Shell Share Discussion Threads

[abbotslynn] 07/5/2018 17:40

School fees due any time share price rise will take care of that

[waldron] 07/5/2018 15:11

Ex-dividend date
May 10, 2018

Record
date
May 11, 2018

Closing of currency election date (Note 1) May
25, 2018

Pounds sterling and euro equivalents announcement date June 4, 2018

Payment
date
June 18, 2018

[waldron] 05/5/2018 12:57

AWAITING A RESPONSE REGARDING NAV AND NTAV FROM SHELL HELP



cheers

[the grumpy old men] 05/5/2018 10:24

hmm very profond pete

have a great bank holiday

[petepitstop] 05/5/2018 10:16

New York has an ice age history. If global warming did not occur then New York would not exist today. We are in period between ice ages.

[the grumpy old men] 05/5/2018 10:05

News ID: 214494
Published: 0658 GMT May 05, 2018
Oil companies ask judge to kill NYC's global warming lawsuit
Oil companies ask judge to kill NYC's global warming lawsuit
LUKE SHARRETT/BLOOMBERG
Five of the world’s biggest oil companies asked a judge to throw out New York City’s lawsuit seeking to hold them responsible for costs related to the environmental changes caused by their products.

BP Plc, Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc argued that the court lacks the authority to resolve broad policy questions with ‘profound implications for the global economy, international relations and America’s national security’ bloomberg.com reported.

“Plaintiff attempts to use state tort law to regulate the nationwide — indeed, worldwide — activity of companies that play a key role in virtually every sector of the global economy,” the companies said. They urged US District Judge John Keenan, who’s overseeing the case, to follow the example of other judges who have rejected similar suits.

The companies argue that claims involving the effect of greenhouse gases on the environment must be considered under federal, rather than state, law. And federal law doesn’t permit the type of claims New York is pursuing, they said.

New York, the biggest US city, sued the companies in January, claiming they’re the world’s largest public companies contributing to global warming. The city claims the companies have denied the findings of climate-change scientists despite knowing that the use of gas and oil posed ‘grave risk’ to the planet. New York claims the oil companies’ actions constitute a ‘public nuisance’ — an illegal threat to community welfare.

New York City says the companies have contributed to rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events, including storms and heat waves that threaten to harm the city and the people who live in it.

“Defendants knowingly and substantially contributed to climate change,” lawyers for the city argued in papers arguing that Keenan should let the case go forward. “They are not exempt from tort law claims requiring them to internalize the environmental costs of their products instead of foisting them onto property owners, local governments, and the public.”

Keenan will consider both sides’ arguments in a June 13 hearing. On May 24, a judge in San Francisco will consider whether to dismiss similar suits filed against the companies by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco.

The case is New York v. BP P.L.C., 18-cv-182, US District Court, southern district of New York (Manhattan).

[petepitstop] 05/5/2018 10:04

The 'elephant on the UK stock exchange' has started to move reaching all time highs. It will gather pace all things being equal and move into a trot. I do believe with some luck that this 'elephant can gallop'. The interesting issue will be at what point the investment world comes on board.

[waldron] 05/5/2018 08:05

I HAPPENED UPON THE ADVFN KEY FIGURES IN THE FINANCIALS SECTION AND WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THAT SHELLS share price SEEMS TO BE AT A SUBSTANTIAL DISCOUNT TO ITS NAV AND NTAV

UNLIKE BP AND TOTAL


HAVE YET TO WORK UP ENOUGH ENERGY TO CHECK ON THIS LUVERLY SUNNY LONG WEEKEND

OF COURSE, ANY INSIGHTS WOULD BE APPRECIATED

[ariane] 04/5/2018 23:23

2018 01:09 AM
Business Eco./Bus. News
RELATED STORIES
BIG
The Royal Dutch Shell headquarters in The Hague. The world’s biggest companies from Royal Dutch Shell to Chevron Corp are starting to churn out profit like it is $100-a-barrel oil again.
Rate
Text Size: A A A

Bloomberg/London

Big Oil’s investors took a bruising for nearly three years as oil prices bumped along decade lows. Now they want payback.
They’re willing to punish companies that don’t meet their standards, and their standards are awfully high. On their wish list: immediate returns, spending discipline, and, at the same time, more production. Here are three big takeaways from a mixed earnings season, where demands on Big Oil were laid bare.
Profit isn’t enough: The world’s biggest companies from Royal Dutch Shell to Chevron Corp are starting to churn out profit like it is $100-a-barrel oil again. They have trimmed a lot of fat built up during the heady days of oil as they raced each other to construct hyper-engineered mega-projects.
But, that’s no longer enough for investors. The goalposts have moved and now they mostly care about cash.
Shell’s first-quarter earnings soared 42% from a year earlier, beating analysts’ estimates. Still, cash flow from operations was lighter than expectations and the shares were hammered.
Only half of the companies reporting dazzling earnings saw their stock rise. The problem? Investors are looking for immediate gratification after enduring the oil-price downturn.
They also do not fully believe the companies can continue to keep a leash on their purse strings now that crude is rebounding. “The investment community still is not sure we’re going to handle these higher prices with discipline,” BP Plc chief executive officer Bob Dudley said at a conference last week. A longer track-record of prudent action is more important.
Caution not rewarded: Dudley and his counterpart at Shell, Ben van Beurden, are among oil-company bosses who have pledged to maintain their hard-earned cost discipline. So, investors should be happy, right? Not necessarily.
Shareholders think Shell’s cash-flow issues are likely to affect something close to their hearts: buybacks. Chief financial officer Jessica Uhl was swamped with questions about the timing of the $25bn share repurchase programme by both analysts and reporters. All they got was that she wanted to focus on reducing borrowings. Earlier, debt was investors’ primary concern after Shell’s $50bn acquisition of BG Group Plc in 2016.
Demanding more oil: If delayed buybacks make investors mad, then missing earnings estimates make them furious. Ask Exxon Mobil Corp. The world’s biggest publicly traded oil company reported that while profit increased, it fell short of forecasts. It even missed the mark on production, the first sub-4mn barrels a day figure for that time of year since Bill Clinton was president. It couldn’t even keep pace on chemicals.
The result is partly the consequence of one bad bet. The company invested heavily in exploring Russia, only to shelve all of its plans when the country was hit by US sanctions after the annexation of Crimea. Exxon responded to investor concerns by saying earlier this year it will boost spending to unlock more barrels of oil. However, that’s not passing muster either. Its shares have dropped in all three trading days after the first-quarter earnings. The company has lost about $53bn in market value since it posted disappointing fourth-quarter results three months ago. That’s more than the market capitalisation of the Ford Motor Co.
“The quarter did not quite live up to high expectations following strong” oil prices, said Rob West, a London-based analyst at Redburn (Europe).

[petepitstop] 04/5/2018 22:12

Offshore wind is a great example of the growth opportunities that are rapidly appearing for Shell confirming the move from income only to growth and income and finally, in my view to growth with a little income. I have shares in Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust (SMT) which is the best performing investment trust globally and is primarily focused on technology. The trust managers have have been saying for a decade that the investment world is continually underestimating the impact of technology; it is truly exponential and it is in this aspect where I think Shell will benefit enormously. Businesses are always about people and Shell employs many of the planet's best brains. Combine the best brains, a tailwind of technological benefits and future spending power and who knows where this will end up by the end of the century.

[wad collector] 04/5/2018 18:20

I do like to see and end of week ATH ,even if not in real terms;



free stock charts from uk.advfn.com

[sarkasm] 04/5/2018 17:50

Oil majors – shuffling along the Road to Damascus

Published 04 May 2018 Last Updated 04 May 2018 14:00

Angus Leslie Melville Contact Author

Tags Oil & Gas Renewables Asia Pacific Europe North America

Share:

Export:

Skip to:
Article Snapshot

In a volte-face that’s enough to make a North Korean dictator blush, the oil majors are continuing to trip over their feet in a bid to reinvent themselves as good guys, having spent the last century-plus playing the black-hat cowboy

Statoil is the latest to have seen the error of its ways… more to the point, finally recognising the tide has turned and forcing its hand to switch strategies from oil to renewables.

The Norwegian heavyweight is far from alone. As DONG (Dansk Olie og Naturgas) sanctimoniously said when announcing its re-brand to Orsted and re-focus to renewables, the time had arrived to shift from “black to green energy”.

Statoil’s rebrand to Equinor sees the O&G major eagerly point out that its new identity combines “equi” the starting point of such elegant words as “equal, equality and equilibrium”, and “nor”230; homage to its Norwegian origins. Good lord, what a load of tosh.

