When a company both extracts and refines oil, like Exxon, oil prices can be a mixed blessing. Falling oil prices can actually increase refinery profit margins, while hitting the extraction business. I can only suppose that Exxon benefits most from moderately high oil prices, not extremely high oil prices because of their refinery bussiness. It’s also worth noting that no entirely new oil refinery has been approved by the EPA in decades. In America, every oil refinery is essentially grandfathered in, and while individual refinery capacity can be increased, the overall number of refineries never will. So, it’s good to own oil refineries, maybe better than owning oil wells. Until they ban all hydrocarbons in another 15 or 20 years.OK, I just lost $3.4 Billion and still made a profit. Something's wrong with the math here. No link due to the lack of logic.
There's a bit of a difference between a declared force majeure and an operating loss.
It's because at the time of the investment decision the act was unforeseen. My own employer declared force majeure in 2014 on an investment in Ukraine and will no doubt do the same for the assets in Russia we walked away from this year. The decision gate(s) on a lot of this stuff was pre-2008, post 2014 likely little if any additional capital beyond what was already pledged got added purely because of the NTR of what happens if...There's a bit of a difference between a declared force majeure and an operating loss.
Interesting. In my limited understanding, force majeure is a result of 'unforeseeable' events. So how does that apply in the case of the Exxon pull-out and closing of Sakhalin-1?
Would this be considered force majeure because the 'special operation' against Ukraine was 'unforeseeable'?
Or because Western sanctions against Russia including the oil-and-gas sector were 'unforeseeable' to Exxon?
Just curious.