Exxon-led consortium's profit in Guyana rose to $10.4 bln in 2024

GEORGETOWN, June 3 (Reuters) - The profit of a consortium by oil producers Exxon Mobil (XOM.N), opens new tab, Hess (HES.N), opens new tab and CNOOC (600938.SS), opens new tab in Guyana increased 64% last year to $10.4 billion, Exxon said on Tuesday.
The group's expenses in the South American country rose to $4.9 billion in 2024 from $3.5 billion the previous year, the U.S. company added.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Reuters

3 hours ago

• Reuters

Oil to open higher as US strikes on Iran boost supply risk premium

LONDON, June 22 (Reuters) - Oil is likely to rise by $3-5 per barrel when trading resumes on Sunday evening after the U.S. attacked Iran at the weekend, market analysts said, with gains expected to accelerate only if Iran retaliates hard and causes a major oil supply disruption. U.S. President Donald Trump said he had "obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites in strikes overnight, joining an Israeli assault in an escalation of conflict in the Middle East as Tehran vowed to defend itself. Iran is OPEC's third-largest crude producer. Global oil benchmark Brent crude could gain $3 to $5 per barrel when markets open, SEB analyst Ole Hvalbye said in a note. Brent settled at $77.01 a barrel on Friday and U.S. West Texas Intermediate at $73.84. "An oil price jump is expected," said Jorge Leon, head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad and a former OPEC official. "Even in the absence of immediate retaliation, markets are likely to price in a higher geopolitical risk premium." Crude had settled down on Friday after the U.S. imposed fresh Iran-related sanctions, including on two entities based in Hong Kong, and counter-terrorism-related sanctions, according to a notice posted to the U.S. Treasury Department website. Brent has risen 11% while WTI has gained around 10% since the conflict began on June 13 with Israel targeting Iran's nuclear sites and Iranian missiles hitting buildings in Tel Aviv. Currently stable supply conditions and the availability of spare production capacity among other OPEC members have limited oil's gains. Risk premiums have typically faded when no supply disruptions occurred, said Giovanni Staunovo, analyst at UBS. "The direction of oil prices from here will depend on whether there are supply disruptions - which would likely result in higher prices - or if there is a de-escalation in the conflict, resulting in a fading risk premium," he said. A senior Iranian lawmaker on June 19 said that the country could shut the Strait of Hormuz as a way of hitting back against its enemies, though a second member of parliament said this would only happen if Tehran's vital interests were endangered. About a fifth of the world's total oil consumption passes through the strait. SEB said that any closure of the strait or spillover into other regional producers would "significantly lift" oil prices, but said they saw this scenario as a tail risk rather than a base case given China's reliance on Gulf crude. Ajay Parmar, oil and energy transition analytics director at consultancy ICIS, said it was unlikely Iran would be able to enforce a blockage of the strait for too long. "Most of Iran's oil exports to China pass through this strait and Trump is unlikely to tolerate the inevitable subsequent oil price spike for too long - the diplomatic pressure from the world's two largest economies would also be significant," he said.