This is a seismic shift in the oil industry driven in many cases by investors – in the Nordic cases, pension funds and sovereign wealth – that will no longer touch anything with oil in the name. As such, the zealous conversion of oil barons to renewable energy pioneers is driven by market reality, not a road to Damascus revelation.

French oil major Total last month (April 2018) made the leap with its acquisition of Direct Energie which has a 550MW renewables portfolio and a 2GW pipeline; while Royal Dutch Shell (also last month) ramped up involvement in renewables through its New Energies division, hinting at up to $2 billion of investments per annum up to 2020.

Beyond that, BP signalled its intentions to carve out its niche in the renewables space last year (2017) with its $200 million acquisition of a 43% stake in Lightsource – imaginatively rebranding it to Lightsource BP.

Those with a functioning memory will recall that BP has been here before with its Beyond Petroleum strategy, but promptly divested all its wind power assets in 2013 and withdrew from the sector. Likely it regrets having done that.

And it’s not alone, most of the O&G majors have dipped toes in the renewable water at some stage in the last decade-plus, but it never seems to take long – often a change in chief exec – for them to about-turn and focus once again on “core business”, shaking their heads at the folly of previous leaders straying from the path.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The shift away from oil has been dramatic with environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues being at the forefront of investors’ minds these days forcing the hand of “dirty” companies to mend their ways.

It cropped up repeatedly in round tables published in our launch issue of the IJInvestor Funds & Investors Report. In this report, infra fund leaders stressed that ESG had transitioned from lip-service to central focus.

To this end every international oil company (IOC) on the planet that has “oil” in its name has either re-branded or is in discussions right now with branding specialists to reinvent themselves as something less unpalatable to investors.

Nice work for the consultancies – money for old rope – who can flog off-the-hanger brands they own and wrap them around a pretty story that the IOC will convince itself reflects the shift in focus (listening Equinor?).
A green new world

The majority of these oil companies are shifting their focus toward offshore wind, seeking the scale of projects to give them a flying start and to leverage their experience of working in challenging environments.

There’s clear water between where the industry used to be and where it is now. Gone are the days when IOCs dabbled in renewables for this to serve as a fig leaf to their less “responsible” activities.

According to the Global Wind Energy Council, by the early 2020s offshore wind will cost less than €70/MWh (2017 prices) and 120GW installed capacity will be in place by 2030. With €60/MWh just around the corner it becomes ever-more affordable and growing deal flow the IOCs are catching the wave at just the right time.

Furthermore, there will be need for more players with deep pockets in this space to support delivery of ambitious programmes. And ambitious offshore wind programmes are cropping up in every corner of the world.

Just last week (April 2018), Taiwan's Ministry of Economic Affairs awarded grid connection rights for 3.8GW of offshore wind – 336MW more than had been anticipated – with a further 2GW to be allocated in June (possibly more if the first round’s anything to go by).

The winning bidders are:

WPD – 1,058MW
Orsted – 900MW
Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners – 600MW
Swancor Renewables – 378MW
China Steel – 300MW
Taiwan Power – 300MW
Northland Power – 300MW

Sticking with Asia Pacific, Japan has an exciting market where it already has 44.7MW of offshore wind installed. The Japanese Wind Power Association is pushing for 10GW by 2030 with 30-year leases awarded by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). This target is now being seen as conservative and pressure is being brought to bear for it to be increased considerably.

Both these markets – Taiwan and Japan – face the extra challenges as the projects are largely in deep water, as such floating offshore wind is increasingly mentioned.

A lot bigger and even more ambitious, China plans to develop 30GW of offshore wind by 2020. There’s a lot of discussion over how it will achieve this… but if any nation can do it, China can.

South Korea plans to increase the country's renewable energy capacity by 2030, taking it up from 11.3GW to 58.5GW by end of the decade which will represent 33.7% of the country’s electricity-generating installed capacity, up from a 9.7% share today. Offshore wind will form part of that push.

And again, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Australia has huge potential, as does India, Thailand (where there are declining supplies of natural gas) and Bangladesh (with low-speed turbines). For the US, the days of Cape Wind look to be in the rear-view mirror. Europe is moving at break-neck pace.

