|Day's range||37.00 - 37.00|
After two days of huge gains for Clean Energy Fuels (NASDAQ: CLNE), the company's shares fell as much as 12.3% in trading Friday. The rise in shares over the last two days was driven by a new partnership with Chevron to bring cleaner fuel to trucks in the Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, ports. Volatile stocks like Clean Energy Fuels can have big moves day to day, but as Foolish long-term investors, it's the bigger picture we want to take into account.
Three key reasons make oil stocks attractive right now. After some real tough months, U.S. economic activity is showing a nice pick-up. Globally as well, the economic activity is picking up, though the countries are at different stages of recovery.
For the second day in a row, shares of renewable, compressed, and liquefied natural gas supplier Clean Energy Fuels (NASDAQ: CLNE) rushed out of the gate Thursday, scoring a 20% gain early in the day before retreating to a (still respectable) 4.8% gain as of 11:20 a.m. EDT. To recap, late on Tuesday Clean Energy announced a partnership with Chevron, whereby Chevron will produce clean, "renewable natural gas," or RNG, for use as an automotive fuel and Clean Energy would distribute and sell it to truckers driving out of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. To date, Clean Energy has struggled somewhat to grow its business.
There's a lot to love about dividend stocks. For starters, they can potentially provide two sources of profit: the income from the dividends themselves and the increase in the stock price. You should look closely when evaluating dividend stocks.
In the latest trading session, Chevron (CVX) closed at $86.35, marking a +0.05% move from the previous day.
ExxonMobil has made significant investments in algae biofuels research, but in the current oil price environment, this type simple isn’t able to compete
Shares of renewable, compressed, and liquefied natural gas supplier Clean Energy Fuels (NASDAQ: CLNE) are surging in early afternoon trading Wednesday, up a cool 38% at the 12:30 p.m. EDT mark. The surge in stock price follows a joint announcement from Clean Energy and oil major Chevron (NYSE: CVX) yesterday afternoon saying that the two companies will partner on a project to supply renewable natural gas (RNG) automotive fuel to truck operators servicing the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California. The Clean Energy and Chevron initiative is dubbed Adopt-a-Port, and the two companies will have very different roles in it.
Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX), one of the world’s leading energy companies, will hold its quarterly earnings conference call on Friday, July 31, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. ET (8:00 a.m. PT).
Energy giant Chevron (NYSE: CVX) and natural-gas fueling station operator Clean Energy Fuels (NASDAQ: CLNE) have announced a new initiative to supply truck operators serving the California ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach with renewable natural gas (RNG).
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns, have been fighting the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act since 2013. Today the Supreme Court gave them a victory — but not the final victory they sought, namely that they’re automatically entitled to an exemption from the ACA under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Nonetheless, this ruling — along with other key decisions this term — demonstrates that the conservative majority of the court has definitively entered the era of religious exemptions.If the idea of the Little Sisters before the Supreme Court rings a bell, congratulations on the acuity of your memory. After President Barack Obama signed the ACA, his Department of Health and Human Services gave an exemption to the contraceptive mandate to certain religious organizations like the Little Sisters, while still ensuring contraceptive care would reach their employees.The way the exemptions worked was essentially that an organization seeking not to pay for its employees’ contraceptive care would submit a certificate to HHS explaining that it was a nonprofit religious organization with conscientious objection to contraception. The religious entity would then provide a copy of the certificate to its health insurer — which would then itself pay for the contraceptive care, not charging the religious employer.The Little Sisters objected that even this process violated their religious liberty under RFRA. