From:

Subject:
Date:
To:

Douglas Grandt answerthecall@icloud.com

If ExxonMobil is the "gold standard" what is the industry prognosis? (4)
August 1, 2016 at 5:54 PM
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, 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,
Angela Becker-Dippmann (Senate ENR Ctee) Angela_Becker-Dippmann@energy.senate.gov, Ginger Willson (Sen. Sasse)
Ginger_Willson@sasse.senate.gov, Ali Aafedt (Sen. Hoeven) Alexis_Aafedt@hoeven.senate.gov,
Colin Hayes (Senate ENR Ctee) Colin_Hayes@energy.senate.gov, Michael Pawlowski (Sen. Murkowski)
michael_pawlowski@murkowski.senate.gov

Dear Chiefs of Staff:

Friday and this morning, I emailed you ExxonMobil Earns $1.7 Billion in Second Quarter of 2016, Can Exxon Mobil Prosper In
A Sub-$50 Per Barrel World? and "Not Even Exxon Mobil Is Safe" using the same subject line.
This afternoon, another critique "Exxon Mobil: Don't Expect A Big Dividend Hike Anytime Soon" by Black Coral Research
appeared through my Seeking Alpha subscriptionyet again validating concerns expressed Friday and twice earlier today:
Congress must investigate the prospects of a collapse of the oil & gas production and refining industry. To emphasize
the message, I will again repeat what I wrote before verbatim:
With the current glut of supplies of oil and gas and industrys apparent conclusion that increased drilling and production is
the solution, there is no relief in sight for the depressed state of global commodity prices for oil and gas.
The industry is in a pickle and ExxonMobils second quarter results underscore the problem.
Where are we headed? What lies ahead for the industrys viability, debt defaults, bankruptcies?
What lies ahead for the oil market, the stock market, pensions, life savings, superannuations, the U.S. economy?
You are the gatekeeper and task master for your Senators staff. You make assignments and review performance.
Is anybody on your staff presently assigned to evaluate the repercussions of the current oil and gas price crisis?
Please compel your Senator to initiate hearingsor to demand ENR Chairman Lisa Murkowski to callfor CEOs of the
major oil and gas production and refining companies to testify how they will exercise Fiduciary Duty in the face of
bankruptcy without jeopardizing the Public Interest, National Interest indeed U.S. National Security.
I believe we are on the brink of a "train wreck" between Corporate financial survival and National economic survival.
Fortunately or unfortunately, you are uniquely situated in a position that demands your immediate attention and action. This is a
potential crisis that is unacceptably plausible. It is up to you to compel your Senator to take preparatory action.
Imagine the consequences if the worstcollapse of markets and the U.S. economywere to happen on your watch. That very
well could happen as a result of ExxonMobil and other major oil companies defaulting on debt and filing bankruptcywith
ensuing precipitous shutting down of operations, panic sell-off of shares (divestiture), an market-wide panictaking U.S. from an
oil and gas inventory glut into a supply deficit.
It would be worse than the OPEC embargo in the 1970s. Not only would we have rationing and long lines at the pump, but
groceries and merchandise would be unable to get to the store shelves. Rail, truck, air, ship and personal transportation would be
curtailed for insufficient fuel supply, production and refining.
Business does not operate at a loss for longthey close their doors and lay off workers. But you already understand that. So
what is holding you back? Its time to get control.
I implore you to require Oil and Gas CEOs to testify at Senate hearings as soon as possible.
Sincerely yours,
Doug Grandt
PO Box 432, Putney, VT 05346

Exxon Mobil: Don't Expect A Big Dividend Hike Anytime Soon

Black Coral Research | Aug. 1, 2016 3:18 PM ET | Seeking Alpha

Exxons has been paying dividends to shareholders at the cost of reducing its Capital Expenditures
(Capex).

With oil in a bear market and Exxons ability to continue reducing its Capex limited.

Exxon may need consider either issuing more debt or curtailing future dividend hikes, making Exxon one
for Dividend Investors to avoid in the near term.

Analysis

Bear market oil prices depressed Q2 earnings and force cash conservation. Oil entered bear market
territory late last week, after Brent fell 20% below its 2016 highs. This cast a pall on the entire energy sector,
notably Exxon-Mobil (NYSE:XOM), which had the misfortune of reporting earnings that were $0.23 shy of analyst
expectations - and $2.5 Billion lower than they were in the same period a year earlier.

Exxon's second quarter drop is unsurprising: the average price of a barrel of oil (as measured by Brent prices)
was 26% lower than it was in the same quarter last year, though it improved by 33.6% compared to its first
quarter average. Additionally, there was mounting evidence that Exxon management is taking action to conserve
cash. Leading us to believe there won't be any major dividend hikes in Exxon's immediate future.

