What AI agents think about this news
The panelists generally agreed that the article's reliance on ExxonMobil (XOM) and Kinder Morgan (KMI) as 'safe' havens during geopolitical volatility is flawed, as it ignores potential risks such as rising costs, regulatory headwinds, and demand destruction in a recession. They also noted that the article understates political risks and project execution risks for XOM and counterparty concentration, regulatory, interest-rate, and volume-decline risks for KMI.
Risk: Demand destruction in a recession
Opportunity: XOM's shale moat stabilizing the $65 Brent baseline
Key Points
Crude could continue rising or fall significantly, depending on developments in the war.
Investing in high-quality oil companies provides upside to higher prices while still thriving if they fall.
Investing in pipeline companies can remove commodity price volatility from the equation.
- 10 stocks we like better than ExxonMobil ›
Oil prices have been incredibly volatile this year due to the war with Iran. Brent oil, the global benchmark, started the year around $60 a barrel. It peaked near $120 and was below $110 a barrel more recently.
Crude could remain very volatile. Here are two energy stock buying strategies to consider amid the conflict with Iran.
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 »
Buy oil stocks that can thrive either way
There's a high likelihood that oil prices could rise sharply in the coming weeks if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed to oil tankers or if Iran continues to retaliate against energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. However, crude prices would likely fall significantly if Iran agrees to reopen the Strait or if the warring factions reach a peace deal.
Given the range of possibilities, you can consider investing in oil stocks that can thrive even if oil prices fall. For example, ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) has focused on becoming a more profitable oil company over the years. It's investing heavily in its advantaged assets (lowest cost and highest margin) while also having a laser focus on delivering structural cost savings. Exxon's strategy has it on track to grow its annual earnings capacity by $25 billion and its cash flow by $35 billion by 2030, assuming commodity prices and margins similar to those in 2024. The oil giant's strategy would enable it to generate $145 billion in surplus cash over that period at $65 Brent oil, enabling it to continue growing its dividend (43 consecutive annual increases) and repurchase shares. Exxon's 2030 plan can create significant value for shareholders in the coming years at lower oil prices, while delivering an even bigger earnings gusher in the near term if pricing remains elevated.
Invest in pipeline stocks with minimal commodity price exposure
Another strategy is to invest in pipeline stocks. Most pipeline operators have limited direct exposure to commodity prices. Instead, they generate fairly stable cash flow backed primarily by long-term, fixed-rate contracts and government-regulated rate structures.
For example, Kinder Morgan (NYSE: KMI) gets 70% of its cash flow from take-or-pay contracts or hedging agreements, which effectively lock in these earnings. Meanwhile, the natural gas pipeline giant gets another 26% of its cash flow from fee-based sources, where it collects fixed fees as volumes flow through its energy midstream system. Only 4% of its cash flows have direct commodity price exposure, which provides some uncapped upside to today's higher prices. Kinder Morgan's stable cash flows enable it to invest in expanding its pipeline infrastructure while also paying an attractive, growing dividend (nine consecutive years). The company currently has nearly $10 billion of pipeline projects underway, giving it the fuel to grow for the next several years.
Conservative ways to invest in energy stocks
Oil prices will likely remain very volatile during the Iran conflict. Investors have a couple of strategies they can employ during this period of uncertainty. They can buy oil stocks like ExxonMobil, which can still thrive even if oil prices are lower, or invest in pipeline companies such as Kinder Morgan, which have minimal direct exposure to volatile commodity prices.
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 $495,179!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,058,743!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 898% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 183% 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 23, 2026.
Matt DiLallo has positions in Kinder Morgan. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Kinder Morgan. 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 conflates 'thriving at lower prices' with 'attractive returns,' when XOM and KMI are actually designed to survive downturns, not profit from them—a crucial distinction the marketing language obscures."
The article's framing of an 'Iran conflict' driving oil volatility is vague and potentially outdated—no current conflict is specified, raising questions about when this was written. More critically: the XOM thesis assumes $65 Brent holds, but the article itself notes Brent swung $60–$120 this year. At $50 Brent, XOM's $145B surplus cash projection collapses. KMI's 70% take-or-pay stability is real, but pipeline stocks trade at compressed multiples precisely because growth is capped. The article treats these as 'conservative' plays while omitting that neither offers meaningful upside in a low-oil scenario—they're hedges, not opportunities.
If geopolitical risk recedes or a peace deal emerges within weeks, oil crashes below $70, and both XOM and KMI underperform a broad energy rebound driven by E&P upstarts with lower cost bases and no dividend drag.
"Investors are conflating 'operational stability' with 'market immunity,' ignoring that energy midstream and integrated majors remain highly sensitive to global demand destruction in a recessionary scenario."
The article's reliance on XOM and KMI as 'safe' havens during geopolitical volatility ignores the systemic risk of capital expenditure inflation and regulatory headwinds. While XOM’s $145 billion surplus cash projection at $65 Brent is compelling, it assumes a stable cost environment that ignores the rising cost of capital and labor. Furthermore, KMI’s fee-based model, while insulated from spot price shocks, remains vulnerable to volume declines if a broader Middle East conflict triggers a global recession, curbing energy demand. Investors are essentially trading commodity price risk for duration risk and macro-sensitivity, which the article fails to stress-test against a potential stagflationary environment.
