ExxonMobil Corp. and Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (Sabic) Gulf Coast Growth Ventures petrochemical complex under construction in Gregory, Texas, U.S., on Wednesday, July 28, 2021.
Eddie Seal | Bloomberg | Getty Images
LONDON — The world’s largest oil and gas majors are seeking to lure back investors by returning more cash to shareholders. Market participants, particularly those looking to the long term, remain highly skeptical.
It comes at a time when oil and gas companies are raking in their highest profits since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic amid a sustained period of stronger commodity prices.
A robust showing in the three months through June built on better-than-expected first-quarter earnings and lent further support to the industry’s efforts to pay down debt and reward investors.
In the U.S., ExxonMobil said late last month that it would back shareholder returns through its dividend and Chevron announced it would resume share buybacks at an annual rate of between $2 billion to $3 billion.
In Europe, meanwhile, the U.K.’s BP, France’s TotalEnergies, Norway’s Equinor, Italy’s Eni and Anglo-Dutch oil giant Royal Dutch Shell all announced share buyback programs or increased dividend payouts — or both. It reflects a broader industry trend of energy majors seeking to reassure investors that they have gained a more stable footing amid the ongoing Covid-19 crisis.
Share buybacks are designed to boost the firm’s stock price, benefiting shareholders. Dividend payments, meanwhile, reflect a token reward to shareholders for their investment. Both are options available to a company seeking to reward investors.
These investments are likely to become stranded assets, and investors don’t want to be left holding the bag.
Kathy Hipple
Finance professor at Bard College
Ahead of the second-quarter results, energy analysts had warned that Big Oil still faced a host of uncertainties and challenges. Some of these include the remarkable success of shareholder activism in recent months, a “tremendous degree” of ongoing investor skepticism and intensifying pressure to massively reduce fossil fuel use.
“Day traders may reap short-term profits, but serious long-term investors have concluded that the old energy of the past — oil and gas extraction, is just that — old, with a sell-by date that is moving closer by the day,” Kathy Hipple, finance professor at Bard College in New York, told CNBC via email.
“Once institutional investors determine that demand has peaked — which likely has already happened — they will abandon the sector permanently,” she added. “Many already have, based on the stock performance of the sector over the past several years.”
IPCC report a ‘death knell’ for fossil fuels
The energy sector, alongside financials, is one of this year’s top performers on the S&P 500, up almost 30% year-to-date. Yet, share prices of many oil majors continue to trail the earnings outlook considerably.
In the U.K., for instance, BP has seen its stock price climb nearly 20% so far this year, but the oil and gas giant recorded a collapse of more than 47% in 2020. BP has previously described 2020 as “a year like no other” due to the impact of the Covid-19 crisis on global energy.
Oil prices have since rebounded to near $70 a barrel and all three of the world’s main forecasting agencies — OPEC, the IEA and the U.S. Energy Information Administration — expect a demand-led recovery to pick up speed through to 2022.
Hipple said that savvy long-term investors would shy away from oil and gas majors “unless and until” they fully acknowledge the climate crisis. “These investors understand that the oil majors are still investing tens of billions in unnecessary oil and gas infrastructure, ignoring the IEA findings that no additional infrastructure is possible to meet a 1.5 [degrees Celsius] scenario,” Hipple said, referring to a critically important target of the Paris Agreement.
“These investments are likely to become stranded assets, and investors don’t want to be left holding the bag.”
Last week, the world’s leading climate scientists delivered their starkest warning yet about the deepening climate emergency. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s landmark report warned a key temperature limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius could be broken in just over a decade in the absence of immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
U.N. Secretary-General, António Guterres, described the report’s findings as a “code red for humanity,” and said it “must sound a death knell” for coal, oil and gas.
Energy majors are typically still overwhelmingly reliant on oil and gas revenues for their earnings — a concept that is irreconcilable to the demands of the climate emergency.
“We frankly just don’t think these are very good businesses,” David Moss, head of European equities at BMO Global Asset Management, told CNBC’s “Street Signs Europe” on Friday.
European energy majors are currently generating “very strong” cash flow following a sustained rebound in oil prices, Moss said, but noted that many are choosing to keep spending relatively tight rather than invest in future production projects.
