Thread regarding Shell Oil layoffs

BP merger was actually a possibility

Interesting article explaining that Greg Gut, our former M&A chief pitched the idea of acquiring BP to Wael and Sinead. Wael shot it down of course but Andrew McKenzie was interested. Greg left after being shot down. Article makes some interesting points about where we’re lacking. I’m not in the upstream side so happy to yield to anyone with real insight about our reserves. Sharing because I thought the BP rumors were simply that. Turns out was a real possibility.

https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/edbd2278-e222-4570-85bd-da8de3548a1a


by
| 1411 views | | 7 replies (last December 17) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kcjtwnap

7 replies (most recent on top)

What shareholder returns? Little dividend per quarter and stock this whole year did nothing.

Waste of your money this stock, shareholders now know.

Pls WS make it go up so we can all can sell it with some profit. Plenty of companies left to provide 'clean' energy to the world. It's just commodity.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gw+1kcjtwnap

@dc
Couldn’t have said it better. And it is literally backed up by the article.

Not making any large acquisitions so that the shareholder returns continue at 50% and thus ensuring there won’t be a company left in the long term

Hope shareholders like losing money in the long term because their shares won’t be worth much after Wael leaves

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @e3+1kcjtwnap

“Wael has focused on cutting costs and ensuring that it can consistently return 40-50 per cent of its operating cash flow to shareholders.“

40 to 50% returns…. To shareholders.

His plans:

  • keep oil production flat
  • only grow gas by 1% a year
  • no large acquisitions that can rock shareholder returns at 50%
  • If oil goes below 30 (which is expected to in 2026, maybe a small acquisition

And our oil production is on track to drop by 55% in a decade or so unless we replenish our resource base

Returns to the shareholders at the expense of the company’s existence

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @e2+1kcjtwnap

Buying bp was just a deal for a lazy ceo, BUT Wael is even lazier - why go through that pressure when you can waste any cash on share buy backs and guarantee your bonus AND the long term decline of a the company you don’t care about

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @dc+1kcjtwnap

Yeah, no sh-t. WSJ isn't some rag, even in today's world where whoever lies the loudest wins. There is something known as a "hang out", it's when the truth leaks, the liars admit to only the narrowest sliver of truth, hang someone out to take the fall, and insist that the housecleaning is all done. Don't be surprised if Murray "Lying Cockroach" Auchincloss and all the bullsh-t artists we work for got all the way to 3d base.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d3+1kcjtwnap

So we are running this race to be a relevant energy company in 10 years time. We aren’t the best, but we sure don’t need to get a partner and try to run a three legged race at this point. We’ve passed quite a few hydration stations (deals) thinking we see a better one down the road. At some point we will collapse on the course.. we’ve got a couple years before that. Patience for a few more quarters - then panic.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @c5+1kcjtwnap

BPs portfolio adds no value. It would also involve re-entering areas we have exited recently.

It would not help the goal of maintaining liquid draw while upping gas production 1% a year. It would not offer much in the way of bolt on which is what Wael wants.

Their debt is awful.

At best we would take pieces of them, not acquire or merge.

This is a copium rumor that hasn’t been updated for the modern state of BP and Shell held up by clueless BP employees who want a life line and analysts who want to trend.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bz+1kcjtwnap

Post a reply

: