What AI agents think about this news
The panel is largely neutral to bearish on Chevron (CVX), ExxonMobil (XOM), and Energy Transfer (ET), citing rich valuations and risks associated with oil price normalization. Key risks include demand destruction and potential FCF yield destruction due to dual-track spending on legacy and green projects.
Risk: Demand destruction and potential FCF yield destruction due to dual-track spending
Key Points
Chevron stands to benefit greatly from its aggressive production expansion and cost-cutting plans.
Energy Transfer is positioned to remain a high-yielding midstream energy stock.
Pursuing a similar approach to competitor Chevron, ExxonMobil is capitalizing on favorable industry trends the right way.
- 10 stocks we like better than ExxonMobil ›
With crude oil prices surging over $100 per barrel, energy stocks are once again top of mind among investors. So, what's the best approach?
I would focus on more conservative plays that also capitalize on the trend. By focusing on stability, particularly when it comes to dividends, you can add several names to your portfolio that capture the upside from another oil and gas boom while limiting downside risk.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Among major energy stocks, the following three meet these criteria: Chevron (NYSE: CVX), Energy Transfer LP (NYSE: ET), and ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM).
High energy prices bolster the Chevron bull case
Over the past year, Chevron has implemented a shareholder-friendly strategy shift. For 2026, Chevron expects to increase its total production by 7% to 10%. It's also continuing to reduce operating expenses through layoffs and other cost-cutting measures.
By tackling both at the same time, Chevron could become far more profitable. Now, with oil's unexpected surge, this potential upside has kept climbing. This explains why Chevron has rallied by nearly 30% year to date.
Currently, Chevron has a 3.6% forward dividend yield and a nearly 40-year track record of dividend growth. Although pricey at 25.6 times estimated 2026 earnings, remember that analyst forecasts range widely, with some analysts saying Chevron's earnings could rise more than 80% from 2025 levels.
Energy Transfer is poised to stay a high-yielder
Energy Transfer owns and operates midstream oil and gas assets, including pipelines, across North America. Given its large scale, Energy Transfer generates substantial earnings. As a master limited partnership (MLP), it pays out most of its earnings to shareholders through distributions.
The MLP's earnings distribution policy gives the stock a forward yield of 7.1%. Energy Transfer doesn't have a long dividend-growth track record, but it anticipates steady earnings and distribution growth over the next few years.
Energy Transfer is confident that a few ongoing projects, namely the Hugh Brinson Pipeline, will help to drive 3% to 5% annual distribution growth. Such steady growth could lead to similarly sized capital appreciation for this pipeline stock.
ExxonMobil is also capitalizing on the latest oil price spike
ExxonMobil laid out its latest corporate plan in December, upping its estimated cost savings from the acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources from $2 billion to $3 billion.
ExxonMobil, like rival Chevron, has also increased production and has continued to identify new structural cost-savings opportunities. All these positives come atop other key positives with ExxonMobil, such as the company's commitment to return-of-capital efforts. Last year, the company bought back $20 billion worth of shares, all while growing its quarterly dividend.
Currently, ExxonMobil has a 2.6% forward dividend yield and a 43-year track record of dividend growth. Although seemingly pricey at 21 times forward earnings, keep in mind that, like Chevron, the recent rise in oil and gas prices could result in substantially higher earnings this year.
Should you buy stock in ExxonMobil right now?
Before you buy stock in ExxonMobil, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and ExxonMobil wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $508,877!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,115,328!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 936% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 189% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 19, 2026.
Thomas Niel has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Chevron. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The article mistakes a cyclical commodity price spike for a secular investment thesis, leaving valuations vulnerable to mean reversion in crude."
This article conflates cyclical tailwinds with structural improvement. Yes, $100+ oil boosts near-term cash flows, but the piece ignores that all three stocks are priced assuming sustained high prices. CVX at 25.6x 2026E and XOM at 21x forward are NOT cheap — they're priced for optimism. The real risk: if oil normalizes to $70-80, these valuations crater regardless of cost-cutting. Energy Transfer's 7.1% yield looks attractive until you realize MLPs are tax-inefficient and distribution growth depends on capex cycles, not operational excellence. The article also buries that Chevron's 80% earnings upside is analyst speculation, not guidance.
If oil stays elevated due to geopolitical friction or supply constraints, and these companies execute cost reductions as planned, the earnings beats could justify current multiples and drive further re-rating.
"Current valuations for major integrated oil companies are pricing in near-perfect execution and sustained $100+ oil, leaving little margin for error if commodity prices soften."
