Investors challenge ExxonMobil on multiple fronts

  • Market: Crude oil, Natural gas
  • 04/01/21

ExxonMobil is facing a three pronged attack from activist investors hoping to force the US major to radically change how it spends its cash.

Investment firm Engine No 1, with the backing of the California state teachers' pension fund, wants ExxonMobil to add fresh blood to its board. The New York State pension fund is threatening to divest its stake in the company unless it moves away from fossil fuels more quickly. And the hedge fund DE Shaw wants ExxonMobil to cut costs, including capital spending, to protect its dividend.

ExxonMobil's investor challenges go to the heart of an issue faced by oil and gas industry producers as a whole: how to use its still formidable financial resources to transition toward a cleaner energy future or whether to hunker down, focus on its core business and just return cash to shareholders.

Majors have successfully fended off activist challenges before. But two factors that might help the investors this time around are the demand-slashing impact of Covid-19 and a broadening embrace of the threats of climate change in most markets. The pandemic has sapped global energy demand and significantly weakened prices, forcing producers to preserve cash flow as institutional and retail investors flee the sector. It has also laid bare the oil and gas industry's poor-to-mixed record addressing climate issues, leading many to speed up efforts to lower emissions.

Lots of capex, not enough return

While spending was cut in 2020 in response to the pandemic, ExxonMobil argues that the industry must return to higher capex spending soon in order to produce enough energy for the world's growing population.

"If the industry is to meet credible third-party estimates for energy demand, we will need to significantly increase investments," chief financial officer Andrew Swiger said during the third quarter earnings call with analysts.

But activist investors argue that even before Covid-19 the company squandered billions of dollars in capital investments over the years without sufficient returns to show for it.

In the first decade of the 21st century, ExxonMobil generated an average return of 35pc per year from its upstream capital projects. But annual returns in recent years have plummeted to less than 6pc. From 2015-2019, in the US alone, the company generated less than a 1pc return in three of those five years despite spending an average of nearly $7bn a year, according to company reports.

"We believe ExxonMobil's underperformance can be largely attributed to its pursuit of production growth at the expense of returns and a lack of adaptability to changing industry dynamics, including higher production costs and growing long-term demand uncertainty," according to a 7 December letter Engine No 1 sent to ExxonMobil's board of directors.

Engine No 1, which bought a $40mn stake in ExxonMobil, is partnering with the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS), one of the nation's largest pension funds, to pressure the company. CalSTRS owns about 8mn ExxonMobil shares.

An infusion of talent

Engine No 1 thinks ExxonMobil could very well be right about companies not investing enough to meet long term global energy demand. The problem is not necessarily amount but where ExxonMobil is spending it.

For example, ExxonMobil consistently says that it cannot justify spending lots of money on renewable energy projects because they do not offer attractive returns. But what is really lacking, Engine No 1 says, is leaders with the necessary expertise to help the company make those kind of decisions and the willingness to take such risks.

To that end, Engine No 1 said it will nominate four candidates with clean energy experience to ExxonMobil's board.

Alexander Karsner, a senior strategist at X, the innovation arm of Google, is especially noteworthy because his career spans the traditional oil and gas industry, clean energy, and Silicon Valley. Karsner was an investor in energy infrastructure firms like Enercorp and Tondu Energy Systems and served as US Assistant Secretary of Energy under the George W Bush administration, overseeing $2bn worth of federal R&D programs.

He was also a venture capitalist and advised Nest (which Google later acquired) and Tesla. ExxonMobil's board needs an infusion of such technology focused innovation talent, Engine No 1 believes.

Susceptible to pressure

ExxonMobil has successfully fought off activist challenges before. But there are signs that the major might be more vulnerable this time around.

Through the first nine months of this year, ExxonMobil has lost $2.3bn compared to a profit of $8.65bn during the same period in 2019, and said last week it expects to report in the fourth quarter an $18bn-$20bn write down related to its US shale operations. The company has tacitly acknowledged that the pandemic and rising concerns over climate change has altered its calculus.

In November, the company said it will reduce capex spending from 2022-2025 to $20bn-$25bn from its original plan of $30bn-$35bn. ExxonMobil also plans to triple cuts in methane emissions and nearly double flaring reductions at its upstream operations over the next five years, building on earlier targets.

"ExxonMobil has supported the goals of the Paris Agreement since its inception and is working to reduce emissions from our operations, while meeting the world's demand for affordable energy," the company said in a statement. "We continue to invest in and research breakthrough technologies that will play a key role in addressing the important issues related to climate change."

