From:

Subject:
Date:
To:

Douglas Grandt answerthecall@me.com

S. 2012 Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015: INCOMPLETE
February 1, 2016 at 6:52 AM
Edward Hild (Sen. Murkowski) Edward_Hild@murkowski.senate.gov, David Cleary (Sen. Alexander)
David_Cleary@alexander.senate.gov, Dan Kunsman (Sen. Barrasso) Dan_Kunsman@barrasso.senate.gov,
Joel Brubaker (Sen. Capito) Joel_Brubaker@capito.senate.gov, James Quinn (Sen. Cassidy) James_Quinn@cassidy.senate.gov,
Jason Thielman (Sen. Daines) Jason_Thielman@daines.senate.gov, Chandler Morse (Sen. Flake)
Chandler_Morse@flake.senate.gov, Chris Hansen (Sen. Gardner) Chris_Hansen@gardner.senate.gov,
Ryan Bernstein (Sen. Hoeven) Ryan_Bernstein@hoeven.senate.gov, Boyd Matheson (Sen. Lee) Boyd_Matheson@lee.senate.gov
, Mark Isakowitz (Sen. Portman) Mark_Isakowitz@portman.senate.gov, John Sandy (Sen. Risch) John_Sandy@risch.senate.gov,
Travis Lumpkin (Sen. Cantwell) Travis_Lumpkin@cantwell.senate.gov, Jeff Lomonaco (Sen. Franken)
Jeff_Lomonaco@franken.senate.gov, Joe Britton (Sen. Heinrich) Joe_Britton@heinrich.senate.gov, Betsy Lin (Sen. Hirono)
Betsy_Lin@hirono.senate.gov, Patrick Hayes (Sen. Manchin) Patrick_Hayes@manchin.senate.gov,
Bill Sweeney (Sen. Stabenow) Bill_Sweeney@stabenow.senate.gov, Mindy Myers (Sen. Warren)
Mindy_Myers@warren.senate.gov, Jeff Michels (Sen. Wyden) Jeff_Michels@wyden.senate.gov,
Michaeleen Crowell (Sen. Sanders) Michaeleen_Crowell@sanders.senate.gov, Kay Rand (Sen. King) Kay_Rand@king.senate.gov
, Joe Hack (Sen. Fischer) Joe_Hack@fischer.senate.gov, Derrick Morgan (Sen. Sasse) Derrick_Morgan@sasse.senate.gov,
Karen Billups (Senate ENR Ctee) Karen_Billups@energy.senate.gov, Angela Becker-Dippmann (Senate ENR Ctee)
Angela_Becker-Dippmann@energy.senate.gov, Colin Hayes (Senate ENR Ctee) Colin_Hayes@energy.senate.gov
Cc: Jordan Cox (Sen. Fischer) Jordan_Cox@fischer.senate.gov, Ginger Willson (Sen. Sasse) Ginger_Willson@sasse.senate.gov,
Ali Aafedt (Sen. Hoeven) Alexis_Aafedt@hoeven.senate.gov

Dear Chiefs of Staff of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee (ENR) and the Nebraska Senate Delegation,

