We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Watermark Glb. | WET | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 0.09 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.09 | 0.09 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 30/1/2019 10:35 by florenceorbis ExxonMobil and Shell lead as counterparts lag on EPA's first methane rollback proposalBy EDF Blogs / Bio / Published: January 29, 2019 By Ben Ratner and Rosalie Winn Methane emissions from the American oil and gas industry waste valuable resources, accelerate climate change and severely cloud the credibility of natural gas in the low carbon transition. Unfortunately, Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has proposed to weaken standards limiting pollution from new and modified oil and gas facilities. Companies across the value chain with a stake in the future of gas have an incentive to urge continued—and enhanced—natio ExxonMobil calls for continued EPA methane regulation Importantly, ExxonMobil filed comments with EPA noting the company’s support for “federal regulatory standards to mitigate methane emissions for both new and existing source oil and gas facilities,” and urging EPA to “continue&rdqu Although EDF strongly disagrees with the API comments, Exxon deserves recognition for becoming the first company to call for continued EPA methane regulation. This aspect of Exxon’s comments supports its prior public commitment to advocate for methane regulation (BP, Chevron, Equinor and Shell are among those who have made the identical commitment) and position Exxon as an important voice against rollbacks in 2019 and beyond. ExxonMobil and Shell lead as counterparts lag on EPA rollbacks Shell supports continuation of twice-yearly leak inspections With EPA proposing to weaken leak detection and repair frequency, Shell explained that from its experience, “a continuation of semiannual survey frequency is reasonable for the reduction of fugitive emissions from…affected sources.” By supporting continued twice yearly inspections, Shell showed leadership in becoming the only operator to oppose proposed EPA changes that would immediately increase emissions. However, Shell stopped short of ExxonMobil by remaining quiet on the underlying need for continued federal regulation of methane, while noting its comments are intended to “complement&rd Other companies miss the mark While some companies stepped up, others supported even more substantial rollbacks or stayed silent, letting lobbying from their trade associations’ lowest common denominator speak for them. BP comments focused on innovative alternatives for compliance with leak detection standards, while largely ignoring the administration&rsquo Other companies actively supported EPA’s proposed rollback and even more environmentally damaging actions. For instance, in its comments, Chevron urged EPA to adopt weaker standards, calling for EPA to implement “no more than an annual frequency for leak detection surveys.” Chevron asserted that increasing emissions with fewer inspections is an “appropriate tradeoff.” And other companies with positive methane commitments, like Equinor, remained silent in the comment period, effectively allowing API to speak for them. As the administration reportedly considers eliminating EPA regulation of methane for the oil and gas sector, companies like ExxonMobil and Shell have an opportunity to build on their initial leadership and support a responsible regulatory environment for climate and the future of American natural gas. Their upstream peers and companies across the value chain should join the call before it is too late. |
Posted at 26/9/2018 13:13 by sarkasm Climate risk reporting lacks financial impact analysisThe majority of companies are reporting information about climate-related risks and opportunities, but few disclose the financial impact of climate change on the company, according to an impact study by the task force on climate-related financial disclosures (TCFD) 26 Sep 2018 Pat Sweet Pat Sweet Reporter, Accountancy Daily, published by Croner-i Ltd View profile and articles. Its status report provides an overview of the extent to which companies in their 2017 reports included information aligned with the core TCFD recommendations published in June 2017. The report also provides information to support preparers of disclosures in implementing the TCFD recommendations. The TCFD surveyed disclosures of over 1,700 firms from diverse sectors with broad geographical representation. It found that the majority of the firms surveyed disclose information aligned with at least one of the TCFD recommended disclosures. However, while many companies describe climate-related risks and opportunities, only a small number report on the likely financial impact of these. A minority of companies disclose forward-looking climate targets or the resilience of their strategies under different climate-related scenarios, including a 2°C or lower scenario, which is a key area of focus for the task force. The study also revealed that disclosures vary widely across industries. For example, more non-financial companies reported their climate-related metrics and target than did financial companies. However, financial companies were more likely to disclose how they had embedded climate risk into overall risk management. Disclosures are often made in sustainability reports or spread across financial filings, annual and sustainability reports, the research found. The TCFD, which was established by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), said it was encouraged that a majority of companies were making disclosures aligned with one or more of its recommendations, given the limited amount of time available to organisations to take these onboard. Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England and FSB chair, said: ‘Today’s announcement shows that climate-disclosure is becoming mainstream. ‘The TCFD’s status report based on companies’ 2017 financial filings, demonstrates the practical, decision-useful nature of the recommendations. ‘As preparers, financial institutions and investors “learn by doing”, a virtuous cycle will be created where more and better information creates the imperatives for others to adopt the TCFD and for everyone to up their game on the quality of information they provide.’ In the report, the TCFD says that over the next nine months, the task force will continue to promote and monitor adoption of its recommendations and will prepare a second status report for the FSB in mid-2019. The report stated: ‘The task force believes the success of its recommendations depends on continued, widespread adoption by companies in the financial and non-financial sectors. ‘Through widespread adoption, climate-related risks and opportunities will become a natural part of companies’ risk management and strategic planning processes. ‘As this occurs, companies’ and investors’ understanding of the financial implications associated with climate change will grow, information will become more useful for decision making, and risks and opportunities will be more accurately priced, allowing for the more efficient allocation of capital.’ The TCFD announced that the number of firms supporting its recommendations has grown to over 500, with market capitalisations of over $7.9 trillion, and including financial firms responsible for assets of nearly $100 trillion. This compares with 100 firms when the recommendations were launched in June 2017. Report by Pat Sweet |
Posted at 09/3/2018 22:25 by grupo Statoil, Total, Shell prove precocious in weaning from oilCassandra Sweet Friday, March 9, 2018 - 2:15am Oil companies are responding in different ways to growing pressure to cut the carbon output of their operations and products. ShutterstockMakhnach S Oil companies are responding in different ways to growing pressure to cut the carbon output of their operations and products. When it comes to addressing climate change, oil companies are all over the map. Meeting this week in Houston at CERAWeek, the world’s biggest oil and gas conference, the world’s biggest oil companies talked about oil and climate change — sometimes in the same sentence. But while European oil majors such as Statoil and Total spoke about their long-term plans to shift their focus away from oil, toward natural gas and renewable energy, in line with the global transition to a low-carbon economy, their American counterparts appeared less convinced that demand for oil will diminish in future decades. Amid growing international concerns about climate change and extreme weather events, such as destructive hurricanes, wildfires and droughts that scientists have started linking to global warming, the oil industry is under increasing pressure from investors to take action by adding low-carbon products and services to their businesses. "The big debate in the industry and among investors is: Is there a role for the (oil) industry to play in a low-carbon transition?" said Andrew Logan, director of oil and gas at Ceres. "Do they bring anything other than cash to the table? That’s very much an open question." Is there a role for the oil industry to play in a low-carbon transition? Total plans to shift its focus from oil to natural gas and to expand into electricity, including renewables such as solar power and battery storage, which the company is already invested in, said Patrick Pouyanné, the company’s chairman and chief executive. "If we’re able to shift all the coal-fired power plants to gas-fired power plants, we would be immediately on the 2-degree roadmap that the Paris Agreement is calling for," he added, speaking at CERAWeek in a session that was webcast. "In 20 years, Total will be first a gas and oil company, with some assets in alternative energies." In 20 years, Total will be first a gas and oil company, with some assets in alternative energies. Statoil plans to shift as much as 20 percent of its capital investments into renewables and low-carbon products by 2030. The company has invested about $2.6 billion in renewables in the last several years, particularly in offshore wind farms. Royal Dutch Shell plans to cut its carbon footprint in half by 2050 by expanding