But ExxonMobil's actions has not appeased its critics. DE Shaw, which held 2.43mn shares of the company as of 30 September, is pushing management to cut capital spending to $13bn from a planned $16bn-$19bn this year. ExxonMobil has already committed to slash costs by $10bn by year's end but the hedge fund wants the company to further reduce expenses up to another $5bn.

A spokesperson from DE Shaw declined to comment.

New York State comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who oversees the state's $226bn pension fund, recently announced that the fund has begun to review its portfolio of fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, to determine their progress in transitioning to clean energy. The plan is to divest from firms "that do not meet standards" by 2025. The pension fund has already sold off its stakes in 22 coal companies.

CalSTRS and the New York State pension funds hold a combined 14.4mn shares in ExxonMobil.

What will BlackRock do?

Despite the backing of CalSTRS, Engine No 1 has a long way to go convincing other investors to back its campaign. Only three investors own more than 5pc of ExxonMobil stock: Vanguard (356mn shares), State Street Global Advisors (218.6mn shares), and BlackRock (210mn shares). Together, the investment firms control 18.4pc of ExxonMobil.

So even if Vanguard, State Street and BlackRock back Engine No 1, the activist firm still needs the support of a vast array of both institutional and individual investors who control the remaining 82pc.

But one factor works in Engine No 1's favor: the clout of proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis, who advise institutional investors on how to vote on board candidates and shareholder proposals. ISS and Glass Lewis have previously backed shareholder resolutions against ExxonMobil, such as separating the chairman's role from the chief executive, but to no avail. But this time, investors might be more willing to listen, Engine No 1 thinks.

For example, BlackRock, which owns nearly 5pc of ExxonMobil shares, has said it will start to take into account climate change when managing its portfolio. In a letter to clients last year, BlackRock said it will prioritize "climate change, not only in terms of the physical risk associated with rising global temperatures, but also transition risk — namely, how the global transition to a low-carbon economy could affect a company's long-term profitability."

"We are making sustainability integral to the way BlackRock manages risk, constructs portfolios, designs products, and engages with companies," the letter continued. "We believe that sustainability should be our new standard for investing."

Veteran energy analyst Philip Verleger thinks ExxonMobil and other majors will capitulate in some way to activist investors.

"My expectation is that ExxonMobil will cut its capital expenditures and take other steps to appease the (activist) investors," Verleger said. "The Visigoths are attacking."


Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
28/03/24

Mosaic plant sustains minor damage from fire

Mosaic plant sustains minor damage from fire

Houston, 28 March (Argus) — Florida-based phosphate and potash fertilizer producer Mosaic anticipates limited damage to a production plant near Tampa and minimal disruption to operations in the coming weeks following a brushfire on Monday. The brushfire ignited Monday evening during routine maintenance near Mosaic's Riverview phosphate production facility and was initially contained before rekindling Tuesday morning because of heavy winds. The fire was fully under control by Tuesday afternoon, according to local first responders. Mosaic told Argus on Tuesday the fire was not considered a threat to the facility initially, but now expects the plant sustained "limited damage to ancillary operations" and the impact could last between four to six weeks. The Riverview plant has a production capacity of 1.8mn metric tonnes (t) of processed phosphate products, and produces 30,000 t/week, according to Mosaic. The facility was producing phosphates primarily for exports to Brazil at the time of the fire, the company added. Smoke was observed Monday from the fire as a result of foam retardants used by local fire officials to cool the high-density polyethylene pipes. Polyethylene gas piping is often used for natural gas distribution. Natural gas flows delivered to the plant fell slightly Wednesday at 2.42mn cf/d, down from 2.45mn cf/d on Monday, once the fire was extinguished, according to data from Florida Gas Transmission. Flows at the plant on Thursday rebounded to 2.45mn cf/d, in line with expectations that affected phosphate output at the plant should only be temporary. By Taylor Zavala Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Read more
News