Dividend and Outlook. Its poor second quarter results notwithstanding, the one thing Exxon has going for it is its
dividend. With a $3.00 per share annual dividend, Exxon carries an annual dividend yield of 3.33%. This means
that Exxon shareholders can expect to receive $333 in annual passive income for every $10,000 they have
invested in Exxon. This dividend yield is in the upper-third of the yields of Dow Jones Industrial Average
components.

Investors should also note that, for all the doom-and-gloom surrounding oil companies, the average price of a
barrel of oil in July ($46.72) was basically flat from its average price in the second quarter ($47.04). This means

that, at least for the first month of the third quarter, Exxon could rely on a relatively stable oil price, which is a
somewhat reassuring sign for its third quarter earnings.

What should concern dividend investors is the outlook for Exxon's dividend going forward. Exxon only recently
raised its dividend from $0.73 to $.075, which is its slimmest dividend hike in the last five years. This signals
that its management is conserving its uses of cash, which is unsurprising considering that it has surprisingly
below-average liquidity and working capital ratios for a company that was once rated 'AAA' by Standard & Poors.

Meanwhile, in another sign that it's conserving cash, Exxon cuts its capital expenditures ("capex") by 36% in the
first half of 2016. That move saved it roughly $6 Billion in cash during this period - but it also cripples Exxon's
ability to invest in areas that could help its Upstream revenues, which were much weaker than its downstream
revenues in the first half.

In short, by opting to save cash on its Capex in the near term, Exxon is actually capping its ability to boost
future revenues, which in turn, would weaken its capacity to increase its future dividend payments. This is a
potentially vicious cycle that investors in Exxon (and other oil companies) should be very concerned about.

It's also important to note that the $6 Billion that Exxon saved in Capex was equivalent to the amount that it
paid investors in dividends during the first half of 2016. Exxon's Capex was $10.3 Billion in the first half so even
cutting Capex entirely would only give Exxon enough savings to cover its dividend for another three quarters.

Investors should also note that Exxon has over $255 Billion in property, plant and equipment. If we assume that
much of this has a 10-year average life, then Exxon would have to spend $25.5 Billion in Capex (i.e. a 10%
investment rate) just to keep its fixed assets in viable condition - yet its annualized Capex is just $20.6 Billion. It
can't just cut its Capex entirely.

Ultimately, this means is that Exxon is running out of ways to cover its generous dividend payments and that, as
much as its management is "resolute" in paying a "reliable and growing dividend," it may have to consider
curtailing future dividend hikes if macro factors such as the demand for oil and gas prices don't move in a way
that's sustainable.

Indeed, one analyst from Wolfe Research mentioned that Exxon needs oil to be at roughly $60 a barrel for it to
be able to sustain both its Capex and Dividend. That may be asking for too much: the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (NYSEMKT:EIA) is forecasting that crude prices will average just $52.15 in 2017, which is well shy
of the $60 hurdle.

Thus, if the EIA's forecast hews close to reality, then Exxon will be forced to do a combination of two or three
things: reduce its Capex further (which is an unsustainable course of action), cut its dividend, or issue more
debt. Given Exxon's commitment to a "reliable" dividend and limited ability to cut its Capex further, the third
seems like its most likely course.

Indeed, Exxon already issued a net of $1.3 Billion in debt during the second quarter. Since Exxon's leverage ratio
is below average, this is the most sensible course of action in the short term if it wishes to keep its commitment
to dividend stability intact. That said, the market's appetite for Exxon's debt may be waning in light of recent
credit downgrades - at the very least, it will cost the company more money in the form of higher interest rate
payments if it wishes to issue more debt.

Looking ahead, analysts have a $90.47 target for Exxon, which means that the stock is basically even with
expectations. In our view, considering the tepid outlook for oil and the fact that global growth expectations
remain sedate, this price target is entirely justifiable. That is, Exxon's curtailment of its capital investment means
that it has effectively borrowed from its future, thus limiting its upside.

What's more, the travails of oil prices mean that Exxon's stock is also a bet on the oil price. Considering that oil
prices have averaged around $42.28 in the first 7 months of 2016, it would have to average $45.75/barrel to
meet the EIA's target of 43.57 for 2016. That's a tall order considering that oil is now in a bear market.

Conclusion

The balance of risks considered, we would avoid buying Exxon shares in the near term because of ongoing
concerns regarding oil prices. What's more, despite having a healthy dividend yield, investors cannot be sure
that Exxon's dividend will stay where it is - as we've detailed, Exxon will eventually have to make a choice
between reinvesting in its business or returning money to shareholders. Borrowing may be a solution for Exxon
in the near term but, if oil and gas prices remain in a prolonged rut, abandoning its commitment to future
dividend hikes may become more palatable.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3994232-exxon-mobil-expect-big-dividend-hike-anytime-soon