Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
British Petroleum LSE:BP. London Ordinary Share GB0007980591 $0.25
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.40p +0.08% 501.30p 501.00p 501.10p 501.70p 497.45p 501.40p 21,097,006 16:35:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 148,202.6 -1,858.5 0.5 1,096.1 99,045.47

BP Share Discussion Threads

Showing 91076 to 91096 of 91100 messages
Chat Pages: 3644  3643  3642  3641  3640  3639  3638  3637  3636  3635  3634  3633  Older
just over 21MM bought back so far, which is 1.1% of their 1.96Bn target. It looks as if they're buying back just enough to stop it going over a fiver, as they've reduced the number over the last couple of days. But if oil keeps rising they might need to pay a little more for them..
Locals come out in force to challenge BP’s plans to drill near the Amazon Reef Posted by Sara Ayech - 24th November 2017 Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) BP held three public hearings in Brazil last week, where 1,500 local people turned out to express concern about drilling in the Amazon Mouth Basin and a possible spill “In most of the projects that come to the Amazon, companies keep most of the profit. It’s hard for people to be satisfied considering BP’s project is only looking for the company’s profit. In the case of an oil spill, it would be very hard to restore marine life in the region”. Lucilene de Souza, from Colares, a small community in Pará state. Lucilene was one of 1,500 people who participated in the public hearings organized by BP in Belém (Pará state), and Oiapoque and Macapá (Amapá state). These are just a few cities and communities that could be impacted by BP’s search for oil.Greenpeace was there, bringing messages from people all over the world who have pledged to protect the Amazon Reef, a unique and barely explored ecosystem. During the public hearing, Greenpeace activists give BP a banner with messages from people all over the world asking What we saw at the meetings were people trying to be listened to; with huge doubts about whether the oil drilling would be good for them and concerns about possible oil spills. Even the few people who were in favour of the project asked BP about investments and jobs in the region, to which the company replied there would be almost no jobs created. Gilberto Iaparrá, chief of Indigenous Council from Oiapoque, expressed concern about an oil spill reaching Uaça river, in his land. “You come here to talk about oil exploration in our sea. And I want to know what will happen to our fishes and crabs if a spill happens. We worry about the environment because it’s where we live, it’s in the environment that our children live”, he said. BP told the meetings that oil could not reach the coast of Amapá. However, many citizens and researchers challenged this, saying for generations, people have seen the sea bring debris from the region where the blocks are. And the oil companies have not done key research on variations in ocean currents that would address these fears. The chance of an oil spill is a huge worry for fishing communities in Amapá and Pará. Voyner Ravena, professor of ecology and fishing in the Federal University of Pará, said: “Today, we don’t have enough information about the quantity of fish in the region where BP wants to drill. If an oil spill happens there, we will never know how the region was before the disaster. We don’t have data about the fish living there”, she said. In Amapa people questioned BP about the lack of investment in Amapá state even though the drilling area is closer to their coast. BP will use Belém’s infrastructure – the harbour and a maritime base. So, for Amapá’s population, no new jobs will be offered. BP responded that Amapá has no infrastructure or people ready to work for them. Teachers that spoke in the public hearing in Oiapoque asked also for investment in education in the region, as the company wants to explore oil there. Thiago Almeida, from Greenpeace Brazil, highlighted the proximity of oil drilling to the Amazon Reef, an area with endangered and potentially new species: “Since there is a huge lack of knowledge about the Amazon Reef and the region, I want to ask that BP adopt the precautionary principle and stay out of the region”. From what we saw in Belém, Oiapoque and Macapá, people locally are not convinced that oil drilling near the Amazon river mouth is safe or beneficial, and fear the impact of an oil spill on their lives and livelihoods. Please support them by telling BP to back off the Amazon Reef.