STOP THINK DO NOT ADOPT S. 2012

Today, S. 2013 is scheduled for vote at 3pm according to the Congressional Record, following the addition of several amendments on
Thursday. Many of the amendmentsincluding many added to the bill in July prior to the August recessare contraindicated (to use a
medical term for intentional emphasis that the bill is mute on disclosure of unmentioned side effects) and the patient may die. In other
words, if this incomplete bill is adopted, economic and societal mayhem may ensue if you are not prepared with an antidote.
Specifically, the bill and its amendments make no mention of the likely impacts of a sustained low price of oil and gas. Any energy bill in
the context of the current crisis that the industry is facing is incomplete and irresponsible if that context is not investigated and reported
objectively and thoroughly.
You as a member of the ENR Committee have a responsibility to ensure legislation is in the National and Public interest.
S. 2012 is not in the Public Interest
S. 2012 is not in the National Interest
S. 2012 would leave the U.S. susceptible to National Security degradation
S. 2012 as amended gives no consideration to the sustained steady operation of Americas national resource: oil.
Over 50 letters and emails have warned you of a likely national security threat. Most recently, on January 20, 25 and 26 I wrote in an
email to you:
I am imploring Senator Lisa Murkowski, ENR staff and Messrs. Tillerson and Woods to collaborate in organizing a series of
hearings to explore how to deal with the implicit legal conflicts that are presently evolving by the nexus of events that are already
looming large in everyday news, as well as building behind the scenes in Board Rooms around the world."
Yesterday, Seeking Alpha* published "Is Exxon Mobil's Safe Haven Appeal Blinding Investors?" which is an explicit explanation of
why I believe it is imperative that you get testimony from the petroleum industry CEOs and economiststo explore how exercising
fiduciary duty in the face of insolvency and bankruptcy conflicts with Public and National Interests. The attached 'Seeking Alpha
assessment leaves no doubt in my mind that Corporations like ExxonMobil will not act in our Public and National Interest.
Apologies if anyone of you is offended, but what is about to happen in the Senate today is as reported in The Hill on January 10** and is
unsubstantiated politically-based legislation based on assumptions, ignorance and hubris, which is outrageous.
Please conduct hearings in the Pubic Interest and in the National Interest. Lets manage oilour national resourceresponsibly.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt

* Seeking Alpha link is http://seekingalpha.com/article/3851256-misled-exxon-mobils-safe-haven-appeal

** 'The Hill URL link is http://seekingalpha.com/article/3851256-misled-exxon-mobils-safe-haven-appeal

Is Exxon Mobil's Safe Haven Appeal Blinding Investors?

Summary

Investors are rushing towards safer oil stocks as the plunge continues.

Exxon Mobil being the industry leader stands strong as investors pledge their support and money blindly.

Lack of fundamental positives makes Exxon Mobil a bit expensive.

Last time, when I wrote an analysis piece about Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) in July 2015, my cautious approach towards
the world's largest publicly traded energy company was met with strong criticism. I had stated that Exxon Mobil's
dividend yield could become attractive in the coming months.

Exxon Mobil was trading at $82.61 then, but, in the next one month (approx.), Exxon dropped a significant 20% to
$66.55 before regaining lost ground. The previous Exxon analysis mentioned support levels of $74.30, $61.33 and
$56.

Things have changed drastically since then. First, crude oil was near $50 a barrel in July; it is now closer to $30 - a
steep drop of 40%. Secondly, Exxon looks set to report the lowest EPS (annual) in the last 5 years. Third, the second
largest US energy company (on revenue-basis) Chevron (NYSE: CVX) recently reported a massive, shocking loss of
$588 million in the fourth quarter as the oil rout continues to deepen. Exxon Mobil continues to stand firm against all
these headwinds at $77.64. There is no good reason why it should.

Take a look at the infographics below:

Exxon Mobil is due to report its fourth quarter results on Feb. 2, 2016. Analysts on an average estimate the energy
major to report $0.65 per share and $51.36 billion in revenues. Even if Exxon manages to surprise the Street with
better EPS and revenue, that may only cause short sellers to close their positions but won't merit fresh buying.

For example, if Exxon reports $0.75 in EPS, which would be 15% higher than industry estimates, it would add up to
$3.93 in EPS on annual basis; for 2014, this figure stood at $7.60. The downward pressure is surely there, but
investors are frighteningly focusing only on dividends and the safe haven appeal of the industry behemoth.

Another point to consider is that an investor is not making a mistake by not jumping into the bullish bandwagon. The
price-to-earnings ratio ((NYSE:TTM)) for Exxon Mobil has shot from 12.40 in July to 16.46 currently. There have been
no fundamental positives about the Company that demand it to trade at a higher valuation than before. Rather, the
Company is battling investigationsfrom the New York and the Californian governments over the allegations that the
Company knowingly hid the adverse effects of burning fossil fuels from its shareholders and the public for past several
decades.

The battle between the oil giant and the governments will be a long and hard one. But one has to wish that other
governments do not enter the ring, otherwise, this will turn ugly for Exxon.

