“OPEC’s stated mission is to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its Member Countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.”

💡 OPEC explicitly coordinates output among competitors to stabilize prices, which would violate U.S. antitrust laws if domestic companies engaged in the same behavior.

“You say, why is this agreement so important? We had a glut, it was a stubborn glut from over-production, and even though demand was increasing every year for oil, a million barrels a day, the glut remained… What this deal does is accelerate the draw down of those excessive supplies to get to inventories in the world where they’re comfortable, but not excessive, and if this agreement hadn’t been done, I think probably prices would have floundered for another year in the 40s.”

💡 Mr. Hess publicly endorsed OPEC’s production cuts as necessary to prevent prices from staying low, signaling support for cartel coordination over competitive markets.

“Faced with reinvigorated competition from U.S. producers, and having failed to win a price war, OPEC officials had an incentive to coordinate with these rivals rather than compete.”

💡 The FTC explicitly identifies OPEC’s shift from competing with U.S. producers to attempting coordination, which the Hess CEO’s communications allegedly facilitated.

“Harm to competition in crude oil production and sales would likely result in higher oil prices, leading to higher prices for transportation fuels (gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel), heating oil, chemicals, and end products such as lubricants, plastics, paints, and asphalt.”

💡 The FTC directly connects reduced competition to increased costs across the entire economy, affecting every American household and business.

“If Mr. Hess were to join Chevron’s Board of Directors, he could direct, approve, or influence Chevron’s investments and policies to align more closely with OPEC’s mission and operations.”

💡 The merger specifically threatens competition because it gives an OPEC-aligned executive control over one of the world’s largest oil companies.

“Mr. Hess’s participation on Chevron’s Board of Directors would amplify Mr. Hess’s supportive messaging to OPEC and others, thereby meaningfully increasing the likelihood that Chevron would align its production with OPEC’s output decisions to maintain higher prices.”

💡 Because Chevron is substantially larger than Hess, the merger amplifies the competitive threat by giving Mr. Hess’s OPEC-supportive views much greater market impact.

“So shale will play a role, but it’s going to have a back seat in terms of being the swing supplier. The swing supplier going forward and really the Federal Reserve of oil prices is going to be OPEC led by or OPEC+ led by Saudi Arabia, Russia and the other members.”

💡 On a public earnings call, Mr. Hess explicitly described OPEC as controlling oil prices like the Federal Reserve controls monetary policy, signaling his acceptance of cartel price management.

“OPEC, I think, has done a great job managing the oil market… Saudi Arabia had done a masterful job leading OPEC plus, giving the market what it needs, but not oversupplying it.”

💡 Mr. Hess repeatedly praised OPEC publicly for restraining supply to maintain prices, demonstrating alignment with cartel objectives rather than competitive market principles.

“Mr. Barkindo remarked that Mr. Hess’s wise guidance, and great sincerity to me personally, and to OPEC as an Organization, is always immensely appreciated.”

💡 OPEC’s Secretary General publicly thanked Mr. Hess for his guidance and support, demonstrating the close relationship that concerns regulators.

“Contacts between competitors about their commercial practices regarding output, prices, or other competitive dimensions, whether made in public or in private, can undermine free and fair competition and violate the antitrust laws.”

💡 The FTC establishes that both public and private communications about output and prices with competitors are anti-competitive, regardless of the forum.

“Around a decade ago, technological breakthroughs catalyzed a surge in U.S. production. Partly as a result, the United States for the past six years has produced more crude oil than any nation ever. U.S. production growth has injected new output into the crude oil market, ultimately lowering prices for Americans when they fill their tanks or heat their homes.”

💡 U.S. production increases directly benefited consumers by lowering prices, which the merger threatens to reverse by enabling coordination with OPEC.

“And I think OPEC itself probably misplayed their cards when they thought when the free fall in oil prices happened in 2014, that basically, they would put U.S. producers out of business because basically, as oil prices went down, American independent ingenuity went up.”

💡 Mr. Hess acknowledged that OPEC attempted to drive U.S. producers out of business through price manipulation, revealing the cartel’s anti-competitive intent.

“The effect of the Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, may be to substantially lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly, in the relevant antitrust market in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.”

💡 The FTC formally charges that this merger violates federal antitrust law by substantially lessening competition in global oil markets.

“The Merger Agreement between Chevron and Hess constitutes a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, as amended.”

💡 The FTC charges that the agreement itself is illegal as an unfair method of competition, even before the merger is completed.

“Because the effect of the transaction may be substantially to lessen competition by increasing the risk of harm to competition and meaningfully increasing the likelihood of industry coordination in the global market for the production and sale of oil, the Proposed Acquisition violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act.”

💡 The FTC’s core theory is that the merger increases coordination risk with OPEC, which would harm competition and raise consumer prices across the economy.