23 Nov, 2017 Home International Economic Alexander Bueso WebFG News 24 Nov, 2017 15:08 Shell set to benefit from long-term Asian demand for LNG, Barclays says ben-van-beurden-chief-executive-officer-of-royal-dutch-shell-petrole-gaz-energies-fossiles Royal Dutch Shell 'A' 2,338.00 15:17:46 24/11/17 -0.04% -1.00 Royal Dutch Shell 'B' 2,384.00 15:17:44 24/11/17 0.00% 0.00 FTSE 100 7,404.92 15:17:46 24/11/17 -0.17% -12.32 Oil & Gas Producers 8,562.41 14:25 24/11/17 -0.08% -6.94 FTSE 350 4,119.91 15:17:46 24/11/17 -0.17% -6.97 FTSE All-Share 4,069.18 15:17:47 24/11/17 -0.15% -6.25 Energy Producers 0.00 16:17 25/09/06 0.00% 0.00 Barclays reiterated its 'overweight' stance and 2,850p target price on shares of Royal Dutch Shell, pointing to the solid outlook for Asian demand of liquified natural gas that the broker said should support long-run prices and provide better trade opportunities. Over the next two years, new project start-ups in the US and Australia would keep LNG markets slightly oversupplied, capping prices in the near-term. However, in the long-run, from 2020, Barclays estimated LNG would again exceed supplies, making them more positive on prices. Reinforcing that trend, Asia, which accounted for 70% of demand, was seen continuing to show a preference for keeping natural gas in its energy mix. "This in turn should support long-run prices and provide better trade opportunities to companies. Shell and Total look to us best positioned for this trend with their exposure to LNG."
Next year at this time over 600 looking good. Oil price's stabilized.
Let's just hope it stays there :-)
ooops someone has made mistake and let it go over a fiver!
BP buys back shares By BFN News | 09:56 AM | Thursday 23 November, 2017 Factsheet BP PLC USD0.25 (BP.) BP bought back 3,000,000 ordinary shares yesterday at the volume weighted average price of 497.4607p apiece for cancellation. At 9:56am: (LON:BP.) BP PLC share price was -1.17p at 496.68p Story provided by
10:53's only 2p but it does make the chart look a lot better :-)))
Exxon, Shell, BP pledge to reduce methane emissions from natural gas by Josh Siegel | Nov 22, 2017, 2:29 PM Exxon , Shell, and BP, among other large energy companies, announced on Wednesday that they have signed a pledge to reduce methane emissions from natural gas production. The declaration represents another example of major energy companies taking a more aggressive posture toward climate change than the Trump administration. News from Washington Examiner Large energy companies including Exxon, Shell, and BP have signed onto a pledge to reduce emissions of methane from natural gas production, part of an effort by the industry to show it is committed to combating climate change even as the Trump administration rolls back regulations forcing them to. “Providing access to energy, while addressing global climate change, is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century,” the companies said in the “guiding principles” to their pledge, which they announced Wednesday. “Natural gas plays a major role in meeting global energy demand today. Since natural gas consists mainly of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, its part in the transition to a low-carbon future will be influenced by the extent to which the oil and gas industry reduces its methane emissions.” The companies didn't make any specific emissions reductions targets, but they promise to “continually reduce methane emissions; advance strong performance across gas value chains; improve accuracy of methane emissions data; advocate sound policies and regulations on methane emissions; and increase transparency.” Energy companies have promoted natural gas as an important component of addressing climate change because it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal. They also view natural gas as increasingly important to the stability of the power grid as renewables increase their share, since wind and solar require the sun to be shining and wind to be blowing. But methane, the main component in natural gas, is more potent than carbon dioxide, although methane emissions are relatively short-lived. Many scientists blame emissions from burning fossil fuels for driving manmade climate change. The companies developed their pledge in collaboration with the International Energy Agency, the United Nations and other international organizations focused on energy and climate change, according to the Wall Street Journal. Exxon Mobil’s decision to join the group makes Chevron the only major U.S. oil company that has not joined the pledge. Exxon has become more involved with addressing climate change after pressure from investors and legal challenges. Exxon CEO Darren Woods urged President Trump not to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. The American Petroleum Institute, the main trade group representing the oil and natural gas industry, said it was not involved with organizing the pledge. But the group touted the industry's efforts at reducing methane emissions in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “The oil and natural gas industry has a strong and proven commitment to safety and environmental performance,” said API Upstream Director Erik Milito. “We have taken strong, voluntary actions to reduce all emissions, including methane which has declined by 16.3 percent in spite of dramatic increases in the production of oil and natural gas, which has increased 51 percent since 1990.” The pledge represents another example of major energy companies taking a more aggressive posture toward climate change than the Trump administration. The vow by the energy companies to “advocate sound policies and regulations on methane” is especially noteworthy because the Trump administration is trying to repeal Obama-era methane regulations. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt imposed a two-year delay on the implementation of a regulation to limit methane emissions from new oil and natural gas wells. But in July, a federal appeals court blocked the EPA from eliminating the methane rule. The Republican-controlled Senate, meanwhile, failed in May to pass a measure repealing an Interior Department methane rule affecting existing wells on federal lands. A federal court in California ruled last month that the Interior Department could not suspend its methane rule.