Telegraph

8 hours ago

• Telegraph

The Iranian threat to oil supplies is overblown

Oil and gas still matter. For all the talk of net zero and the growing share of renewables in electricity generation, hydrocarbons remain crucial to the global economy. Back in 2005, oil accounted for 37pc of the world's primary energy consumption, with gas generating 23pc. The same numbers are now 31pc and 24pc respectively – still hugely significant, with the world's reliance on natural gas as an energy source actually up over the last 20 years. Oil remains vital across numerous sectors, not least transportation – think trucks, aviation and shipping – and the manufacturing of industrial chemicals, plastics and asphalt among vital materials. Gas still generates around a quarter of the world's electricity and is used to make fertiliser – sorely needed to grow enough to feed a fast-expanding global population. We're often told – usually with an eye on geopolitical realities, because hydrocarbons are predominantly found in 'awkward countries' – that the world is less dependent on oil than at the time of, say, the 1973 oil price shock. Back then, the crude price spiked four-fold in under a year after the Arab world embargoed energy exports from the Gulf during the Israel-Egypt Yom Kippur war. The world used 55m barrels a day in the early 1970s but over 100m now, with demand set to rise significantly into the 2030s and beyond. Oil – and gas – remain absolute necessities to any form of modern life, across a fast-industrialising world. Yes, the UK used 2.2m barrels daily half a century ago, and that's fallen to 1.4m now – in part due to efficiencies and renewable energy, but mainly because our manufacturing sector has shrunk from over a fifth to less than a tenth of our economy. Moreover, North Sea operations are now much diminished, not least because of punitive taxation and endless net zero regulation – so Britain is a net oil and gas importer. With both these vital hydrocarbons trading on global markets, we're particularly vulnerable to price spikes, losing out twice – paying more for our supplies without gaining the profits and extra taxation reaped by energy exporters when prices are high. I mention all this, of course, because the escalation of military hostilities between Israel and Iran, while causing yet more death, displacement and destruction across the Middle East, poses economic dangers too. Amidst the terrible human fallout, a spiking oil price threatens to reverse a fragile global recovery. From mid-January to early May, Brent crude fell from $81 (£60) a barrel to $61 – a 25pc drop – as a sluggish global economic outlook slowed projected energy demand. That combined with concerns that Donald Trump's tariff onslaught from early April would further stymie global trade. Over recent weeks, though, as this Israeli-Iranian conflict has intensified, Brent crude has spiked back up to $75, largely due to fears of turmoil engulfing the Middle East Tehran, specifically, has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, a critical route for 25pc of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) flows daily. Were that to happen, oil would soar above $100 a barrel and way beyond – doing serious damage to oil importing nations, not least the UK. Even if that doesn't happen, the International Monetary Fund reckons a 10pc rise in oil prices raises inflation in advanced economies by about 0.4 percentage points – and we've seen a 20pc-plus rise over the last month. UK inflation, 3.4pc in May, could easily soar above 4pc and beyond – twice the Bank of England's target. Stand by for higher UK petrol and diesel prices, along with domestic gas price rises too, especially if the conflict disrupts LNG exports from Qatar and elsewhere in the Gulf. That will push up household and industrial bills, with knock-on effects on food prices too – with food price inflation already jumping from 3.4pc in April to 4.4pc in May. Such inflationary pressures would rule out any more cuts in the Bank of England's policy rates for the foreseeable future. Bond yields would also rise – not least on UK sovereign debt – compounding the difficulties of this big-spending Labour government to stabilise the public finances. Renewed cost of living crisis headlines would also increase risks of a damaging wage-price spiral, with the UK's public sector unions already squaring up for more conflict this autumn. And these trends would intensify, of course, if Hormuz closes – which Iran could do by using its submarine fleet to lay deep sea mines between its southern coast and Oman, a distance of 25 miles at the Strait's narrowest point. Other oil producers (not least US frackers) can offset the disruption of Iranian supplies – the country pumps 4pc of global production – but not supplies from the Gulf as a whole. The reality is, though, that Iran relies heavily on oil exports – and closing the Strait would starve an unpopular government of the revenues needed to keep a lid on domestic discontent. And with 85pc of the energy leaving Hormuz consumed on Asian markets, thwarting those flows would alienate neutral powers such as China and India. Iran would think hard before alienating these two in particular, which would rally international support against Tehran, strengthening regional rival Saudi Arabia. Attempting to close the Strait would also risk devastating military and potentially civilian losses for Iran, including its naval and coastal assets, if the US and powerful Gulf states engaged in sustained retaliation. But the main reason I don't think Iran will disrupt Hormuz is that Tehran gains more by threatening to close the Strait than by actually doing so. The mere threat of action can drive up oil prices, benefiting Iran's economy and strengthening Tehran's negotiating position, without risking the consequences of action.

BBC News

a day ago

• BBC News

Tangled history and trouble today - what is the UK's plan on Iran?

