Oil company profits are at a record high. It won’t last.


ExxonMobil netted its biggest year ever of $56 billion profits after oil and gas price spikes from the war in Ukraine. | David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Exxon, BP, and the rest of the oil industry aren’t prepared for competition from renewables.

The oil and gas industry has never been more profitable than it was in 2022. ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and ConocoPhillips reported combined hauls totaling more than $177 billion.

Interpreting these huge sums gets more complicated. Environmentalists say they show an industry price-gouging during wartime, profiteering from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a year ago. Oil executives say they show the fundamental strategy of the business is working: “performing while transforming,” as CEO Bernard Looney put it in BP’s earnings call.

The profits have managed to erase the recent memory of the oil industry’s 2020 pandemic reckoning when, after nearly a decade of lower prices from the fracking boom, oil and gas prices crashed as much of global and domestic travel came to a standstill. Suddenly, banks heavily scrutinized loans for new drilling projects. And the oil industry leaned heavily on the Trump administration for taxpayer bailouts and Covid relief.

The industry learned a few lessons. Companies are more focused today on paying down debt and returning value to shareholders than in the past decade, translating into $109 billion in stock buybacks that benefit the largest investors. And overall, the industry is less focused on expanding and exploring new drilling, preferring to keep costs down.

But while the industry hasn’t forgotten every lesson from the past few years, the largest companies have neglected the most important ones. Large profits also give a company the opportunity to signal where it sees its growth by reinvesting in the business. And for over a century, future growth has always meant more drilling — not a transition to renewable energy.

That’s not possible anymore, at least not if the world makes any effort to address climate change. The International Energy Agency said starkly in May 2020 that the world now has all the proven and probable oil reserves it needs if it has any hope of meeting the global climate goals of limiting warming to under 2 degrees Celsius. If this were actually implemented as policy, the industry wouldn’t be investing any of its massive profits in scaling new fossil fuels.

But the industry is doing the exact opposite, backing away from so-called climate spending in order to boost their core business: greenhouse gases.

Big Oil’s record profits mask the real trouble ahead

The energy industry used to be inseparable from economic growth, commanding 28 percent of the total stock market in the 1980s. It fell to a new low of 2 percent in 2020, as travel came to a standstill. Even today, it’s only a marginally higher share of the total market.

The numbers tell the longer story of oil’s shrinking footprint in the economy. It’s a fundamental part of climate policy to separate economic growth from fossil fuels. More than 30 countries have figured out how to do this, lowering carbon emissions while continuing to grow the economy. That’s included the US, where overall carbon dioxide output is still below 2019 levels. Renewables now comprise a larger share of power generation than coal. And transportation — planes, trains, and automobiles — was again the largest climate-polluting sector.

Looking forward, the oil industry faces competition like it’s never before seen in all of its major profit sectors. Electric vehicles are a small but fast-growing source of competition for the sector, and more households are transitioning off of oil and gas in favor of energy-efficient electric heat pumps. And gas in the power sector is facing viable competition from cheaper wind and solar.

The oil industry, however, isn’t really acknowledging the reality that the world is going to need less of its products sooner or later. “Their normal plans are confronted with competition they’ve never seen before,” said Tom Sanzillo, director of financial analysis for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). “They don’t have a rationale going forward.”

The party won’t last forever

Some experts think the party is already over. “They needed very high prices to get out of trouble, and very high prices are unsustainable,” Sanzillo said. “Nobody expects those profits to continue.”

Sanzillo points to some recent signs that the market is already cooling again for Big Oil. Based on the past few months, prices have stabilized and come down slightly, and oil is back to underperforming the overall market.

In Europe, countries have also sought to recoup some of these profits for taxpayers hurting under higher prices. The EU added a new levy on top of profits that are above the 20 percent average of the previous three years. While the Biden administration has floated adopting its own version of a windfall profits tax, the idea is a nonstarter in the split Congress, which would need to approve any changes to the tax code. Another idea the Biden administration has floated includes increasing taxes on stock buybacks.