Any country with a coastline and decent wind resource – especially now that floating solutions are on the table – is turning its gaze that direction.
A view from the sea

Chatting this week with renewables supremo Simon Currie who relocated as global head of energy at Norton Rose Fulbright from London to Sydney in January 2015, he has been taken aback by the pace of change.

“What was a $200 billion market until just recently is now looking more like a $1 trillion market,” says Simon. “All of a sudden it’s offshore wind versus natural gas, versus solar – what do you have and what is the best use of it? At €60/MWh with decent wind with a bit of track record, that’s better than gas.” He adds: “I’m encouraged by the amount of capital that is coming in. It’s no longer five countries!”

And he’s in a good place to take advantage of this market shift, having in March (2018) announced that he and fellow NRF Vincent Dwyer were setting up an advisory business based out of Australia providing services to the energy sector (strategic consulting and guidance, and transaction advisory services).

But it’s so much more than the oil companies. IOC involvement is welcome as the scale of the offshore wind sector will be so vast and heavyweights will be needed at the table, but it runs beyond that.

“For me, the big take-away from COP 23 was that industrials are getting involved too,” says Simon. “We are seeing the major industrials like thyssenkrupp – people who never really paid much attention to renewables – saying their future is not in combustion engines, it’s in hydrogen electrolysers, wind turbines… whatever. They cannot sit there waiting for the Xerox moment.”

With so much to be achieved and growing comfort with offshore wind, it’s going to take companies with scale – ranging from re-branded IOCs through to global industrials – to deliver programmes.

In fact, with all these projects on the cards, everyone’s welcome (fig leaf or not).

[waldron] 04/5/2018 17:18

Total
52.27 +0.95%

Engie
14.7 +0.89%

Orange
15.16 +0.43%



BP
558.1 +2.61%



Shell A
2,578 +1.38%



Shell B
2,655.5 +1.55%

Brent Crude Oil NYMEX 74.83 +1.55%
Gasoline NYMEX 2.12 +1.44%
Natural Gas NYMEX 2.72 -0.37%

FTSE 100
7,567.14 +0.86%
Dow Jones
24,151.58 +0.93%
CAC 40
5,516.05 +0.26%


PREMIUM NOW 77.5p

[waldron] 04/5/2018 12:33

Total
52 +0.42%



Engie
14.715 +1.00%



BP
552.3 +1.54%



Shell A
2,560 +0.67%



Shell B
2,635 +0.76%

Brent Crude Oil NYMEX 73.99 +0.41%
Gasoline NYMEX 2.10 +0.24%
Natural Gas NYMEX 2.73 -0.15%

FTSE 100
7,531.35 +0.38%
Dow Jones
23,930.15 +0.02%
CAC 40
5,498.68 -0.05%

[waldron] 04/5/2018 12:24

CHEERS FJ 4posts

TOO EARLY FOR ME TO DO GUESSIMATES

ALSO BELIEVE THE BUYBACK SPLITS BETWEEN A and B will not be equal

in the meantime enjoy your day and perhaps long weekend

cloudy here with stormy rains soon expected

[fjgooner] 04/5/2018 11:40

Impact of Share Repurchases

By Elvis Picardo, CFA | Updated March 7, 2018 — 5:26 PM EST

A share repurchase or buyback simply refers to a publicly traded company purchasing its own shares from the marketplace. Along with dividends, share repurchases are an avenue for a company to return cash to its shareholders. Many of the best companies strive to reward their shareholders through consistent dividend increases and regular share buybacks. A share repurchase is also known as “float shrink” since it contracts a company’s freely trading shares or share float.

Repurchase Impact on EPS

Since a share repurchase reduces a company’s outstanding shares, its biggest impact is evident in per-share measures of profitability and cash flow such as earnings per share (EPS) and cash flow per share (CFPS). Assuming that the price-earnings (P/E) multiple at which the stock trades is unchanged, the buyback should eventually result in a higher share price.

As an example, consider the case of a hypothetical company – call it Birdbaths & Beyond (BB) – which had 100 million shares outstanding at the beginning of a given year. The stock was trading at $10, giving BB a market capitalization of $1 billion. BB had net income of $50 million or EPS of 50 cents ($50 million ÷ 100 million shares outstanding) in the preceding 12 months, which means that the stock was trading at a P/E of 20 (i.e. $10 ÷ 50 cents). Assume BB also had excess cash of $100 million at the start of the year, which it deployed in a share repurchase program over the next 12 months. So at the end of the year, BB would have 90 million shares outstanding. For the sake of simplicity, we have assumed here that all the shares were repurchased at an average cost of $10 each, which means that a total of 10 million shares were repurchased and canceled by the company.

