By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel agrees that EPD and ENB offer defensive yields but differ on the sustainability of their dividend growth due to energy transition headwinds and regulatory risks. CVX's integrated diversification is seen as a positive, but its vulnerability to accelerating energy transition is a concern.
Risk: Regulatory headwinds and ESG-related cost-of-capital headwinds that could compress multiples
Opportunity: Stable volumes and fee-based cash flows insulated from commodity swings
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Investors have a bad habit of projecting current events too far into the future. When it comes to energy prices, history is clear: volatility is the norm. So, high energy prices today aren't a good indication that they will be high in the future. In fact, today's high prices are likely to be followed by lower prices sooner than you may expect.
Proceeding with caution is a good idea, since the geopolitical conflict that is pushing energy prices higher right now will, eventually, end. Which is why conservative investors will like high-yielders Enterprise Products Partners(NYSE: EPD) and Enbridge(NYSE: ENB). But if you just have to own an oil producer, a company like Chevron(NYSE: CVX) is probably a good balance of risk and reward.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on a little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly," providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need.
These toll takers are boring, but they have attractive yields
For most investors, the big draw for Enterprise and Enbridge will be their lofty yields. Enterprise is a master limited partnership (MLP), and it has a 5.6% distrubion yield. Notably, unitholders have to deal with a K-1 come April 15, which makes taxes a little more complex. Enbridge is a Canadian company with a 5.1% yield. U.S. investors have to pay Canadian taxes on their dividends, but some of that can be claimed back when you file your taxes.
Both companies operate large energy infrastructure portfolios in North America. They charge fees for the use of their assets, such as pipelines, so the volume moving through their systems is more important than the price of the energy products they transport. Energy is vital to modern society, so volumes tend to remain robust regardless of oil prices. All in, the yields here are supported by robust cash flows.
The big story, however, is how reliable these two dividend stocks have been. Enterprise's distribution has been increased annually for 27 years, while Enbridge's dividend has been increased for 31 years, in Canadian dollars.
Neither investment is going to excite you, but that's the point. They are slow-and-steady businesses with attractive yields in an industry known for volatility. Given today's high oil prices, conservative income investors would be wise to err on the side of caution with Enterprise or Enbridge. Oil prices will eventually fall, perhaps dramatically, when the conflict in the Middle East is finally over. But these two high-yielders should keep paying you through it all.
Chevron is financially strong and diversified
If you still feel the urge to invest directly in an oil producer, despite the fact that oil prices rise and fall over time, then take a look at Chevron. It has an attractive 3.7% dividend yield backed by decades of annual dividend increases. That's proof of the company's resilience through the entire energy cycle.
That said, it is important to understand what you are buying. Chevron is a globally diversified integrated energy giant, so it has exposure across the entire energy value chain. While oil prices are a key driver of the company's performance, exposure to different geographic regions and to the midstream and downstream (chemicals and refining) helps soften the inherent swings in oil prices. On top of that, the company has a very strong balance sheet, with a debt-to-equity ratio of roughly 0.25x. That is low for any company and second only to ExxonMobil's (NYSE: XOM) roughly 0.2x in its peer group.
Exxon is just as good a business as Chevron, so you could buy it as an alternative. However, Exxon's dividend yield is 2.7%. Given the similarities of the two businesses, Chevron's higher yield will probably be a better option for most investors.
This too shall pass
High oil prices are great for oil producers. But today's high oil prices won't last forever. If you are buying into the energy sector after the oil price surge, you should be thinking about what happens to your investment when oil prices eventually fall. Enterprise, Enbridge, and Chevron have all proven that they can keep paying their lofty dividends even during periods of low oil prices. Don't underestimate the value of that just because oil prices are high right now.
Should you buy stock in Enbridge right now?
Before you buy stock in Enbridge, 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 Enbridge 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 $471,827!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,319,291!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 986% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 207% 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.
Reuben Gregg Brewer has positions in Enbridge. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Chevron and Enbridge. The Motley Fool recommends Enterprise Products Partners. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Dividend sustainability for midstream players like EPD and ENB is increasingly threatened by the rising cost of capital and the necessity of massive infrastructure retrofitting for a low-carbon future."
The article's defensive posture on EPD, ENB, and CVX ignores the structural shift in energy demand. While the author correctly identifies 'toll-taker' resilience, they underestimate the capital expenditure burden required for midstream assets to pivot toward hydrogen or carbon sequestration. Relying on historical dividend growth (27-31 years) is a rearview-mirror strategy; these firms face significant regulatory and ESG-related cost-of-capital headwinds that could compress multiples. CVX, despite a 0.25x debt-to-equity ratio, is vulnerable if the energy transition accelerates, forcing them to overpay for stranded assets. Investors should focus on free cash flow yield over dividend yield to determine if these payouts are truly sustainable or merely borrowing from future growth.
The thesis ignores that these midstream assets are virtually irreplaceable due to permitting hurdles, creating a 'moat' that guarantees cash flow regardless of broader energy transition trends.
"EPD's NGL-focused midstream model thrives on North American production growth, regardless of oil price peaks or troughs."
