Tag Archives: BP

Business Losses From Russia Top $59 Billion as Sanctions Hit

Global companies have racked up more than $59 billion in losses from their Russian operations, with more financial pain to come as sanctions hit the economy and sales and shutdowns continue, according to a review of public statements and securities filings.

Almost 1,000 Western businesses have pledged to exit or cut back operations in Russia, following its invasion of Ukraine, according to Yale researchers.

Many are reassessing the reported value of those Russian businesses, as a weakening local economy and a lack of willing buyers render once-valuable assets worthless. Companies under U.S. and international reporting standards have to take impairment charges, or write-downs, when the value of an asset declines.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

When or how do you expect companies to recover from their losses in Russia? Join the conversation below.

The write-downs to date span a range of industries, from banks and brewers to manufacturers, retailers, restaurants and shipping companies—even a wind-turbine maker and a forestry firm. The fast-food giant

McDonald’s Corp.

expects to record an accounting charge of $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion after agreeing to sell its Russian restaurants to a local licensee;

Exxon Mobil Corp.

took a $3.4 billion charge after halting operations at an oil and gas project in Russia’s Far East; Budweiser brewer

Anheuser-Busch InBev SA

took a $1.1 billion charge after deciding to sell its stake in a Russian joint venture.

“This round of impairments is not the end of it,” said Carla Nunes, a managing director at the risk-consulting firm Kroll LLC. “As the crisis continues, we could see more financial fallout, including indirect impact from the conflict.”

The financial fallout of the conflict isn’t significant for most multinationals, in part because of the relatively small size of the Russian economy. Fewer than 50 companies account for most of the $59 billion tally. Even for those, the Russian losses are typically a relatively small part of their overall finances. McDonald’s, for example, said its Russia and Ukraine businesses represented less than 3% of its operating income last year.

Some companies are writing off assets stranded in Russia. The Irish aircraft leasing company

AerCap Holdings

NV last month took an accounting charge of $2.7 billion, which included writing off the value of more than 100 of its planes that are stuck in the country. The aircraft were leased to Russian airlines. Other leasing companies are taking similar hits.

Other businesses are assuming that they will realize no money from their Russian operations, even before they have finalized exit plans. The British oil major

BP

PLC’s $25.5 billion accounting charge on its Russian holdings last month included writing off $13.5 billion of shares in the oil producer

Rosneft.

The company hasn’t said how or when it plans to divest its Russian assets.

BP’s $25.5 billion accounting charge on its Russian holdings include writing off $13.5 billion of shares in oil producer Rosneft.



Photo:

Yuri Kochetkov/EPA/Shutterstock

Even some companies that are retaining a presence in Russia are writing down assets. The French energy giant

TotalEnergies

SE took a $4.1 billion charge in April on the value of its natural-gas reserves, citing the impact of Western sanctions targeting Russia.

The Securities and Exchange Commission last month told companies that they have to disclose Russian-related losses clearly, and that they shouldn’t adjust revenue to add back the estimated income that has been lost because of Russia.

Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

, which in March said it had stopped new banking business in Russia, appeared to breach this guidance when it reported its results for the first three months of this year. The New York custody bank in April reported $4 billion in revenue under one measure that included $88 million added to reflect income lost because of Russia.

A BNY Mellon spokesman declined to comment.

Investors appear to have mixed reactions to the write-downs, partly because most multinationals have relatively small Russian exposure, academic research suggests.

Financial markets are “rewarding companies for leaving Russia,” a recent study by Yale School of Management found. The share-price gains for companies pulling out have “far surpassed the cost of one-time impairments for companies that have written down the value of their Russian assets,” the researchers concluded.

Bank of New York Mellon said earlier this year that it had stopped new banking business in Russia.



Photo:

Gabriela Bhaskar/Bloomberg News

Research using a different methodology found a more subtle investor reaction. Analysis by Indiana University professor Vivek Astvansh and his co-authors of the short-term market impact of more than 200 corporate announcements revealed a marked trans-Atlantic divide. Investors punished U.S. companies for pulling out of Russia, and non-American companies for not withdrawing, the analysis found.