Suppose BB earned $50 million in this year as well; its EPS would now be about 56 cents ($50 million ÷ 90 million shares). If the stock continues to trade at a P/E multiple of 20, the share price would now be $11.20. The 12% stock appreciation has been entirely driven by the EPS increase, thanks to the reduction in BB’s outstanding shares.

Driving Shareholder Value

A couple of simplifications have been used here. First, EPS calculations use a weighted average of the shares outstanding over a period of time, rather than just the number of shares outstanding at a particular point. Second, the average price at which the shares are repurchased may vary significantly from the shares' actual market price. In the example above, buying back 10% of BB’s outstanding shares would quite possibly have driven up its stock price, which means that the company would end up buying back less than the 10 million shares we have assumed for its $100 million outlay.
These simplifications understate the magnified effect that consistent repurchases have on shareholder value. Companies that consistently buy back their shares can grow EPS at a substantially faster rate than would be possible through operational improvements alone. This rapid EPS growth is often recognized by investors, who may be willing to pay a premium for such stocks, resulting in their P/E multiple expanding over time. In addition, companies that generate the free cash flow required to steadily buy back their shares often have the dominant market presence and pricing power required to boost the bottom line as well.

Going back to the BB example, assume the company's P/E multiple rose to 21 (from 20), while net income grew to $53 million (from $50 million). After the buyback, BB’s stock would be trading at about $12.40 (i.e. 21 x EPS of 59 cents, based on 90 million shares outstanding) at year-end, an increase of 24% from its price at the beginning of the year.

Impact on Financial Statements

A share repurchase has an obvious effect on a company’s income statement, since it reduces its outstanding shares. But it also impacts other financial statements.

On the balance sheet, a share repurchase will reduce the company’s cash holdings, and consequently its total assets base, by the amount of the cash expended in the buyback. The buyback will simultaneously also shrink shareholders' equity on the liabilities side by the same amount. As a result, performance metrics such as return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) typically improve subsequent to a share buyback.

Companies generally specify the amount spent on share repurchases in their quarterly earnings reports. The amount spent on share buybacks can also be obtained from the Statement of Cash Flows in the “Financing Activities” section, as well as from the Statement of Changes in Equity or Statement of Retained Earnings.

Impact on Portfolios

Share repurchases can have a significant positive impact on an investor’s portfolio. For proof, one only has to look at the S&P 500 Buyback Index, which measures performance of the 100 companies in the index with the highest buyback ratio (calculated as the amount spent on buybacks in the past 12 months as a percentage of the company’s market capitalization). In the 10 years ending Nov. 8, 2013, the S&P Buyback Index had surged 158.2%, compared with a gain of 68.1% for the S&P 500, outperforming it by 90 percentage points.

What accounts for this degree of outperformance? Like a dividend increase, a share repurchase indicates a company’s confidence in its future prospects. Unlike a dividend hike, a buyback signals that the company believes its stock is undervalued and represents the best use of its cash at that time. In most cases, the company’s optimism about its future pays off handsomely over time.

Share Repurchases vs. Dividends

While dividend payments and share repurchases are both ways for a company to return cash to its shareholders, dividends represent current payoff to an investor, while share buybacks represent a future payoff. This is one reason why investor reaction to a stock that has announced a dividend increase will generally be more positive than to one announcing an increase in a buyback program.

Another difference has to do with taxation, especially in jurisdictions where dividends are taxed less favorably than long-term capital gains. Assume you acquired 100,000 shares of BB – the company mentioned in the example earlier – at $10 each, and you live in a jurisdiction where dividends are taxed at 20% and capital gains are taxed at 15%. Suppose BB was debating between using its $100 million in excess cash for buying back its shares or paying it out to shareholders as a special dividend of $1 per share. While the buyback would have no immediate tax impact on you, if your BB shares were held in a taxable account, your tax bill in the event of a special dividend payout would be quite hefty at $20,000. If the company proceeded with the buyback and you subsequently sold the shares at year-end at $11.20, the tax payable on your capital gains would still be lower at $18,000 (15% x 100,000 shares x $1.20). Note that $1.20 represents your capital gain of $11.20 minus $10 at year-end.

