|Day's range||8.60 - 10.55|
A Chevron Corp <CVX.N> crude oil cargo has become embroiled in U.S. sanctions on shipping companies for violating restrictions on doing business with Venezuela, the company confirmed on Friday. Adamant Maritime Ltd, owner of very large crude-oil carrier (VLCC) Seahero was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Treasury on Tuesday for carrying a Venezuelan cargo in February. The tanker is on short-term charter and "performing a voyage that is not related to Venezuela," Chevron spokesman Ray Fohr said.
After nailing the market's recovery, Fundstrat's Tom Lee is predicting hard hit stocks can carry the S&P 500 to new highs.
Oil is an economically sensitive commodity. With good news from OPEC and the U.S. government, investors got excited. Perhaps too excited.
(Bloomberg) -- Over the past four years, Lucas Joppa, Microsoft Corp.’s 37-year-old chief environmental officer, has dislocated and broken one shoulder, separated the other one, broken his right wrist, and also broken his left thumb. In early May he was pretty sure his right thumb was broken, but his hand surgeon said it was a torn ligament. It’s not that he’s clumsy or reckless—he calculates that, given the amount of time he spends on a bike or skis, his “error rate” is about 0.08%—it’s just that he has a tendency not to look before he jumps.It’s this tolerance for risk—and falling—that makes him well-suited for the unprecedented task that lies ahead. In January, Microsoft pledged to be carbon negative (removing more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits) by 2030 and to spend $1 billion on a climate investment fund, much of it aimed at bolstering carbon-removal tech, a nascent field with lots of big ideas but only a handful of companies that are trying it. It was a statement of intent more than a concrete plan. Right now none of this is possible. Joppa and his colleagues are all too aware they can’t wait to act until everything is certain. The fund plans to announce its first investment later this year.“I jump a lot, and sometimes I fall. It’s going to happen. You have to be willing to accept the risk,” Joppa says. The trick, he adds, is skipping the jumps that could kill him if they go wrong. “I’m bringing that approach to everything.”To avert climate disaster, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects overall global warming must be kept below 1.5C. It’s already at 1.16C. Even the previously unimaginable scenario we’re now living through—worldwide lockdowns to stop the Covid-19 pandemic—isn’t lowering the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Global warming hasn’t slowed, and Joppa and a lot of others say it probably won’t without the rapid adoption of carbon- sucking technology that barely exists.On a Thursday morning in April, Joppa logs on to his computer to address a videoconference of 16 people who will help determine how and whether Microsoft can meet one of the most ambitious carbon-reduction goals set by any company.“We’ve got a lot to do, not a lot of time to do it,” he tells the group.On the call are co-workers from his sustainability group, finance and business development officials who will consider investment opportunities, and experts in running Microsoft’s energy-guzzling global network of data centers. They’re joined by executives and climate scientists with Carbon Direct, a consulting company that will help Microsoft develop a 10-year plan for getting to carbon negative.Elizabeth Willmott, Microsoft’s carbon expert, lays out the company’s requirements to offset its emissions: It wants to buy access to a menu of carbon-removal techniques that include planting kelp forests and machines that draw carbon from the air and store it underground. It’s looking for options that are lasting and verifiable. Oh, and Joppa wants to do this on the cheap, paying companies $20 a ton, a fraction of what many of the options currently cost. It’s not because Microsoft doesn’t have the money for pricier options. Rather, one of its key goals is to force the innovation that enables prices to drop to a level others—without Microsoft’s $137.6 billion cash pile—can afford.“I often refer to our climate innovation fund as the self-awareness fund. We could just pay for this, but if you just use money to solve your problems, that represents an extreme lack of self-awareness to everybody else’s ability to do this,” Joppa tells the others on the call.Microsoft’s approach has won praise from climate scientists for its ambition. But the company also counts some of the worst emitters—oil and gas giants such as Chevron Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp.—among its customers, selling them software and gear they use to increase oil and gas extractions. A May 19 Greenpeace report called out Microsoft and Amazon.com Inc. for “connections to some of the world’s dirtiest oil companies for the explicit purpose of getting more oil and gas out of the ground and onto the market faster and cheaper.”Microsoft is attempting to counter this incongruity with unproven removal ideas, says Nives Dolsak, a professor of sustainability science at the University of Washington. “Their strategy is, ‘We are banking on uncertain technology that will reduce carbon from the air, and if that works out, that allows us to put certain future additional carbon into the air,’ ” she says.Joppa has heard this criticism before. It’s the biggest complaint Microsoft gets on its climate strategy. Oil and gas companies need to be part of the climate and energy solution, he says. It doesn’t make sense to cut ties.As the company leaps headlong into its plan, among the many risks it must consider are the early and