"If this is true, all our troubles are over." A British businessman fast running out of cash, William Knox D'Arcy, is said to have uttered those words when he received a telegram from Persia, 113 years had been discovered, after years of failed explorations under Knox D'Arcy, who had been granted the rights to hunt for the black stuff at the turn of the him, striking oil was to provide a second fortune after he'd made millions from Australian gold. For the UK, Persia - later to become Iran - and for the rest of the world, it was the moment the Middle East's financial and political fortunes became linked to the West like never D'Arcy's cash problem might have been solved. But the troubles in the region were far from weekend, although ministers want to concentrate on their plans to make it easier to do business at home ahead of their industrial strategy being published next week, two big questions hang heavy. What happens next in the hottest of conflicts in a vital region? And does the UK play a role?Whether you like it or not, "it should matter, and it does matter" to the UK, according to one Whitehall is the fraught tangle of history. Not just the fortune from the first discovery of oil going into British coffers at the start of the last also the UK's involvement in overturning the government in 1922, invading with the Russians during World War Two, backing another coup in 1953, then along with America, propping up the Shah until his exit in 1979, after months of turbulence and increasing protest against his regime. You can watch amazing archive of his departure here. "We were all over them" for decades, one former senior minister forward to modern times and successive governments have been deeply concerned about Iran's ambitions to build a nuclear bomb. There were efforts, particularly by the former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, to do deals that put weapons beyond reach. But there is acute worry now about Iranian activities in the UK itself. Yesterday, seven men were arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm after two people were assaulted outside the Iranian embassy. The Met Police have said they believe the altercation happened between protesters supporting and opposing the Iranian month three alleged Iranian spies were charged for planning to commit serious violence against UK based journalists. And the director general of MI5 said the UK has responded to 20 Iran-backed plots since the start of 2022, presenting potentially lethal threats here at home.A source involved with an Iranian opposition group warned the regime, "has a massive network in the UK promoting terrorism and extremism – we'd never let the Russians get away with this… It's happening on our streets". What is the UK role? Ministers' public focus is on diplomacy for now. As ever, it was a suggestion from US President Donald Trump that sent Whitehall into a spin. This time, the notion that America might help Israel take out Iran's nuclear Foreign Secretary David Lammy jumped on to a plane to Washington. The government emergency committee, Cobra, convened. Everything went into overdrive before another update from team Trump. Actually, he'd take a fortnight to think about left No 10 thinking, "everyone can take a breath – the two weeks and the volume of engagement means there is some tone of optimism – we're just focusing on trying to calm things", an insider Lammy spent more than an hour with Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, and Steve Witkoff, the president's envoy, leaving with the impression there was still a chance for diplomacy, although the threat of America joining the military action is worth remembering there is deep disagreement in Trump's party about whether to assist Israel or the foreign secretary was seeking information from his American hosts, the president had been having lunch with Steve Bannon, one of the foremost Make America Great Again (Maga) backers, who has been very loudly pressing Trump not to get involved. Diplomacy then moved to Geneva, where Lammy and several European colleagues met the Iranian foreign minister. They repeated concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions and it breaking the international talks finished with no fixed decisions on next moves or negotiations, but a willingness to try. Ultimately, the UK and European push is to keep talking, trying to stop the war spreading more widely. But some sources question whether this makes any difference."Europe is pretty irrelevant in all this," one senior figure told me - and the American president even said it out loud."Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one, " Trump said, dismissing the diplomatic sources describe diplomacy as a "sticking plaster", questioning how effective it can be when Israel is so clearly intent on breaking the status quo, and changing the shape of the region hoping for regime change in Iran and stopping them creating a nuclear former senior official told me, "Israel think this is a once in a lifetime, it's now or never… it doesn't represent a long term solution, but if you are in Tel Aviv the obvious riposte is, 'Yes, we'll still be alive'."Another security source suggested the UK would not be relevant by taking a "preachy European position, like a teacher in a playground", but could instead pursue "alignment with the Americans for our own hard interests".Aligning with America is so often a no-brainer for British prime ministers. But a Labour prime minister aligning with Trump to bomb a country in the Middle East? That's something else. There is the practicality, "people in Whitehall will be very sceptical if thinking bombing Iran will yield any better outcome", one former diplomat source suggests the UK simply hasn't done enough thinking in recent years about how to help Iran, a country of around 90 million people with serious political repression and economic hardship: "Britain doesn't have a strategy or a plan for Iran. It looks at Iran through the point of view of Israel or Gaza but doesn't look at it in its own right, so that's a problem."If America were to get involved with British support in one way or another, what happens next?The source said: "The Americans can go and attack Fordo (Iran's nuclear facility that's buried deeper than the Channel Tunnel), but if the Iranians lash out after, what then?"Then, there is the legality. You don't need me to remind you that the prime minister used to be an eminent the UK was asked to allow American jets to use the British base at Diego Garcia, or help with refuelling planes on their way to any Iranian target, the government would want to be confident there is a solid legal argument that justifies the is already a political row over publishing the advice with an understanding the attorney general has expressed the uninitiated, this is a very well-worn political track. Opposition parties say legal advice must be published in full. Governments say no. Lawyers and politicians, who are not giving the actual verdict, argue about it very publicly. In the end, international law is subject to all sorts of interpretation, what a former senior minister describes as "fungible" - in other words, it's far from is already what one source described as "loose blabber" about the legal advice this the politics of the moment normally comes first, and the prime minister of the day must political backdrop for No 10 is risky. Labour contends with the mythology around Tony Blair's decision to go into Iraq with George Bush, seen by many in the modern party as a decision too to be seen to support Israeli military action stirs a long-standing streak of anti-Israeli feeling on the that to profound concern about what is separately going on in Gaza right now, and it creates another candidates already swiped seats, and nearly took more from Labour in the general election. Sign up for the Off Air with Laura K newsletter to get Laura Kuenssberg's expert insight and insider stories every week, emailed directly to you. Highlighting the plight of Gazans is clearly not the same as objecting to Israeli or American action against Iran. But issues can blur, and add to the volume of angry conversations inside the party about the Middle former senior minister, around during the Iraq conflict told me, "it would save us an awful lot of bother if you could get the Americans not to have our fingerprints on it".But, if the White House asks, "I'd swallow hard and say, 'OK'".Can you imagine Sir Keir Starmer saying no to Trump to help stop Iran creating a nuclear bomb? Can you imagine Sir Keir stepping into a Middle East conflict if it can be avoided?The answer to both can't be the same. The White House has pressed pause while Trump mulls his options, but America joining Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear programme remains an UK has huge interests in the security of Iran and the wider Middle East – whether oil, trade, intelligence, or military bases. Those questions for Sir Keir might be real before too long. BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.