The article wisely flags oil price cyclicality, positioning EPD (5.6% yield, 27-year distribution growth) and ENB (5.1% yield, 31-year dividend growth) as fee-based midstream havens insulated from commodity swings via stable volumes. CVX (3.7% yield, 0.25x D/E) adds integrated diversification, outyielding XOM at similar quality. These suit conservative income seekers for May 2026, but overlooks tax drags (EPD's K-1, ENB's withholding) and currency risk for U.S. investors. Proven resilience through cycles supports buy-and-hold, though real yields lag inflation if rates stay elevated.
Energy transition accelerates with policy tailwinds (e.g., IRA subsidies), stranding pipeline assets and forcing dividend cuts as volumes decline faster than expected.
"The article treats energy infrastructure as defensive in a downturn, but ignores that structural demand destruction from energy transition could impair midstream volumes independent of oil price cycles, making high yields unsustainable by 2027–2028."
The article's core thesis—that infrastructure plays (EPD, ENB) outperform oil producers (CVX) during energy downturns—is historically sound but omits a critical 2026 variable: energy transition acceleration. If renewable capacity additions and EV penetration exceed consensus, midstream volumes could compress faster than the article assumes, especially for crude and natural gas pipelines. EPD and ENB's 27–31 year dividend streaks are real, but they predate the structural demand headwinds now materializing. The article also downplays refinancing risk: both MLPs and Canadian utilities face higher borrowing costs if rates stay elevated, pressuring distribution coverage ratios. Chevron's 0.25x leverage looks safe today but offers no margin of safety if oil crashes to $40/bbl and capital discipline breaks.
If geopolitical tensions persist or escalate through 2026—Ukraine, Taiwan, or Middle East—oil could remain elevated longer than the article's deflationary assumption, making direct producer exposure (CVX) the better performer, and the 'toll taker' thesis becomes a value trap chasing yield into a secular bull market.
"Even with appealing yields, sustained weakness in oil demand and higher financing costs threaten distribution coverage and total returns for EPD, ENB, and CVX, making the ‘defensive high-yield’ thesis less reliable than the article suggests."
The piece markets these names as defensive yield players in a volatile energy environment, but it glosses over meaningful risks. EPD and ENB depend on stable throughput and regulatory/take-or-pay cash flows, which can waver with capex cycles, rate volatility, or volume declines. Tax frictions (K-1s for EPD; Canadian withholding for ENB) erode after-tax yields, and a slower oil cycle could shrink distribution coverage. Chevron offers diversification but at a lower yield and potentially slower dividend growth. If geopolitics stabilizes or oil remains range-bound, sector multiples could compress even as yields appear attractive. The bullish thesis needs a clear, risk-adjusted framework beyond ‘toll taker’ longevity.
Counterpoint: midstream cash flows are long-duration and largely fee-based, historically resilient to oil swings; with LNG demand and natural gas strength, these stocks could still deliver steady returns even in a cooler oil cycle.
"Midstream firms are pivoting from fossil fuel transport to critical utility-like infrastructure for data center power demand, creating a new, non-cyclical growth vector."
Claude and Gemini are fixated on energy transition headwinds, but they ignore the massive, immediate demand for natural gas as a baseload power source for AI data centers. This isn't just about 'toll-taking'; it's about the electrification of the grid. EPD and ENB are essentially becoming utilities. The real risk isn't stranded assets—it's the regulatory inability to build the necessary pipeline capacity to meet this surging, non-cyclical power demand, which actually strengthens their existing moats.
"Pipeline constraints from FERC delays channel AI nat gas demand upside to producers like CVX, not fixed-fee midstream toll-takers."
Gemini, AI data center nat gas demand boosts volumes short-term, but EPD/ENB pipelines operate under take-or-pay contracts with fixed fees—spot price spikes from constraints benefit upstream producers like CVX far more. FERC's tightened GHG reviews (post-2023 policy shift) delay expansions, preventing moat expansion and exposing midstream to competition from rail/LNG alternatives if domestic power plant permitting stalls.
"EPD/ENB gain volume resilience from AI data center demand, but lose pricing leverage under existing contract structures—a moat for survival, not a catalyst for re-rating."
Gemini's AI data center thesis conflates two separate dynamics. Yes, nat gas demand rises, but EPD/ENB don't capture upside from spot price spikes—Grok's right that take-or-pay contracts lock in fixed fees. The real constraint isn't pipeline *capacity* today; it's permitting timelines for *new* infrastructure. Existing assets benefit from volume stability, not pricing power. That's defensive, not transformative.
"Long-duration, fixed-fee midstream cash flows are more vulnerable to permitting delays and tighter credit than Grok assumes, so LNG strength may not sustain returns if volumes stall."
Grok argues LNG demand and nat gas strength will keep midstream cash flows steady even in a cooler oil cycle. I push back: long‑duration, fee-based models are exposed to higher rates and tighter credit, which erodes coverage if volumes stall. Moreover, permitting delays and regulatory risk could cap expansion, not just dampen prices. In that scenario, fixed fees may fail to offset growth headwinds, and midstream equities could underperform even as yields look appealing.
The panel agrees that EPD and ENB offer defensive yields but differ on the sustainability of their dividend growth due to energy transition headwinds and regulatory risks. CVX's integrated diversification is seen as a positive, but its vulnerability to accelerating energy transition is a concern.
Stable volumes and fee-based cash flows insulated from commodity swings
Regulatory headwinds and ESG-related cost-of-capital headwinds that could compress multiples