Business

Elon musk recently suggested he might introduce an edit button to Twitter, to let users revise injudicious tweets. He might wish such a thing already existed. Less than a month after tweeting that he looked forward to unlocking the social network’s “tremendous potential” as its incoming owner, on May 13th he told his 94m followers that the deal was “on hold”. Mr Musk says he needs time to check Twitter’s claim that no more than 5% of its users are bots, robot accounts used for spamming. Without proof of this, he said, the deal “cannot move forward”. Twitter’s ceo, Parag Agrawal, posted a long explanation of how the firm came up with the estimate. Mr Musk replied with a poo emoji.Identifying bots is hard. They may well make up more than 5% of Twitter’s users. But it sounds like a “dog ate the homework” excuse for cancelling the $44bn acquisition, in the words of Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities, an investment firm. There are other reasons why Mr Musk may have got cold feet. The value of tech stocks has tumbled since the Twitter deal was announced on April 25th. Mr Musk agreed to pay $54.20 per share (an apparent reference to cannabis, which is associated with the number 420). This week Twitter’s shares have been trading as low as $37.Not only may Mr Musk fear overpaying. The acquisition also risks harming his much bigger interests. Tesla, his electric-car company and source of most of his wealth, has lost 29% of its market value—$305bn—since the Twitter plan was hatched. Investors worry that the social network could prove a distraction for Mr Musk, who has indicated that he may serve as its interim chief executive. It could also harm Tesla’s business in China, where Twitter is banned. Twitter’s board says it intends to enforce the acquisition agreement. But it is in a tight spot. Compelling Mr Musk to make good on his offer would mean months in court, with no guarantee of success. There is no obvious alternative buyer. If the deal falls through, Twitter’s share price will drop below $30, thinks Mr Ives, who believes Mr Musk hopes to use this leverage to negotiate a lower price. Unlike with his tweets, the billionaire may yet be able to edit his contract. More

Research published by the non-profit Environmental Defense Fund shows how oil and gas mergers and acquisitions, which may help energy giants execute their transition plans, do not help to cut global greenhouse gas emissions.
An analysis of over 3,000 deals between 2017 and 2021 shows how flaring and emissions commitments disappear when tens of thousands of wells are passed from publicly traded companies to private firms that have no oversight or reporting requirements to shareholders.
The data calls into question the integrity of Big Oil and Wall Street’s commitment to the energy transition, a shift that is vital to avoid a cataclysmic climate scenario.

An oil flare burns at Repsol’s oil refining complex in Cartagena, Spain. Repsol was one of the top sellers of assets between 2017 and 2021 in EDF’s analysis.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Oil and gas giants are increasingly selling off dirty assets to private firms, amplifying concerns that the fossil fuel industry’s traditional dealmaking is not compatible with a net-zero world.
It comes at a time when oil and gas majors are under immense pressure to set short and medium-term targets in line with the goals of the landmark Paris Agreement. It is widely recognized that this accord is critically important to avoid the worst of what the climate crisis has in store.

Research published last week by the non-profit Environmental Defense Fund shows how oil and gas mergers and acquisitions, which may help energy giants execute their transition plans, do not help to cut global greenhouse gas emissions.
To be sure, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, is the chief driver of the climate crisis and researchers have repeatedly stressed that limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius will soon be beyond reach without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors.
EDF’s analysis of over 3,000 deals between 2017 and 2021 shows how flaring and emissions commitments disappear when tens of thousands of wells are passed from publicly traded companies to private firms that have no oversight or reporting requirements to shareholders.

These transactions can make it look as though sellers have cut emissions, when in fact pollution is simply being shifted to companies with lower standards.

Andrew Baxter
Director of energy transition at EDF

These same often obscure private companies tend to disclose little about their operations and can be committed to ramping up fossil fuel production.
Such deals are growing in both number and scale, EDF’s research says, climbing to $192 billion in 2021 alone.

“These transactions can make it look as though sellers have cut emissions, when in fact pollution is simply being shifted to companies with lower standards,” said Andrew Baxter, director of energy transition at EDF.
“Regardless of the sellers’ intent, the result is that millions of tons of emissions effectively disappear from the public eye, likely forever. And as these wells and other assets age under diminished oversight, the environmental challenges only get worse,” he added.