Image

From the weekly Crude Oil NYMEX price chart above, the 40% slump since October can be easily seen. This
disheartening fall in oil price has pushed Chevron into the loss territory for the first time since 2002. Chevron's
management is chalking out a plan to cut its expenditures and reduce the employee count as the situation
deteriorates. Even the most optimistic investors don't see oil scenario improving before the second half of 2016. And
companies want to preserve as much cash as they can - to finance dividend payments and battle the low price
environment.

Capex plans are being postponed as oil majors fear a looming downgrade of the oil sector. Chevron's Chief Financial
Officer Pat Yarrington said, such a step would have a broad effect on the sector. Chevron and Exxon Mobil will be
greatly affected as they issue AAA-rated bonds to investors.

In my opinion, dividends are rewards to shareholders for keeping faith in the business. But I find it hard to understand
why dividends need to be paid in dire situations. Investors are not oblivious to the global conditions, and they will
understand if the Company opts to cut down on its expenses, including dividends, for the long-term benefit of the
business. The money raised by issuing more bonds or selling assets to satisfy the "dividend-hunger" of investors can
be better used in strengthening the balance sheet of a company.

Why I stress on this point? Because Exxon Mobil recently declared a cash dividend of $0.73 per share on the common
stock, payable on March 10, 2016. While investors may be relieved that their Company is continuing with the
dividends, they should be asking: At what cost?

I feel that at one point, it becomes more of a step to maintain the reputation rather than sharing success with the
shareholders.

Conclusion

The stated points should be considered by every existing and potential investor before they make their next investment

The stated points should be considered by every existing and potential investor before they make their next investment
decision regarding Exxon Mobil. Having said this, I would also like to add that I am NOT against dividend income but
would be far more satisfied if strong earnings backed the dividends.

I fail to see oil prices reaching levels comfortable to the oil majors anytime soon. I expect Saudi Arabia to go offensive
if Russia or some other nation decides to lower oil production in order to grab a larger market share. It is still hard to
assess what exactly oil from Iran will do to the price.

Overall, circumstances don't look good for Exxon and it is definitely 'not cheap' enough to attract your investment
dollars.

From:
Subject:
Date:
To:

Douglas Grandt answerthecall@me.com

Re: S. 2012 Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015: INCOMPLETE (CORRECTED URL LINK)
February 1, 2016 at 10:01 AM
Edward Hild (Sen. Murkowski) Edward_Hild@murkowski.senate.gov, David Cleary (Sen. Alexander)
David_Cleary@alexander.senate.gov, Dan Kunsman (Sen. Barrasso) Dan_Kunsman@barrasso.senate.gov,
Joel Brubaker (Sen. Capito) Joel_Brubaker@capito.senate.gov, James Quinn (Sen. Cassidy) James_Quinn@cassidy.senate.gov,
Jason Thielman (Sen. Daines) Jason_Thielman@daines.senate.gov, Chandler Morse (Sen. Flake)
Chandler_Morse@flake.senate.gov, Chris Hansen (Sen. Gardner) Chris_Hansen@gardner.senate.gov,
Ryan Bernstein (Sen. Hoeven) Ryan_Bernstein@hoeven.senate.gov, Boyd Matheson (Sen. Lee) Boyd_Matheson@lee.senate.gov
, Mark Isakowitz (Sen. Portman) Mark_Isakowitz@portman.senate.gov, John Sandy (Sen. Risch) John_Sandy@risch.senate.gov,
Travis Lumpkin (Sen. Cantwell) Travis_Lumpkin@cantwell.senate.gov, Jeff Lomonaco (Sen. Franken)
Jeff_Lomonaco@franken.senate.gov, Joe Britton (Sen. Heinrich) Joe_Britton@heinrich.senate.gov, Betsy Lin (Sen. Hirono)
Betsy_Lin@hirono.senate.gov, Patrick Hayes (Sen. Manchin) Patrick_Hayes@manchin.senate.gov,
Bill Sweeney (Sen. Stabenow) Bill_Sweeney@stabenow.senate.gov, Mindy Myers (Sen. Warren)
Mindy_Myers@warren.senate.gov, Jeff Michels (Sen. Wyden) Jeff_Michels@wyden.senate.gov,
Michaeleen Crowell (Sen. Sanders) Michaeleen_Crowell@sanders.senate.gov, Kay Rand (Sen. King) Kay_Rand@king.senate.gov
, Joe Hack (Sen. Fischer) Joe_Hack@fischer.senate.gov, Derrick Morgan (Sen. Sasse) Derrick_Morgan@sasse.senate.gov,
Karen Billups (Senate ENR Ctee) Karen_Billups@energy.senate.gov, Angela Becker-Dippmann (Senate ENR Ctee)
Angela_Becker-Dippmann@energy.senate.gov, Colin Hayes (Senate ENR Ctee) Colin_Hayes@energy.senate.gov
Cc: Jordan Cox (Sen. Fischer) Jordan_Cox@fischer.senate.gov, Ginger Willson (Sen. Sasse) Ginger_Willson@sasse.senate.gov,
Ali Aafedt (Sen. Hoeven) Alexis_Aafedt@hoeven.senate.gov