Overall, while share repurchases may be better for building one’s net worth over time, they do carry more uncertainty than dividend payments, since the buybacks' value depends on the stock's future price. If a company’s float has contracted by 20% over time but the stock subsequently plummets 50%, an investor would, in retrospect. prefer to have received that 20% in the form of actual dividend payments.

Capitalizing on Share Repurchases

For companies that raise dividends year after year, one needs to look no further than the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats, which includes companies in the index that have boosted dividends annually for at least 25 consecutive years. For share repurchases, the S&P 500 Buyback Index is a good starting point to identify companies that have been aggressively buying back their shares.

While most blue chips buy back shares on a regular basis – usually to offset dilution caused by the exercise of employee stock options – investors should watch for companies that announce special or expanded buybacks. For example, in October 2013, IBM (IBM) announced a $15 billion addition to its repurchase plan; with sales declining for six successive quarters, the buyback was expected to enable IBM to reach its adjusted EPS target of $20 by 2015.

“Float shrink” ETFs have also attracted a great deal of attention after a sizzling performance in 2013. The PowerShares Buyback Achievers Portfolio (PKW) is the biggest ETF in this category. The ETF invests in U.S. companies that have repurchased at least 5% of their outstanding shares over the previous 12 months, and as of March 2018, it was up 13.6% compared to a year ago. Another popular but much smaller ETF is the TrimTabs Float Shrink ETF (TTFS), which was up 8.39% as of the same date.

The Bottom Line

Share repurchases are a great way to build investor wealth over time, although they have a higher degree of uncertainty than dividends.

[fjgooner] 04/5/2018 11:40

@TWH post 2776, @Waldron post 2777:

I have calculated some approximate figures assuming that the buyback starts right at the beginning of 2018H2 and progress smoothly to the end of 2020, applies to both RDSA and RDSB, and that the share price remains static at the current price.

A massive oversimplification, but it is a least a starting point.

Start date: 01/07/2018
End date: 31/12/2020
Years: 2.5
Trading days per year: 252
Total buyback days: 630

Buyback total $ 25,000,000,000
Share price £ 26.35
Dollar conversion $ 35.5725 @$1.35
Total shares buyback 702,790,077
Per day 1,115,540

Average daily volume over the last 12 months
RDSA 5,880,000
RDSB 5,240,000
11,120,000

So this equates to an additional 10% buys per day over the period.

What affect this would have is difficult to judge.

Please read the following for guidance.

Have a great weekend in the sun,

FJ

[waldron] 04/5/2018 09:00

Total
51.98 +0.39%


Engie
14.705 +0.93%

Orange
15.1 +0.03%

FTSE 100
7,529.92 +0.36%
Dow Jones
23,930.15 +0.02%
CAC 40
5,493.99 -0.14%



BP
550.1 +1.14%


Shell A
2,555.5 +0.49%



Shell B
2,632.5 +0.67%


Brent Crude Oil NYMEX 73.48 -0.28%
Gasoline NYMEX 2.09 -0.18%
Natural Gas NYMEX 2.74 +0.22%

[la forge] 04/5/2018 07:51

HSBC new target prices for Shell and BP: they turned out to be good oil price recovery plays
Fri 4 May 2018 05:18:24 GMT
Author: Giles Coghlan | Category: News

Author: Giles Coghlan

HSBC on target prices for Shell and BP


Shell RDSb L: Raises target price to 2665p from 2640p
Shell RDSa L: Cuts target price to 2590p from 2595p
BP PLC BP.L: Raises target price to 600p from 590p


Shell and BP have seen some steady gains alongside the recovery of Oil prices. And once BP has finished with its Deepwater Horizon Bill (65 Billion dollars) it could be well placed for a decent recovery from its previous lows. It was only about 18 months ago when BP was trading at 400p a share. Currently at 543p.

[maywillow] 03/5/2018 17:37

BLOOMBERG
markets
BP Said to Tap Morgan Stanley as It Weighs Buying BHP Assets
By Dinesh Nair
, Brett Foley
, and Kelly Gilblom
3 mai 2018 à 12:23 UTC+2 Updated on 3 mai 2018 à 12:41 UTC+2



BP Plc is weighing an acquisition of some of BHP Billiton Ltd.’s energy assets as the British oil major seeks more U.S. shale, according to people familiar with the matter.