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016 robbed them of what would almost certainly have been a win. Instead, in May of 2016, the justices (who presumably were deadlocked 4-4) tried ham-fistedly to order the Obama administration and the Little Sisters to work out a solution. Neither side was prepared to compromise in a way that would satisfy the other.The election of President Donald Trump led to staff changes at HHS, and in 2017 the department set new rules favorable to the Little Sisters. Under these rules, religious organizations like the Little Sisters are treated like houses of worship, with the effect that their health care providers don’t have to pay for contraceptive care for their employees at all.This time the primary legal challenge came from two states, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which argued that the new rules fell outside the scope of the department’s authority under the ACA and had not been adopted using the appropriate procedures. For their part, the Little Sisters asked the lower courts and the Supreme Court to hold that RFRA required the more aggressive exemption system.In today’s decision, Justice Clarence Thomas and the court’s other four conservatives held that HHS had not gone beyond its authority in creating its new form of exemption for the Little Sisters. But the majority opinion did not decide whether RFRA requires the exemptions — the issue that had brought the Little Sisters to the court in 2016. That means the case will go back to the lower courts, where New Jersey and Pennsylvania could force the issue, asking the lower court to rule that the HHS rules are unlawful for a different reason, namely that they are not required by RFRA as the Trump administration insisted.In a separate concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito, who practically owns the law of religious exemptions by virtue of the number of opinions he has written in the area, laid out his view that RFRA would be violated without the Trump exemption for Little Sisters. He was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is the most activist conservative on the court today, and apparently had no interest in the majority’s more cautious approach.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent arguing the opposite position: that the Trump exemption is not mandated by RFRA, essentially because it benefits “religious adherents at the expense of third parties,” namely the employees who would lose contraceptive care in contradiction to the core mission of the ACA. Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Ginsburg’s dissent.Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, took a compromise middle ground. Kagan said the case should have been sent back to the lower courts under the so-called Chevron doctrine, which says that when a law directed at an executive branch agency is ambiguous, the courts should defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the law. Then Kagan added that, similar to Ginsburg, she thought the lower courts should hold that the Trump exemption was not required by RFRA.The upshot is that the conservatives did not give the Little Sisters everything they wanted. And no matter what happens in the November election, the issue will probably come back to the Supreme Court again.If Trump is reelected, the liberal states will presumably assert that the Trump exemption is not required by RFRA and is therefore unlawful. Then the swing vote, Chief Justice John Roberts, will have to decide the issue.If Joe Biden is elected, there will be major pressure on him to revoke the Trump exemption. Then the Little Sisters would challenge that revocation and argue that RFRA demands they be treated like a church. Given that the Obama administration could not reach a compromise, it seems unlikely that a Biden administration would.Regardless, religious exemptions will continue to be a bone of contention between religious conservatives and liberals. So far, the Roberts court has been consistently on the side of exemptions — a trend confirmed in this second round of the Little Sisters case, and likely in a third round to come.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and host of the podcast “Deep Background.” He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter. His books include “The Three Lives of James Madison: Genius, Partisan, President.” 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.
Chevron (CVX) has an impressive earnings surprise history and currently possesses the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely beat in its next quarterly report.
Investor sentiment for ExxonMobil (XOM) is likely to remain poor until the company comes out with promising results from the massive long-term capital expenditure program.
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Chevron, Devon Energy, Dine Brands Global, Ahold and Conagra Brands
It was a terrible six months for energy companies, and these giants weren't spared the pain. Here's why things got so bad.
Brokers are recommending these 5 stocks.
ExxonMobil (XOM) plans to slash 2020 capital spending and cash operating expenses to make up for the massive shortfall in cash flows, while managing to avoid any write-down so far.
The U.S. oil giant is working hard to ensure it survives the current industry downturn. It's showing just how strong it is along the way.
The exploration and production names got a shot in the arm today as investors took a positive view of the economic future.
With the Dow and the S&P 500 booking their best quarterly performance since 1987, one could consider stepping into the markets again with an investment perspective.
