Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
Murray isn't an accountant.
Frankly, leaving Snoozebury wouldn't be a bad thing (ICBT = International Control Bu&&ering Thingsup) but when Westlake is the alternative, how would that be better??
The reason Rumaila flares the gas is because ROO does not have the gas contract. That was given to Shell.
I wonder if Cliff D’Arcy of Fool is a distant relative of Knox D'Arcy?
I'd agree, putting the ups & downs of the oil price over the past 15 years (three very low lows, two about $40 and one -ve!) bp has not done itself any favours. First Macondo and then the loony Looney lurch into marginal activities, but now we see strong fundamentals for oil (ICE beating EV hands down, air travel booming, ocean freight and plastics / chemicals too) and for gas the demand to feed AI data centres will add another India of power consumption onto the market in the next 5 years. As long as bp has no more blowouts, avoids lecherous and lying Irishmen spinning yarns about 10% margins on utilities, then it should begin to recover and deliver the value that ADNOC clearly saw in it . . .
Well, the genders of those involved probably tell you all you need to know. Dignified exits, so no smoking gun but enough noise to warrant some churn.
Called Fool for a reason . . .
Bp Ventures did a lot of really weird stuff, from blockchain to EV taxis (yes, really). It was like watching kids in a sweet shop, everyone wanted to be part of the cool crowd who got to work 12hr days in WeWork offices (remember them?). Those of us working in hot and dangerous locations actually looking for and producing oil & gas a. never got it, and b. lost our jobs.
With respect to Murray, holding him to £5 feels like a low bar. Look back at the historical share price, at the legacy Bob left him (despite the damage Bernard caused), the great 'reset' that saw 10,000 experienced people leave the business and the comparative valuations of peers. Though, maybe you are right, wokery does drive a discount.
Talk about toxic, any firm that hires the lying philanderer would be pilloried. He would better head back to Ireland and mend fences (his first job before university).
It's perfectly feasible, there would be massive operating savings if they were bought by another oiler with strong downstream / gas assets to mirror bp's oil heavy upstream oil, especially if they had a weaker trading capacity too. But the UK Gov might balk at say, CNPC or CPECC, and Aramco too. Unlikely to want Total, or Chevron / Exxon, but perhaps another US domiciled business such as Shell might work? Now that the crown jewels of bp have been exited by Looney (geo / res dev), it's inevitable as their R/P ratio won't get any better.
Yes, ridiculously that's exactly what Chevron / Exxon / Total have all done.
Interesting to see Barclay's reiterate their 1000p SP guidance for bp, I always thought it was based on how close Lydia Rainforth was to Bernard Looney (they always sat next to each other at investor days), seems it has more substance than that now he is gone. Let's hope she is right.
So, reports that Shell is looking at NY over London for a listing, saying they are undervalued here. That would heap pressure on bp . . .
Ukraine only has one refinery, at Kremenchug.
Yes, they might, but only to avoid low flying pigs. In the real world, bp stays a UK domiciled company with huge international interests. And a weak, withery, wokey dokey board.
That's a very hard comment to support, as a lucky beneficiary of having had time (and scale) in multiple markets (property, equities, work) I will undoubtedly benefit as you say (and I normally vote Conservative, though I'm unsure what to do this time). But with income, capital gains and inheritance tax at their current levels, it certainly feels like a windfall to me.
It's more likely they wanted to ensure he is not tainted by Looney's affairs, they worked very closely together for 20 years, so unlikely he did not know what the good Catholic boy from Ireland was doing. But, they can't afford a second expose and a short half life for his successor.
Frankly, it's both easy and right to hold Looney to account for the damage he has done. Decisions to cut 10,000 jobs, to turn bp from an IOC to an IEC, to throttle back O&G in favour of wind & solar, to cripple the business by eliminating the res dev team entirely, to cut the dividend, to refuse to give reasonable increases to pensioners . . . and then we learn his decision making was led by his predilections for female staff over rational facts. In what way is he not accountable for the outcome of a massively discounted stock?
That investors have let it be known they want someone of the calibre of Woodburn to take the help says they do not have confidence in the current shortlist of candidates. Clearly, anyone involved in turning bp from an oil & gas supermajor to a utility (aka Integrated Energy Company) probably won't be acceptable. The share price is a couple of quid below where it should be, the dividend has been nearly halved, and the best hope is a $200M bet on LightSource and unaffordable wind farms. Of course, while the board knew full well about Looney's green pretensions, they knew nothing about his private life at work. Did they?