The report says the surge in the number and scale of oil and gas dealmaking has coincided with growing fears among investors about losing the ability to assess company risk or hold operators accountable to their climate pledges.
It also suggests implications for some of the world’s largest banks, many of which have set net-zero financed emission targets. Since 2017, five of the six largest U.S. banks have advised on billions of dollars worth of upstream deals.
As a result, the analysis calls into question the integrity of Big Oil and Wall Street’s commitment to the planned energy transition, a shift that is vital to avoid a cataclysmic climate scenario.

What energy transition?

EDF’s analysis used industry and financial data on mergers and acquisitions to track changes in how emissions may have changed after a sale. It is thought to be the first time that comprehensive data on how oil and gas majors transfer emissions to private buyers have been collated.
In one example, Britain’s Shell, France’s TotalEnergies and Italy’s Eni — all publicly held firms with net-zero targets — sold off their interests in an onshore oil mining field in Nigeria last year to a private-equity backed operator.

EDF says top sellers like Shell, for example, are well positioned to pilot climate-aligned asset transfers.
Ina Fassbender | Afp | Getty Images

Between 2013 and the point of transfer, almost no routine flaring had occurred under the stewardship of TotalEnergies, Eni and Shell, the top seller of assets from 2017 through to 2021, according to the EDF’s analysis.
Almost immediately thereafter, however, flaring dramatically increased. The case study was said to highlight the climate risks stemming from upstream oil and gas transactions.
Gas flaring is the burning of natural gas during oil production. This releases pollutants into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, black carbon and methane — a potent greenhouse gas.
The World Bank has said ending this “wasteful and polluting” industry practice is central to the broader effort to decarbonize oil and gas production.
A spokesperson at Eni said the company does not consider asset sales as a tool to reduce emissions and the firm’s strategy to reach carbon neutrality by the middle of the century is based on a set of measures that includes zero flaring by 2025.
“Questions regarding specific asset sales should be directed to the operator,” they added. “In general terms, all asset sales contracts must comply with local regulations, they include clauses related to the respect of human rights, and they are subject to Government approval.”
CNBC has contacted Shell and TotalEnergies to comment on EDF’s analysis.

A ‘wink wink, nod nod approach’

Andrew Logan, senior director of oil and gas at nonprofit Ceres, told CNBC that EDF’s research shows there has been something of a “wink wink, nod nod approach” to transferred emissions to date, whereby energy majors sell off high-polluting assets without worrying too much about whether the purchaser is going to do what they are supposed to.
“But what’s interesting is that those private equity firms tend to be backed by public money. You know, it is public pensions funds that are the partners in those firms so there is leverage there,” he added.
Larry Fink, CEO and Chair of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, sharply criticized oil and gas giants for selling out to private firms during the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, last year.
Fink said the practice of public disclosed companies selling high-polluting assets to opaque private enterprises “doesn’t change the world at all. It actually makes the world even worse.”

In July 2021, some of the world’s largest oil and gas majors were ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as part of a $7.2 billion environmental liabilities bill to retire aging oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico that they used to own.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Ceres’ Logan said that an important part of responsible asset transfer must be reckoning with the costs of shutting down wells at the end of their lives. In North America, for example, he highlighted the “huge problem” with so-called “orphan wells.”
These are oil and gas wells abandoned by fossil fuel extraction industries which can end up in the hands of companies with no ability or intention of cleaning them up.
“It is interesting to look at how different the asset sale process is in most of North America compared to the assets in the Gulf of Mexico because, in the Gulf of Mexico, there are federal rules that basically say if you sell an asset and the next company — or the next, next, next company doesn’t clean it up — that liability comes back to you,” Logan said. “So, you have a very strong interest in picking your partners wisely and making sure they have the money to clean the well.”

In July last year, some of the world’s largest corporate emitters were ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as part of a $7.2 billion environmental liabilities bill to retire aging oil and gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico that they used to own. The case was thought to be a watershed moment for future legal battles over cleanup costs.
“I think we need something like that in the rest of the world where there’s an acknowledgment that that liability has to travel. It has to be paid for and we have to be aware of that at every stage of the process,” Logan said.

What can be done to tackle the problem?