(Bloomberg) -- America’s biggest oil companies are coming under increasing pressure from climate-conscious investors to disclose their long-term forecasts for crude prices as the Covid-19 pandemic injects fresh uncertainty into the demand outlook for fossil fuels.Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. don’t publish such estimates, meaning that shareholders are less able to scrutinize how the companies’ investment plans square with expectations for a global transition to clean energy. That needs to change, according to the New York State Common Retirement Fund, California State Teachers’ Retirement System, and Ceres, a Boston-based coalition of investors with $30 trillion of assets.In Europe, major oil companies are sharing their long-term forecasts, with dramatic results. Two weeks ago, BP Plc said it had radically reduced its long-term price assumption for Brent crude, causing a writedown of as much as $17.5 billion. Royal Dutch Shell Plc warned Tuesday that it would write down as much as $22 billion in the second quarter as the pandemic hammers demand for everything from oil to liquefied natural gas.Long-term price assumptions are critical because they’re used by Big Oil to determine whether or not a resource will be economically viable and at what value it’s held on a company’s books. Activists and some investors say companies are at risk of being overly optimistic in their assessment of future crude prices. That could lead to them to build expensive projects that effectively become worthless — so-called stranded assets — in a world transitioning toward low-carbon fuel sources.“Exxon and Chevron should be more transparent and disclose long-term price forecasts and other information that investors need to assess their companies’ low-carbon transition plans,” said Mark Johnson, a spokesman for the Office of the New York State Comptroller, which oversees the New York State Common Retirement Fund. “Without this information, investors cannot assess whether Exxon and Chevron are serious, or just paying lip service to the threat of climate change.”Chevron compiles “multiple forecast scenarios” informed by third-party information and its own analysis, spokesman Sean Comey said in an emailed statement. “We continue to view this data as proprietary since it contains sensitive business information that would be of interest to our competitors.”Exxon evaluates annual plans and major investments across a range of price scenarios, and it discloses guidance on the impact of price fluctuations in annual regulatory filings, spokesman Casey Norton said in an emailed response to questions. The company supports the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change, Norton said.“The world will continue to require significant investment in liquids and natural gas,” he said.Covid-19 has brought the issue of future pricing into sharp relief. Before the pandemic, peak crude demand was thought to be at least a decade away. But the virus has caused such a savage drop-off in oil consumption that some, including BP CEO Bernard Looney, are questioning if global usage of fossil fuels will ever return to pre-pandemic levels.“At the heart of investor concern is that they’re planning for a future that’s not likely to come to pass -- a future of high demand and high prices,” said Andrew Logan, senior director of oil and gas at Ceres.Speaking to investors in March, Exxon and Chevron both gave their long-term cash flow projections at $60 a barrel, roughly the average of the past five years. But the projections aren’t a long-term price forecast and don’t provide insights into climate planning or potential writedowns. Meanwhile, crude is currently trading around $40 a barrel, with lingering uncertainty over the recovery in global demand or whether OPEC can maintain supply cuts.Both companies regularly tout their new projects as having low break-even costs that make them more competitive than those of their rivals. For example, Exxon has said its projects in Guyana and the Permian Basin on West Texas and New Mexico will make “double-digit returns” at $40 a barrel. But it may be a different story for other parts of its portfolio. If oil was at $30, Exxon would own 60% of the oil majors’ 30 lowest-margin assets by production, according to researcher Wood Mackenzie Ltd.“There’s a bit of opaqueness to the disclosure” from American oil companies without the long-term price assumptions, said Brian Rice, a fund manager at California State Teachers’ Retirement System, also known as Calstrs. “From an engagement perspective, it can be frustrating,” he said, adding that it could be a data point that more investors push for in the future. Calstrs and the New York State Common Retirement Fund manage about $453 billion between them including shares of Exxon and Chevron.While there’s no specific regulation than prevents U.S. companies from publishing long-term price forecasts, many are reluctant to do so for fear of exposing themselves to lawsuits accusing the companies of trying to influence oil prices, according to Ed Hirs, an energy fellow at the University of Houston.For investors, the risk they face is that price assumptions are too rosy. But it’s also a critical issue for the environment. Much of Canada’s oil sands, among the most carbon-intensive parts of the industry, were developed with the expectation of prices above $80 a barrel, according to Kathy Mulvey, a campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists.“We need more scrutiny at the front end of these projects,” she said in an interview. “They pose systemic risks to the environment if they get it wrong.”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.