Shells proposed purchase of BG

cloud_dog

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I think you mean libel? but it couldn't be that because of the part of my quote I have highlighted.
......

The only people trying to defend this clearly overpriced deal I have heard are either;...

Ah yes, very clever, throw some mud and hide behind weasel words <<yawn>>.

Glen_Clark wrote: »

My only reference to ISS was asking a question (which remains unanswered). Asking a question is not libel either.
Incidentally, if ISS did try to claim someone had libelled them they would have to prove they had a good reputation to damage, and that would be complicated by the non compliance fines they have had to pay to the SEC
Otherwise you make a fair comment, thank you.:)

Ah yes....'a question'....really...throw some mud and hide behind weasel words again.

Regarding ISS, all you had to do was acknowledge that there are organisations out there who have supported the offer and that you don't actually have any information whatsoever to support your purported 'questions' but, no you couldn't do that.

Again, I have no issue with people holding opposing views but I'm not going to throw some mud and hide behind weasel words to try to give weight to my posts.

You haven't worked in the political arena have you?

Glen_Clark

cloud_dog wrote: »

Ah yes, very clever, throw some mud and hide behind weasel words <<yawn>>.

Ah yes....'a question'....really...throw some mud and hide behind weasel words again.

Regarding ISS, all you had to do was acknowledge that there are organisations out there who have supported the offer and that you don't actually have any information whatsoever to support your purported 'questions' but, no you couldn't do that.

Again, I have no issue with people holding opposing views but I'm not going to throw some mud and hide behind weasel words to try to give weight to my posts.

You haven't worked in the political arena have you?

Still don't know who is funding ISS.
But politics and funding aside, Shell offered 50% more than the market price for BG shares and that was before the oil price halved. Doesn't that make it obvious Shell are overpaying?

cloud_dog

As I said previously....hindsight is a wonderful thing. And, if oil prices are up around $70 in 12 months time???

In my wildest dreams I never envisaged seeing oil prices down to where they are today; lower than $70 yes, absolutely, but $33 (wow).

Glen_Clark

cloud_dog wrote: »

if oil prices are up around $70 in 12 months time???
.

And if oil prices are lower in 12 months time?
Just watching the last Dragon's Den and Peter Jones said it better than I could. He said 'You are asking me to invest today at tomorrow's prices. I'm Out'
I wish he was running Shell.

cloud_dog

Yes, how about that, the price of oil going up and down, I'm surprised the oil industry makes any decisions at all especially with long term projects. Do you think perhaps they have to think more strategically, and possible take an average oil price to ensure/validate ROI.

redmalc

i have made my decision [,I think] i am taking the cash element on offer and going on holiday somewhere nice and hot.
In a nutshell the default position.
Thanks for your comments.

Glen_Clark

redmalc wrote: »

i am taking the cash element on offer .

Whether to take Shell shares or cash would be the least of my worries as a BG shareholder.
Its not a firm offer unless Shell shareholders vote it through.
The fact that Shell needs oil prices of $60 to make it work suggests BG on its own would need even higher. Which suggests BG shares will be worthless if Shell shareholders reject the deal. That looks unlikely but its possible. So if you can't afford to risk your investment I suggest you sell it now.

C_Mababejive

Thinking about personal finance,are there any tax issues with this deal i.e CGT etc?

Apodemus

cloud_dog wrote: »

Yes, how about that, the price of oil going up and down, I'm surprised the oil industry makes any decisions at all especially with long term projects. Do you think perhaps they have to think more strategically, and possible take an average oil price to ensure/validate ROI.

To be fair, the oil industry often seems to take quite a short term view, with exploration effort quite dependent on current price rather than long-term expectations. Perhaps they have learned that future oil price is so unpredictable that current price is the only valid price to base strategy on, but it sometimes appears illogical to an outsider.

I do see consolidation and buying-in proven existing reserves rather than new exploration as a valid strategy in the face of long-term price uncertainty, so I can see the logic in the Shell/BG deal. As a Shell shareholder, though, I am just a bit concerned about the price!

Glen_Clark

cloud_dog wrote: »

Yes, how about that, the price of oil going up and down, I'm surprised the oil industry makes any decisions at all especially with long term projects. Do you think perhaps they have to think more strategically, and possible take an average oil price to ensure/validate ROI.

I think the best management would adapt their strategy when the market changes. Not carry on with with their loss making idea rather than admit they have made a mistake.
But if they puilled out now the $billion or so in costs would be proof they had made a mistake. Wheras if they continue with it they can keep saying its a good deal for Shell, and milking the company till they retire.