More write-downs and other Russia-related accounting charges are expected in the coming months, as companies complete their planned departures from the country.

British American Tobacco

PLC, whose brands include Rothmans and Lucky Strike, said on March 11 it had “initiated the process to rapidly transfer our Russian business.” That transfer is still ongoing, according to a BAT spokeswoman. BAT hasn’t taken an impairment in relation to the business.

Accounting specialist

Jack Ciesielski

said companies might hold off announcing a write-down until they have a good handle on how big the loss will be.

“You don’t want to put a number out there until you’re confident that it’s not likely to change,” said Mr. Ciesielski, owner of investment research firm R.G. Associates Inc.

The ruble’s recovery is helping Russia prop up its economy and continue its Ukraine war effort. WSJ’s Dion Rabouin explains how Russia boosted its ailing currency and how it is affecting the global economy. Illustration: Ryan Trefes

Many companies are giving investors rough estimates about what to expect on Russia-related losses.

The manufacturer

ITT Inc.,

which has suspended its operations in Russia, said last month it expects a $60 million to $85 million hit to revenue this year because of a “significant reduction in sales” in the country. That is a small slice of the $2.8 billion in total revenue for the maker of specialty components for the auto, aerospace and energy industries.

As sanctions weaken the Russian economy, businesses still operating there are reassessing their future earnings and booking losses. Ride-sharing giant

Uber Technologies Inc.

in May took a $182 million impairment on the value of its stake in a Russian taxi joint-venture because of forecasts of a protracted recession in the Russian economy. Uber said in February it was looking for opportunities to accelerate its planned sale of the stake.

Write to Jean Eaglesham at jean.eaglesham@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Shell, BP to Withdraw From Russian Oil, Gas

European oil giants

Shell

SHEL 2.85%

PLC and

BP

BP 5.53%

PLC said they were stepping back further from doing business with Russia, with Shell saying it will immediately halt all spot purchase of crude from the country and will phase out its other trading and business dealings.

A spokesman for BP said it won’t enter into new business with Russian entities or business involving Russian ports “unless essential for ensuring security of supply.”

The two made their moves ahead of what people familiar with the matter say is a plan by the Biden administration to ban Russian oil imports into the U.S. The Wall Street Journal reported an announcement on the issue is imminent. The administration’s deliberations about the ban have ramped up as lawmakers of both parties, including House Speaker

Nancy Pelosi,

called for action on the issue.The White House declined to comment.

Futures for Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, rose more than 5% early Tuesday. Oil prices for both measures were already up before the Journal report but rose further after.

Shell had previously said it would pull out of a number of joint ventures in the country. On Tuesday, it said it would also shut its service stations and aviation fuels and lubricants operations in Russia, and it won’t renew any Russian term contracts. It said it would find alternative supplies of oil as soon as possible, though it cautioned it could take weeks to fully make up the difference, leading to reduced production at some refineries.

Shell faced a backlash last week and over the weekend when it snapped up a cargo of Russian crude at a bargain price, after many other players had started to curtail their purchases, creating an informal embargo from some buyers in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The company on Tuesday apologized for the purchase and said it would commit from its Russian oil purchases to humanitarian funds aimed at alleviating the crisis in Ukraine. Shell had previously said it would exit its joint ventures with Russian energy giant

Gazprom PJSC.

BP won’t charter Russian-owned or Russian-operated vessels where possible, the spokesman said. In cases where it already has, the company “will continue to monitor their safe passage and comply with all applicable sanctions and local restrictions.” The spokesman said the decisions were made in the middle of last week, calling the situation a “rapidly changing and complex area” that BP continues to review. Previously, BP said it would relinquish its nearly 20% stake in oil giant

Rosneft,

following pressure from the U.K. government.

Russia’s attack on Ukraine helped push the price of oil to over $100 a barrel for the first time since 2014. Here’s how rising oil costs could further boost inflation across the U.S. economy. Photo illustration: Todd Johnson

The U.S. and its allies left energy out of an array of economic sanctions imposed on Moscow in response to the invasion. Many refiners, though, went further, shunning Russian crude. Such self-sanctioning has taken a chunk out of global supplies, pushing prices for international benchmark Brent sharply higher. Traders say it is also causing a backup in Russia’s energy supply chain, prompting refiners to cut back production.