unproven technology and its high prices, Joppa says, as well as the rapid pace of climate change and the small window to arrest it. “We have got to go out and make some bets on technologies that don’t exist, on technologies that are too expensive, and on markets that aren’t mature enough,” he says. “They will never be cheap enough, they will never be scaled high enough, and they will never be mature enough unless a Microsoft comes in right now and starts pushing.”Joppa grew up in rural Wisconsin and met his wife, Jamie, in second grade. School bored him until he took a college course called Extinction of Species and then threw himself into studying ecology. After a Peace Corps stint in Malawi and a doctorate he earned in three years, he began work at Microsoft’s research arm, much to the horror of some colleagues. One professor told him, “Lucas, you could have been somebody!”During almost 11 years at Microsoft, Joppa has worked to apply computing power to the Earth’s challenges. He came up with AI for Earth in 2016, a program that grants software to companies working on environmental projects. When the company’s sustainability work became a part of Microsoft’s legal department and Joppa moved with it, his nature-themed tattoos peeking out of a T-shirt stood out among a sea of khaki and button-downs. But when Microsoft decided to name its first chief environmental officer in 2018, Joppa’s scientific background and ability to work with employees from various disciplines made him the obvious choice, says Microsoft President Brad Smith.Since 2012 the company has taxed its own business units for the carbon they emit and put the proceeds into buying carbon credits and running sustainability programs, making it one of the earlier companies to take such a step. Last spring it doubled its internal carbon tax and said it would lobby for national carbon-pricing policies.But customers kept asking Microsoft to do more, and employees were also pushing. In September rival Amazon pledged to be carbon neutral by 2040, and Microsoft felt pressure to step up its own commitment, Smith says. At a meeting in November, Joppa used dire projections from the IPCC as a way to create urgency for Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella and his executive team. The world can emit only 420 more gigatons of CO2 to have a 66% chance of avoiding catastrophic warming, Joppa explained, and at the current rate that’s only a decade away.He returned with instructions to come up with a bold proposal. Along with the finance department, the team worked frenetically over the holidays on the math behind going carbon negative. “It was one thing to have the goal. It was another thing to know whether we could achieve it,” Smith says. Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood committed $1 billion for an idea she’d had: the climate investment fund.Microsoft opted for an unprecedented pledge to clean up all direct and electrical emissions since its 1975 founding by 2050. Its promise to become carbon negative by 2030 includes not only direct emissions from its buildings, data centers, and fleet of campus vehicles, but also something called Scope 3 emissions. These are more indirect, harder to calculate, and far larger. It means taking responsibility for the energy that gamers use when they play Xbox video games, for example. Microsoft doesn’t count oil and gas customers’ use of its software for drilling and exploration in Scope 3.The staff who handle Microsoft’s purchases from suppliers are working on standards for those companies to measure what they emit and planning to add incentives to spur them to do better. Microsoft also plans to work with customers on how they can be greener, which includes helping oil and gas customers with clean energy programs, Joppa says.In the past couple of years, more than 40 tech companies have set targets for limiting emissions, but Microsoft’s plans to be carbon negative by 2030 and wipe out historical emissions are the most aggressive. There are only a handful of businesses that have said they’ll be carbon negative within 10 years, including furniture maker Ikea and tax software provider Intuit Inc. Panasonic Corp. says it will be carbon negative by 2050. Payments startup Stripe Inc. has begun spending $1 million a year funding negative-emissions projects.Microsoft’s investment fund is also unusual, but its goals are similar to those of a fund led by co-founder Bill Gates, who remains an adviser to the company and has met with Joppa and other Microsoft executives to share ideas. Gates is chairman of Breakthrough Energy Ventures, a $1 billion fund with investors such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Virgin Group boss Richard Branson, and Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, which owns Bloomberg Green. There are ongoing conversations between Microsoft and the fund about possible partnerships on investments, says Jonah Goldman, managing director at Gates Ventures, a private investment office for Gates. Both entities share an understanding that carbon removal is a different type of investment, and it’s important to have companies like Microsoft backing technology that isn’t an obvious short-term moneymaker.After an event in January to announce their big plans, Joppa and his team celebrated with a carbon-themed playlist featuring Billy Joel’s We Didn’t Start the Fire and Heat Wave by Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, then got to work figuring out how to make the promises a reality.Joppa has been reading a book on the Apollo mission to put a man on the moon, and he told his wife how jealous it made him. “They had this pure thing that brought business and