Long-term contracts needed to stabilise gas prices: MET


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

Long-term contracts needed to stabilise gas prices: MET

London, 28 March (Argus) — Germany and Europe need more LNG and business-to-business long-term contracts to even out supply shocks and stabilise gas prices, even as demand is unlikely to reach historical heights again, chief executive of Swiss trading firm MET's German subsidiary Joerg Selbach-Roentgen told Argus . Long-term LNG contracts have a "stabilising effect" on prices when "all market participants know there is enough coming", Selbach-Roentgen said. He is not satisfied with the amount of long-term LNG supply contracted into Germany, arguing that stabilisation remains important even now that the market has "cooled down" after the price shocks of 2022. Long-term contracts are important for the standing of German industry, Selbach-Roentgen said — not to be reliant on spot cargoes is a matter of global competitiveness for the industrial gas market, he said. The chief executive called for more long-term contracts in other areas as well, such as for industrial offtakers, either fixed price or index-driven. Since long-term LNG contracts are concluded between wholesalers and producers, the latter need long-term planning security for their projects, which usually leads to terms of about 20 years. But long-term LNG contracts in general do not represent a major risk for MET nor for industrial offtakers in Europe, Selbach-Roentgen said. LNG is a more flexibly-structured "solution" to expected demand drops in regard to the energy transition as the tail end can be shipped to companies on other continents such as Asia if European demand wanes, he said. Gas demand is not likely to recover to "historical heights" again, mostly driven by industrials "jumping ship", Selbach-Roentgen said. When talking to large industrial companies, the discussion is often about the option that they might divert investments away from the German market as the price environment is "not attractive enough" for them any longer in terms of planning security, the chief executive said. This trend started out of necessity in reaction to the price spikes but may now be connected to longer-term "strategic" considerations, he said. In addition, industrial decarbonisation — as well as industrial offtakers' risk aversion because of the volatile gas market following Russian gas supply curtailments — leads companies to invest less into longer-term gas dependencies in Germany, Selbach-Roentgen said. In addition, MET advocates for a green gas blending obligation of 1-2pc green gas or hydrogen, in line with legislative drafts under discussion by the German government. This has already met with interest by offtakers, despite uncertainties around availability and prices, and would provide a regulatory framework that allows firms to prepare for the energy transition, Selbach-Roentgen said. By Till Stehr and Rhys Talbot Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Stalling climate finance an energy security risk : WRI


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

Stalling climate finance an energy security risk : WRI

London, 28 March (Argus) — The "best bet" to achieving global energy security is through mitigation funding and multilateral cooperation, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI). WRI highlighted that governments are funding more domestic renewable energy projects but have increased oil and gas production in the name of "energy security" at home in the years following the Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The recent rebrand of energy transition funding to energy security funding has allowed some developed nations to justify domestic oil and gas licences and drag their feet on multilateral financial commitments. This is causing "real worry" among climate-vulnerable developing nations, WRI chief executive Ani Dasgupta said. He said that although the initial "shock" to the world's energy markets after the invasion of Ukraine "quickly went away", it has triggered "real worry among poorer countries that when push comes to shove, it won't be an even game, or have a fair outcome." Developing countries have long complained about the lack of access to climate funding. Richer nations have only recently met the $100bn/yr target in climate finance to developing countries agreed in 2009, while discussions on setting a new climate finance goal for 2025 at Cop 29 in Baku in November could prove difficult. President of the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) Denis Sassou-Nguesso said last year that the $100bn/yr in climate financing to developing countries promised by rich countries "never reached us", adding that the annual UN Cop climate conferences have become little more than a talking shop. "Just after the invasion of Ukraine, every country started to think about energy security," Dasgupta said. "In theory, good things could have happened, countries could have concluded that their best bet to getting energy security is by going renewable". But it was not the case in key consumer countries or regions, Dasgupta pointed out. China bought the majority of Russian gas following the EU's withdrawal, he said, and has since upped production at coal-fired power stations despite an "extraordinary" acceleration towards renewables set for 2023-28, according to Paris-based energy watchdog IEA . In Europe, the UK and Norway continue to award new oil and gas licences . "In the US, the fossil fuel lobby argues that the best route to energy security is to invest more in fossil fuels". But the best route is to invest in more renewables, he said. "Even if the US produces a large amount of oil and gas, it is still a traded commodity, and so you have to pay a price for it that is set globally." The US special presidential co-ordinator for energy security Amos Hochstein has also suggested in September that a widening climate finance gap could ultimately threaten global security. "We have seen the percentage of dollars spent on the energy transition outside the OECD, in developing and middle income countries actually go down instead of up…" By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Louisiana pipeline crossing bill nears vote: Update


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Louisiana pipeline crossing bill nears vote: Update

