If this place is for rumours-heard this rumour from someone from someone. Any legs to this? Who would it even be?
16 replies (most recent on top)
@21e
Doesn't Shell buy acreage from Tourmaline at high price then sell it back to them at low price ... or do we sell it to them at a low price let them operate for 5-10 years and buy back at a higher price.
@ft that would be Tourmaline, in classic Shell repetitive fashion.
15 bln loonies. That a little over $37.
Genuine thankful post here considering current state of reorgs. I am pleasantly surprised someone knows who Criterion is but we're still around! We rebranded as Shell Catalysts & Technologies about 7 years ago. As poster mentioned, we're a low volume but good margin business. A rounding error compared to DW business and nothing impressive to YL I'm sure. But agree with you, after the rebrand went into effect we were inundated with overhead costs that seem disproportionately burdensome compared to any perceived value of carrying the pecten. Refining industry globally considered the Criterion brand strong. We didn't need the pecten. Moving into downstream next year will be interesting.
Wait, here's the solution. Every year Shell buys $14 billion of its own shares and cancels them. Shell's market cap is ~$200 billion. That means that annually they buy up 7% of the company and raise the dividend by 4%. This allows Shell to shrink by 3.25% annually and mask the decreasing profit while still paying and " increasing the dividend" even though the total amount of dividend goes down.
See share buy backs are Shell's shell game. It is a lying cheat. Ask yourself would you rather have $2.86 per ADS share increasing at 4% per year or $7.86 per share and have that declining by 7% per year until Shell hires better leadership. For those who aren't math inclined, you'd be better off with the 7.87 declining for the next 9 years, but it would take 17 years for the $2.86 to come to parity of the total amount paid. Stop the share buy back, we're all losing money.
I agree with all the points. My issue is despite all the layoffs and restructuring nothing has changed. I also agree 🐳 would love to gut the company and transform them to an investment firm … however, all that access and ability to trade crude disappears pretty quickly as the company’s production base drops, no investment firm generates the revenue Shell does (Goldman is 50MM vs Shell 300MM, and Shell could not compete with Goldman in that space. Quite the conundrum, you want the golden eggs, but really really want Foie gras for dinner 🤔
🐳 will get what 🐳 wants.
Don’t rush to the exits y’all!
It’s a Shell cultural thing, always fumbling the ball on working and sweating assets. Anyone remember the acquisitions of Morrison Molded Fiberglass, Criterion Catalysts, etc.? Niche entrepreneurial businesses with return making products. What does SOC do? Go in and smother them with allocated overheads and corporate processes. Result? Sold off at losses. Shell’s ongoing mantra: You’ve got to spend money to lose money.
Shell has way too much process to be an efficient operator. YL knows this and his vision is for shell to be an investor and non op partner where possible.
@hh
Post ID: @hh+1jx13g9wq
Thank you, that is a fair point that Shell was hardly able to make significant profit on some of the most prolific acreage. But the same holds true for all of Shell's unconventional acreage. If they couldn't do it with good Permian, and haven't been doing it in the Montney.... what they really need to do is to be the non-operating partner on an asset. Buying something is a mistake for Shell, buying into something well that might not be a mistake, except that nobody sells their best stuff without being in a dire situation, (except Shell, Shell sells good acreage for 50-90% off just to have it off the books) Appalachia sold for 10% of the $ invested. Aera sold for less than the profit we made operating it in the handover period, so Shell wrote them a check to take it! ( Yes, I know Aera was a steam drive not the unconventionals that are fracced) Permian sold for half of the P50 NPV, the existing NFA wells have already paid for the purchase. The Argentina Vaca Muerta, that remains to be seen how that will play out, but it is problematic getting oil and money out of Argentina.
Not necessarily. While you may not agree with the Permian divestment the reality is that SHELL could not make money of it. It was barely cash flow positive (barely) at the end and oil prices have not skyrocketed since.
Now why can another company make bank while Shell can’t ….
Simple. They ain’t Dutch
A company with a large footprint in montney around GP and NE BC montney
Lng phase 2 needs gas
Wow, that'd have to produce like 1.6X the production that we made from the Permian, which was producing 300MBBL/day.... so on the order of 475 MBBL/day... And could you imagine if it had room for 12,000 more unconventional wells to boot. Unless Shell is doing something inconsistent and stupid. Wait, the only place that's like the Permian is the Permian... Never mind, this would just be Shell doing something stupid, you can't use logic to explain either crazy or stupid.
all of the rumors of buying plays in the americas seem ridiculous when you realize how recently we divested from them and shrank any remaining offices
Would have to be a pure Montney focus right? After selling out of everything else just to rebuy into other plays?Arc maybe… ovintiv montney wouldn’t be 15bln would it?
Chris Wright at the US Department of Energy is probably leading a special acquisition team as a non-military strike in advance of the US takeover of Canada. Far fetched? Just wait. Sad.