science and research and engineering all together, and you could just focus on it obsessively,” he says. Jamie answered: “What are you talking about? That’s what you have to do.”On the banks of Howe Sound in British Columbia, a fan the size of a delivery truck slurps carbon out of the atmosphere. It’s part of a factory run by a company called Carbon Engineering, and it’s considered one of the most promising in the field of “direct air capture,” the segment of the carbon-capture industry that sounds the most like science fiction. Gates was an early investor in the company. Basically fans, or “injectors,” connect the air with chemicals that bond with the carbon and remove it. Right now it’s highly inefficient and expensive, with prices anywhere from $250 to $1,000 a ton. Microsoft is banking on the price going down and volume going up.Another direct-air-capture startup, Climeworks AG, has its massive fans set up in Zurich, where the captured CO2 is used to grow plants in a greenhouse. Climeworks operates three plants, but they’re only removing hundreds of tons in a year. The industry is young. In fact, the three leading companies together can’t pull 1 million tons of carbon out of the air a year, while data centers of the kind Microsoft and Amazon operate are estimated to produce more than 300 times that.“Direct air capture is like the Saturn V rocket for the moonshot,” Smith says. “If someone can perfect that, it’s going to just change the equation.” Another carbon-removal technique is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS, which is basically growing plants to absorb carbon and then burning that biomass for power and sequestering the resulting emissions underground. The U.K.’s biggest power plant, in North Yorkshire, has a pilot project using the technology. It’s the first working example of BECCS, and it captures less than 1 ton of carbon dioxide a day.When it comes to machines that successfully remove carbon from the atmosphere today, that’s about it.By Microsoft’s account of its emissions, it needs to buy credits to remove about 2 million tons of CO2 next year—and 6 million by 2030, even though new emissions will be cut by more than half by then. There are other large companies interested in buying credits to offset their carbon sins, too. But there will not be enough carbon-removal tech credits for everyone to offset their emissions. In the near term, Microsoft plans to buy more natural carbon credits that go toward things such as planting trees before switching to tech. In July, Microsoft will begin to solicit bids for its carbon-removal business. Its interest, along with that of Stripe, Shopify Inc., and others, should help fuel investment in new projects, says Deepika Nagabhushan, program director for decarbonized fossil energy at the Clean Air Task Force, which is tracking some 26 potential carbon-capture projects. But it won’t make a difference overnight. “Even if Microsoft announces today that they are going to buy [a certain] number of credits from a direct-air-capture project, it’s going to take a couple of years for a project to even develop.”On Joppa’s conference call, the team from Carbon Direct reminds Microsoft that the low price will make their short-term goals harder. Julio Friedmann, Carbon Direct’s chief scientist, notes most of the available projects in BECCS and direct air capture cost many times Microsoft’s $20-a-ton budget. And other companies need to offer investment funds like Microsoft’s. “You can do a lot with a billion, but you cannot create a gigaton-scale industry with a billion dollars, no matter how smart and savvy the investments are,” Friedmann, who’s also a researcher at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, says in an interview.The price is also lower than many experts have modeled for the economic damage each ton of carbon is likely to cause.But Joppa wants to use Microsoft’s purchasing power and its investments to push the price down to a level other buyers can afford. If carbon-capture tech is something only the Microsofts of the world can afford, he worries that the world will fail to contain warming. “Markets work because we make them work,” he says. They work because people put in positive incentives and help juice supply and demand. “You don’t just wish it to be so, and it happens.”Microsoft expects to make mistakes both in investments and carbon-removal choices. Willmott, the carbon expert of the group, says the company wants to be transparent about its successes and failures so others can learn from them.The coronavirus-induced shutdown has made Joppa more certain that radical action is needed quickly. CO2 emissions are down—about 8% of the estimated total for the year will never be emitted, according to the International Energy Agency. Although that’s not enough to make a dent in overall warming, the slowdown has led to cleaner air and clearer skies, and confinement has made the outdoors a welcome respite.“I hope there’s something lasting about it,” he says. “We’ve given people now an experience with a healthier planet, and I hope that’s going to be hard to take away.”There’s another risk in this whole project, of course—that time runs out. Is this plan achievable in the time we have? “It better be,” Joppa says. “I’m existentially worried about the cost of failure.” —With Emily Chasan, Leslie Kaufman, and Akshat Rathi For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Exxon Mobil, Verizon Communications, Chevron, Pfizer and 3M Company
Remote working takes off big time and is becoming the new normal amid coronavirus-induced lockdown. If this trend continues even in the post-pandemic environment, then oil usage could decline for good.
