Big Oil record cash windfalls from US-Iran war

According to Reuters, Big Oil is reaping near record cash windfalls from the eight-month-old Iran war, but Western energy producers’ reluctance to ramp up spending reveals persistent doubts about the industry’s long-term outlook.

BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell and TotalEnergies reported combined net profits of US$56 billion in the third quarter, driven by surging oil and gas prices, record-high refining margins and ​strong trading results.

BP posted its highest quarterly profit ever, US$8.5 billion, as earnings from its refining business rose tenfold from a year earlier. For the other majors, the quarter was generally their ‌second-strongest on record, behind only the extraordinary gains booked following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Market conditions remain incredibly favourable. Brent crude has surged around 60% to US$114 a barrel since the start of the Iran conflict on February 28, while benchmark European natural gas prices have climbed to their highest levels since late 2022. Diesel prices, meanwhile, remain close to September's all-time high above US$200 per barrel as fuel markets continue to grapple with refinery outages and disrupted trade flows.

Big Oil has so far shied away from ​major new spending, suggesting the majors do not see today's market conditions as evidence that the industry's long-term outlook has improved.

Entering the year, the energy industry had been bracing for a ​looming supply glut. Many companies were cutting spending plans, freezing hiring and intensifying cost-saving programs amid expectations that a flood of new oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) ⁠supplies would pressure prices later in the decade.

The joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran in February and the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz upended the short-term supply picture, as exports from the Gulf ground to a ​halt and refining capacity shrank.

However, energy companies have so far maintained their conservative approach, directing excess cash mostly to strengthening balance sheets and repurchasing shares.

The majors’ combined net debt fell to US$117 billion in the third quarter from US$204 ​billion in the first quarter.

BP, which entered the conflict carrying one of the highest debt burdens among its peers, nearly halved net debt to US$13.9 billion from a year earlier. The company will continue to focus on debt reduction, its CEO said.

Share buybacks also rose to US$12.3 billion in the third quarter, little changed from the previous quarter. Shell and TotalEnergies announced sharp increases in buybacks over the next three months, while Exxon said it planned to buy back US$20 billion of shares in 2027, a similar ​level to this year.

While debt reduction and share repurchases can be dialled up or down from one quarter to the next, capital spending and dividends are longer-term commitments that are much harder to ​reverse if market conditions deteriorate.

So it is telling that the majors' dividend policies and capital spending plans have remained largely unchanged since the start of the war.

Shell, for example, reduced its 2026 capital spending guidance by US$1 billion to US$23 billion to US$25 ‌billion despite the ⁠sharp improvement in commodity prices.

Chevron expects 2026 spending to remain at the lower end of its US$18 billion to US$19 billion guided range.

The extreme volatility and uncertain outlook have also curbed companies' appetite for large acquisitions, as buyers and sellers struggle to agree on fair valuations for assets.

The main exception has been North American natural gas, where abundant supplies and relatively predictable pricing have made it easier to strike deals.

Shell's U$16.4 billion acquisition of Canada's ARC Resources in April reflected growing confidence in the continent's expanding LNG export sector and long-term gas demand prospects.

TotalEnergies has also indicated interest in deals that would help raise its US gas production by around 1 billion cubic feet ​per day, although CEO Patrick Pouyanne said oil assets ​remained too expensive at current valuations.

Boards will review ⁠2027 spending plans before year-end, when companies could decide to increase shareholder distributions or accelerate investment. But all signs so far indicate that any changes will mostly involve returning more capital to shareholders.

What stands out in this bumper earnings season is that energy industry executives appear unwilling to treat today's elevated prices as the start ​of a new supercycle.

The experience of the past decade, from the 2014 oil price collapse to the pandemic crash and the post-Ukraine boom, has reinforced a preference ​for financial discipline over production ⁠growth.

That is understandable, particularly because the concerns driving the industry’s long-term uncertainty – namely the speed and shape of the energy transition, particularly in Asia – have not improved and may have got worse.

The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have highlighted the risk of being overly dependent on imported fossil fuels. This could spur stockpiling, but it could also encourage countries to pursue more domestic energy production, from both traditional and alternative fuel sources.

There are ⁠growing signs that ​oil and gas markets could remain tight, helping to generate heftier profits for the energy majors. Over the longer term, ​geopolitical fracture and energy nationalism appear set to usher in a new era of greater energy market volatility.