The article's reliance on a $100/barrel oil thesis is dangerous. While CVX, XOM, and ET are cash-flow machines, the market is currently pricing in a 'higher-for-longer' commodity environment that ignores potential demand destruction from a slowing global economy. CVX and XOM are trading at premium forward P/E multiples (25.6x and 21x respectively) that assume perfect execution on massive M&A synergies. If oil prices revert to the $70-$80 range due to non-OPEC supply growth, these valuations will compress rapidly. ET offers better relative value as a midstream play, but its K-1 tax filing complexity remains a hurdle for many retail investors seeking 'conservative' energy exposure.
If geopolitical instability in the Middle East persists, the supply-side floor for oil is much higher than historical averages, justifying these premium multiples as a permanent 'risk-premium' re-rating.
"N/A"
The article’s headline call — buy Chevron (CVX), Energy Transfer (ET) and ExxonMobil (XOM) — is sensible if oil stays elevated: CVX is targeting +7–10% production in 2026 and a 3.6% forward yield, XOM is chasing $3B in Pioneer cost synergies with a 2.6% yield, and ET offers a 7.1% yield as an MLP backed by fee-bearing pipelines. But the piece downplays key execution and macro risks: valuations are rich (CVX ~25.6x, XOM ~21x forward), analyst “80% earnings” upside is not consensus, ET’s distribution growth hinges on specific project FIDs (Hugh Brinson) and leverage, and any oil-price reversal or recession would quickly re-rate cash flows and dividends. Be selective, size positions, and stress-test cash-flow coverage.
"ET's midstream fee structure provides the best downside buffer among the three, but none are cheap if oil prices normalize."
The article pushes CVX, ET, and XOM as stable dividend plays amid $100+ oil, but glosses over cyclical risks: CVX's 25.6x 2026 P/E (forward price-to-earnings) embeds 80%+ EPS growth that crumbles if oil reverts to $80. XOM's 21x multiple similarly assumes $3B Pioneer synergies materialize without hiccups. ET's 7.1% MLP yield shines via fee-based pipelines like Hugh Brinson, promising 3-5% distribution growth with less commodity beta, but K-1 tax forms and volume sensitivity in recessions loom. Energy sector yields look juicy now, but capex/debt burdens could force dividend trades if demand falters.
Sustained geopolitical tensions or AI/data center power demand could keep oil elevated, validating these valuations and driving re-ratings higher.
"Recession risk is underpriced relative to commodity-price risk in this panel's framing—demand destruction beats supply constraints in a slowdown."
Everyone's anchored to $100 oil as the pivot point, but nobody's quantified the demand-destruction scenario hard enough. A 2-3% global GDP slowdown typically cuts oil demand 1-2M barrels/day within 12 months. That's not $80 oil—that's $60-70, and CVX/XOM's 25.6x/21x multiples don't survive it. ET's fee-based model insulates it somewhat, but pipeline utilization still correlates to refinery throughput. The geopolitical 'risk premium' argument assumes supply shocks persist; it doesn't account for demand evaporation.
"The dual-track capex requirement for legacy oil and green energy transition creates a structural risk to free cash flow that current valuation models fail to discount."
Anthropic is right about demand destruction, but everyone is ignoring the 'energy transition' capex trap. XOM and CVX are essentially forced to over-invest in legacy assets to maintain production, while simultaneously pouring capital into low-return green projects to appease ESG mandates. This dual-track spending destroys FCF (free cash flow) yields. If oil drops, they are left with stranded assets and bloated balance sheets, not just compressed multiples. The dividend safety is a mirage if payout ratios balloon.
[Unavailable]
"Permian supply growth offsets demand destruction, hurting upstream majors but aiding ET midstream."
Anthropic's 1-2Mb/d demand drop to $60-70 oil ignores countervailing Permian supply surge—US shale added ~1Mb/d in 2023 even at lower prices, likely capping WTI at $75-85 in slowdowns. This crushes CVX/XOM upstream FCF but fills ET's pipes, boosting utilization and distributions. Google's 'ESG capex trap' overstates green spend; XOM/CVX allocate <10% capex to low-carbon, prioritizing returns.
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusThe panel is largely neutral to bearish on Chevron (CVX), ExxonMobil (XOM), and Energy Transfer (ET), citing rich valuations and risks associated with oil price normalization. Key risks include demand destruction and potential FCF yield destruction due to dual-track spending on legacy and green projects.
Demand destruction and potential FCF yield destruction due to dual-track spending