Updates scheduled timing of vote in first paragraph. New York, 27 March (Argus) — The Louisiana state senate is scheduled to vote next week on a bill seeking to clarify pipeline servitude rights and expedite pipeline crossing disputes, advancing legislation promoted by three natural gas pipeline companies involved in a legal battle with US midstream giant Energy Transfer. Natural gas transmission projects by Williams, Momentum Midstream and DT Midstream — which aim to connect growing production out of the prolific Haynesville shale to a wave of new LNG export terminals along the US Gulf coast — have been put on hold while legal proceedings between Energy Transfer and DT Midstream play out. All three companies' proposed pipelines would cross Energy Transfer's own Tiger pipeline in northern Louisiana. The three pipeline companies' projects propose an excessive number of crossings over the Tiger line, an attorney for Energy Transfer argued in a Louisiana senate committee last week, and Energy Transfer has the servitude rights to stop them. But Energy Transfer's "unique" interpretation of the civil code on pipeline crossings is hurting the economy of Louisiana, the author of the bill , Louisiana senator Alan Seabaugh (R), said last week. By blocking the construction of new pipelines out of the Haynesville, Energy Transfer is eliminating jobs and taxes that would be created by new infrastructure, he said. Moreover, by arguing its servitude rights extend above and below its existing pipeline "to the center of the earth," Energy Transfer is "asserting a right that nobody has ever asserted before," Seabaugh said. The Seabaugh bill clarifies that, unless explicitly stated otherwise in a contract, pipeline servitude rights extend only to the physical space occupied by the pipeline and any space necessary to maintain it. The contract stipulating Energy Transfer's servitude rights for the Tiger pipeline is silent on the subject of that vertical, underground space, according to bill supporters. "This really isn't about pipeline crossings — this is about controlling market share," said Jimmy Faircloth, attorney for Momentum Midstream. But the pipeline industry has been amicably working together for decades to allow for reciprocal crossings, Energy Transfer attorney Kay Medlin said. By ripping up this convention over a dispute involving so many crossings, and forcing an expedited legal proceeding for something which "is not a minor process," the Seabaugh bill threatens an industry "that ain't broke," she said. "This legislation will break it, and you will likely spend years trying to fix it, if you ever can," Medlin said. The Seabaugh bill is a companion to two bills which passed 100-0 and 99-0, respectively, in the Louisiana House of Representatives on 21 March. Those bills seek to clarify the law on pipeline crossings and to expedite proceedings on pipeline crossing disputes. By Julian Hast Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Baltimore bridge collapse to raise retail fuel prices


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Baltimore bridge collapse to raise retail fuel prices

Houston, 27 March (Argus) — The collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, is more likely to increase regional gasoline prices than diesel due to additional freight costs and certain route restrictions. Suppliers in the region have so far signaled that the effect on broader markets will be minimal, but regional prices will likely rise, especially as peak summer demand season begins with Memorial Day weekend in late May. The bridge closure could pose more problems for gasoline supply than diesel, since gasoline cannot be transported through the Fort McHenry (I-95) and Baltimore Harbor (I-895) tunnels — the two other major roads that cross the Patapsco River at Baltimore — while there are no restrictions on diesel, according to the Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA). Fuel wholesaler Global Partners said yesterday that it would like to see hours of service waivers for trucking in the region to minimize fuel supply disruption to customers, but the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is yet to issue one. Elevated retail prices are likely to be limited to the immediate Baltimore area but could spill over into neighboring markets should trucking markets remain tight due to rerouting, market sources told Argus . Fuel markets in eastern Maryland can be supplied by PBF's 171,000 b/d Delaware City, Delaware, refinery and two further plants in Pennsylvania — Monroe Energy's 190,000 b/d Trainer refinery and PBF's 160,000 b/d Paulsboro refinery. To the north, United Refining runs a 65,000 b/d plant in Warren, Pennsylvania, and along the Atlantic coast Phillips 66 operates the 259,000 b/d Bayway refinery in Linden, New Jersey. PBF, Monroe and United did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether the bridge collapse is affecting refinery operations. Phillips 66 declined to comment on commercial activities. Still, the five nearby refineries — representing all the Atlantic coast's 850,000 b/d of crude processing capacity — are unlikely to see their operations curtailed by limits in shipping products to Maryland. With no refinery in the state of Maryland, most fuels are delivered to Baltimore by Gulf coast refiners on the Colonial Pipeline. Global Partners, which operates a terminal just west of the collapsed bridge, said yesterday it is primarily supplied by the pipeline and expects product flows to continue. Several terminals in the Baltimore Harbor and the nearby Port Salisbury can also receive small vessels and barges of road fuels from Delaware and Pennsylvania, according to the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA). The Port of Baltimore — which remains closed since the collapse — took delivery of 24,000 b/d of gasoline and under 2,000 b/d of distillates from barges and small vessels in 2019, about three percent of the Atlantic coast's refining capacity. "A closure of the Port of Baltimore while the Colonial Pipeline is open would not significantly disrupt fuel supply," the MEA wrote in a 2022 analysis of liquid fuels supply in the state. By Nathan Risser Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more