I see cash management as being a balancing act. Some companies feel they have enough investment opportunities that they keep all the money for reinvestment. Growth. Some basically commit to paying out most of their cash flow to investors. There's a lot of that now going on in the O&G industry. Basically divesting the company.

Easy to see that point of view. OTOH, O&G is cyclical, maybe way more cyclical than most other industries. Why is that? Among other things, when times are good (constrained supply, increased demand) they take all those profits and plow them back into increasing supply. What happens? Shortly down the road supply increases. Prices fall. There's a glut, and profits fade.

Lather, rinse, repeat. We've seen it for decades. O&G in the US is dominated by a few, shall I say, majors, with a bunch of little guys running behind catching the crumbs that fall off the table. While it sounds conspiratorial, by 'managing supply' (i.e. not plowing the profits back into 'investment opportunities') they flatten the cycle and stretch out the good times.

If they put it all into 'growth', they cut their own necks - a couple years down the road. Using it for dividends or buybacks puts (some of) the profits elsewhere to alleviate the inevitable bust later if supply is jacked up.

Do I think Exxon and Chevron management is smart enough to realize this? Yeah, I do.