focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Hi all
What does £7bn dividend equate to in dividend pence per RDSB share?
Many thanks
Peter
Yes, NSS, after a break for Xmas Eve and Xmas Day, Brent has been trading since late Boxing Day and has put on nearly $3 since I posted my notes about Brent at mid-day: https://invst.ly/wzq87
Oil up 3.3% and gas 7.5% as at present.....
I didn't even think they would be trading...???
The four months of November through February tend to be the seasonally weak months for OP. In early 2020 that was compounded and extended by record high inventories, a price war between OPEC+ and US Shale and the ‘last straw’ presented by Covid-19. The pattern also seems to be present for the current 2021-2022 season. The implication being that Brent may have already hit its low for the next nine months and, unless the current wave of Covid delivers an economically more disruptive outcome, Brent in 2022 could continue to average over $70 and ‘bulls’ will have a reasonable basis for anticipating even higher prices as the year progresses.
This chart covers the last eight years, the latest two of which have been disrupted by both covid and the third (or was it fourth?) US Shale ‘bust’:
https://invst.ly/wznd8 The significance of $86 is rather apparent.
As Shale producers are now largely free of the need to pump in order to service spiraling debts, the supply side of the market is surely more in control than it has been since 2014. With the lack of investment in E&P since then, continuing global demand, the ecologically counter-productive influence that ‘cheap oil’ would have and as life with covid normalises, there seems only one logical long-term direction for Brent. All of which points to the significance of $86: is it a ceiling or a likely breakout level?
As discussed many times, RDS follows Brent except when it doesn’t - and it’s the times that it doesn’t that determine the underlying sp: https://invst.ly/wznjo
(RDSb v Brent over a similar timespan). 2018 saw RDS’ all-time peak sp with Brent near $80, it has a long way to go in order to match that performance again.
Is there ever good news from Prelude?
Maybe it's in the nature of the Beast that good news= normal operations= boring news...
BP bought Savion renewable energy supplier which we knew a couple of weeks ago.
I didnt realise quite how big it is with planned production of 18 GK just in this project.
Compared to BP who plan to produced 25GW by 2025 thats pretty good...
https://csnews.com/shell-grows-renewable-power-business-new-acquisition
https://savionenergy.com/
https://thenationonlineng.net/shell-declares-force-majeure-on-forcados-crude/
Merry Christmas All....
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4476588-royal-dutch-shell-nice-extra-dividend-coming-soon
Happy holidays to all fellow shellers. Have a lovely day. Enjoy.
"The US approach, in some places, is to pay people to take the jab: I don’t approve of that but would have to concede that it’s more likely to be effective as an incentive than NHS charges."
=================================================================
The Jabbathon continues Christmas & Boxing day.....so maybe a few hesitant people will be 'encouraged' by the prospect of a mince pie or just to escape having to watch 'It's a Wonderful Life' again....in America I heard they give free beer that's more my cup of tea!!
Merry Christmas to all genuine people....extra-terrestrials excepted of course!!
Yes Boyo i noticed that too the hesitation over the last 2 days to close at or above that target this week and dismissed it due to the historical low trading volume during the festive period this week and next week, but in the New Year I will be watching the following 3 targets closely to tell me if it’s changing to Upwards.
1788.20 made on 25/10/2021 then retreating to the Low1629.40 on 03/11//2021
1704.20 made on 16/11/2021 then retreating to Lower Low 1610.20 on 19/11/2021
1660.40 made on 24/11/2021 then retreating to Lowest Low so far 1556.40 on 26/11/2021
Just like the stairs just one step at a time all the way hopefully.
Merry Christmas and Happier & Healthier New Year all.
Ah! - the balance between ‘nanny state’ and ‘personal freedom’ can keep two old dogs gnawing at the same bone indefinitely. I think we’ve past the point where prolonging this debate was useful, although we do seem to agree that mandating vaccines would be a mistake. So it’s purely about how greater take-up should be encouraged? I think that needing medical care due to covid is an adequate consequence in itself and that applying a charge at that point would be inconsistent with the role of the NHS and too late to influence the earlier choices made by affected individuals. I also think that, by that late stage, the reality of Natural Selection might not be perceived by them as a joke. The US approach, in some places, is to pay people to take the jab: I don’t approve of that but would have to concede that it’s more likely to be effective as an incentive than NHS charges.
"As someone else here said, Darwinian selection has stupidity covered."
=======================================================
I think it was a joke!
Some people have to be discouraged from behaving in certain ways for their own good and also for the good of society.
If the NHS was an unlimited resource then I would agree with you. But it has to be protected so that it can get on with tackling ailments other than covid and of course the backlog. Having 6 million people with increased risk from the virus has to be tackled by encouragement and making people aware of the consequences of their decision. Mandating vaccination would be a mistake...I am OK with increasing the 'consequences' of remaining unvaccinated. It is because I am selfish and if I have to go to A&E I want to be seen is a reasonable time (especially if it is life threatening).