Dogs of the Dow have large customer base, sustainable business model, a long track of profitability and strong liquidity, which allow them to offer sizable yields regardless of market conditions.
Chevron (CVX) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.
The recent oil price rally appears to have stalled as tensions between the U.S. and China weigh on energy markets and the rebound in global demand appears to slow
United Natural Foods, Ralph Lauren, ExxonMobil and Chevron highlighted as Zacks Bull and Bear of the Day
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The big question haunting oil is how much Covid-19 has changed the world. Will more people give up on commuting or, conversely, drive into work? Has air travel peaked for good? Have Londoners and Angelenos been spoiled by a few haze-free months?Judging from the past week, though, maybe oil’s real problem is the world hasn’t changed enough.Last year, the big challenge confronting oil demand was the trade war. This eased somewhat in January with the “phase one” agreement committing China to buy more U.S. exports, including extra freedom molecules of energy. Even then, however, most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs were left in place, and sensitive issues such as Chinese subsidies were deferred. It was more ceasefire than treaty.The guns are silent no longer. China’s decision to effectively lop off the second half of Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” rubric was met with Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s announcement the U.S. would take Beijing at its word. No longer recognized as autonomous, Hong Kong’s trade could be hit with tariffs, and the U.S. could even impose sanctions.More importantly, this is a tangible breach after months of escalating tension, with tit-for-tat expulsions of journalists and Trump even floating the idea of China being “knowingly responsible” in the spread of Covid-19. The phase one agreement, meanwhile, was off to a slow start, with China taking just $14.4 billion of goods listed under the deal in the first quarter, versus the $34 billion implied by the targets, according to Bloomberg Economics.With November looming, and his presidency tainted by America’s Covid-19 death toll and joblessness, Trump may well have decided China makes a better pandemic scapegoat than economic buttress. But antipathy to Beijing extends beyond the president. In the same week Pompeo opened the door to sanctions over Hong Kong, the Democratic-controlled House voted almost unanimously to authorize sanctions against China for human-rights abuses against the country’s Uighur minority. For reasons extending back much further than the existence of the Chinese Communist Party, such prods into the country’s internal affairs will touch a nerve, potentially escalating a trade dispute into broader great-power rivalry.The unraveling of free trade has been apparent since at least the 2016 presidential campaign. As I wrote here a few years ago, this is particularly pernicious for an oil market built on the back of globalization and U.S. security guarantees.Far from provoking mass kumbaya in the face of a common enemy, Covid-19 elicited a more Darwinian response, even between supposedly united states. Besides attempts to tattoo a flag on the virus, its arrival threw a spotlight on countries’ vulnerability to shortages of imported medical supplies, providing fodder for economic nationalists seeking re-shoring and a general shortening of supply chains. Fragmentation means friction, which tends to suppress growth over time. In projections published last year, BP Plc ran a “less globalization” case that took a hefty chunk out of forecast oil and natural gas demand; in the latter case, even more than for a scenario of quicker de-carbonization.The world also hasn’t changed as much as it might seem when it comes to oil supply, either. The coronavirus world tour coincided with the breakdown of Saudi-Russia cooperation on production cuts — and then facilitated a rapid rapprochement as oil prices headed toward negative territory. The swinging supply cuts forced on OPEC+ members, along with signs of congestion resuming in Chinese cities especially, helped drag oil back into the $30s this month.But the underlying dynamics haven’t changed altogether. Russia has implemented big cuts but is reportedly keen to start unwinding these sooner rather than later. As when it broke with OPEC+ in March, Moscow is done ceding market share to U.S. frackers. The latter have cut production very quickly, but their instinct to get rigs and crews back to work remains strong. Holding them in check are low prices, particularly for longer-dated futures, weighed down by the glut of physical oil and spare OPEC+ capacity that’s built up over the past couple of months. Shale does at last seem poised for rationalization. However, supply’s defining characteristics of the past four years — excess inventory and OPEC+ versus shale competition — are for now accentuated rather than altered.Similarly, the International