Oxy CEO Vicki Hollub doesn’t seem worried about White House pressure on buybacks, oil prices
Occidental (long known as Occidental Petroleum) was the No. 1-performing stock in S&P 500 last year, but it didn’t get there by way of massive growth in oil and gas production. While fossil fuels have the tailwind of the Russia-Ukraine war resetting energy policy and priorities around the globe, on Wall Street, it’s the recent capital discipline displayed by energy companies that has been as a big a factor in market performance.
The boom and bust cycles of the past when oil rig count exploded in line with the latest high price in crude oil are now seen as a cautionary tale. “We’ve seen that movie before,” Hess CEO John Hess said at the annual CERAWeek energy conference on Tuesday. That new fiscal approach from the energy patch has not made the White House happy, especially when oil prices and oil company profits were at a peak last year. The blowback from President Biden has continued, with recent buyback programs from companies including Chevron attracting renewed scrutiny. But when you listen to the way Chevron CEO Mike Wirth talked about its plans to increase the level of buybacks for shareholders, it seems the White House was an afterthought — if any thought was given to it.
Long-time energy sector analyst Paul Sankey put it this way after the recent Chevron earnings call: “I would be absolutely certain many in the White House own Chevron stock in their 401ks. In DC, it is clear that politicians have no comprehension of 1) what a buyback is and 2) how many Americans own stocks in their pension funds/401ks. The tone of Mike’s delivery, and he is a relaxed and confident guy, indicated that they were not really considering Washington, D.C.”
Wirth isn’t the only one sitting in the driver’s seat at a major oil and gas company who seems to have little time to worry about the way the White House views stock buybacks.
Loading chart…
Occidental’s approach has attracted the world’s most-famous investor, with the company quickly growing to be among the top 10 stocks held by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway over the past several years (second to Chevron among Buffett’s public energy stock holdings). Buffett recently made clear (for the umpteenth time) what he thinks about politicians weighing in on buybacks.
With roughly 12% production growth, Occidental could produce more. And in fact, one point the White House has made is that oil companies are spending too much on “enriching” shareholders and not enough on producing more. But when asked by CNBC’s Brian Sullivan on Monday at CERAWeek if the company could produce more, Occidental CEO Vicki Hollub answered in a direct way that defies any concern about political pressure:
“We do,” Hollub said, have the ability to produce more oil, “but we have a value proposition that includes an active buyback program and also a growing dividend and we always want to make sure we max out our return on capital employed. So we are very careful with how we structure our capital program on an annual basis to make sure we still have sufficient cash to buy back shares.”
This year, Occidental authorized a new $3 billion share repurchase authorization and a 38% increase to its dividend. It completed $3 billion in share repurchases last year, with $562 million of repurchases in the fourth quarter.
Frederick Forthuber, president of Oxy Energy Services, said separately at CERAWeek that U.S. oil production will grow by about 500,000 barrels per day this year, with 80% or 90% of that coming from the Permian basin, according to Reuters. Hollub noted in her CNBC interview that current capacity as measured in total barrels produced per day — nearly 12 million bpd in 2022 and projected by the EIA to reach over 12 million bpd this year — has not changed significantly from the pre-pandemic world, though the EIA forecast would be a new record. Its outlook for gas prices is an average $3.57/gallon this year.
For consumers still worried about the price of gas at the pump, which has come down significantly along with crude prices from last summer’s high, don’t look to Hollub for more relief. Gas prices are right where they should be right now, she says, and are likely to stay this way.
“Prices are in a good place right now, in the $75-$80 range. That’s a sustainable price scenario for the industry to continue to be healthy and gas prices at the pump are not so bad at this price.”
In fact, she described the situation as “optimum.”
“I do believe the mid-cycle price of oil is close to $80, maybe $75 to $80,” Hollub said. “In that price regime we can balance supply with demand over time,” she added.
If there is risk to gas prices this year, it’s to the upside. “I do think towards the end of the year we will have a little supply issue relative to demand, and it could send prices higher,” she said.
And while the energy CEOs are showing through their words and actions this year that they aren’t buying the White House “Big Oil” rhetoric and will continue to message to the shareholders they’ve been able to win back, Hollub does expect one notable oil buyer to remain on the sidelines this year: the White House.