Apologies for inadvertent URL error this is the correct link to The Hill article:
** 'The Hill link is http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/265304-oil-plunge-sparks-calls-for-congress-to-act

Dear Chiefs of Staff of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee (ENR) and the Nebraska Senate Delegation,

STOP THINK DO NOT ADOPT S. 2012

Today, S. 2013 is scheduled for vote at 3pm according to the Congressional Record, following the addition of several amendments on
Thursday. Many of the amendmentsincluding many added to the bill in July prior to the August recessare contraindicated (to use a
medical term for intentional emphasis that the bill is mute on disclosure of unmentioned side effects) and the patient may die. In other
words, if this incomplete bill is adopted, economic and societal mayhem may ensue if you are not prepared with an antidote.
Specifically, the bill and its amendments make no mention of the likely impacts of a sustained low price of oil and gas. Any energy bill in
the context of the current crisis that the industry is facing is incomplete and irresponsible if that context is not investigated and reported
objectively and thoroughly.
You as a member of the ENR Committee have a responsibility to ensure legislation is in the National and Public interest.
S. 2012 is not in the Public Interest
S. 2012 is not in the National Interest
S. 2012 would leave the U.S. susceptible to National Security degradation
S. 2012 as amended gives no consideration to the sustained steady operation of Americas national resource: oil.
Over 50 letters and emails have warned you of a likely national security threat. Most recently, on January 20, 25 and 26 I wrote in an
email to you:
I am imploring Senator Lisa Murkowski, ENR staff and Messrs. Tillerson and Woods to collaborate in organizing a series of
hearings to explore how to deal with the implicit legal conflicts that are presently evolving by the nexus of events that are already
looming large in everyday news, as well as building behind the scenes in Board Rooms around the world."
Yesterday, Seeking Alpha* published "Is Exxon Mobil's Safe Haven Appeal Blinding Investors?" which is an explicit explanation of
why I believe it is imperative that you get testimony from the petroleum industry CEOs and economiststo explore how exercising
fiduciary duty in the face of insolvency and bankruptcy conflicts with Public and National Interests. The attached 'Seeking Alpha
assessment leaves no doubt in my mind that Corporations like ExxonMobil will not act in our Public and National Interest.
Apologies if anyone of you is offended, but what is about to happen in the Senate today is as reported in The Hill on January 10** and is
unsubstantiated politically-based legislation based on assumptions, ignorance and hubris, which is outrageous.
Please conduct hearings in the Pubic Interest and in the National Interest. Lets manage oilour national resourceresponsibly.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt

* Seeking Alpha link is http://seekingalpha.com/article/3851256-misled-exxon-mobils-safe-haven-appeal

* Seeking Alpha link is http://seekingalpha.com/article/3851256-misled-exxon-mobils-safe-haven-appeal

** 'The Hill URL link is http://seekingalpha.com/article/3851256-misled-exxon-mobils-safe-haven-appeal ERROR

Is Exxon Mobil's Safe Haven Appeal Blinding Investors?

Summary

Investors are rushing towards safer oil stocks as the plunge continues.

Exxon Mobil being the industry leader stands strong as investors pledge their support and money blindly.

Lack of fundamental positives makes Exxon Mobil a bit expensive.

Last time, when I wrote an analysis piece about Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) in July 2015, my cautious approach towards
the world's largest publicly traded energy company was met with strong criticism. I had stated that Exxon Mobil's
dividend yield could become attractive in the coming months.

