litigation, saying it’s “deceptive advertising and marketing that the Commonwealth is seeking to stop.”Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, said the increasing need to find someone other than taxpayers to pay the costs of climate change will continue to drive state and local governments toward litigation. Nevertheless, she’s skeptical about their chances for victory.“Plaintiffs in the remaining cases may yet see some success at the state level as they refine their claims,” she said. “But the federal court decisions indicate this remains a difficult path.”To contact the author of this story: Erik Larson in New York at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: David Rovella at email@example.comFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo says it is "naive" to advocate for fossil fuel divestment, days after 17-year-old activist Greta Thunberg called on the world's elite to do so.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Kinder Morgan Inc. just issued the thrilling news that it plans to grow profits by 0% this year. That counts as a win in energy in 2020.The pipelines giant was something of a bellwether in late 2015 when it slashed its dividend and soon after did the same to its growth plans. This process reached a logical conclusion of sorts in the full year results presented Wednesday evening. After the usual bullish remarks about natural gas, management outlined a plan to keep spending tight so it could bump the divided up on flat Ebitda. Having chipped away at its debts over the past four years or so, several asset sales allowed leverage to dip a bit further. And even as the project backlog drifted lower, any scurrilous talk of M&A on the earnings call was quashed swiftly.This is your U.S. energy playbook for the foreseeable future, folks.Kinder isn't a bellwether this time; the shrinkage doctrine is cropping up all over. We've just been treated to a set of results from the big oilfield services companies best described as managed retreat. Like Kinder Morgan's gas commentary, Schlumberger Ltd. made its customarily upbeat remarks about the outlook for international drilling activity on its own earnings call last week. Yet the action items are largely a set of retrenchments: job cuts, technology franchising (read: asset-light) and exiting or potentially exiting commoditized businesses such as artificial lift, fracking equipment and drilling tools. Similarly, Halliburton Co. touted growth prospects overseas, while carrying out “initial personnel reductions and real estate rationalization” as its core U.S. land business continues to suffer. Both companies are back to trading at discounts last seen when the oil crash was only just getting underway.The contractors are taking their lead from their clients. Both ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp. closed out 2019 with declarations of restraint; one via a strategy presentation and the other with a big write-down. Similarly, the shortest run of year-over-year job gains in the U.S. upstream business since 2002 effectively ended in November (see this). It’s tough for even this habitually upbeat industry to talk a big game when (a) natural gas prices are comatose in the middle of JANUARY and (b) despite a year’s worth of Middle East drama having been crammed into just a few weeks, oil futures are lower now than they were after that last supposed game-changer in Saudi Arabia back in September:Evident caution on the part of oil and gas enablers such as pipeline operators and rig contractors is a clear sign the mantra of reducing capital intensity is taking over. After a decade like the one just gone, with many billions wasted in pursuit of sheer market share, that is no bad thing. Plus, with efforts to address climate change — itself essentially a war on waste — this decade brings added pressure to run an extraordinarily tight ship.Old habits die hard, and not everyone gets it. But with E&P earnings season about to kick off, it is worth noting that Kinder Morgan, with guidance roughly as exciting as cocktail hour at a pipelines conference, leads the energy sector on Thursday morning.To contact the author of this story: Liam Denning at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Gongloff at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He previously was editor of the Wall Street Journal's Heard on the Street column and wrote for the Financial Times' Lex column. He was also an investment banker.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo Finance speaks exclusively with Aramco Chairman Yasir Al-Rumayyan about climate change and the future of the oil industry.
Enterprise Products Partners' (EPD) new Mentone cryogenic natural gas processing plant is set to help Permian producers to increase the commercialization of their products.