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

There’s Been Yet Another Oil Spill In The US

A pump failure at the Marathon Galveston Bay Refinery caused the spill

Crude oil poured from the Marathon Galveston Bay Refinery in Texas this morning after a pump failed on one of its storage tanks.

The refinery, which processes 593,000 barrels of oil each day, began leaking oil on Wednesday morning, reported ABC News. The leak was isolated to a storage tank containing crude oil at the refinery.

As a result of the leak, one road has been closed in the area but no injuries were reported.

The report said:

“The leak was isolated to the refinery complex and was blamed on the failure of a pump seal at the facility, according to Bruce Clawson, interim director of Homeland Security for Texas City.”

ABC News added that “it wasn’t clear” how much oil had spilled from the tank.

According to the report from ABC News, the Texas oil spill is now under control. Officials from the refinery added that a cleanup operation is now underway.

A statement from Marathon Petroleum, which operates the refinery, said that cleanup is ongoing and that it is monitoring the impact of the spill.

“The refinery has deployed air monitoring in the community as a precaution, and there is no indication of risk to the community,” Jamal Kheiry, Marathon Petroleum Corporation communications manager, said in a statement.

“Cleanup is underway, and regulatory notifications have been made.”

Officials from Texas City, where the facility is located, added that they were monitoring the situation and that affected roads could be closed for up to eight hours.

The spill is the second US oil leak in the space of a week, after an oil spill off southern California caused massive damage to wetland environments.

The leak on Sunday was caused by a breach connected to the Elly oil rig. The incident saw 126,000 gallons, or 3,000 barrels, of crude oil spill into the ocean. The leak quickly spread to cover 13 square miles of the Pacific Ocean.

Read original article here

This technology could transform renewable energy. BP and Chevron just invested

BP and Chevron have made a landmark expansion into geothermal energy on Tuesday, betting on a new technology that could prove to be the world’s first scalable clean energy derived from a constant source: the natural heat of the earth, 

The two major oil companies have headlined a $40 million funding round into a Canadian geothermal energy firm called Eavor. Based in Calgary, Eavor has pioneered a new form of technology that could feasibly be deployed in many places around the world.

The investment marks a key move into an area otherwise ignored by energy companies, which have largely looked to wind and solar projects in their efforts to diversify away from fossil fields.

It is the first investment into geothermal energy for BP
BP,
+1.45%
and a re-entry into the field for Chevron
CVX,
+0.58%,
which sold its geothermal assets in 2016.

Eavor has previously only accepted angel investment and venture capital. The $40 million injection will be used to further research and development to help scale the power system to be price-competitive.

Also read: Even with $1.1 trillion firepower, this fund is battling rivals to get its hands on green-energy opportunities

“We see Eavor’s potential to be complementary to our growing wind and solar portfolios,” said Felipe Arbelaez, BP’s senior vice president of zero carbon energy. “Technology such as Eavor’s has the potential to deliver geothermal power and heat and help unlock a low carbon future.”

Eavor has developed a new type of geothermal technology that, in very simple terms, creates an underground “radiator.” 

The Eavor “Loop” consists of a closed-loop network of pipes installed typically 3 kilometers to 4 kilometers below the earth’s surface, originating and terminating in the same aboveground facility. The pipes are installed using advanced drilling techniques perfected in the oil patch.

Liquid travels in the pipes from the aboveground facility through the hot ambient underground environment, before naturally circulating back to the top of the loop. The hot liquid is then converted into electricity or transferred to a district heat grid. 

A major advantage to this type of energy is that it is constant, providing a base load of electricity to a grid system without requiring challenging battery solutions of intermittent wind and solar power. 

Shots from a virtual tour of Eavor’s full-scale prototype.


Photo courtesy of Eavor.

Unlike hydroelectricity, which relies on large sources of constant water flow, it is designed to be scaled, and Eavor envisions rigs installed under solar panel fields and in space-constrained regions like Singapore.