The London-based company is working with Morgan Stanley to advise on the plans, said the people, asking not to be identified as the matter is private. BP is weighing teaming up with other suitors or swapping conventional assets -- where oil and gas typically flow more easily to the surface than shale -- with BHP, they said.

No final decisions have been made and BP could decide against proceeding with a formal bid, the people said. Spokesmen for BP, BHP and Morgan Stanley declined to comment on the sale.

BHP is selling 800,000 net acres in the Eagle Ford, Permian, Haynseville and Fayetteville Basins it has said are worth at least $10 billion. It is preparing to sell those assets in up to seven packages, including three in highly-prized Permian, people familiar with the matter said this month. It’s not clear which of those assets BP wants to buy.

BP held Permian properties until 2010, when it sold a number of such assets to raise cash for expenses tied to its Gulf of Mexico oil spill. It has since considered various options for the area, “but it’s been really hard” in the past three to four years to find deals that add to earnings, Chief Financial Officer Brian Gilvary told Bloomberg News last month. The company is looking at BHP’s Permian assets, he said.

BP is working to regain the trust of shareholders, who are urging it to maintain financial discipline. The largest oil companies overspent during the days when oil was above $100 a barrel, eroding returns when prices dropped. Gilvary said funding a deal in the Permian would be “tough” within BP’s current capital constraints.

Data rooms are open and bids are due by June, the Melbourne, Australia-based mining company said last month. It could announce one or more transactions by the end of December. BHP said it’s also evaluating asset swaps, an initial public offering or potentially spinning off the division.

BHP disclosed plans to sell its onshore U.S. division last summer after activist investor Elliott Management Corp. said its foray into shale had wiped out $40 billion. The company, which spent $20 billion on two U.S. oil and gas acquisitions in 2011, said in November the divestiture process could take two years.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc is also potentially interested in BHP’s Permian basin assets, Andy Brown, its upstream director, said in an interview in February. Explorers can spend as little as $15 a barrel to drill in the Permian, the main source of the current surge in U.S. output.
Shell and Blackstone Group LP are planning a joint $10 billion bid for BHP’s U.S. assets, Sky News reported in March, citing sources it didn’t identify.

Shell already has about 280,000 net acres in the Permian, according to its website, with a sizable position near BHP’s assets in a fast-growing part of the Permian known as the Delaware Basin.

BP, which now lacks a meaningful presence in the Permian, controls 3.1 million net developed acres in other shale fields in Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, and elsewhere in the U.S. that primarily produce gas, according to its annual report.

A measure of its first-quarter profit rose to $2.59 billion, the highest since 2014, the company reported on Tuesday. That surpassed analysts’ forecasts. Its shares this week rose to their highest level since May 2010.

[waldron] 03/5/2018 17:05

Total
51.78 +0.25%


Engie
14.57 +0.10%

Orange
15.095 -0.30%


FTSE 100
7,502.69 -0.54%
Dow Jones
23,583.02 -1.43%
CAC 40
5,501.66 -0.50%

Brent Crude Oil NYMEX 73.19 +0.12%
Gasoline NYMEX 2.07 +0.10%
Natural Gas NYMEX 2.71 -1.85%




BP
543.9 -0.64%


Shell A
2,543 +0.45%



Shell B
2,615 +0.29%


FOR THE MOMENT SHELL STILL GOING WELL

PREMIUM ENDS THE DAY AT 72p

tomorrow might see a sell off it being friday and with it being a down day on Wallstreet

[waldron] 03/5/2018 13:08

PERHAPS A SILLY IDEA BUT COULD THE INCREASE IN SHELL B PREMIUM OVER SHELL A BE DUE
NOT ONLY THE DUTCH WITHHOLDING TAX CHANGES BUT TO BUY BACKS ONLY FOR SHELL B.

[waldron] 03/5/2018 13:04

Total
51.66 +0.02%


Engie
14.605 +0.34%

Orange
15.06 -0.53%

FTSE 100
7,542.49 -0.01%
Dow Jones
23,924.98 +0.00%
CAC 40
5,513.13 -0.29%




BP
548 +0.11%


Shell A
2,549.5 +0.71%



Shell B
2,626.5 +0.73%



Brent Crude Oil NYMEX 72.95 -0.21%
Gasoline NYMEX 2.07 +0.11%
Natural Gas NYMEX 2.76 -0.11%