The EDF report says coordinated action from asset managers, companies, banks, private equity firms and civil society groups can help to reduce risks from oil and gas mergers and acquisitions.
“It’s important to have this research because when we engage with companies in the sector, it is definitely a topic on the agenda,” said Dror Elkayam, ESG analyst at Legal & General Investment Management, a major global investor and one of Europe’s largest asset managers.
When asked whether there is a recognition among oil and gas majors that they should be at least partly responsible when transferring assets, Elkayam said: “So, that’s the point of debate, right?”
“I think we will definitely benefit from a greater level of disclosure on these assets,” he told CNBC via video call. This might include the emissions associated with these assets or the extent to which the firm’s climate targets will be met by asset disposal when compared to organic decline. “This is an important area to scope out, I would say,” Elkayam said. More

In September, Illinois lawmakers passed a watershed clean energy law, The Climate & Equitable Jobs Act, which established the state as a leader for its efforts to decarbonize.
One of the key provisions in the bill was a commitment to keep its existing nuclear power fleet online, even if that means paying to keep a unprofitable nuclear fleet online.
Now, because energy prices are high, some customers in Illinois are saving money on their energy bills.

Byron, UNITED STATES: The Exelon Byron Nuclear Generating Stations running at full capacity 14 May, 2007, in Byron, Illinois. (Photo credit should read JEFF HAYNES/AFP via Getty Images)
JEFF HAYNES | AFP | Getty Images

Nuclear energy pays in times of energy price fluctuations.
In September, Illinois lawmakers passed a watershed clean energy law which established the state as a leader for its efforts to decarbonize. One of the key provisions in the law was a commitment to keep its existing nuclear power fleet online, even if the plants were not profitable.

Nuclear reactors generate power without emitting greenhouse gasses but they often can’t compete when other forms of energy such as natural gas and renewables become really cheap. But Illinois needed to keep its nuclear fleet online to meet its clean energy goals.
Now, less than a year later, utility customers in the northern part of the state and around Chicago are saving an average of $237 a year on their energy bills because of that legislation, according to state regulators.
At the end of April, the Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison filed documentation with the Illinois Commerce Commission, a local regulatory agency, stating it would provide a credit of 3.087 cents per kilowatt hour starting on June 1, through May 31, 2023.
The exact amount of the credit varies depending on how much energy a customer uses, but on average, the credit translates to a savings of $19.71 per month, or an average of $237 a year, according to the Illinois Commerce Commission.
The Illinois clean energy law agreed to keep nuclear plants open if they were losing money, but it also capped the amount of money the nuclear plants’ owner, Constellation Energy, can earn if energy prices rise. (In February, Exelon spun out a part of its business to Constellation Energy.)

Energy prices have been increasing in part because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent global efforts to wean off of Russian pipelines of energy.
“The Climate & Equitable Jobs Act passed last year is working exactly as intended by keeping these critical zero-carbon energy facilities in operation during periods of historically low prices, while protecting consumers when energy prices spike, as they have recently given unfortunate world events,” Constellation Energy told CNBC in a written statement on Wednesday.
“To date, Illinois consumers have not paid a penny to nuclear plants under the law, and instead will be receiving a substantial credit,” Constellation Energy said.

“I’m proud that our commitment to hit carbon-free power by 2045 is already bringing consumers savings just months after becoming law,” said Governor J.B. Pritzker in a written statement at the time.
The flip side of the Illinois legislation is that if energy prices fall again, and the existing nuclear fleet in Illinois become uneconomic, Illinois will pay for the plants to remain open so that the state can continue meeting its decarbonization goals.
But right now, while energy prices are high, Illinois ComEd energy customers are getting money back.
The timing is poignant because high inflation in the United States has been pinching consumers.
“For families struggling with the high cost of inflation, this is welcome relief. What could have been a nuclear subsidy was smartly negotiated into a billion-dollar bonanza for Illinois consumers,” the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition (ICJC), a collaborative group of Illinois organizations, said in a written statement. “The deal shows the wisdom of Illinois’ approach to combat the climate crisis and create good-paying, equitable clean energy jobs, while saving money for consumers.”
The credit will not affect all utility customers in Illinois. Customers served by the utility Ameren, primarily in Central and Southern regions of Illinois, will not receive the energy credit because Ameren was exempted from the law, as it serves less than 3 million customers.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Monday – Friday, 6:00 – 7:00 PM ET

Chicken wings have come down in price since soaring last year, Wingstop chief executive Michael Skipworth told CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Wednesday.
“The price of wings last year .. hit $3.22 a pound, and we fast forward to today, and it’s $1.63 a pound,” Skipworth said in an interview on “Mad Money.”
Skipworth, who became CEO of Wingstop in March, also credited high demand for chicken breasts as helping tamp down wing costs. 