Geothermal energy has been around for decades, enjoying a boom period in the 1970s and 1980s before largely falling out of the spotlight in the 1990s. Relying on heat below the surface of the earth, it has long been an attractive proposition for oil-and-gas companies, which have core expertise in below-ground exploration and drilling.

The problem is that conventional geothermal technology relies on finding superhot water sources underground, making them expensive, risky, and rare bets. More recent advances have roots in the shale oil boom, and use fracking techniques to actually create the underground reservoirs needed to generate energy. But this can pose a problem from an environmental and sustainability standpoint.

Eavor’s solution doesn’t require the exploratory risk of traditional geothermal energy or disrupt the earth the way that fracking-style geothermal does.

Plus: Tesla and other car makers will be impacted by Boris Johnson’s new plan for electric vehicles. Here’s how

John Redfern, Eavor’s president and chief executive, told MarketWatch that the system’s predictability, established in field trials in partnership with Royal Dutch Shell
RDSA,
+1.25%,
is repeatable and scalable, making it much like wind and solar installations.

“We’re not an exploration game like traditional oil and gas or traditional geothermal. We’re a repeatable manufacturing process, and as such we don’t need the same rate of return,” Redfern said.

“Before we even build the system, unlike an oil well or traditional geothermal, we already know what the outputs can be. Once it is up and running, it is super predictable,” Redfern said. “Therefore, you can finance these things exactly like wind and solar, with a lot of debt at very low interest rates.”

Read original article here

Exxon, Chevron CEOs Discussed Merger

The chief executives of

Exxon Mobil Corp.

XOM -2.65%

and

Chevron Corp.

CVX -4.29%

spoke about combining the oil giants after the pandemic shook the world last year, according to people familiar with the talks, testing the waters for what could be one of the largest corporate mergers ever.

Chevron Chief Executive

Mike Wirth

and Exxon CEO

Darren Woods

discussed a merger following the outbreak of the new coronavirus, which decimated oil and gas demand and put enormous financial strain on both companies, the people said. The discussions were described as preliminary and aren’t ongoing but could come back in the future, the people said.

Such a deal would reunite the two largest descendants of

John D. Rockefeller’s

Standard Oil monopoly, which was broken up by U.S. regulators in 1911, and reshape the oil industry.

A combined company’s market value could top $350 billion. Exxon has a market value of $190 billion, while Chevron’s is $164 billion. Together, they would likely form the world’s second largest oil company by market capitalization and production, producing about 7 million barrels of oil and gas a day, based on pre-pandemic levels, second only in both measures to Saudi Aramco.

But a merger of the two largest American oil companies could encounter regulatory and antitrust challenges under the Biden administration. President Biden has said climate change is one of the biggest crises the country faces. In October, he said he would push the country to “transition away from the oil industry.” He hasn’t been as vocal about antitrust matters, and the administration has yet to nominate the Justice Department’s head of that division.

One of the people familiar with the talks said the sides may have missed an opportunity to consummate the deal under former President

Donald Trump,

whose administration was seen as more friendly to the industry.

Darren Woods, CEO Exxon Mobil Corp., at an industry conference in 2018



Photo:

Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News

A handful of sizable oil and gas deals were completed last year, including Chevron’s $5 billion takeover of Noble Energy Inc. and

ConocoPhillips

COP -2.63%

’ roughly $10 billion takeover of Concho Resources Inc., but nothing close to the scale of combining San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron and Irving, Texas-based Exxon.

Such a deal would significantly surpass in size the mega-oil-mergers of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which included the combination of Exxon and Mobil and Chevron and Texaco Inc.

It also could be the largest corporate tie-up ever, depending on its structure. That distinction currently belongs to the roughly $181 billion purchase of German conglomerate Mannesmann AG by Vodafone AirTouch Plc in 2000, according to Dealogic.

Many investors, analysts and energy executives have called for consolidation in the beleaguered oil-and-gas industry, arguing that cutting costs and improving operational efficiencies would help companies weather the pandemic-induced downturn and prepare for an uncertain future as many countries seek to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels to combat climate change.

