As drivers across the United States pay sharply higher prices at the pump following President Donald Trump’s attack on Iran earlier this year, some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies are reporting soaring profits and preparing billions of dollars in shareholder payouts tied to the resulting energy crisis.
A report released Tuesday by Groundwork Collaborative argues that major oil companies are not merely benefiting from the economic fallout of the war, but are actively choosing to funnel those gains into stock buybacks and dividends instead of expanding production to ease consumer costs.
Gas prices have climbed dramatically since Trump attacked Iran without congressional authorization in late February. According to the provided reporting, average gas prices rose from under $3 per gallon at the beginning of the conflict to $4.49 per gallon as of Tuesday. Another figure cited in the source material placed the national average for regular gasoline at $4.18 per gallon, the highest level since the war began and the highest fuel prices seen since April 2022.
The increases have coincided with massive gains across the fossil fuel industry. In mid-March, just two weeks into the conflict, the combined market capitalization of the world’s six largest energy companies had already surged by $130 billion, according to calculations by the Guardian cited in the provided material.
As oil prices climbed, major energy corporations repeatedly emphasized shareholder returns and capital discipline in public statements to investors.
Groundwork Collaborative’s report highlighted ExxonMobil’s plan to deliver $20 billion worth of stock buybacks in 2026 even as CEO Darren Woods said the company’s production decisions would remain “grounded in value, not volume.”
Shell recently announced “another 5% dividend increase and more than $3 billion in buybacks,” according to the report, while CEO Wael Sawan described the company’s commitment to shareholder payouts as “sacrosanct.”
Chevron has similarly pledged roughly $3 billion in quarterly stock buybacks while publicly stating that increasing dividends for shareholders remains its “first and foremost” priority.
The report also cited comments from Chevron CFO Eimear Bonner, who said the company had no plans to substantially increase output in response to higher fuel prices, stating that “capital spending and production outlooks are consistent with previous guidance.”
The findings have intensified criticism from advocacy groups and economists who argue the war-driven supply crisis is being used to justify price increases while companies distribute extraordinary profits to investors.
“These companies want Americans to believe price spikes are simply the unavoidable result of global events,” Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement included in the report, “but their own executives are openly telling investors that volatility, conflict, and supply disruptions are good for business. They are choosing buybacks over production, shareholder payouts over affordability, and corporate profiteering over the economic security of working families.”
The war’s effect on global oil markets has been severe. Before the conflict began, a barrel of oil traded around $73. Prices quickly surged beyond $100 during the early stages of the war, while Brent crude, an international benchmark, climbed to approximately $110 per barrel according to the provided reporting.
Much of the disruption has centered around the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route for petroleum exports. The source material states that one-fifth of the world’s petroleum remains trapped in the Persian Gulf as the waterway continues to face major disruptions and limited traffic.
Despite repeated claims from Trump that progress had been made toward ending the conflict, energy analysts expressed skepticism that oil markets would stabilize anytime soon.
Rory Johnston, founder of Commodity Context and an oil market researcher, told CNN that optimism in commodities markets was misplaced because “Nothing has fundamentally changed.” Johnston added: “The strait remains closed.”
Sultan Al Jaber, CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, similarly warned that even if a deal were reached, oil supplies would not immediately return to pre-war conditions. According to the source material, Al Jaber estimated it could take months merely to restore 80 percent of pre-war oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz.
The continued disruption has produced extraordinary financial gains for fossil fuel companies around the world.
BP reported $3.2 billion in profits during the first three months of the year, more than double the $1.38 billion it earned during the same period in 2025. Shell forecast a highly profitable quarter for its oil business, while TotalEnergies signaled higher-than-expected profits as well.
The Guardian and Rystad Energy estimated earlier this month that the world’s top 100 oil and gas companies earned an additional $30 million every hour during the first month of the war. If oil prices remain near $100 per barrel, the analysis projected total industry profits this year could reach $264 billion.
Another analysis published by Oxfam International found that Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and TotalEnergies are earning nearly $3,000 every second in 2026, amounting to roughly $37 million more per day than last year. Oxfam projected the six companies would generate a combined $94 billion in profit this year.
Environmental and advocacy groups have sharply criticized the scale of those profits as households struggle with rising living costs.
“It is horrifying to see BP’s profits grow as millions suffer the fallout from the U.S.-Israel war on Iran,” Patrick Galey, head of investigations at Global Witness, said in response to BP’s earnings report.
The financial pressure caused by rising fuel costs is extending far beyond the United States.
Karthik Sankaran, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described how rising oil prices are intensifying humanitarian and economic crises across the Global South.
“A recent story in The New York Times described how the price for transporting corn into refugee camps in Somalia had doubled or even tripled, as had the price of water at diesel-powered public tubewells,” Sankaran wrote. “Meanwhile, protests this week in Kenya against fuel price hikes have led to four deaths, and political and financial stresses are mounting across the continent.”
Sankaran also pointed to growing hardship in India, where “sharp jumps in the price of liquid petroleum gas have hit urban households hard, particularly those whose breadwinners work in small-scale industrial establishments.”
The economic strain has also spread throughout Europe. According to a report by Transport & Environment cited in the source material, European drivers paid an additional €150 million, or approximately $175 million, per day in fuel costs during the opening weeks of the war. Over the course of the year, the report estimated the average driver could pay an additional €220, or $257, in gasoline expenses.
Public frustration over rising fuel costs has increasingly translated into political pressure.
Polling cited in the source material found that around seven in 10 Americans are very or extremely concerned about the war’s impact on gasoline prices, while only 9 percent said rising fuel costs were not a major concern.
The surge in oil company profits has also reignited calls for windfall taxes on fossil fuel corporations.
In the United Kingdom, an existing windfall tax on energy companies imposes an additional 38 percent levy on oil and gas production profits. Spain, Italy, and Portugal are now urging the European Union to revive a broader windfall tax framework first introduced during the early stages of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
In the United States, Democratic lawmakers and environmental organizations have begun pushing for similar measures targeting domestic energy companies.
More than 70 environmental and advocacy groups signed a public letter last month urging lawmakers to impose additional taxes on fossil fuel firms benefiting from the crisis.
“Revenue from a windfall profits tax should be returned directly to struggling American households to help offset rising costs,” the letter stated. “A windfall profits tax would ensure that extraordinary profits generated off the backs of U.S. families during periods of crisis are returned back to the public rather than captured entirely by oil and gas corporations.”
The debate over those profits is unfolding as the broader economic effects of the war continue to spread through transportation systems, food prices, manufacturing, and household budgets worldwide. While oil companies continue rewarding shareholders with expanding buybacks and dividends, analysts increasingly warn that the underlying supply disruptions driving the crisis remain unresolved and may continue affecting global energy prices for months or even years.
COMMENTS