“With the oil companies, we still just don’t think they represent good long-term businesses,” Moss said. “They don’t generate consistent returns on capital or cash flow, albeit at the moment they look to be in a pretty good place.”
Not everyone is as downbeat on the outlook for the oil and gas industry, however.
Rohan Reddy, analyst at Global X, a New York-based provider of exchange-traded funds, says there are currently a number of positive signs for energy majors, citing rising stock prices, an upswing in second-quarter earnings and increased shareholder distributions.
“Right now, the energy sector is the best performing one within the S&P 500 and many European markets, and even though some of the big majors like BP and Shell have lagged the broader energy sector, we think right now that’s just due to hesitancy around the delta [Covid] variant,” Reddy told CNBC on Aug. 11.
“We think there is going to be a lot more investors starting to pile into to some of those big energy names.”
A view of the turbines at Orsted’s offshore wind farm near Nysted, Denmark, September 4, 2023.
Tom Little | Reuters
President Donald Trump promised to unleash U.S. energy dominance, but his sweeping executive order targeting wind power puts a pipeline of projects at risk that would generate enough electricity for millions of American homes.
The order Trump issued on his first day in office indefinitely paused new offshore wind leases in U.S. coastal waters and halted new permits pending the completion of a review. The order jeopardizes proposed projects on the East Coast that have not yet secured permits totaling 32 gigawatts of power, according to data from the consulting firm Aurora Energy Research.
“At the moment, it’s really hard to see how any of these projects will be able to move forward,” said Artem Abramov, head of new energies research at the consultancy Rystad. Like Aurora, Rystad estimates that around 30 gigawatts of projects on the U.S. East Coast are at risk.
Those projects, if realized, would provide enough combined power for more than 12 million homes in the U.S., according a CNBC analysis of data from the Energy Information Administration. The order is not expected to impact projects under construction totaling about 5 gigawatts, according to Aurora.
Trump has abandoned commitments made during the Biden administration to fight climate change, withdrawing the U.S. for a second time from the Paris agreement. He has focused on boosting fossil fuel production, opening U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas leasing on the same day he withdrew those waters for wind.
Trump’s order will jeopardize the efforts of states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast to transition away from fossil fuels and decarbonize their electric grid, Abramov said. New York, New Jersey and Virginia, for example, have ambitious clean energy goals adopted at the state level. But they are too far north to rely on solar with battery for power, Abramov said.
“If you want to achieve the future where the power generation in New York or New Jersey or Virginia is completely fossil free, if that’s the ultimate goal, there are not so many alternatives to offshore wind,” Abramov said.
The order could ultimately force states to rely more on carbon-emitting natural gas, according to Rystad and Aurora. But it is virtually impossible for a state like New York to meet its climate goals and ensure an adequate energy supply, particularly downstate in the New York City metro area, without offshore wind, said Julia Hoos, who heads Aurora’s U.S. East division.
Power projects waiting in line to connect to the electric grid in downstate New York through 2027 are almost entirely wind and transmission, Hoos said.
“There is virtually no possibility to bring online new gas in the next 18 to 24 months, unless there’s a significant reform or there’s some sort of fast track to bring online that gas, so you really can run into reliability issues,” Hoos said.
But more natural gas generation will likely be built later in the decade on the back of Trump’s policies, Hoos said. Investor sentiment was already shifting toward gas before the election results due in part to the need for reliable power to meet demand from artificial intelligence data centers, Abramov said.
Immediate impact
Two weeks after Trump’s order, New Jersey decided against moving forward for now with the Atlantic Shores project, which stood to become the first offshore wind development in the state. The state utilities board cited “uncertainty driven by federal actions and permitting” and European oil major Shell pulling out of the project.
“The offshore wind industry is currently facing significant challenges, and now is the time for patience and prudence,” Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement backing the board’s decision.
Murphy, who has set a goal to achieve 100% clean energy in New Jersey by 2035, said he hoped “the Trump Administration will partner with New Jersey to lower costs for consumers, promote energy security, and create good-paying construction and manufacturing jobs.”
Offshore wind in the U.S. “has come to a stop, more or less with immediate effect” in the wake of Trump’s order, Vestas Wind Energy Systems CEO Henrik Andersen told investors on the company’s Feb. 5 earnings call. Denmark’s Vestas is one of the world’s leaders in manufacturing and servicing wind turbines.