These policies aren’t going to really hurt oil and gas in the long run. What will hurt it is increased competition from renewables and a renewed focus on energy efficiency to cut down on energy costs.

Companies could be preparing for this future. They’re doing a lot to advertise it — Chevron’s homepage as of writing promotes “renewable natural gas.” But in practice, they’ve put little investment into renewables that can seriously compete with fossil fuels, because it hurts their core business. The industry has typically spent just 1 percent of its capital expenditure on low-carbon investments, a broad category that includes carbon capture and storage meant to benefit fossil fuel growth. It rose to 5 percent in 2022, before corporations publicly backed away from their renewable commitments.

ExxonMobil stands out as an extreme example after the company netted its biggest year ever of $56 billion in profits. Asked about competition on the company’s recent shareholders call, CEO Darren Woods said Exxon has “been very focused on leaning in when others lean out.” In what ways are they leaning in? More of the same. “Continuing to make the products that society needs today and doing that across a very diversified slate of products, so think chemicals, fuels products, and lubricants. And then, at the same time, investing to produce low-emissions fuels to address the low-carbon demand.”

Other companies are scaling back their limited climate commitments in order to double down on fossil fuels. BP officially reduced its emissions pledges, originally set to reach 35 to 40 percent lower emissions by the end of the decade, to just 20 to 30 percent. Shell plans to keep its investments in renewables, carbon offsets, carbon capture, and biofuels to $3.5 billion, less than half of what the company invests in oil and gas exploration and extraction. CEO Wael Sawan says the company’s gas business “continues to grow in a world that is desperately in need of natural gas at the moment, and I think for a long time to come.”

What little investments the oil industry does commit to climate change “aren’t what people think they are,” said Jamie Henn, director of the advocacy group Fossil Fuel Free Media. The “low-carbon investments” Exxon, BP, and others hail usually mean making oil operations more efficient, like tweaking existing processes to burn less fossil fuels or using carbon capture and storage for “enhanced oil recovery.” The goal of both approaches is to lower emissions only to burn more fossil fuels.

Even the marketing budgets for Big Oil’s climate campaigns can be bigger than the projects themselves. Working with a PR firm, Shell paid $57,000 for a company to make biofuels out of coffee waste, and received more than 1,100 pieces of media coverage, all to power a single London bus for one year. Environmentalists accuse Shell of spending just over 1 percent of its capital expenditures on low-carbon energy sources like wind and solar.

Henn said the recent reversals on climate change serve as more proof that “these companies aren’t serious about a clean energy transition. It’s mostly marketing and greenwashing, strategies that have gotten a tiny commitment here and then an empty promise there. They’re not adding up.”

Related articles

Disbelief as White House suggests Susie Wiles may not have known she was on record



Despite having about a year's worth of interviews — 11 to be exact — for an in-depth Vanity Fair story, White House insiders scrambled on Tuesday, suggesting to CNN that President Donald Trump's Chief of Staff Susie Wiles may not have known she was on the record.

The bombshell story prompted a White House meltdown and plenty of chatter in Washington, D.C.

"But obviously this has really left the White House and not just the White House, but Trump world as a whole in a state of shock," CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes said. "I cannot tell you how many conspiracy theories I've heard about how this interview got published, whether it was the idea that she thought she was talking off the record, whether it was the idea that she was sitting for some kind of other interview that wasn't going to be published immediately, that it has something to do with the 2028 campaign, because Susie Wiles is a calculated and political figure. Everything she does has meaning."

The interview was an unusual move for Wiles, who generally has stood guard behind the scenes.

"She is not somebody who seeks the limelight," Holmes added. "She doesn't get out there in the press and do interviews. So the fact that she did this to so many people who are close to President Trump say that it must mean something. Now, of course, again, Wiles has said that that's not the case, that it was just taken out of context. There was an omission in much of what she said. But again, this has caused quite a stir here at the White House."

Social media users responded to the story and Wiles' accusations that she might not have known the interviews were to be included in the story.

"Susie Wiles: What’s that recorder for? Reporter: Recording your answers. Susie Wiles: Right, like I’m going to say anything that’ll come back to bite me in the a--. Ha!" Chris Robinson, former referee and manager, wrote on X.

"Why would a chief of staff agree to an interview that she may now be saying she thought was off the record???. Under those circumstances it's not an 'interview,'" Duff Montgomerie, who described himself as a retired public servant, wrote on X.

"If you give multiple interviews to Vanity Fair and don’t know whether or not you are on or off the record - then you are not qualified to be a chief of staff. Speaking as a chief of staff," Dj Omega Mvp wrote on X.

"Translation: CNN can't believe Wiles would be that dumb," college instructor Anthony M. Hopper wrote on X.

"Haha! So now Wiles & the White House want to follow the rules," social worker and gerontologist Dolly Madison wrote on X.

"She’s been around long enough," retired attorney and professor Howell Ellerman wrote on X.

Data guru startled as ‘ballooning’ numbers show GOP ‘on track to lose’



Republicans are on the wrong track for holding onto their congressional majorities, according to a new data analysis.

CNN's Harry Enten crunched the numbers on a series of new polling that found Americans are concerned about the direction the country is headed, and the data analyst said they seem to be in the mood for a change in leadership heading into next year's midterm elections.

"I like going traveling, we all do," Enten said. "Look, you know what it was, the NBC News poll came out this weekend, and I saw this wrong track number, and it just kind of jumped out to me because it was 66 percent, and one of the things I always like to look at is, you know, Donald Trump historically has done better than his polling suggested. But these right track-wrong track numbers have generally tracked with what actually the country is feeling. We see 66 percent there, more than three in five Americans who say the country is on the wrong track. Ipsos, 61 percent, MU, Marquette University Law School, 64 percent, Gallup, 74 percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the state of the nation."

"You see it on your screen right there, and all of these numbers, all of these numbers that I could find were the highest percentage who said that the country was on the wrong track since Donald Trump took office," Enten added. "It's not just Trump's poll numbers, it's disapproval that's going higher and higher and higher. It's the wrong track numbers that are going higher and higher, as well."

That's quite a turnaround from the start of Trump's second term, Enten said.

"Yeah, it's a huge change – it's a huge change," he said. "Think that the country is on the wrong track or the right track, you go back to April, May – look, the clear majority of Americans thought that the country was on the wrong track, at 58 percent, but you see 38 percent, a 20-point difference here. Look at that: What we've seen is a ballooning of this, a ballooning. Now you take the average of the polls, right, and now we're talking well north on average."

"Two and three Americans say that the country is on the wrong track now," Enten added. "Less than three in 10 Americans say that the country is on the right track, and when we look at this back in the going into the 2024 election, right, the election in which the Democratic Party was pushed out of power, this number looks a whole heck of a lot. This right track number looks a whole heck of a lot what it looked like going into 2024 election. This 66 percent looks a whole heck of a lot like that number going into the 2024 election."

That's an ominous sign for Republicans heading into next year's election, he said.

"President's party didn't lose House seats, midterms since 1978, percentage said the country was on the wrong track, 46 percent in 2002, 38 percent in 1998," Enten said. "The 66 percent now, the 66 percent, a lot of numbers on the screen right now who say the country is on the wrong track? This doesn't look anything like those midterms where the president's party didn't lose. The Republican Party is on track to lose the House of Representatives if the wrong track numbers look anything like they do right now."


- YouTube youtu.be

Trump CRASHES OUT in OVAL as HEALTH WORRIES GROW

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald...

The ‘Goal’ That Changed The NHL Forever

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fT_bUS3pKp0