into renewable energy and scaling back growth in oil and gas. Shell has the right idea, climate mitigation experts say. Oil and gas companies must cut the carbon emissions intensity of their products by 40 percent to 60 percent by 2050, Cynthia Cummins, a climate expert at the World Resources Institute, wrote in February. The world can afford a limited amount of emissions to avoid a global temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius, she added. That means that absolute carbon emissions from all global energy use needs to fall by 63 percent, and absolute emissions from oil and gas products must fall by 35 percent to 60 percent. Some U.S. oil company executives who appeared at CERAWeek seemed skeptical of this scenario. In ConocoPhillips' climate plan, the company describes plans to cut emissions from its operations, by boosting efficiency, plugging leaks and cutting back on gas flaring. But there is little mention of boosting investment in renewable energy, scaling back oil operations or taking other actions that would reduce the company's exposure to oil and petroleum products. "We’ve never denied the science; we want to debate the policy," Ryan Lance, the company’s chairman and chief executive, said during an appearance at CERAWeek that was webcast. He added that the company plans to reduce its greenhouse-gas intensity over the next 15 to 20 years. We’ve never denied the science, we want to debate the policy. ExxonMobil in February acknowledged the threat of climate change, but predicted that global greenhouse-gas emissions will continue rising until 2040, as oil and natural gas is produced to meet more than half the world’s energy demand, with oil providing the largest share, due to strong demand from the commercial transportation and chemical industries. Exxon released the information as part of a report on energy and carbon, in response to a shareholder resolution that sought climate disclosures about how technology advances and global climate change policies would affect the company. Meanwhile, the pressure to change continues. Exxon and other oil companies are defending themselves in lawsuits brought by local and state governments that are making their way through the courts. New York City, San Francisco and other cities are suing Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Shell and BP to recover the costs of protecting their cities from climate change impacts such as rising sea levels that the cities argue are the result of decades of greenhouse gases from making and burning petroleum fuels. New York state is separately suing Exxon over accusations that the company misled investors about how it accounts for climate change impacts on its business. It’s unclear what effect the lawsuits might have. But policy changes in other parts of the world are sending a clear message. Among the clearest was an announcement the World Bank made in December that it won’t finance any upstream oil and gas projects after 2019. Instead, the bank plans to focus on providing financing in "transformational areas" such as energy efficiency, solar power and resilience, as part of efforts to help countries meet their climate goals under the Paris Agreement. |
Posted at 17/2/2018 11:37 by the grumpy old men BP and Shell ‘dragging feet on climate change’Oct 28, 2017 Jonny Bairstow Sustainability & Environment, Low Carbon, Markets & Finance, Top Stories 0 Image: Tonktiti / Shutterstock / JuliusKielaitis BP and Shell is putting shareholder capital at risk by “dragging their feet” on climate change. That’s the claim from non-profit investment campaign ShareAction, which says both energy giants are failing to properly adapt their business models to the ongoing transition to a low carbon economy. That’s in contrast to another new report claiming climate change is now embedded in the strategies of businesses across Europe, including Shell. ShareAction recommends shareholders to escalate engagements with boards and management at both companies. It also suggests investors should press the firms to provide analysis on the resilience of assets, outline plans for reducing total lifecycle emissions and disclose their position on upcoming climate legislation in the markets they operate in. The group says failing to adapt to policies encouraging renewables and the reduced use of fossil fuels risks the savings of millions of savers, especially in the UK where exposure to Shell and BP in pension portfolios is especially high. Michael Chaitow, Senior Campaigns Officer at ShareAction, said: “Shell and BP want to have their oil and drink it too, by advocating for the landmark Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rises to below two degrees Celsius, while planning for scenarios that would violate it.” A spokesperson for BP told ELN: “BP intends to play our part in meeting the dual challenge of shifting to a lower carbon future while providing reliable energy to a growing world population. Shell declined to comment on the report specifically but said: “Shell’s position on climate change is well known.” BP, Low Carbon, Oil & Gas, Shell, climate change, global warming, investment |