grupo guitarlumber
the grumpy old men
hellscream - it's just my simple thinking, but left to the normal market; 450 was/is a possibility BUT the daily punch north as a result of continuing buyback casts 450 into some serious doubt. DYOR
News UK UK Politics Tory ministers lobbied Brazil on behalf of Shell and BP, Government accidentally reveals Brazilian government later gave major drilling licenses to the two companies Ben Kentish @BenKentish THE INDEPENDENT Greg Hands used a meeting with a Brazilian minister to pass on oil companies' concerns Rex Features Liam Fox's Department for International Trade successfully lobbied the Brazilian government over environmental regulations on behalf of three major oil companies, an official document has revealed. Greg Hands, the international trade minister, reportedly made representations on behalf of BP, Shell and Premier Oil during a trip to Brazil in March. He asked the Brazilian government to help British companies secure deals to drill in the pre-salt region of Brazilian waters, according to a British diplomatic cable obtained by Greenpeace. Macron vows to reverse Donald Trump's cuts to climate change funding Pre-salt drilling involves looking for oil deep under the sea bed. Environmental campaigners have warned that it risks accelerating climate change. The cable says Mr Hands used a “private breakfast” in Rio de Janeiro to listen to the oil companies’ concerns “around taxation and environmental licensing” in Brazil. He then raised the issue “directly̶1; with Paulo Pedrosa, Brazil’s deputy minister for mining and energy. Mr Pedrosa “confirmed that his ministry is already lobbying its relevant counterparts within the Brazil government”. Brazil later granted three oil licenses to Shell and two to a consortium including BP. It also offered up to $300bn (£227bn) in tax relief to oil and gas companies in the country. The diplomatic cable also reveals that the UK Government welcomed Brazil’s decision to reduce “local content requirements” – regulations that force companies to hire local workers and use local goods in an attempt to boost the economy of developing countries and regions. Mr Hands also opened an event showcasing UK energy companies, at which “hydrocarbons were a heavy focus”. Details revealed in the cable were apparently released by mistake. Following a freedom of information request, the DIT sent Greenpeace the full cable, with sensitive passages highlighted instead of redacted. It later released a second version with the same passages blacked out. Rebecca Newsom, senior political adviser at Greenpeace, said: “This is a double embarrassment for the UK Government. Liam Fox’s trade minister has been lobbying the Brazilian government over a huge oil project that would undermine the climate efforts Britain made at the UN summit in Bonn. “If that wasn’t bad enough, Fox’s department tried to cover it up and hide its actions from the public, but failed comically.” A DIT spokesperson said: “DIT is responsible for encouraging international investment opportunities for UK businesses, whilst respecting fully local and international environmental standards. The UK oil and gas industry and supply chain supports thousands of jobs and provides £19bn in goods exports alone. “However, it is absolutely not true that our ministers lobbied to loosen environmental restrictions in Brazil – the meeting was about improving the environmental licensing process, ensuring a level playing field for both domestic and foreign companies, and in particular helping to speed up the licensing process and make it more transparent, which in turn will protect environmental standards.”
BP agrees sell off Bruce assets in “£300 million” deal Tuesday November 21st 2017 at 8:15 AM BP has agreed to sell off more of its North Sea interests – in a deal which could be worth around £300 million. The oil giant has sold all but one per cent of its stake in the Bruce field, as well as its interests in the Keith and Rhum fields, to Serica Energy. The firm will pay an initial £12.8 million to BP – but that could grow to be worth around £300 million depending on performance of the assets. The new owner has agreed to a share of cash flows over the next four years, a consideration equivalent to 30% of BP’s post-tax decommissioning costs and several contingent payments – which hinge on future performance and the oil price. Most of the payment will be received over the next four years. Around 110 staff are planned to transfer to Serica as the assets move as a “fully operational entity” BP will now begin consultation with staff that could be affected. If approved, it’s hoped the deal could be completed in third quarter of 2018. BP Upstream Chief Executive Bernard Looney said, “This is an example of BP’s Upstream strategy in action – refreshing our portfolio and focusing our activity on assets which will add most value over the long-term. “We remain committed to the North Sea and continue to invest. “We expect our production there to double to around 200,000 barrels equivalent a day by 2020 through new projects like Quad 204 and Clair Ridge. “While the Bruce assets are no longer core to BP, we are confident that Serica is the right owner and operator to maximise their continuing value for both companies and for the UK. Serica chairman Tony Craven Walker added, “This transaction will establish Serica as a leading British independent oil company with the scale, balance sheet and operating capability to prosper in the North Sea’s rapidly changing upstream oil and gas industry.”
whats the odds of this hitting 450 again :).