Chicken wings prices have come down in price since soaring last year, Wingstop chief executive Michael Skipworth told CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Wednesday.
“Other brands are … going to have to look at pricing in order to manage their margins, and Wingstop is in a very different position in that we’ve seen meaningful deflation in our business. The price of wings last year .. hit $3.22 a pound, and we fast forward to today, and it’s $1.63 a pound,” Skipworth said in an interview on “Mad Money.”

“We’ve seen this in years before where a lot of businesses jump into wings [and] it drives the demand up. But as we sit here today, their businesses weren’t built to manage that volatility in the commodity, and so we’ve been able to weather that like we have in the past, and they’ve moved away,” he added.
Skyrocketing prices of ingredients and supply have put pressure on restaurants’ operations during the pandemic, forcing many to raise menu prices to offset the higher costs.
Skipworth, who became CEO of Wingstop in March, also credited high demand for chicken breasts as helping tamp down wing costs. 
“There’s a lot of demand for breast meat, and breast meat is where these poultry companies make their profit, and so they’re growing as many birds as they can right now, which means a lot of supply for wings out there,” he said.
Sign up now for the CNBC Investing Club to follow Jim Cramer’s every move in the market.

Disclaimer

Questions for Cramer?Call Cramer: 1-800-743-CNBC
Want to take a deep dive into Cramer’s world? Hit him up!Mad Money Twitter – Jim Cramer Twitter – Facebook – Instagram
Questions, comments, suggestions for the “Mad Money” website? [email protected]

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Monday – Friday, 6:00 – 7:00 PM ET

It’s that time again! “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer rings the lightning round bell, which means he’s giving his answers to callers’ stock questions at rapid speed.

Loading chart…

Veru Inc: “The stock is up a great deal. … We caught it much lower.”

Loading chart…

Loading chart…

Loading chart…

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

President Joe Biden is requiring suppliers to direct ingredients used in baby formula to key manufacturers to help boost domestic production.
Biden has also ordered the federal health and agriculture departments to use Defense Department aircraft to pick up infant formula from overseas.
Parents have been struggling to buy formula for their infants since the closure of a key manufacturing facility in Michigan due to bacterial contamination.

President Joe Biden on Wednesday invoked the Defense Production Act to increase baby formula manufacturing to ease a nationwide shortage caused by the closure of a key plant in Michigan.
Biden is requiring suppliers to direct ingredients to baby formula manufacturers before any other companies who may have placed orders for those same goods. It wasn’t immediately clear which major suppliers are subject to the order.

The Defense Production Act gives the president broad authority to require companies to prioritize the manufacture and allocation of goods in response to a crisis. The law was passed in 1950 during the Korean War.
Biden has also directed the Health and Human Services Department and Department of Agriculture to use aircraft from the Defense Department to pick up infant formula from overseas that meets U.S. health and safety standards.
Parents across the nation have struggled to find formula for their infants since Abbott Nutrition shuttered its plant in Sturgis, Michigan due to bacterial contamination. Abbott issued a recall in February of powdered formula brands made at the plant after four infants who consumed products made there fell ill with bacterial infections, two of whom died.
The Justice Department, in a complaint filed Monday, said Abbott had introduced adulterated baby formula into the consumer market. Abbott maintains that there’s “no conclusive evidence” that its formula caused the infants to fall ill and die.
Abbott reached an agreement with the Food and Drug Administration on Monday to reopen the plant under conditions subject to enforcement by a federal court. Those conditions include hiring independent experts to ensure that the plant meets U.S. food safety standards.

Abbott said it would take about two weeks to reopen the Michigan facility, subject to FDA approval, and up to eight weeks for products to arrive in stores across the country.
The U.S. produces 98% of the baby formula American parents buy. Four manufacturers – Abbott, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Nestle USA and Perrigo – dominate the market. When one plant goes offline, the supply chain is easily disrupted.
The FDA is increasing baby formula imports from other countries to help ease the shortage. To sell formula in the U.S., companies have to submit an application to the FDA, which the agency will review to make sure the products are safe and provide adequate nutrition.
However, Democratic lawmakers said this week that the FDA does not have nearly enough inspectors to ensure imported formula is safe. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, said the FDA told her it has only nine inspectors to keep an eye on infant formula manufacturers.
DeLauro introduced legislation this week that would provide the FDA with $28 million in emergency funding to beef up inspections, monitor the supply chain and root out fraud.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating 180 cases of children who suddenly developed hepatitis, an increase of 71 cases since the last update earlier this month.
The agency said a vast majority of the cases are not recent, but have been found as it reviews data that goes back to October of last year.
The CDC doesn’t know what caused the hepatitis cases, but said that adenovirus infection is a strong lead.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.
Tami Chappell | Reuters

