This week, US Representative Michael Burgess filed his purchase of stock in Exxon Mobil. $XOM
Burgess sits on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
https://twitter.com/TrendSpider/status/1751394662735401122
XOM/PXD gonna rip on XOM earnings this week
Re: XOM/PXD gonna rip on XOM earnings this week
Well, Both did rip over the last three months . XOM earnings out today with stock getting hammered mostly on a non recurring charge but great news on cash from operations for the quarter and reduction in capital expenditures along with Guyana production. Next quarter barring any massive dip in oil prices should be quite stellar. I'm not an owner of XOM but I own PXD and am vacillating on whether to dump the shares if /when PXD is absorbed in Q2 or own XOM. Not a fan of the big oil companies but XOM seems like the "play" on Guyana.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/exxon-tumbles-one-time-eps-charges-despite-surge-cash-flow-buyback-boost
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/exxon-tumbles-one-time-eps-charges-despite-surge-cash-flow-buyback-boost
Re: XOM/PXD gonna rip on XOM earnings this week
He should of consulted with Pelosi
FTC sticks a fork in Sheffield over PXD-XOM deal
FTC approves deal, says Sheffield colluded with OPEC, will not allow him to be on the XOM board and is filing a criminal investigation . Can't make this sh*t up.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exxon-close-pioneer-deal-ftc-124057640.html
https://investors.pxd.com/investors/news-releases/news-details/2024/Pioneer-Natural-Resources-Responds-to-FTC-Settlement-Complaint-Filed-as-Part-of-Approval-of-Proposed-Transaction-with-ExxonMobil/default.aspx
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exxon-close-pioneer-deal-ftc-124057640.html
https://investors.pxd.com/investors/news-releases/news-details/2024/Pioneer-Natural-Resources-Responds-to-FTC-Settlement-Complaint-Filed-as-Part-of-Approval-of-Proposed-Transaction-with-ExxonMobil/default.aspx
Re: XOM/PXD gonna rip on XOM earnings this week
>filing a criminal investigation . Can't make this sh*t up.
Unbelievable!
They must of not liked his outspoken criticism of Brandon
That's why most of these ceo's keep their mouths shut.
The politicians are worse than Tony Soprano
Obama's people drove Aubrey to kill himself
https://people.com/crime/aubrey-mccleondon-ex-ceo-dies-in-car-crash-day-after-indictment/
Unbelievable!
They must of not liked his outspoken criticism of Brandon
That's why most of these ceo's keep their mouths shut.
The politicians are worse than Tony Soprano
Obama's people drove Aubrey to kill himself
https://people.com/crime/aubrey-mccleondon-ex-ceo-dies-in-car-crash-day-after-indictment/
Sankey on Sheffield situation
First the shock news… FTC to approve XOM-PXD deal. Then the condition: Pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield cannot join ExxonMobil’s board because of anti-competitive collusion with OPEC. All this is as reported by the Wall Street Journal this evening.
Knee jerk first thoughts:
Very first thought? You have to suppress a wry smile. Imagine the weeping and wailing at ExxonMobil’s “God Pod” management floors at this loss; get the Pioneer acreage, but not Scott Sheffield. Gosh darn it.
Weird from the FTC. It really does seem that Washington DC believes that OPEC – and the distinction is important vs Saudi in this WSJ story – can control the oil market, and moreover does so in collusion with US E&Ps. Or is this a future risk that a US E&P collude even more with their market rival? Right now, US E&Ps are colluding with Wall Street/shareholders telling them to cut capex and increase returns. And even then, there is too much oil, but for Saudi’s unilateral cuts. Saudi cuts do engender greater profitability at US E&Ps, and indeed far too much US natural gas production, but we strongly feel that Saudi acts as de facto leader of OPEC, rather than in collusion with US E&Ps. Rather, we see the opposite, that the US E&Ps are their problem – blind competition. And there are ~6,000 US E&Ps, among which no single E&P can affect the overall global market.