Exxon Mobil was trading at $82.61 then, but, in the next one month (approx.), Exxon dropped a significant 20% to
$66.55 before regaining lost ground. The previous Exxon analysis mentioned support levels of $74.30, $61.33 and
$56.

Things have changed drastically since then. First, crude oil was near $50 a barrel in July; it is now closer to $30 - a
steep drop of 40%. Secondly, Exxon looks set to report the lowest EPS (annual) in the last 5 years. Third, the second
largest US energy company (on revenue-basis) Chevron (NYSE: CVX) recently reported a massive, shocking loss of
$588 million in the fourth quarter as the oil rout continues to deepen. Exxon Mobil continues to stand firm against all
these headwinds at $77.64. There is no good reason why it should.

Take a look at the infographics below:

Exxon Mobil is due to report its fourth quarter results on Feb. 2, 2016. Analysts on an average estimate the energy
major to report $0.65 per share and $51.36 billion in revenues. Even if Exxon manages to surprise the Street with
better EPS and revenue, that may only cause short sellers to close their positions but won't merit fresh buying.

For example, if Exxon reports $0.75 in EPS, which would be 15% higher than industry estimates, it would add up to
$3.93 in EPS on annual basis; for 2014, this figure stood at $7.60. The downward pressure is surely there, but
investors are frighteningly focusing only on dividends and the safe haven appeal of the industry behemoth.

Another point to consider is that an investor is not making a mistake by not jumping into the bullish bandwagon. The
price-to-earnings ratio ((NYSE:TTM)) for Exxon Mobil has shot from 12.40 in July to 16.46 currently. There have been
no fundamental positives about the Company that demand it to trade at a higher valuation than before. Rather, the
Company is battling investigationsfrom the New York and the Californian governments over the allegations that the
Company knowingly hid the adverse effects of burning fossil fuels from its shareholders and the public for past several
decades.

The battle between the oil giant and the governments will be a long and hard one. But one has to wish that other
governments do not enter the ring, otherwise, this will turn ugly for Exxon.

Image

From the weekly Crude Oil NYMEX price chart above, the 40% slump since October can be easily seen. This
disheartening fall in oil price has pushed Chevron into the loss territory for the first time since 2002. Chevron's
management is chalking out a plan to cut its expenditures and reduce the employee count as the situation
deteriorates. Even the most optimistic investors don't see oil scenario improving before the second half of 2016. And
companies want to preserve as much cash as they can - to finance dividend payments and battle the low price
environment.

Capex plans are being postponed as oil majors fear a looming downgrade of the oil sector. Chevron's Chief Financial
Officer Pat Yarrington said, such a step would have a broad effect on the sector. Chevron and Exxon Mobil will be
greatly affected as they issue AAA-rated bonds to investors.

In my opinion, dividends are rewards to shareholders for keeping faith in the business. But I find it hard to understand
why dividends need to be paid in dire situations. Investors are not oblivious to the global conditions, and they will
understand if the Company opts to cut down on its expenses, including dividends, for the long-term benefit of the
business. The money raised by issuing more bonds or selling assets to satisfy the "dividend-hunger" of investors can
be better used in strengthening the balance sheet of a company.

Why I stress on this point? Because Exxon Mobil recently declared a cash dividend of $0.73 per share on the common
stock, payable on March 10, 2016. While investors may be relieved that their Company is continuing with the
dividends, they should be asking: At what cost?

I feel that at one point, it becomes more of a step to maintain the reputation rather than sharing success with the
shareholders.

Conclusion

The stated points should be considered by every existing and potential investor before they make their next investment
decision regarding Exxon Mobil. Having said this, I would also like to add that I am NOT against dividend income but

decision regarding Exxon Mobil. Having said this, I would also like to add that I am NOT against dividend income but
would be far more satisfied if strong earnings backed the dividends.

I fail to see oil prices reaching levels comfortable to the oil majors anytime soon. I expect Saudi Arabia to go offensive
if Russia or some other nation decides to lower oil production in order to grab a larger market share. It is still hard to
assess what exactly oil from Iran will do to the price.

Overall, circumstances don't look good for Exxon and it is definitely 'not cheap' enough to attract your investment
dollars.