Why Exxon won't produce more oil

But how could oil production be flat? Peer into Exxon's historical numbers and you see the problem Tillerson faces. Since 2000, Exxon's oil output from two of its largest regions, the United States and Europe, declined a startling 37%. That's 500,000 fewer barrels a day in just seven years.

Exxon reported 100,000 fewer barrels per day last year alone due to the nature of the contracts big oil companies sign with countries such as Angola and Nigeria. In such contracts, foreign companies put up the capital to fund new projects, and they are paid back in barrels. If oil prices rise above certain levels, Exxon gets to keep fewer of those barrels as profit for itself.

Exxon plans on bringing new fields online in Russia, the Middle East and Africa over the next four years, but they won't be enough to generate growth beyond what the company is losing due to the maturation of its fields in the North Sea and Alaska, the nationalization of its fields in Venezuela and volumes lost due to those production-sharing agreements with other countries.

"It has always been a challenge to grow volumes when you are working off of a base as large as ours," Tillerson told the analysts.

Indeed, Tillerson got more bad news Tuesday when a British judge freed up the foreign assets that Exxon had sought to freeze in its ongoing dispute with the government of Venezuela.

Exxon's flat forecast was, in a way, an admission of what's been an open secret for the industry. Big oil companies almost always forecast production growth but they rarely make their own targets.

In 2002, shortly after its big merger with Texaco, Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) was producing nearly 2.7 million barrels per day of oil and natural gas worldwide, and Chairman David O'Reilly said the company would increase its volumes by as much as 3% a year by 2006. Last year the company produced an average of just 2.6 million barrels per day. A spokesman for the company says it, too, lost barrels to production-sharing agreements and changes in contract terms in Venezuela. The company is maintaining a 3% annual growth target through 2010, however.

Could Exxon spend more and generate more growth? Probably. Even with its increased capital spending, the company still spent 70% more on dividends and stock buybacks last year ($38 billion) than it did reinvesting in its business. Tillerson noted that share buybacks in the past have boosted the average stockholder's share of the company's oil production by 20% over the past five years.

In other words. even though the company's volumes haven't grown, fewer shares outstanding mean more barrels per share for each remaining shareholder.

Lysle Brinker, who follows Exxon for the research firm John S. Herold, figures that given the company's capital outlays, Tillerson can keep replacing the oil and natural gas he sells. That way the company won't shrink, even if it doesn't grow.

Big oil companies can continually miss their targets or even target no growth and still shine on Wall Street due to the peculiar nature of commodity businesses. Less supply of a commodity means higher prices. Higher oil prices mean more profits for the oil companies.

Exxon shares have risen 18% in the past year -- and even closed a bit higher on March 5, the day of its analysts meeting.

This article was reported and written by Christopher Palmeri for BusinessWeek.

< previous |  1 | 2 |