So this fear is tentative, to say the least. Was Scott’s collusion, when Saudi opened the taps peak-COVID fear and sent oil prices negative? Or was Scott urging the African members to stop cheating on quotas? Seems unlikely. Etc etc.
Rather it seems the FTC is fighting quite the wrong battle, but there it is. Comments from our oil market contacts say re: It is not Saudi, it is OPEC, and as to any specific contacts, “it has to be Barkindo” (late OPEC Secretary General), but it could be any of 100s of contacts over the years between Scott Sheffield and OPEC-involved players. All the conferences, industry dinners, etc etc, over the years.
Not least, OPEC members visiting Texas to work out how Pioneer was eating their lunch, in global oil market share terms.
Merger Arb calls light us up: did John Hess have more contact with OPEC than Scott Sheffield? Probably not. We doubt John would leave a clumsy paper trail of entreaties to OPEC government oil ministers, very much (not saying that Scott did, but you get the idea, some kind of paper trail regarding strategy). Hess as a company did not have the market power of Pioneer; longer cycle, smaller, struggling to grow pre-Guyana transformation. And then OPEC was not a concern – now Hess’ economics are better than OPEC’s. John Hess has a track record of being opinionated on policy and oil markets but has not been one to rail on the subject of OPEC, and was always far less hyperbolic than Mr Sheffield, who has made headline-worthy statements many times, on the record, on all sorts of matters, not least on what OPEC should be doing. Both ways.
If the FTC problem with Chevron-Hess is John Hess talking to OPEC, then there is likely no problem with Chevron for Hess from a fair trade perspective.
It is interesting to note that back in the day, refining CEOs would be reluctant to be even in the same room together, when I hosted refining conferences in the 2000s. The whole “gouging the market” suspicion on refiner CEOs long since dissipated, perversely over the period when the US refining industry massively consolidated, and shut loss-making refineries, and structurally raised profitability. But that was just economic logic applied by better quality managements over time. There was no collusion; all deals were FTC approved, of course.
If this is really the FTC’s concern about big oil deals (OPEC collusion), so be it, we genuinely don’t see the massively traded and competitive global oil market as rigged, being gouged, a cheat. Basically, we really don’t see OPEC as effective, and just put out an entire “CUSP” thesis, arguing that it is all down to the call on US unconventional supply, and the economics of the marginal producer, who we named as Devon. It is a purely economic argument for how to think about global oil prices, arguing OPEC makes no difference. After all, we highlight that they are struggling just to maintain overall production levels. The fights of OPEC are internal. Their nemesis is US E&P. Changes in strategy at US E&Ps – cutting capex – have been market – Wall St – pressure, not gouging.
We think an overall effect of this decision, assuming the WSJ as the story right, is going to be much more concern about OPEC government-company interactions in Big Oil. At the political level, that is a good thing. At the corporate operational level, it is impossible because of OPEC government partnership production, such as BP in Algeria, Chevron in the Saudi-Kuwait Neutral Zone, Exxon, Chevron, TOTAL and Shell in Nigeria, ConocoPhillips in Libya (but not Qatar, it is not an OPEC member).
Knee jerk first thoughts:
Very first thought? You have to suppress a wry smile. Imagine the weeping and wailing at ExxonMobil’s “God Pod” management floors at this loss; get the Pioneer acreage, but not Scott Sheffield. Gosh darn it.
Weird from the FTC. It really does seem that Washington DC believes that OPEC – and the distinction is important vs Saudi in this WSJ story – can control the oil market, and moreover does so in collusion with US E&Ps. Or is this a future risk that a US E&P collude even more with their market rival? Right now, US E&Ps are colluding with Wall Street/shareholders telling them to cut capex and increase returns. And even then, there is too much oil, but for Saudi’s unilateral cuts. Saudi cuts do engender greater profitability at US E&Ps, and indeed far too much US natural gas production, but we strongly feel that Saudi acts as de facto leader of OPEC, rather than in collusion with US E&Ps. Rather, we see the opposite, that the US E&Ps are their problem – blind competition. And there are ~6,000 US E&Ps, among which no single E&P can affect the overall global market.