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now investigating 180 cases of children who suddenly developed severe hepatitis across 36 states and territories, an increase of 71 cases since the public health agency’s last update earlier this month.
The CDC, in a statement Wednesday, said the vast majority are not new cases of hepatitis. Rather, the number of patients under investigation have increased as the agency looks more closely at data that goes back to October of last year.

Hepatitis is an inflammation of the liver that is commonly caused by hepatitis viruses A, B, C, D and E. The cases the CDC is investigating are unusual because the children have not tested positive for those viruses and they have suffered severe symptoms, with 9% requiring liver transplants, which is rare.
The CDC has found at least five deaths, although no fatalities have been reported since February. Adenovirus infection is being investigated as being the possible cause, with nearly half the kids testing positive for the pathogen. Adenovirus is a common virus that normally causes cold or flu-like symptoms. It is not a known cause of hepatitis in otherwise healthy children.
The CDC also is conducting lab tests to see if the Covid virus might also be a possible cause, though the children in the initial cluster in Alabama did not have the coronavirus.
The United Kingdom first alerted the World Health Organization to severe cases of hepatitis in kids last month. The U.K. Health Security Agency, in an update last week, said adenovirus is the most commonly detected virus in the samples tested there. The country has identified 176 cases as of May 10.
The CDC said severe hepatitis in kids remains rare, but told parents to be on the look out for symptoms such as jaundice, which is yellowing of the skin or eyes.

CNBC Health & Science

Read CNBC’s latest global coverage of the Covid pandemic:

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Under Armour said its president and chief executive officer, Patrik Frisk, will be stepping down, effective June 1.
Chief Operating Officer Colin Browne will serve as interim president and CEO.
Frisk didn’t give a reason for his widely unexpected departure.

Patrik Frisk, recently appointed Chief Executive Officer Of Under Armour, speaks at the 2020 Under Armour Human Performance Summit on January 14, 2020 in Baltimore, Maryland.
Olivier Douliery | AFP | Getty Images

Under Armour said its president and chief executive officer, Patrik Frisk, will be stepping down, effective June 1, as the sportswear retailer searches for a replacement.
In the interim, current Chief Operating Officer Colin Browne will serve as president and CEO, the company said Wednesday in a press release. Frisk is expected to remain with Under Armour as an advisor through Sept. 1.

Frisk didn’t give a reason for his widely unexpected departure. He didn’t immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.
The former CEO of the footwear holding company Aldo Group joined Under Armour in 2017, and he took over as CEO from the company’s founder, Kevin Plank, in January 2020.
Plank told CNBC in a phone interview Wednesday evening that this will allow the company to start a new chapter of growth, particularly by beefing up its e-commerce operations.
“We believe that now we’re on our front foot,” he said. “And as we look at the future, we feel that this is the appropriate time for us to take a real growth perspective.” Plank later said: “We have the ability to be a much better digital company.”
Plank added that he is not currently being considered for the CEO role.

During his tenure, Frisk helped to drive Under Armour through a massive turnaround, which also happened to take place amid the Covid-19 pandemic.
Frisk worked to limit the amount of discounting that Under Armour does with third-party retailers in an attempt to buoy profits. He also tried to make the brand appear more premium next to peers like Nike and Lululemon.
But that hasn’t come without challenges. Just earlier this month, Under Armour said that global supply chain obstacles were still hurting its business as renewed Covid lockdowns in China put a dent in demand. It offered a disappointing outlook for fiscal 2023, which runs from April 1 through March 31 of next year.
Under Armour said it will conduct both internal and external searches for its new CEO.
“I am extremely proud of what we’ve accomplished as a team,” Frisk said in a statement issued Wednesday. “Together, we have done a tremendous amount of work to strengthen this iconic brand while significantly solidifying its operations.”
The stock fell more than 3% in extended trading. Under Armour shares are down about 50% year to date.
Read the full press release from Under Armour here.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More