Amid high gas prices last year, the Biden administration released the most oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on record, 180 million barrels. While the administration has said it will be replenishing the SPR, Hollub doesn’t expect much buying.
“I think we should have more storage in the SPR and over time the administration will buy that storage back and start to refill, but it’s gonna be hard to do any time in the next couple of years, because I do believe we are in a scenario where prices will be higher.”
Among the reasons oil prices will remain higher?
“Lack of supply and lack of investment in our industry over the years,” Hollub said. “I do think they are going to have a difficult time here in the near term.”
Based on the way the oil CEOs are talking, maybe in more ways than one.
Tesla has been forced to reimburse a customer’s Full Self-Driving package after an arbitrator determined that the automaker failed to deliver it.
Tesla has been promising its car owners that every vehicle it has built since 2016 has all the hardware capable of unsupervised self-driving.
The automaker has been selling a “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) package that is supposed to deliver this unsupervised self-driving capability through over-the-air software updates.
Almost a decade later, Tesla has yet to deliver on its promise, and its claim that the cars’ hardware is capable of self-driving has been proven wrong. Tesla had to update all cars with HW2 and 2.5 computers to HW3 computers.
In January 2025, CEO Elon Musk finally admitted that HW3 also won’t be able to support self-driving and said that Tesla will have to upgrade the computers. 6 months later, Tesla has yet to communicate a plan for retrofits to owners.
Tesla is now attempting to deliver its promise of unsupervised self-driving on HW4 cars, which have been in production since 2023-2024, depending on the model. However, there are still significant doubts about this being possible, as the best available data indicate that Tesla only achieves about 500 miles between critical disengagements with the latest software on the hardware.
The situation is creating a significant liability for Tesla, which already needs to replace computers in millions of vehicles, and it may need to do so in millions more.
On the other hand, many customers are losing faith in Tesla’s ability to deliver on its promise and manage this computer retrofit situation. Some of them have been seeking to be reimbursed for their purchase of the Full Self-Driving package, which Tesla sold from $8,000 to $15,000.
A Tesla owner in Washington managed to get the automaker to reimburse the FSD package, but it wasn’t easy.
The 2021 Model Y was Marc Dobin and his wife’s third Tesla. Due to his wife’s declining mobility, Dobin was intrigued about the FSD package as a potential way to give her more independence. He wrote in a blog post:
But FSD was more than hype for us. The promise of a car that could drive my wife around gave us hope that she’d maintain independence as her motor skills declined. We paid an extra $10,000 for FSD.
Tesla’s FSD quickly disillusioned Dobin. First, he couldn’t even enable it due to Tesla restricting the Beta access through a “safety score” system, something he pointed out was never mentioned in the contract.
Furthermore, the feature required the supervision of a driver at all times, which was not what Tesla sold to customers.
Tesla doesn’t make it easy for customers in the US to seek a refund or to sue Tesla as it forces buyers to go through arbitration through its sales contract.
That didn’t deter Dobin, who happens to be a lawyer with years of experience in arbitration. It took almost a year, but Tesla and Dobin eventually found themselves in arbitration, and it didn’t go well for the automaker:
Almost a year after filing, the evidentiary hearing was held via Zoom. Tesla produced one witness: a Field Technical Specialist who admitted he hadn’t checked what equipment shipped with our car, hadn’t reviewed our driving logs, and didn’t know details about the FSD system installed on our car, if any. He hadn’t spoken to any sales rep we dealt with or reviewed the contract’s integration clause.
There were both a Tesla lawyer and an outside counsel representing Tesla at the hearing, but the witness was not equipped to answer questions.
Dobin wrote:
He was a service technician, not a lawyer or salesperson. But that’s who Tesla brought to the hearing. At the end, I genuinely felt bad for him because Tesla set him up to be a human punching bag—someone unprepared to answer key questions, forced to defend a system he clearly didn’t understand. While I was examining him, a Tesla in-house lawyer sat silently, while the company’s outside counsel tried to soften the blows of the witness’ testimony.
He focused on Tesla’s lack of disclosure regarding the safety score and the fact that the system does not meet the promises made to customers.
The arbitrator sided with Dobin and wrote:
The evidence is persuasive that the feature was not functional, operational, or otherwise available.”
Tesla was forced to reimburse the FSD package $10,000 plus taxes, and pay for the almost $8,000 in arbitration fees.