 

Will the story of the seven sisters be repeated in Pakistan

The United States is likely to commence oil exploration in Pakistan. It may be too early to talk about the likely outcome of US entry in Pakistan’s oil and gas exploration. However, it will be very insightful to explore, will the story of the seven sisters be repeated in Pakistan?

The “Seven Sisters” refers to the seven major Western oil companies (Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Gulf Oil, Texaco, BP, Shell) that dominated global oil production and pricing from the 1940s through the 1970s. They exercised near-monopolistic control over oil reserves in the Middle East, Latin America, and beyond—often exploiting weaker producer states, dictating terms of exploration and pricing, and sidelining local sovereignty. Their dominance was only broken after the rise of OPEC in the 1970s, when producing countries nationalized oil resources and asserted ownership.

Similarities to the Seven Sisters Era

Strategic Dependence

If Pakistan allows foreign companies (especially US majors) to explore and control its oil blocks without strong regulatory oversight, it risks repeating a dependency cycle where foreign firms repatriate profits, leaving limited benefit for the host economy.

Geopolitical Influence

Just as the Seven Sisters shaped Middle Eastern politics, US energy companies could wield geopolitical leverage over Pakistan’s foreign policy, especially given its precarious IMF dependence and ties with Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran.

Asymmetry in Bargaining Power

Pakistan’s economic weakness may force it to accept lopsided contracts (production-sharing agreements, tax holidays, profit guarantees) in favor of US firms.

Key Differences Today

Rise of National Oil Companies

Unlike in the 1950s, today Saudi Aramco, ADNOC, Petronas, CNPC and even OGDCL and PPL exist in Pakistan. They country has more leverage to create joint ventures instead of full foreign control.

OPEC Plus and Energy Nationalism

Oil producing states are much more aware of resource sovereignty. Pakistan could align itself with models used by Middle Eastern producers (service contracts, technology partnerships, revenue-sharing).

Multipolar World

Unlike the US and British dominated oil order of the Seven Sisters, today Russia, China, Gulf states, and even renewable energy competition provide alternatives. Pakistan is not locked into only US companies.

Domestic Politics & Public Awareness

Civil society, media, and political opposition in Pakistan can challenge exploitative deals, unlike in the early Seven Sisters era when secrecy prevailed.

Possible Scenarios for Pakistan

Repetition of Seven Sisters

If Pakistan grants excessive concessions, lacks regulatory oversight, and allows oil companies to dictate terms, then yes, it risks becoming a neo-colonial oil frontier.

Balanced Partnership

If Pakistan uses joint ventures, ensures technology transfer, and negotiates fair production-sharing agreements, it can benefit without ceding sovereignty.

Strategic Competition

The US entry may trigger Saudi, Chinese, and Russian counteroffers, giving Pakistan leverage but also complicating its geopolitics.

Moral of the story

The Seven Sisters story will only repeat in Pakistan if policymakers repeat the mistakes of weak bargaining and short-term concessions. If Pakistan plays smart—diversifying partners, prioritizing sovereignty, and aligning exploration with long-term energy security—it can avoid becoming a pawn like many Middle Eastern states were in the mid-20th century.

US backs Chevron in dispute with Cyprus

According to Reuters, Washington has weighed into a dispute between Cyprus and international companies led by Chevron over how to develop a giant offshore gas field, backing the US Company’s plan to link it to neighbouring Egypt.

The Chevron-led consortium proposed connecting the Aphrodite gas field via a subsea pipeline and existing infrastructure to Egypt, where the gas can be sold in the domestic market or liquefied and shipped to Europe, which has largely been cut off from Russian supplies.

Cypriot Energy Minister George Papanastasiou confirmed that the government had rejected the latest plan, which omitted a previous proposal to build a floating gas processing plant at the field which lies 160 kilometers (100 miles) southeast of Cyprus.

"The modification has been rejected. The expectation of the Republic of Cyprus is that the consortium honours what was mutually agreed by the parties in 2019," Papanastasiou told Reuters.

The partners have engaged in a new round of talks with the Cypriot government, Israel's NewMed, which is a partner in the Aphrodite field, said earlier this week.