Industry headwinds
Trump’s order deepens the challenges of an industry that was already facing an uncertain outlook after years growth.
Wind has surged as power source in the U.S. over the past 25 years from 2.4 gigawatts of installed generating capacity to 150 gigawatts by April 2024, according to data from the Energy Information Administration. Generation from wind hit a record that month, surpassing coal-fired power. Wind currently represents about 11% of total U.S. power generation.
But the industry has struggled against supply chain bottlenecks and high interest rates. Offshore wind was already the the most expensive form of renewable energy, Abramov said. Developers in the U.S. have faced a lot of cost certainty due to the challenges of building on water as opposed to land, Hoos said.
“The industry was hoping that the cost would come down,” Abramov said. “We haven’t seen any projects in the United States which was able to achieve lower levelized cost of energy.”
The world’s largest offshore wind developer, Denmark’s Orsted, decided on Feb. 5 to ditch its goal to install up to 38 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2030. Orsted also slashed its investment program through the end of the decade by about 25% to range of 210 to 230 billion Danish crowns (about $29 billion to $32 billion), down from 270 billion crowns previously.
Orsted’s Sunrise Wind and Revolution wind projects that are under construction offshore New York and New England respectively should not be impacted by Trump’s order, CEO Rasmus Errboe told investors the company’s company’s Feb. 6 earnings call. Future developments, however, may be at risk.
“We are fully committed to moving them forward and deliver on our commitments,” Errboe said. “We do not expect that the executive order will have any implications on assets under construction, but of course for assets under development, it’s potentially a different situation.”
The order also should not impact Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, the largest such project under construction in the U.S. at 2.6 gigawatts of power, Dominion Energy CEO Robert Blue told investors on the utility’s Feb. 12 earning call.
“Stopping it would be the most inflationary action that could be taken with respect to energy in Virginia,” Blue said. “It’s needed to power that growing data center market we’ve been talking about, critical to continuing U.S. superiority in AI and technology.”
Looking for clarity
The wind industry lobby group American Clean Power in a Jan. 20 statement described Trump’s order as a blanket measure that will jeopardize domestic energy development and harm American businesses and workers. The president’s order contradicts the administration’s goal to reduce bureaucracy and unleash energy production, ACP CEO Jason Grumet said in the statement.
The ACP is now trying to get clarity from the Trump administration on how the executive order will be implemented, said Frank Macchiarola, the group’s chief advocacy officer. It’s unclear, for example, when the review of permit and lease practices will be complete, Macchiarola said.
A spokesperson for the Interior Department simply said the department is implementing Trump’s executive order when asked for comment on a detailed list of questions. When asked when the review of permit and lease practices will be complete, the spokesperson said any estimate would be hypothetical.
The wind industry is committed to working with the Trump administration, supports the president’s push for energy dominance agenda and is making the case that renewables have a key role to play in that agenda as the largest new source of electricity in the U.S., Macchiarola said.
“When past administrations have chosen to stifle American energy development that has been almost universally viewed as a mistake,” Macchiarola said.
Onshore wind permitting has also been halted pending the review, but the part of the industry is unlikely to face a substantial impact, Rystad’s Abramov said. Wind farms onshore are almost entirely built on private rather than federal land, he said. The market is also already saturated and adding capacity is largely dependent on building out more energy storage first, the analyst said.
Offshore wind, however, is a much less mature market in the U.S. and was viewed as major growth opportunity for the industry, Abramov said. But that appears to changing rapidly.
“They don’t see the U.S. as a market for continuous offshore wind expansion as long as this order is in place,” the analyst said.
— CNBC’s Gabriel Cortes contributed to this report.
Last month, Geotab signed a deal with Volvo Group to integrate the manufacturer’s vehicle data API into Geotab’s telematics platform. It’s the latest in a recent onslaught of such deals between telematics providers and OEMs that begs the question: what’s in it for the OEMs?
“Smart tools informed by data like E-Switch Assist are opening up many new conversations with our commercial customers large and small about EV readiness; we’re already using E-Switch Assist regularly in consultations to help organizations determine if electric trucks and vans are right for them,” says Nate McDonald, EV strategy and cross vehicle brand manager at Ford Pro. “The importance of these tools and technologies goes beyond selling a customer a new vehicle—it changes mindsets about whether electric vehicles will work for their business while potentially saving them time and money.”