Since Tesla forces arbitration through its contracts, it is required to cover the cost.
Electrek’s Take
This is interesting. Tesla assigned two lawyers to this case in an attempt to avoid reimbursing $10,000, knowing it would have to cover the expensive arbitration fees – most likely losing tens of thousands of dollars in the process.
It makes no sense to me. Tesla should have a standing offer to reimburse FSD for anyone who requests it until it can actually deliver on its promise of unsupervised self-driving.
That’s the right thing to do, and the fact that Tesla would waste money trying to fight customers requesting a refund is really telling.
Tesla is simply not ready to do the right thing here, and it doesn’t bode well for the computer retrofits and all the other liabilities around Tesla FSD.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
BYD says its about to launch the ‘largest-scale’ smart driving software update in history
After hitting a major milestone on Monday, BYD claimed it’s about to unleash “the largest-scale smart driving OTA in history.”
BYD preps for the largest-scale software update
BYD announced on Weibo that there are now over 1 million vehicles on the road with its God’s Eye smart driving system.
The milestone comes after it upgraded 21 of its top-selling vehicles with the smart driving tech in February, at no extra cost. Even its most affordable EV, the Seagull, which starts at under $10,000 (69,800 yuan), got the upgrade.
BYD didn’t reveal any specifics, only promising “it is safer and smarter.” The Chinese EV giant has three different “God’s Eye” levels: A, B, and C.
The highest, God’s Eye A, is typically reserved for BYD’s ultra-luxury Yangwang brand, which utilizes its DiPilot 600 smart cockpit with three LiDARs.
God’s Eye B is used for other luxury and higher-end models, including those under Denza, which utilize DiPilot 300 and one or two LiDARs.
The base God’s Eye C system, used for BYD brand models, includes 12 cameras, five wave radars, and 12 ultrasonic radars, all supported by DiPilot 100.
Last week, BYD’s luxury off-road brand, Fang Cheng Bao, launched a limited-time offer for Huawei’s Qiankun Intelligent Driving High-end Function Package. The discount cuts the price from 32,000 yuan ($4,500) to just 12,000 yuan ($1,700).
After selling another 382,585 vehicles in June, BYD now has over 2.1 million in cumulative sales in the first half of 2025, up 33% from last year.
With the “largest-scale smart driving” update coming soon, BYD’s vehicles are about to gain new functions and safety features. Check back soon for more details.
BYD claims it’s “capable of leading the transformation and popularization of intelligent driving” with over 5,000 engineers dedicated to the field. As the world’s largest NEV maker, BYD said it’s committed to transforming the auto industry with safer and more sustainable solutions for global markets.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Kia’s electric SUV is a hit in the UK. The EV3 was the most popular retail EV through the first half of 2025, pushing Kia to become the UK’s third top-selling car brand so far this year.
Kia EV3 leads as the UK’s most popular retail EV
The EV3 is Kia’s fastest-selling EV in the UK and a massive part of the brand’s success this year. Kia said the compact electric SUV contributed to its best-ever June, Q2, and first half EV registrations so far this year.
In January, the EV3 “started with a bang,” racing out to become the UK’s most popular retail EV. The EV3 was the best-selling retail EV in the UK and the fourth best-selling EV overall in the first quarter, including commercial vehicles.
Through the first half of the year, the Kia EV3 maintained its crown as the UK’s most popular EV with 6,293 registrations.
The EV3 starts at £33,005 ($42,500) as the ‘brand’s most affordable EV yet.” It’s available with two battery packs: 58.3 kWh or 81.48 kWh, providing a WLTP range of up to 430 km (270 miles) and 599 km (375 miles), respectively.
Kia sold 31,643 electrified vehicles in the first half of 2025. Although this includes fully electric vehicles (EVs), plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), and hybrids (HEVs), it still accounts for over half of Kia’s total of 62,005 registrations.
After opening orders for the EV4 last week, Kia’s first electric hatchback, the brand expects to see even more demand throughout 2025. With up to 388 miles WLTP range, it’s also the longest-range Kia EV to date.
Next year, Kia will introduce the entry-level EV2, which will sit below the EV3 in Kia’s lineup. Kia is looking to add an even more affordable EV to sit below the EV2. It will start at under $30,000 (€25,000), but we likely won’t see it until closer toward the end of the decade.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike