Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In the mid-to-late 1980s, the number of places in the world where one had opportunities
for exploration and productions were limited. In the late 1990s, there were more
opportunities so far as oil production and exploration of oil was concerned. Many
countries were opening up, such as China, Venezuela, and countries in the Middle East.
These were the sort of large-scale, capital-intensive opportunities that the merger entity
would capitalize on.
This is one of the reasons why Exxon and Mobil had merged to increase the scope of
opportunities. In 1999, Exxon and Mobil signed a $81 billion agreement to merge and
form Exxon Mobil. Not only did Exxon Mobil become the largest company in the world, it
reunited its 19th century former selves, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company of
New Jersey (Exxon) and Standard Oil Company of New York (Mobil).
1. The Exxon-Mobil merger was one of the biggest industrial mergers ever. Do you see
any synergy in this merger?
• Operating synergies
Synergy
The motivations for the Exxon-Mobil merger reflected the industry forces. Companies
needed a secure presence in the regions with high potential for oil/gas discoveries and
stronger position to make large investments. The benefits of the merger fell broadly in
two categories: near-term operating synergies and capital productivity improvements.
Near-term operating synergies. $2.8 billion in annual pre-tax benefits from
operating synergies (increases in production, sales and efficiency, decreases in unit
costs and combining complementary operations). Management expected to realize the
full benefits by the third year after the merger. During the first two years, the benefits
should have been partly offset by one-time costs at $2 billion for business integration.
The firms also planned to eliminate about 9,000 jobs. A year later, pre-tax annual
savings were re-assessed and increased to $3.8 billion.
Capital productivity improvements. Management also believed the combined
company could use its capital more profitably than either company on its own. These
improvements were realized due to efficiencies of scale, cost savings, and sharing of
best management practices. The businesses and assets of Exxon and Mobil were
highly complementary in key areas. In the exploration and production area, for example,
Mobil's and Exxon's respective strengths in West Africa, the Caspian region, Russia,
South America, and North America lined up well, with minimal overlap. The firms also
had a presence in natural gas, with combined sales of about 14 bcfd. And Mobil
contributed its LNG assets and experience to the venture.
There were technology synergies as well. In upstream, Exxon and Mobil owned
proprietary technologies in the areas of: deepwater and arctic operations, heavy oil,
gas-to-liquids processing, LNG, and high-strength steel. In downstream, their
proprietary technology focused on refining and chemical catalysts. Exxon’s lube base
stocks production fitted well with Mobil's leadership in lubes marketing. [29] Generally, the
Exxon-Mobil deal was a move by the dominant partner to increase its asset base by 30
percent while raising capital productivity.
Disciplined Investing: Exxon’s diverse resource and asset base offers a large
inventory of high-quality investment options. The company carefully evaluates these
opportunities across a range of market conditions and time horizons that often span
decades. They advance only those projects likely to provide long-term shareholder
value, and focus on the efficient use of capital to achieve superior investment returns.
28 major Upstream project start-ups between 2013 and 2017 25 percent return on
capital employed across our worldwide operations, leading the industry