So this fear is tentative, to say the least. Was Scott’s collusion, when Saudi opened the taps peak-COVID fear and sent oil prices negative? Or was Scott urging the African members to stop cheating on quotas? Seems unlikely. Etc etc.
Rather it seems the FTC is fighting quite the wrong battle, but there it is. Comments from our oil market contacts say re: It is not Saudi, it is OPEC, and as to any specific contacts, “it has to be Barkindo” (late OPEC Secretary General), but it could be any of 100s of contacts over the years between Scott Sheffield and OPEC-involved players. All the conferences, industry dinners, etc etc, over the years.
Not least, OPEC members visiting Texas to work out how Pioneer was eating their lunch, in global oil market share terms.
Merger Arb calls light us up: did John Hess have more contact with OPEC than Scott Sheffield? Probably not. We doubt John would leave a clumsy paper trail of entreaties to OPEC government oil ministers, very much (not saying that Scott did, but you get the idea, some kind of paper trail regarding strategy). Hess as a company did not have the market power of Pioneer; longer cycle, smaller, struggling to grow pre-Guyana transformation. And then OPEC was not a concern – now Hess’ economics are better than OPEC’s. John Hess has a track record of being opinionated on policy and oil markets but has not been one to rail on the subject of OPEC, and was always far less hyperbolic than Mr Sheffield, who has made headline-worthy statements many times, on the record, on all sorts of matters, not least on what OPEC should be doing. Both ways.
If the FTC problem with Chevron-Hess is John Hess talking to OPEC, then there is likely no problem with Chevron for Hess from a fair trade perspective.
It is interesting to note that back in the day, refining CEOs would be reluctant to be even in the same room together, when I hosted refining conferences in the 2000s. The whole “gouging the market” suspicion on refiner CEOs long since dissipated, perversely over the period when the US refining industry massively consolidated, and shut loss-making refineries, and structurally raised profitability. But that was just economic logic applied by better quality managements over time. There was no collusion; all deals were FTC approved, of course.
If this is really the FTC’s concern about big oil deals (OPEC collusion), so be it, we genuinely don’t see the massively traded and competitive global oil market as rigged, being gouged, a cheat. Basically, we really don’t see OPEC as effective, and just put out an entire “CUSP” thesis, arguing that it is all down to the call on US unconventional supply, and the economics of the marginal producer, who we named as Devon. It is a purely economic argument for how to think about global oil prices, arguing OPEC makes no difference. After all, we highlight that they are struggling just to maintain overall production levels. The fights of OPEC are internal. Their nemesis is US E&P. Changes in strategy at US E&Ps – cutting capex – have been market – Wall St – pressure, not gouging.
We think an overall effect of this decision, assuming the WSJ as the story right, is going to be much more concern about OPEC government-company interactions in Big Oil. At the political level, that is a good thing. At the corporate operational level, it is impossible because of OPEC government partnership production, such as BP in Algeria, Chevron in the Saudi-Kuwait Neutral Zone, Exxon, Chevron, TOTAL and Shell in Nigeria, ConocoPhillips in Libya (but not Qatar, it is not an OPEC member).
Re: XOM/PXD gonna rip on XOM earnings this week
Its a win win for Democrats. Create an issue and blame someone else for high gasoline prices in an election year.
Aubrey was in q1 2016 in an election year. Pick a foil in a red state. Tell the sheep it's their fault that prices are high.
We need a regime change and we need to throw these xxxx in jail and freeze their assets
Not being on the XOM BOD is the least of his issues
Aubrey was in q1 2016 in an election year. Pick a foil in a red state. Tell the sheep it's their fault that prices are high.
We need a regime change and we need to throw these xxxx in jail and freeze their assets
Not being on the XOM BOD is the least of his issues