Energy Agency’s latest investment report, which dropped this week, was consumed with Covid-19 yet trod familiar ground. This showed the theme of excess supply extending into refining, where too much capacity was opening even before the pandemic showed up.Above all, that other force of nature confronting energy markets, climate change, pervaded the discussion. If anything, the pandemic is a reminder of why we should be tackling that threat head-on. Covid-19 has both spotlighted the risk and, if stimulus efforts are shaped properly, may catalyze a response. With uncanny timing, at Chevron Corp.’s (virtual) shareholder meeting this week, the only measure where a majority of investors voted against the board concerned aligning the oil major’s lobbying with efforts to address climate change.There is still so much we don’t know about the lasting impacts of Covid-19 or, indeed, the workings of the virus itself. One thing that seems clear, however, is its tendency to magnify pre-existing conditions. For oil, those were excess supply, fraying globalization and a looming climate emergency.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He previously was editor of the Wall Street Journal's Heard on the Street column and wrote for the Financial Times' Lex column. He was also an investment banker.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Dow Jones' journey past 25,000 points this week could mark the beginning of a series of gains ahead, owing to some major tailwinds.
With their fully integrated models, ExxonMobil (XOM) and Chevron (CVX) are the ones that are best in adapting their business to the prevailing scenario.
(Bloomberg) -- In a rare move against Chevron Corp.’s board, shareholders of the U.S. oil giant are calling on the company to disclose lobbying efforts and ensure that they support international goals to combat global warming.The proposal was the only one where a majority of Chevron’s investors diverged from the board’s recommendations in an annual meeting held virtually Wednesday. The matter was brought by BNP Paribas Asset Management, which has stepped up efforts in recent years to help further the international Paris Agreement on climate change. BlackRock Inc., Chevron’s second-biggest shareholder, also backed the measure.The vote comes as the world’s oil giants are already reeling over a pandemic-fueled market rout, while also facing increasing pressure to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and contribute more to the fight against climate change.U.S. oil majors Chevron and Exxon Mobil Corp. have noticeably lagged behind their European counterparts in making carbon-cutting pledges. BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc have both committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2050 -- a move that Chevron’s chief recently called “aspirational” and Exxon’s described as nothing more than a “beauty competition.”Though America’s two biggest oil companies say they support the goals of the Paris accord, some investors want reassurance that they’re not funding trade organizations that promote policies to the contrary.“Climate issues are so central to the work of these organizations that it’s hard not to be concerned that there’s the potential for misalignment,” said Jonathan Bailey, head of ESG investing at Neuberger Berman, which voted for the proposal. “This will also help accelerate clearer activities from the organizations they support.”Chevron’s board had recommended investors vote against the proposal, saying that it already made transparent disclosures of its lobbying activities. The defeat -- with a preliminary count showing 53% of investors voting in favor of the proposal -- means Chevron will be required for the first time to issue a report detailing how those activities align or not with climate goals.The result “is a real rebuke to Chevron and a wake-up call to the board,” said Kathy Mulvey, a campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Companies must back up their statements with consistent action.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
The oil producer previously disclosed a 30% reduction in its 2020 spending and some voluntary job cuts amid this year's sharp drop in oil prices and lower demand for oil and gas due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Chevron has been widely seen as the standard bearer of financial discipline in the oil industry and was among the first to make significant budget cuts as oil demand plummeted. Last year, it abandoned a takeover bid for Anadarko Petroleum Corp rather than get into a bidding war with Occidental Petroleum Corp <OXY.N>.
Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) today provided an overview of the company’s work to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic at its 2020 annual meeting of stockholders. This year’s meeting was virtual in place of an in-person event due to safety concerns related to the pandemic.
The blue-chip index's northbound journey began on Mar 24 and is continuing barring occasional fluctuations.