In a stark warning that underscores the growing tension between global energy giants and European regulators, ExxonMobil’s CEO Darren Woods has labeled the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) as “the worst piece of legislation I’ve seen since I’ve been in this job.” This directive, alongside the bloc’s stringent methane emissions regulation, could prompt the U.S. oil major to exit its operations in the European Union entirely. As Europe grapples with energy security amid the phase-out of Russian gas, such a move would ripple through markets, affecting consumers, investors, and the broader energy landscape.
Understanding the Controversial Regulations
The EU’s methane emissions regulation, effective since August 4, 2024, mandates that importers of crude oil, natural gas, or coal demonstrate by January 2027 that their products originate from jurisdictions with equivalent monitoring, reporting, and verification standards to the EU’s.
This rule aims to curb global warming by targeting methane leaks in the fossil fuel supply chain, but it has drawn fierce criticism from major exporters. Non-compliance could lead to diverted cargoes, reduced gas supplies, and heightened energy vulnerabilities for Europe.
Compounding this is the CSDDD, which requires large companies to conduct due diligence on environmental and human rights impacts across their supply chains. ExxonMobil has argued that these rules impose excessive bureaucratic burdens, stifling investment and innovation.
Woods’ comments highlight a broader industry sentiment: that Europe’s regulatory overreach is driving capital away, with Exxon warning that without reforms, it may have no choice but to pull out.
ExxonMobil’s Footprint in the EU: A Substantial Presence at Risk
ExxonMobil has deep roots in Europe, having operated there for nearly 140 years.
The company employs around 12,000 people across the continent, with significant investments totaling more than €21 billion between 2012 and 2023.
Its European operations include major refining and petrochemical sites, such as the Antwerp refinery in Belgium, Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and facilities in Germany and France.
Exxon also manages ethylene production at Fife in Scotland (though the UK is post-Brexit) and a 700km pipeline network.
In the EU and Norway combined, Exxon recently announced a reorganization that will cut 1,200 jobs from its 7,000-strong workforce in the region, signaling already mounting pressures.
The company is tracking 47 projects worth over $770 million across various sectors, including energy and chemicals.
Additionally, Exxon is exploring the sale of European chemical plants, potentially fetching up to $1 billion.
Calculating the Financial Toll:
Write-Offs, Sales, and Compliance CostsIf the EU refuses to ease these regulations, ExxonMobil faces severe financial repercussions. Europe’s operations reportedly account for 15-20% of the company’s total revenue, which could translate to an annual earnings reduction of $5-7 billion if proportional contributions are assumed.
This estimate is based on Exxon’s global earnings trajectory, with the company recently raising its 2030 plan to target $5 billion in additional earnings and cash flow growth without increasing capital spending.
A full exit could require writing off substantial assets. Exxon has invested over €20 billion ($22 billion at current exchange rates) in Europe since 2010, much of which remains on the books.
Depreciated values might lower this figure, but factoring in ongoing projects and infrastructure, write-offs could exceed $10-15 billion, depending on market conditions. Selling assets piecemeal—such as the aforementioned chemical plants—might recoup $1-2 billion, but a rushed divestment amid regulatory uncertainty could lead to fire-sale prices and further losses.
Compliance costs add another layer. The methane regulation demands detailed emissions reporting and verification, potentially costing exporters millions in monitoring technology and audits. For Exxon, as both a producer and operator in the EU, this could amount to hundreds of millions annually in administrative burdens, eroding margins in an already competitive market.
International Pressure: Qatar and U.S. Pushback, Including from President Trump
The backlash isn’t isolated to Exxon. Qatar, a key LNG supplier, has warned that without amendments to the CSDDD and methane rules, it may redirect exports elsewhere.
Qatar’s Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi stated that the regulations could prevent the country from doing business in the EU, including fulfilling long-term LNG contracts.
This echoes concerns from gas producers and traders about supply disruptions.
On the U.S. side, the government is demanding an exemption for American LNG from methane reporting obligations until 2035, or outright repeal of the law.
President Trump has actively advocated for Big Oil in EU trade talks, criticizing the regulations as barriers that require U.S. frackers to prove compliance on natural gas wells—a costly and complex process.
U.S. trade groups have pushed back on EU offers to simplify rules, viewing them as insufficient.
The Broader Costs: Impacts on Consumers and Investors
If the EU stands firm, the consequences extend far beyond Exxon. For European consumers, stricter regulations could lead to diverted LNG cargoes, tightening supplies, and driving up energy prices.
Analysts warn of a potential 400% spike in energy costs if major suppliers like Qatar pull back, exacerbating the EU’s reliance on alternatives amid the Russian gas phase-out.
Overreliance on U.S. LNG—potentially costing $250 billion annually—risks price volatility and higher household bills.
LNG projects, often touted as cheap, carry hidden economic and emission costs that burden end-users.
Investors face equally grim prospects. An Exxon exit could trigger stock volatility, with potential losses in the billions from reduced European earnings.
Broader market shifts might devalue energy stocks tied to EU operations, while diverted supplies could inflate global LNG prices, hurting diversified portfolios. However, some see opportunity in regulatory reform: If the EU adopts a more pragmatic approach, it could stabilize investments and enhance energy security.
Europe’s green ambitions are commendable, but the clash with energy realities highlights a delicate balance. As negotiations continue, the stakes for all parties— from Exxon to everyday consumers—remain extraordinarily high.
Sources: corporate.exxonmobil.com, csis.org, energynewsbeat.co, americanprogress.org, ieefa.org, oilprice.com, bloomberg.com
Be the first to comment