In an interview discussing Chevron’s earnings Friday, Mr. Wirth, who like Mr. Woods also serves as his company’s board chairman, said that consolidation could make the industry more efficient. He was speaking generally and not about a possible Exxon-Chevron merger.

“As for larger scale things, it’s happened before,” Mr. Wirth said, referring to the 1990s and early-2000s megamergers. “Time will tell.”

Paul Sankey,

an independent analyst who hypothesized a merger of Chevron and Exxon in October, estimated at the time that the combined company would have a market capitalization of about $300 billion and $100 billion in debt. A merger would allow them to cut a combined $15 billion in administrative expenses and $10 billion in annual capital expenditures, he wrote.

An abundance of fossil fuels combined with advances in technology to harness wind and solar power has sent energy prices crashing around the world. WSJ explains how it all happened at once. Photo illustration: Carlos Waters/WSJ

Exxon was America’s most valuable company seven years ago, with a market value of more than $400 billion, nearly double Chevron’s. But Exxon has fallen from its heights following a series of strategic missteps, which were further exacerbated by the pandemic. It has been eclipsed as a profit engine by tech giants such as

Apple Inc.

AAPL -3.74%

and

Amazon.com Inc.,

AMZN -0.97%

in recent years and was removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average last year for the first time since it was added as Standard Oil of New Jersey in 1928.

Exxon’s shares have fallen nearly 29% over the last year, while Chevron’s are down about 20%. Chevron briefly topped Exxon in market capitalization in the fall.

Exxon endured one of its worst financial performances ever in 2020. It is expected to report a fourth consecutive quarterly loss for the first time in modern history on Tuesday and already has posted more than $2 billion in losses through the first three quarters of 2020.

Chevron also has struggled, reporting nearly $5.5 billion in 2020 losses Friday. But investors have expressed more faith in Chevron because it entered the downturn with a stronger balance sheet—in part because it walked away from its $33 billion bid to buy Anadarko Petroleum Corp. before the pandemic, having been outbid by

Occidental Petroleum Corp.

OXY -4.25%

in 2019.

Exxon has about $69 billion in debt as of September, while Chevron has around $35 billion, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Some investors have grown increasingly concerned about Exxon’s direction under Mr. Woods as the company faces a rapidly changing energy industry and growing global consciousness about climate change. Some are also worried that Exxon may have to cut its hefty dividend, which costs it about $15 billion annually, due to its high debt levels. Many individual investors count on the payments as a source of income.

Mr. Woods embarked on an ambitious plan in 2018 to spend $230 billion to pump an additional one million barrels of oil and gas a day by 2025. But before the pandemic, production was up only slightly and Exxon’s financial flexibility was diminished. In November, Exxon retreated from the plan and said it would cut billions of dollars from its capital spending every year through 2025 and focus on investing in only the most promising assets.

Meanwhile, the company’s woes have helped draw the attention of activist investors. One of them, Engine No. 1 LLC, has argued that the company should focus more on investments in clean energy while cutting costs elsewhere to preserve its dividend. The firm nominated four directors to Exxon’s board Wednesday and called for it to make strategic changes to its business plan.

Exxon also has been in talks with another activist, D.E. Shaw Group, and is preparing to announce one or more new board members, additional spending cuts and investments in new technologies to help it reduce its carbon emissions.

Rivals such as

BP

BP -2.80%

PLC and

Royal Dutch Shell

RDS.A -3.53%

PLC have embarked on bold strategies to remake their business as regulatory and investor pressure to reduce carbon emissions mounts. Both have said they will invest heavily in renewable energy—a strategy that their investors so far haven’t rewarded.

Exxon and Chevron haven’t invested substantially in renewables, instead choosing to double down on oil and gas. Both companies have argued that the world will need vast amounts of fossil fuels for decades to come, and that they can capitalize on current underinvestment in oil production.

Write to Christopher M. Matthews at christopher.matthews@wsj.com, Emily Glazer at emily.glazer@wsj.com and Cara Lombardo at cara.lombardo@wsj.com

Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here