Member Info for Boyobach

I was referring to a new high in today's 'recovery from 2020' context, Tantalum, ie post the 2020 crash, which the chart included for clarity.
For those interested in the influence of OP, then it seems that Shell is increasing at just under 2/3rds the pace of Brent - so a 14% rise in Brent this week has added about 9% to Shell.
https://invst.ly/xqvfz

With Shell hitting a new high today it’s interesting to see that Brent was about $10 higher last time Shell’s sp was in this neighbourhood (March 8th). So Shell has definitely strengthened against Brent over the last couple of weeks. https://invst.ly/xqlp6 and, by the same token, is catching up with Chevron, as are XOM and BP also, leaving Total limping slightly behind.

So, will Shell maintain the push towards 2100 - not forgetting the gap to 2130 - and parity with 2019’s pre-covid, pre-price-war base line? It would be quite something, given the divi is still only half what it was back then.
https://invst.ly/xqlwt .
2400 might still be a long way off, especially if Shell settles in the 1930-2130 range for a while.

I agree Getagrip - all good points, rather better considered than some of the others on this thread.
The UK Govt need to partner with energy companies in a meaningful and productive way in order to reduce dependence on Russia and also expedite effective transition strategies. I think Ben Van B is generally steering a steady course - I'd rather see investment in Cambo than in fracking, for example.

??A windfall cannot be looked at on a specific narrow window of convenience…..

As a shareholder I would like to be able to agree but I think you miss the point by using the word 'convenience'. Any law will not rely on convenience and will be precise. So a windfall SHOULD be looked at on the basis of a specific and narrow definition, probably, in this case, based upon OP which is artificially high currently due to a war situation and the consequential restrictions on supply from Russia. These are unforeseen global events beyond Shell’s control, from which Shell will have made unexpected profits - ie a windfall.

In contrast, the oil price in 2020 was forced to an artificially low level by market activity - specifically the OPEC+ price war. That was not an unexpected ‘force majeure event’ but something that Shell, as a commercial entity should have anticipated as a risk and dealt with competently. Any additional losses due to the covid impact on the business were a separate matter and, whilst they may provide some mitigation, Shell probably received government assistance at the time to offset their impact.

In short, the current supply shortfall caused by western government policies cannot be equated with the oversupply that was engineered by OPEC+ in 2020 in order to stifle US shale production.

Had you previously elected to receive your dividend in $ ? If so, I guess that's because you've missed the deadline to change your election back to GBP (March 4th)? I'm with ii and have always received my dividend in GBP.
This is from the Shell website:
Absent any valid election to the contrary, shareholders (both holding in certificated and uncertificated form (CREST members)) and persons holding their shares through the Shell Corporate Nominee will receive their dividends in pounds sterling. The pound sterling and euro equivalent dividend payments will be announced on March 14, 2022.

Licker’s target is worth a close look. Bearing in mind that past performance is no guide to future movements, price trends simply give a range that can be expected if progress is maintained. Even then they are a range, typically of about 10% over a few months, so they are not useful for pinpointing dates - rather the likelihood of a target getting reached within a broad period. But 2400 will be on many people’s minds as a target for the simple reason that it was a good support level through Shell’s best sp years to date ie 2018-2019.
From a simplistic pov, 2400 is within this year’s blue trend range here: https://invst.ly/xprr6 and it’s tempting to think that it will be reached in Q4. But that would be ignoring a few things - not least the fact that Shell’s sp, along with other oil co’s, has become quite deaf to variations in OP - the sensitivity dial has been turned down since Brent went over $100. Here’s how oil companies have responded to Brent since the start of this month, when Brent was $98: https://invst.ly/xprt0 . So, for now at least, Brent isn’t a strong driver. There’s a lot of uncertainty (windfall tax gossip, possible N Sea investment, etc etc) and there’s not much sign of a significant dividend policy change. So it’s rather hard to see what might drive the sp to the upper edge of the blue trends. I personally think dividend news would bring 2400 more comfortably within range - I think complete restoration of dividend would punch the lights out by bringing Shell closer to Chevron in this chart of Shell and CVX against Brent: https://invst.ly/xps1a not that I necessarily think that’s what the company should do

A simple read-across from this chart of Shell v Brent shows that on Feb 3rd, Shell’s sp was about the same as today with Brent at $91, that’s quite a discrepancy. If they were tracking similarly today then Shell would be in the region of 2280
https://invst.ly/xou6t

Ha! Any resemblance between the Brent trace and the Hogwarts Sorting Hat is probably indicative of the usefulness of this post.

Cheers Pokerchips, Valueplay - good points and appreciated. ATB

Agreed Pokerchips. But what new elements have made OCDO less favourable as an investment than it was in 2019?. On-line buying and the demand for automated goods handling hasn’t decreased since 2019 has it? Would you favour a split in the business to separate the grocery and tech elements?

Before the pandemic, OCDO was valued by the market in the 1040-1400 range. Today the market has effectively reset OCDO to within this base pre-pandemic range - a lower limit it reached and has held since its 2018 FY results. The market has notably not taken it below that level today. So, unless OCDO’s tech and retail divisions have failed to maintain sufficient progress, balance and cashflows to justify it, today’s sp, first achieved nearly four years ago and consistently held for the twelve months prior to the covid demand bubble, would not immediately appear to represent an overvaluation unless the market was very wrong about OCDO throughout 2019 .
https://invst.ly/xos9u

Here's that COP v Shell chart, Nightpusher - I've included brent in it. https://invst.ly/xoic5
My understanding is that US Shale has some challenges in terms of ramping up in light of the unexpected turn around in demand caused by the 'ban' on Russian oil. This article touches on some of the issues: https://uk.investing.com/analysis/how-oil-could-hit-200-and-beyond-part-ii-200513158
ATB

Today’s Shell sp performance was weaker than I hoped. Although the latest green trend survived and the red was broken, it's not entirely out of the woods. For as one trend dies another takes over (red dashed line): https://invst.ly/xoh4c . It would be good to see it consistently above the next blue ie 1960+.
It’s not easy to do a ‘level playing field’ comparison between companies - the choice of rebase point can easily give a misleading impression. This next one, a 15 minute ‘real time’ view of Brent v the majors, is rebased to the LSE close on 4th March, after the Russia ‘disconnection’ business statements from both Shell and BP: https://invst.ly/xoh1y
It surprised me because Shell and BP come out top over this particular period although it probably just reflects a greater sensitivity to OP amongst the US companies.