The United States is backing Chevron's plans, which it believes will help to get gas to the market faster and with a lower carbon footprint as it does not involve building large infrastructure.

"Connecting Aphrodite to Egypt will help them with peak domestic consumption in the summer, add stability and reduce tensions in the region, and allow exports for Europe," the US source said.

The Biden administration is making the distinction between expensive and unnecessary infrastructure projects and less work-intensive interconnections that are necessary as economies transition to cleaner forms of energy, the source said.

Aphrodite, discovered more than a decade ago, holds an estimated 124 billion cubic meters of gas. Chevron is a partner in the field with NewMed and Shell.

Its development would give a vital boost to the Eastern Mediterranean gas basin which has attracted huge investment in recent years, particularly in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine as Europe sought to replace Russian fossil fuel.

According to two industry sources, Nicosia objected to Chevron's plans to drill three production wells rather than five and avoid the construction of a floating production unit above the field.

A Chevron spokesperson said the consortium was working to progress the Aphrodite project.

"We have submitted a modified development plan to the Cypriot Government, which we hope will lead to the development of the Aphrodite field and delivery of gas to Egyptian and global markets via existing LNG (liquefied natural gas) plants on the north coast of Egypt."

"We believe it is important that Aphrodite is expeditiously developed for the benefit of Cyprus, the Eastern Mediterranean region and European and other international markets," Chevron said.  

 

 

 

 

Dozens of platforms in UKCS to go standstill

Unite the union announced on Monday, March 20 that major oil and gas operators in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) face a tsunami of industrial unrest within weeks as around 1400 offshore workers across five companies demand a better deal on jobs, pay and conditions.

Unite, whose members will take action at companies enjoying record-busting profits, predicts that platforms and offshore installations will be brought to a standstill due to the specialized roles its members undertake. 

The action will hit major oil and gas operators including BP, CNRI, EnQuest, Harbour, Ithaca, Shell and Total.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said, “Oil and gas companies have been given free rein to enjoy massive windfall profits in the North Sea; drilling concessions are effectively licences to print money.

“1400 offshore workers are now set to take strike action against these employers who are raking it but refusing to give them a fair share of the pie. This will create a tsunami of industrial unrest in the offshore sector.  

“Unite will support these members every step of the way in their fight for better jobs, pay and conditions.”

The prospective action includes electrical, production and mechanical technicians in addition to deck crew, scaffolders crane operators, pipefitters, platers, and riggers working for Bilfinger UK Limited, Stork construction, Petrofac Facilities Management, the Wood Group UK Limited and Sparrows Offshore Services.

John Boland, Unite industrial officer, added: “Unite has received unprecedented support in favour of industrial action in the UK Continental Shelf. It is the biggest mandate we have received in a generation in the offshore sector. There is no doubt that this is directly linked to oil and gas companies reaping record profits while the workforce gets scraps from the table. 

 “Unite’s members are angry at the corporate greed being shown by offshore operators and contractors. Now these major global companies are set to face the consequences as dozens of offshore platforms will be brought to a standstill in a matter of weeks.”

Around 700 offshore workers at Bilfinger UK Limited are set to down tools after Unite members voted in favor of taking industrial action as part of a pay dispute.  Bilfinger workers are demanding an increase above the base rate of pay set in the Energy Services Agreement (ESA) for 2022.  

Meanwhile, 350 Stork construction workers are set to take strike action after Unite members also supported industrial action in a dispute over working rotas and rates of pay.

Unite members employed by Petrofac Facilities Management Limited on the FPF1 platform also voted in favour of strike action. Around 50 workers are involved in the dispute over holiday entitlements. Offshore workers can be asked to work at any time for no additional payment. The operator, Ithaca Energy, has a clawback policy of 14 days, double the industry norm of 7 days.

Unite members employed by the Wood Group UK Limited on TAQA platforms similarly voted to take strike action. Around 80 members are involved in the dispute which is focused on a 10% cut made to salaries in 2015 worth around £7,000 a year.

The mandates for industrial action follow the recent announcement by Unite that around 200 Sparrows Offshore Services workers will take strike action across more than 20 oil and gas platforms in disputes over pay. Strike action is set to hit various platforms from 29 March and until 7 June in a series of 24, 48 and 72-hour stoppages. This action will hit a number of major operators including BP, Shell, Apache and Harbour Energy. 