At least this time they're cancelling the shares they're buying back rather than filling their treasury allocation, and they've been very specific that the buybacks are to compensate for the dilution caused by the scrip dividends, I'm not a big fan of buybacks either but at least this time it's a bit more transparent where they see the value coming from.
Holts debt cost is less than the divi at the moment but in general terms agree with your statement
Dislike buy backs , would rather money was used to get rid of any debt .
It's Never Wise to Bet Against a Saudi Oil Minister By Julian Lee Photographer: Qilai Shen Julian Lee Facebook Twitter Email Print Nov 19, 2017 3:00 AM EST Don't be fooled by the apparent dithering of OPEC and friends over whether to extend their output restraint when they meet at the end of the month. They know full well that failing to send a clear signal would send oil prices plummeting. The apparent backsliding from Russia and a small number of OPEC members may be a belated attempt to create a sense of uncertainty ahead of the gathering. The extension will then have a much more positive impact than if it merely ratified a long-flagged intention. Just look at what happened last time they all met, back in May: Unintended Consequences Crude prices dropped when OPEC last met and continued falling for almost a month Source: Bloomberg The decision to extend the cuts to the end of March 2018 was a foregone conclusion. Every ministerial interview said so. When that decision came, the market duly reacted: Brent fell by $2.50 a barrel amid disappointment that OPEC and the others hadn't done even more. They don't want a repeat. Last month, I warned that the participating countries mustn't dither and kick a decision down the road. Perhaps the second worst thing would be flagging the decision so clearly that it can only disappoint. The latest suggestions of dissent may just be an attempt to avoid that. Perhaps some comments have been interpreted more definitively than speakers intended. Vladimir Putin's support last month for extending cuts to the end of 2018 was prefaced by a reminder that November was too soon to decide. But the qualification has been all but lost. OPEC and friends have lost control of the narrative and attempts to sow uncertainty have come too late to manage expectations. Speculative long positions in Brent crude are just shy of 600 million barrels, suggesting a nine-month extension has already been fully priced in. If an extension isn't announced, the impact on prices as these positions are unwound would be ugly from the producers' perspective. Hedging Accelerates The growing net short position of swaps dealers reflects hedging by shale producers Source: Commodity Futures Trading Commission If the Vienna group hopes uncertainty will discourage U.S. shale producers from locking in prices for next year, they're likely to be disappointed. They've left it too late to influence the Americans' 2018 strategies, which were largely put in place just as crude hit $65 a barrel. The net short position of swaps dealers on the Nymex crude market -- a proxy for the hedging activity of shale producers -- has widened to more than 525 million barrels, suggesting that hedging activity has accelerated in the past couple of weeks. Is there a real prospect of Russia throwing a spanner into OPEC's works? I don't think so. Citigroup published a research note on Russian oil last week saying, among other things, that "the math is indicating Russia should let the OPEC+ agreement expire", with higher production more than offsetting the lower prices that would result. Russia's Next Oil Boom While Citi makes an economic case, it doesn't address the political implications for President Putin of leaving his new friends in the lurch. As I argued here, backing away from an extension could endanger the arms and investment deals signed during the Saudi king’s visit to Moscow and weaken Russia’s burgeoning influence in the Middle East. That doesn't seem a good trade-off. When push comes to shove, the world’s biggest energy exporter will back a deal. Sure, we've been blindsided by OPEC before. But Saudi oil minister Khalid Al-Falih has said he wants a clear decision on Nov. 30, including "an extension of some sort". He believes Russia will be on board. Opposition to announcing an extension on that date may show the group's unity is under strain, but it's not a good idea to bet against a Saudi oil minister when he's that explicit. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners. To contact the author of this story: Julian Lee in London at To contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at
waldron 17 Nov '17 - 15:32 - 1467 of 1469 4 1 WHOSE THE SIMPLETON WHO KEEPS MARKING DOWN EVERY POST NO MATTER WHAT STUPID BOY Https:// Can someone explain what the guy gains by using the red thumb on each and every post
la forge
vexatious adjective 1Causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry. ‘the vexatious questions posed by software copyrights’ 1.1Law Denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant. ‘a frivolous or vexatious litigant’
Chat Pages: 3644  3643  3642  3641  3640  3639  3638  3637  3636  3635  3634  3633  Older
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:41 V: D:20171125 03:58:36