Posted at 13/12/2017 17:18 by waldron AXA SA (CS.FR) said Tuesday that it would accelerate its commitment to fight climate change by increasing its green investments to 12 billion euros ($14.1 billion).The insurer, which had committed in 2015 to reach EUR3 billion in green investments by 2020, said that it's quadrupling the original target, given that it has already reached it. "A +4°C world is not insurable. As a global insurer and investor, we know that we have a key role to play," said Chief Executive Thomas Buberl, adding that in the spirit of the Paris Agreement, the company wants to accelerate its commitment and confirm its leadership in the fight against global warming. AXA said that it would also divest more than EUR3 billion from carbon-intensive energy producers. In 2015, the company had decided to divest EUR500 million from the coal industry, a figure that it has decided to increase fivefold to EUR2.4 billion. In addition, it will divest EUR700 million from the main oil sands producers and associated pipelines, and said that it will stop further investments in these businesses. It would be inconsistent to commercially support industries that the group is divesting from, the company said, adding that it will stop insuring any new coal construction projects. Similarly, it will stop insuring the main oil sands and the associated pipeline businesses. AXA and the International Finance Corporation are launching an innovative $500 million partnership to support climate-related infrastructure projects in emerging countries with private sector funding, it said. No investments in coal and oil sands related projects will be made. "The fight against climate change requires engagement in a global collective action. This can be done through collaborations and partnerships, and also by leading by example," Mr. Buberl added. Write to Marc Bisbal Arias at marc.bisbalarias@dow (END) Dow Jones Newswires December 12, 2017 05:03 ET (10:03 GMT) |
Posted at 11/4/2013 12:02 by colinmc1971 News flow around this share has always been limited, to be fair to WET this has not always been their fault and was due to the lack of activity and decision making within the SA Govt, however they have played their part in the decline. Everyone looks at this share and sees the time it went over 1p a few years back and look for it to return to these levels. What they forget is it went to this level due to huge and imminent prospects of achieving contracts around AMD which at the time never happened, which caused this share to plummet overnight back to 0.5 and then gradually back to current levels.Within this time WET has consolidated it's business, has sold its main asset WUC while maintaining an outside interest in this and alongside MRI its position has changed.IMO this share has good prospects ongoing with future business established through MRI dealings. It is also currently extremely undervalued at its current price and represents an excellent investment opportunity with substantial returns possible for investors.I agree support is waning however this is due to people looking for other investment opportunities that are more imminent and requiring cash for this. When solid news flow comes here, as we have seen in the past, this share will be heavily invested and should increase significantly from current levels. IMO for a new investor here, this ain't gonna go any lower than 0.1 and from this level you could easily double or triple your initial investment (if not more) over the coming months, with little or no chance of any losses as long as you keep a close eye on news flow.If AMD contacts are granted 1p plus is back on the cards.GLA. |
Posted at 11/4/2013 09:04 by willie33 Thanks Colin for your opinion, Glad to see there are still some investors, but looks like interest is waning. |
Posted at 12/3/2013 13:56 by willie33 Yes, like waiting for paint to dry. They don't like keeping investors informed do they. Looks as though next RNS will be briquetting news in april. |
Posted at 10/1/2013 20:16 by adnatrob ReddevonNot sure what you are expecting on Monday? But if its news on whether MRI have managed to sell the loan stock to investors I would not be overly optomistic.If they have failed again to convince investors to buy into the business plan, then whatever the story is from the company, it will further re-enforce my opinion that the business case is not attractive to investors.Lets see what happens! |
Posted at 13/9/2012 10:55 by adnatrob The facts are that MRI failed to place the stock with investors in order to complete the cash part of the sale agreement to WET.Having had a few months extension they have only managed to place (up to) 25% of the stock. Clearly, in my opinion, the business case is not attractive to investors. The revenue numbers for the briquetting project for years 2013 and 2014, again in my opinion are paltry. Are new investors wary of this and expect more funding to be required to progress the project? We have yet to hear from WET regarding their future strategy. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