Hi Nightpusher - I'll have a look at the Conoco comparison. Glad G's divi offered some reward for those who've stuck with it.

You may be right about the longer term, Chilting, but I’m not convinced there’s much shorter term correlation between CWR and O&G prices, other than their underlying reflection of the market as a whole. This is CWR against Brent and Natural Gas over the last couple of months. https://invst.ly/xo91-
CWR has obviously encountered resistance at 800 and it remains to be seen if the blue trend, which represents the upward ‘recovery’ pressure since late February has enough momentum to keep going. I rather suspect that, having normalised with the CELS index after January’s sharp fall, it might level out for a while. I’m hoping I’m wrong about that.

The usual mistaken impression about charts is that they are predictive. Whilst it’s true that they indicate what might be expected if things (trends) continue, their real usefulness is when they indicate that things are changing because the price has broken out of a given path. Like monarchs, when one trend dies the next one takes over. The green (upward pressure) here has had a few iterations (I’ve only shown four) because it keeps being challenged and beaten by downward pressure (red). Their latest battle was probably decided today: https://invst.ly/xo1b3 Green looks certain to win after today’s bounce off the 1880 support area, provided OP doesn’t shove a spanner in the works. The 15’ view spells it out more clearly: https://invst.ly/xo27c . It may seem a minor skirmish for LTH’s but the main question is whether there’s still enough upward pressure to test 2060 again? It’ll be the fourth attempt at reaching 2100.

Yes indeed Getagrip, LittleAston.
The only comment I'd make is that I don't think paying down existing debt (as per LittleAston) would 'hide' excess profits- I'm pretty sure that that there'd be some auditing process to identify the extra profit associated with the conflict and offset by losses incurred from disassociation from Russian entities. It'a all probably been thrashed out in principle already, of course. Refraining from the imposition of windfall taxes would be a good government 'carrot and stick' to get North Sea projects etc etc going and basically in everyone's best interests.

It is interesting how people will invariably frame arguments to fit with their own political perspective. In the instance of Russia, many people overlook the fact that Putin, and Yeltsin before him, are right of communism and are not leftist in the conventional sense. Many, with some justification, would describe Putin as fascist. I would simply say that he is a corrupt capitalist - he has concentrated power in the hands of a small, elite and very wealthy group of individuals whilst restoring the state’s control that grew out of communism and was dismantled under Gorbachev. In reference to Blair, he was a centrist rather than leftist and not far removed from many tories - who supported him during the Iraq war.
On ‘windfall tax’ it’s clear that, as Jim says, there’s a misunderstanding amongst some here about what constitutes a windfall. Profits from the present conflict cannot be directly compared to all the losses suffered in 2020. The op collapse during early 2020 was primarily caused by a commercial price war between OPEC and US Shale. Separately, Shell, amongst many corporations, would have received government bailouts for furlough etc etc. during covid - which was a separate contemporaneous event. Excessive profits resulting from the current international conflict could undoubtedly be considered as a windfall.

Whilst Shell was comfortably tracking Brent up to 7th Feb, it has been travelling in the opposite direction since then: https://invst.ly/xnhfs
Leading to the rather obvious conclusion that the spike in Brent has masked what would otherwise have been a deeper pullback in sp from that 2075p peak.
12 month view of same chart: https://invst.ly/xnhnj

But did that interview damage Shell's image ? I think not. Quite the reverse.
There's obviously an interesting polarisation of views about energy transition amongst shareholders here.
However, we all have a choice and if we don't like Shell's policies we are free to invest in a pure E&P outfit or XOM or CVX - I know which one of those I'd go for if I had to choose. Regarding splitting Shell, then those who would stick around through all the prior uncertainty and potential fall in sp might get to vote. I very much doubt that I'd stay for that: my observation is that two legs ordinarily work better than one in a race, especially if there are hurdles involved.
The 'profits' thing is interesting because , whilst cyclical arguments were justified up to the point of war in Ukraine , they do not apply to the situation that has now arisen because it is not part of the normal supply-demand cycle. If we see excess profits resulting from wartime sanctions causing massive pump prices, transportation, energy and food costs etc. , then the justification for a windfall tax will become very strong indeed and investors should be alert to the possibility - which is probably why the sp hasn't tracked that of the US companies as OP rocketed this month. I also think that if the sanctions war between the West and Russia isn't resolved by the end of Q3 at the latest, then rationing of some essentials could be required and fuel could conceivably be one of them, especially if inventories are weak going into winter. There'd be no chance of society going through all that whilst Big Oil walks away with massive opportunistic profits.

No probs Andy.
I'm positive about CWR but I don't think it is a dead cert - all investments need to be risk assessed in my view. I never pay attention to blind enthusiasm on bulletin boards.
So I don't think you are wrong to be cautious. The last couple of months have seen the market test CWR's valuation and we'd be stupid to ignore the fact. My advice would be stay alert and have a plan regarding your personal exposure and loss limits.