Member Info for IanKellett

Wall Street Journal

Centcom has requested the deployment and the Secretary has approved it so I guess they are going

Pentagon announces it is sending 5,000 marines and (I think it says) amphibious landing capability to Middle East as an Expeditionary Force. I really hope they don't do this. in 1965 3,500 marines were landed at Danang as an Expeditionary Force, North Vietnam population 19m in 1965, Iranian population 91m. The BEF was 390,000 men and 220,000 evacuated from Dunkirk. Every time the phrase Expeditionary Force gets trotted out things seem to have the capacity to go horribly wrong. I hope someone stops this before its too late, or they might need 150,000 to rescue the 5,000.

I hope that means Total puts more resources into opening its Uganda operation faster - we can but hope - especially with oil prices where they are today.

It has been a long held tenet of RN and USN that if Iran tried to close the strait they could have it re-opened within 48 hours say, such that they believed Iran 'closing the strait' was not actually practically possible. That's why we RN had minesweepers stationed in Bahrain - but we brought them home I think it was about 18 months ago. That long held tenet has been severely called into question.

Theta, do you still feel the same way? It still feels to me as though Iran are winning the match, even though there has been massive damage to their military, their economy and loss of life. Son of Khamenei isn't regime change. The fact that Iran has proven to itself, and the world, that it can effectively close the strait even in the face of the worlds most powerful navy, is a more defining moment than killing Khamenei senior, IMHO. I reckon its now 2-1 to Iran after 30 minutes. Do you still think USA are winning?

I'm sure that's right Spights - Iran has control of the Strait if it so desires, and it does.

Maybe there will be a new definition of POSH designed specially for them - Dubai Out, Sharjah Home - DOSH - seems to sum up the operation overall

If IRCG or Iranian Navy (if there's any left) sunk 2-3 VVLC oil tankers in the straight, or rather scuttled them, which would be 'very easy' to do, it would semi-permanently block the strait entirely - that would render it too shallow for the draught of a VLCC. Job done.

I agree with you theta

Thank you for helping wobble my head and get clearer view

I wonder if USA has already lost this. They took out an 85 yo (not nice) man with not long to go, but he already named 3 potential successors to choose from, one of whom is the original Khomenei's grandson. No change there then - another 50 years of Islamic Republic. I don't see the cosmopolitan literary classes and the young women in Tehran rising against the more fundamentalist (hairy beard) types and the IRGC. USA and Israel certainly not putting troops on the ground to force the issue in a country of 90 million muslims - that lesson has been well learnt. So Iranian regime just appoints a new supreme leader and carries on and battens down the hatches. They fire drones across the gulf at Saudi and Qatar so no missile pods for USA to track down, so as to apply maximum pressure on the world economy, Trump and the FED; and Iran tells USA to Foxtrot Oscar. I do not see a solution for USA, but then betting against mossad is always a dangerous thing to do. Trump needs an off ramp here to save face, but I cannot see the Mullahs kindly providing that. Hoping that the Mullahs cave is a poor plan. Hoping the Israelis have a cunning plan for an off ramp is probably best hope. Nobody is taking a tanker through the strait whilst this plays out.

IMHO the Mullahs are 1-0 up after the first 10 minutes. Its a question of how long the USA can put up with this before limping home tail between legs, unless Israel has a cunning plan. ((Exploding islamic ayatollah headwear which has been distributed to all Iranian clerics over last 3 years by the Islamic equivalent of Gieves & Hawkes (like the pagers???)).

Can anyone foresee a civilian Iranian uprising against IRGC / regime? Can anyone see the regime waving white flag at USA? Can anyone see a decent offramp here for USA? Opinions please - I am struggling to see a positive answer.

Thank you

Thanks Meoryou. Yes I recall reading this article. I'm trying to winkle out what the major differences in their views of strategy were. Article suggests Albert wants to sell off more than Murray. Again I note the green write downs.

I have a question, or two.

It seems to me that sacking Murray overnight (I know Aussie stock exchange..) on 18th December does not look like normal smooth transition of power.