A further two industrial action ballots are due this week at Petrofac BP involving around 80 workers (21 March), and at Worley Services UK Limited on Harbour Energy platforms involving around 50 workers (24 March) in disputes over pay. The pending ballot results could bring the final total to around 1500 offshore workers taking industrial action.

Unite recently blasted the UK Government's inaction on taxing oil firms as BP posted the biggest profits in its history as it doubled to £23 billion in 2022. BP’s bonanza profits come after Shell reports earnings of £32 billion, bringing the combined total profits of the top two energy companies in Britain to a record £55 billion.

Oil chiefs to testify at congressional hearing

Top executives at ExxonMobil and other oil giants are set to testify at a landmark House hearing today (Thursday) as congressional Democrats investigate what they describe as a decades-long, industry-wide campaign to spread disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in causing global warming.

Top officials at four major oil companies are testifying before the House Oversight Committee, along with leaders of the industry’s top lobbying group and the US Chamber of Commerce. Company officials were expected to renew their commitment to fighting climate change.

The much-anticipated hearing comes after months of public efforts by Democrats to obtain documents and other information on the oil industry’s role in stopping climate action over multiple decades. The appearance of the four oil executives — from ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP America and Shell — has drawn comparisons to a high-profile hearing in the 1990s with tobacco executives who famously testified that they didn’t believe nicotine was addictive.

 “The fossil fuel industry has had scientific evidence about the dangers of climate change since at least 1977. Yet for decades, the industry spread denial and doubt about the harm of its products — undermining the science and preventing meaningful action on climate change even as the global climate crisis became increasingly dire, ″ said Carolyn Maloney and Ro Khanna.

Maloney chairs the Oversight panel, while Khanna leads a subcommittee on the environment.

More recently, Exxon, Chevron and other companies have taken public stances in support of climate actions while privately working to block reforms, Maloney and Khanna charged. Oil companies frequently boast about their efforts to produce clean energy in advertisements and social media posts accompanied by sleek videos or pictures of wind turbines.

The industry “spends billions to promote climate disinformation through branding and lobbying″ that is increasingly outsourced to trade groups, “obscuring their own roles in disinformation efforts,” the lawmakers said.

Democrats have focused particular ire on Exxon, after a senior lobbyist for the company was caught in a secret video bragging that Exxon had fought climate science through “shadow groups” and had targeted influential senators in an effort to weaken President Joe Biden’s climate agenda, including a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping climate and social policy bill currently moving through Congress.

Keith McCoy, a former Washington-based lobbyist for Exxon, dismissed the company’s public expressions of support for a proposed carbon tax on fossil fuel emissions as a “talking point.”

McCoy’s comments were made public in June by the environmental group Greenpeace UK, which secretly recorded him and another lobbyist in Zoom interviews. McCoy no longer works for the company, an Exxon spokesperson said last month.

Darren Woods, Exxon’s chairman and chief executive, has condemned McCoy’s statements and said the company stands by its commitment to work on finding solutions to climate change.

Woods is among the chief executives set to testify Thursday, along with BP America CEO David Lawler, Chevron CEO Michael Wirth and Shell President Gretchen Watkins.

Casey Norton, an ExxonMobil spokesperson, said the company has cooperated with the Oversight panel, adding: “ExxonMobil has long acknowledged that climate change is real and poses serious risks.″

In addition to substantial investments in “next-generation technologies,” the company also advocates for responsible climate-related policies, Norton said.

“Our public statements about climate change are, and have been, truthful, fact-based, transparent and consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific community at the time, ″ he said.

Maloney and Khanna compared tactics used by the oil industry to those long deployed by the tobacco industry to resist regulation “while selling products that kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.″

The oil industry’s “strategies of obfuscation and distraction span decades and still continue today,″ Khanna and Maloney said in calling the hearing last month. The five largest publicly traded oil and gas companies reportedly spent at least US$ one billion from 2015 to 2018 “to promote climate disinformation through ‘branding’ and lobbying,” the lawmakers said.

Bethany Aronhalt, a spokeswoman for API, said the group’s president, Mike Sommers, welcomes the opportunity to testify and “advance our priorities of pricing carbon, regulating methane and reliably producing American energy.”