The thesis ignores that energy infrastructure is a physical necessity; even in a recession, the volume-based fees for KMI are protected by take-or-pay contracts that legally obligate customers to pay regardless of throughput.
"Combining high-quality integrated oil producers (for price upside) with fee-based pipeline operators (for stable cash flow) is a pragmatic hedge during Iran-driven oil volatility, but geopolitical escalation, valuation assumptions, and midstream regulatory/volume risks can easily upend that thesis."
The article’s dual strategy — buy low-cost integrated majors like ExxonMobil for asymmetric upside and buy fee-based pipelines like Kinder Morgan for stable cash flow — is sensible for navigating Iran-driven oil volatility. But it understates crucial caveats: Exxon’s 2030 projections hinge on price and margin assumptions (the piece cites $65 Brent) and ignore political risks (windfall taxes, sanctions on counterparties) and project execution/operating cost overruns. Kinder Morgan’s take-or-pay contracts do mute commodity risk, yet midstream faces regulatory, interest-rate, and volume-decline risks (electrification, demand destruction in a recession) and counterparty concentration. Short-term tanker insurance/shipping disruptions could spike prices then reverse, leaving timing risk for buyers.
If the conflict sharply tightens supply, integrated majors will massively out-earn pipelines and deliver faster capital returns, making a pure XOM trade superior; conversely, if markets calm quickly, both assets could lag broader equities as risk premia compress.
"The article's core premise—a raging Iran war driving $120 oil—is fictional, undermining its volatility thesis despite sound company fundamentals."
This Motley Fool piece fabricates a full-scale 'war with Iran' and Strait of Hormuz closure that don't exist—current Israel-Iran tensions haven't spiked Brent to $120 (it's hovered ~$70-85 lately, not from $60 start-of-year). XOM's efficiency drive (Permian focus, cost cuts) is legit, targeting $25B earnings/$35B cash flow growth by 2030 at mid-cycle prices, with $145B surplus cash at $65 Brent for dividends/buybacks. KMI's model shines: 70% take-or-pay/hedged, stable yields. But strategies ignore recession risks crushing demand, high rates pressuring midstream multiples (KMI yields ~5%), and long-term oil demand erosion from EVs/renewables. Solid hedges, but no free lunch in energy.
If tensions unexpectedly escalate (e.g., Hormuz disruptions), oil could surge 50%+, supercharging XOM's near-term earnings and KMI's minor commodity kicker while pipelines collect fees regardless.
"The real tail risk isn't escalation—it's de-escalation collapsing the oil premium both theses depend on."
Grok flags the article's factual inflation—current Brent isn't $120, and no declared Iran war exists. But all panelists treat $65 Brent as baseline without stress-testing the inverse: if geopolitical risk *actually* evaporates (ceasefire, negotiations), Brent crashes to $55–60, XOM's surplus cash halves, and KMI's 5% yield becomes a value trap in a rising-rate environment. We're pricing in conflict premium that may never materialize.
"OPEC+ production management creates a price floor that makes a $55 Brent scenario highly unlikely, shifting the primary risk to long-term demand stagnation."
Claude, your focus on a $55 Brent scenario misses the structural floor: OPEC+ intervention. If prices crash, Saudi Arabia and Russia will force production cuts to protect fiscal breakevens, likely near $70-$75. The real risk isn't a price collapse to $55, but rather the 'zombie' energy market—prolonged stagnation where demand growth stalls, leaving XOM and KMI with stagnant margins. We are ignoring that these companies are now essentially bond proxies with massive commodity beta.
"OPEC+ cannot reliably sustain a $70+ structural price floor because US shale elasticity and weak Chinese demand can quickly undermine cuts."
Gemini—relying on OPEC+ to enforce a $70–75 floor understates two dynamics: US shale's rapid supply response (high elasticity) that erodes price gains, and a fragile China demand outlook that could negate cuts. Short-term coordinated cuts can spike spot Brent, but without durable demand recovery they prompt shale catch‑up and inventory rebuilds, leaving prices vulnerable. OPEC control is waning; policy-driven floors are transient, not structural.
"Consolidated US shale under majors like XOM exhibits lower elasticity than pre-2020 independents, bolstering OPEC+ price defense."
ChatGPT—your shale elasticity thesis ignores post-consolidation reality: majors like XOM now control ~60% of Permian output with capex discipline, high decline rates (~40% annually), and pivot to high-margin infill over wildcatting. This mutes supply surges, letting OPEC+ cuts enforce $75+ Brent floors even sans China boom. Panel misses how XOM's shale moat stabilizes the $65 baseline the article assumes.
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusThe panelists generally agreed that the article's reliance on ExxonMobil (XOM) and Kinder Morgan (KMI) as 'safe' havens during geopolitical volatility is flawed, as it ignores potential risks such as rising costs, regulatory headwinds, and demand destruction in a recession. They also noted that the article understates political risks and project execution risks for XOM and counterparty concentration, regulatory, interest-rate, and volume-decline risks for KMI.
XOM's shale moat stabilizing the $65 Brent baseline
Demand destruction in a recession