"When something is ‘recommended’ (rather than mandated) then there can be no penalty for declining to do it."
================================================================
It would depend on what one means by 'penalty'.....If I choose not to follow a recommendation then there may be consequences.....whether those consequences equates to a 'penalty' is up for debate.
Even the tax system is used to encourage certain types of behaviour and discourage others without mandating things. I suppose to some tax is a penalty....but to others it is a consequence or an encouragement (depending upon POV).
Ha! Cheers Kenj.
I was joking about the cardboard but I'll give Adblock Plus a try.
I use this site on laptops and PC's (very rarely on phone) and it's noticeable how much resource it consumes on a device, as well as the irritatingly intrusive ad-content. This has recently got much worse with the video running bottom left. I now visit LSE less frequently and close the window when not actively viewing it.
I think we are chasing semantics BE, as well as shifting the subject to other behaviours - it's a slippery slope !!!
When something is ‘recommended’ (rather than mandated) then there can be no penalty for declining to do it. If the NHS were to charge some patients because they declined vaccination then this would effectively be a penalty. Being vaccinated to comply with terms and conditions of employment or to travel etc. etc. are entirely different matters, of course.
As for ill equipped numpties climbing hills etc… do we really want strict H&S legislation governing where we can go and how we dress? Accidents can happen even to the most experienced and well prepared. I think it would be a disproportionate curb on our freedoms. We need the emergency services for genuine accidents - so the cost is embedded. As someone else here said, Darwinian selection has stupidity covered.
"Speaking of annoying stuff on LSE - even more pop-ups nowadays so less than a third of my screen is now stuff I'm interested in. At least I've got a good and free pop-up blocker - a used piece of cardboard with a frame cut in it."
Boyobach,
If you want an effective and free pop up blocker, install Adblock Plus.
These people who go up into the mountains in winter wearing trainers & T-shirt, then have to get rescued by helicopters & mauntain rescue teams. The rescuers have to put themselves in danger and the cost must be huge. All because some 'numpty' had the free choice to do something stupidly risky. Give them a bill for getting rescued I say.....consequences!!
""People who jump off buildings with a parachute pay a higher insurance premium than the average person..." [Baldeagle]
Surely that only applies to optional private health insurance."
============================================================================
Boyobach, my analogy wasn't perfect. But yes, people who 'base jump' should really have private medical insurance. But thankfully there aren't 6 million people doing that sort of thing every day. If there was and the hospitals were getting clogged up with them then 'perhaps' society would be a bit 'annoyed' by their behaviour and their risky lifestyles....freely chosen!!
Looks like RDS might have some difficulty breaking above the red trend line this time around: https://invst.ly/wz44d
Closing above 1660 would be encouraging.
"Vaccines are recommended in the UK rather than mandated,..."
==========================================================
Boyobach, I don't believe I said that vaccines should be mandated. Only that there should be consequences when a person 'freely' chooses not to be vaccinated.
One of those consequences might be the ability to use scheduled flights, say if a third country demanded that arriving passengers be fully vaccinated, then it would be a 'consequence' of remanining unvaccinated. It would be a person's 'free' choice not to be able to fly to that country.
Same with the NHS....perople can remain unvaccinated but IF they get hospitalised and receive treatment they should (IMO) bear a cost for their self-imposed increased risk. No reason why the 90% of vaccinated tax-payers should fund all of that treatment and tacitly encourage their decision on vaccination. Consequences - encouragement(!) maybe - not mandation seems reasonable to me.
Same with most things in life. I can do 'almost' anything I want to do but there are consequences to each & every decision. If there are no consequences then it is a version of 'Wild West'!!
People who jump off buildings with a parachute pay a higher insurance premium than the average person...
Surely that only applies to optional private health insurance. How does that increase their personal contribution to the NHS?
I'm not aware that the NHS gets additional funding directly from individuals who engage in hazardous activities.
Regarding 'accepted norms of behaviour': We are free to act (or not act) as we choose provided we do so within the law - which is where our democratically elected law makers have responsibility. Vaccines are recommended in the UK rather than mandated, a change in that policy would be significant and require legislation. Introducing charges at the point of health treatment would be rather 'wild west'.
"As Brits do we not support ‘freedom of choice’ ?"
==================================================
We have 'freedom of choice' but only within accepted norms of behaviour....otherwise it would be the 'Wild West'!!
Smoking, junk food and alcohol are all addicitve to some extent. A legal addiction that has been normalised....so as a society we accept the consequences of that addiction. However IF there were a vaccine that reduced the risk of harmful addiction from smoking, burgers & booze I reckon the 'personal choice' argument would shift....and society in general would get a bit annoyed at paying for something that could be avoided (or the risk reduced).
Sure, they have the personal choice not to reduce their risk but there are consequences. People who jump off buildings with a parachute pay a higher insurance premium than the average person....the NHS is simply a public health insurance scheme.