Shells proposed purchase of BG

Glen_Clark

Apodemus wrote: »

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!

Same here. As I recall BP did a great deal buying Amoco at the bottom of the market. Shell management missed that one, and have been itching to do something as clever ever since. But missing other opportunities has made them too keen, pouncing too soon and offering too much. That may be forgivable. But their continuing to try and justify their offer whatever the oil price is another matter.

cloud_dog

Glen_Clark wrote: »

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.

I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it.

You want them to be flexible and then explain why it is difficult for them to be flexible.

You've only come out against the deal since the dramatic collapse in the price or oil but, refer to my first point.

You are coming across as a 'back seat driver'.

I think the strategy was/is good. Could they have undertaken the offer at a cheaper price...possibly/probably (depending on if they wanted to allow the possibility of a bidding war).

Glen_Clark

cloud_dog wrote: »

I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it.

You want them to be flexible and then explain why it is difficult for them to be flexible.

You've only come out against the deal since the dramatic collapse in the price or oil but, refer to my first point.

You are coming across as a 'back seat driver'.

I think the strategy was/is good. Could they have undertaken the offer at a cheaper price...possibly/probably (depending on if they wanted to allow the possibility of a bidding war).

#

Thats not true ether. I recal posting astonishment at the 50% premium for BG as soon as it was announced.

cloud_dog

Assuming you did, then all due kudos to you.

My basic premise is that.... 'We are where we are'. At this point in time I don't believe we (shareholders) will get any value from trying to dissect the past. Post whatever occurs action could be taken.

What do we do now?

I assume you are advocating bitting the bullet and incurring the penalty costs and re-offer in the hope of an accepted lower offer and of lower overall costs to Shell shareholders.

Glen_Clark

cloud_dog wrote: »

Assuming you did (comment on the 50% premium)

You don't have to assume anything, if you don't want to take my word for it you could use the forum search and find out instead of casting aspertions : http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=68137322

Glen_Clark

cloud_dog wrote: »

I assume you are advocating bitting the bullet and incurring the penalty costs and re-offer in the hope of an accepted lower offer and of lower overall costs to Shell shareholders.

Yes, but even if the re-offer is rejected Shell shareholders would still be better off than they are now.
BG doesn't have the downstream income to survive a low oil price like Shell does. Without Shell, BG would be forced to sell assets at a realistic price, which Shell could buy.

cloud_dog

Glen_Clark wrote: »

You don't have to assume anything, if you don't want to take my word for it you could use the forum search and find out instead of casting aspertions : http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=68137322

You don't have to be defensive. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as I wasn't inclined to try to prove one way or another.

EDIT: I'd appreciate it if you didn't take my words out of context.

cloud_dog

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Yes, but even if the re-offer is rejected Shell shareholders would still be better off than they are now.

But for how much longer?

Glen_Clark wrote: »

BG doesn't have the downstream income to survive a low oil price like Shell does. Without Shell, BG would be forced to sell assets at a realistic price, which Shell could buy.

And Shell needs to replenish reserves.

EDIT: Buy resources but in a bidding war (probably).

cloud_dog

I can't prolong this laborious conversation much longer.... I have said a number of times I have no issue with your position, it is as valid a position as anything.

I don't appreciate how you have phrased your points and then hide behind weasel words. It's a poor show. I will leave you to have the last word.

EdGasket

As a Shell shareholder, I have voted against the deal. Oil price and market conditions have changed and therefore Shell would do best by walking away as Zurich did from their RSA bid recently.