So I consider that Albert and Murray probably had a fundamental disagreement over something important, which came to a head in December.

I can see 3 things large enough that differences might be irreconcilable:

1. Selling ALL of the transition / green assets. Crystallising a massive write down and publicly recognising the error might be hard for Murray as it was his friend (Looney) and CEO when he was CFO who put it all in place. I note £4-5bn write down with the trading update. Might be a demerger as selling off units piecemeal could take ages, but a demerger is very hard, so not sure.

2. Relocate head office to USA (Houston?) and make NYSE main listing and UK minor listing such that it gets away from Takeover Panel and the Code, but also completely removes UK Government interference in any future takeover of BP. This latter point being the real reason for the relocation, which I agree is a challenge for a British company so the prize needs to be worthwhile - get Starmer and Milliband away from BP decision making. Probably rename the company too I suppose.

3. Opening of discussions with XOM.

So my questions :

a) Are there any other MAJOR issues they could have fallen out over which I cannot see

b) Which major reason above do we think most likely. I have listed 1-3 in order of likelihood in my own opinion.

Murray would have had a say in Albert's appointment initially so its hard to believe they just didn't like one another or couldn't get along.

What do people think? Is this barking up the wrong tree or should we be reading something into all this?

Thank you kindly..... Mr. Bond.

Thank you for post J Bond. In your opinion does it make sense for a holder of the equity to buy the 2026 TLW bond at the moment, as a hedge? Make 50% on the bond if all refinances with no cram down, and if there is a debt for equity swap then presumably that probably generates more than the 50% for bond holders, though not necessarily immediately? What do you think? Do you have previous similar examples, knowing that each case is of course different, that you might point us to?

I have wasted my time filing complaints to FCA previously, so will not do so, but thank you for trying to be helpful.

I suppose soon we will see massive issuance of management share options and warrants so that they are not also diluted by 120%, just we chumps, the shareholders.

Recession,

Well whatever multibag you were expecting here just went down by circa 60% as they have effectively issued 3 billion new shares on a company that had 2.5 billion yesterday, and that on top of all they have issued this year already. At this rate of share issuuance, by the time they actually extract any oil commercially the number of shares will be so high that the current share price might even be about right.

On the positive side the logic appears to be that the SP will get underpinned at 0.225p, so that might be the point to take profits. Disgraceful the way this CEO / chairman / board say that's all the equity we need and then hit it with a 120% dilution. Regulators should be looking at the company's prior announcements, but they won't.

BTW for those that do not know, this publisher of the equity 'research' is paid for by the subject company itself, entirely unlike sell side research, although the analysts views are "independent" (ish, if they want to get paid). In other words its just a company purchased advertising document to bully up the share price.

For disclosure, I am a shareholder.

Prospect of FED rate cuts presumed to boost demand side of Brent price equation. Look at $ today - same cause.

Getafgrip,

I just cannot see Shell standing toe to toe with XOM. XOM's EBITDA multiple is way higher than Shell's and if equity is the main acquisition currency for each of them (personally I think they would both use some leverage and some equity) it already makes BP 30-50% more expensive for Shell - that ain't a fair fight. Sawan and his shareholders will not stand toe to toe in that fight because its not an even fight, never mind the absolute market caps and so % of new equity they would each have to issue (which is actually a separate point, though it may appear the same). Shell's share price would collapse were such a takeover battle to ensue vs XOM for BP, making things even worse. Shell would have to walk away under shareholder pressure and Sawan would lose his job.

If it were Biden as POTUS I think 2TK might/could/would(?)/should(?) back Shell and tell XOM to sod off. But there is no way on God's green Earth that 2TK is saying that to DJT.

So whilst in M&A one can never say never, yes I think I personally am ruling out Shell as a counter bidder to XOM - they just don't have the muscle or the nuts, and Shell have already ruled themselves out as a bidder in isolation.

However, I hope I am wrong and Shell drives up the bid price for XOM, but first and more importantly I am just praying that it is us that XOM are lining themselves up for not some other substantial acquisition - it's hard to know from where I am sitting.