So, it makes sense for manufacturers to build that connectivity into their vehicles and makes even more sense to use that data connection to populate a fleet management dashboard that makes it painless for fleet managers to monitor their assets within a trusted ecosystem. Think Android vs. iPhone, and the pain that would go into switching from one to the other after a decade or so of constant interaction – because that’s how the OEMs are looking at it.
Why, then, would an OEM open up that data stream to a third party like Geotab?
The answer, presumably, is that that data sharing is a two-way street: the manufacturer’s are opening up their APIs to Geotab, and Geotab is sharing at least some of the data from other manufacturers with their industry partners.
And Geotab has a lot of partners:
In 2019, Geotab began working with Ford to integrate Ford’s telematics data into its fleet management platform
In 2022, Geotab began partnering with Stellantis’ Free2move car sharing brand, providing full telematics integration into the MyGeotab platform in North America
In April of 2024, Geotab partnered with Mobilisights to integrate data from Stellantis’ European brands, including Opel, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Citroën, and Peugeot
In September of 2024, Geotab announced a new partnership with VW Group Info Services aimed at improving the company’s data integration across its brands
All of those players are convinced that the data coming from their vehicles can produce enough value to seriously impact fleet ROI.
Fleet managers seem convinced, too. In a recent McKinsey survey, nearly 57% of EV buyers said they were willing to switch brands in order to get better connectivity features. And, if you’ve ever worked in “a Ford shop” or “a Chevy shop” you already know what a huge that deal that number might be to an OEM.
McKinsey connectivity survey
BEV buyers’ willingness to switch brands; via McKinsey.
In that point of view, working with a trusted, universal platform like Geotab who doesn’t have a dog in the vehicle sales fight makes sense. If the Ford Transit the fleet buyer is looking at plays well with their fleet auditing software and systems and the Nissan NV doesn’t – well, it doesn’t really matter if Nissan’s fleetail guy is giving you a better deal at that point. It’s just too painful to operate a second dashboard for one subset of assets.
The man-hours saved with a universal and brand agnostic fleet management platform may not be the easiest to trace all the way to the bottom line, but they’re there.
Geotab research shows that EV batteries could last 20 years or more if they degrade at an average rate of 1.8% per year, as we have observed.
According to our data, the simple answer is that the vast majority of batteries will outlast the usable life of the vehicle and will never need to be replaced. If an average EV battery degrades at 1.8% per year, it will still have over 80% state of health after 12 years, generally beyond the usual life of a fleet vehicle.
Telematics integrations can also help optimize a fleet’s charging schedules, both by scheduling EV charging for lower priced, off-peak hours and by identifying the most dependable high-speed charging stations along regular routes to minimize down time for both vehicles and drivers.
French hydrogen firm Hyvia has been given a stay of execution. The Commercial Court of Versaille has given Hyvia a few extra weeks to get through its insolvency proceedings and find a buyer – but, frankly, it ain’t lookin’ good.
Hyvia began life as a joint venture between French carmaker Renault and American company Plug Power in 2021, but as anyone with more than a social media headline-deep knowledge of hydrogen’s shortcomings as a transportation already know: it’s impossible for hydrogen to compete with BEVs.
To its credit, Renault seems to have learned those rather expensive lessons about hydrogen well – and has learned so much about hydrogen that it’s committed to a full range of battery electric delivery vans. The French carmaker’s new vans range in size from something like an MPV/minivan on up to a box van and something like one of the Amazon delivery vans built by Rivian called the Estafette E-Tech (below, center).
Renault commercial electric vans
Electric commercial vans, via Renault.
But this article isn’t about Renault’s EVs, it’s about the hydrogen-powered Hyvia brand – and Hyvia doesn’t seem to be long for this world. That hard truth becomes even more obvious when you read the company’s own statement on the matter, which is almost wholly devoid of self-awareness and full of external blame:
For three years, HYVIA, one of the first companies to invest and innovate in hydrogen mobility, has developed an offer, in a market which unfortunately still remains absent.
The too slow evolution of hydrogen mobility ecosystems in Europe and the very significant development costs required for H2 innovation led to this decision.