Entering text into the input field will update the search result below

Royal Dutch Shell And The Oil Majors: Buyers Beware

May 02, 2020 1:09 PM ETShell plc (SHEL) Stock262 Comments
The Profit Hunter profile picture
The Profit Hunter
1.12K Followers

Summary

  • Shell’s first dividend cut since World War II is symptomatic of more than just short-term demand/supply imbalances following the collapse of OPEC on March 6.
  • Tectonic shifts in the way the world consumes energy pave the way towards de-carbonisation.
  • Expect management to pivot capital expenditure towards renewable energy.

Energy is Transitioning to Renewables

The global economy is transforming away from carbon fuel sources. In this period of transition, it is often easier to identify the losers than the beneficiaries. From a big picture perspective, the following points are pertinent:

1) The US shale algorithm is broken – whilst the United States is currently the largest oil producer in the world, production may have peaked. Moreover, there is intense pressure on banks against funding energy producers. Winning back shareholders is going to be highly challenging given the historical prioritisation of growth over return on capital by management teams. The capital structures of many incumbent shale operators are heavily loaded with debt. Given the US high yield energy index is back to 2008 and 2016 levels, it suggests the cost of capital may remain elevated for quite some time. Whilst the government may provide short-term support, capital markets are effectively closed for the shale players.

2) Pressure on the oil and gas sector has been intensified by institutional investors pursuing an ESG agenda and thereby shunning carbon emitters. This is a broad-based movement, particularly vibrant in Europe, and is not reversing. A win by the Democrats could mark the next leg down in the sector by heralding the introduction of a carbon tax.

3) Given the inherent safety issues and lack of scale potential with nuclear energy, the future lies in a transition to renewable energy.

4) Electricity is gaining market share as it is more flexible and links to the electric auto revolution. Russia, Saudi Arabia and a couple of African countries are the last sole users of oil for power production.

Why this Cycle may be Different

Given it could take 24 months for energy demand to recover, E&P operators are responding aggressively. We have seen a flurry of capex

This article was written by

The Profit Hunter profile picture
1.12K Followers
I am a private investor with 15 years working in global blue chip asset management houses. My investment style involves identifying a handful of high quality businesses with strong competitive moats and durable economic franchises. Once I become comfortable with the investment case, I tend to hold such businesses for years, if not decades. My goal is to share business insights and perspectives.

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Recommended For You

Comments (262)

d
Good summary, and again a knock as a topic. One more reason why the block parties want PINews to be banned. It is impossible to expect such a documentary from a German journalist. Why the green energy has gained so much influence, of course, goes back to the industry itself. They produce every possible crap as long as the wheels are turning and generate money. The unfortunate, ever increasing number of wind shredders are a vivid example of this. Even the sea coasts are banged shut.
And then the very big no-go topic of world population! Finally, that is even mentioned. No one will tell Africans and Arabs to produce fewer offspring to save the world. In Germany there are even head premiums for what Africa is preventing its development, namely never-ending child blessings. So what to do if you don't want to control child making? Quite simply, people have to die faster.
In any case, I will allow myself the time for the film by Moore. Three-quarters of an hour Michael Moore beats everything the ÖR is ever able to offer.
www.pi-news.net/...
The Profit Hunter profile picture
The results are in...
Global big oil: 0% total shareholder return in 10 years whilst its CEOs extracted $2bn in compensation. Shareholders should be revolting.
ESG is a bogus hypocritical concept. Shale oil is now and forever will be a more ethical industry than all of the woke progressive California tech companies doing business and even furthering the interests of a major human rights Violator like Beijing, turning a blind eye to slave labor in their supply chains, and ignoring how all of their gadgets end up as landfill pollution.

America having a domestic source of energy keeps us out of Foreign Wars for oil. It makes us independent of all of these maniac despots. If the rest of the world goes to hell, we don't have to worry quite as much as if all of our oil is coming from offshore

Those cheering for the destruction of US shale oil are cheering for America's enemies and adversaries. For an American company, that is not ESG, that is treason
dunnhaupt profile picture
Smart move of Shell to get into generation of electricity.
Some of the articles I've read about LNG make me very excited about Shell's future.
d
ARTIKEL FROM SA 4 WEEKS AGO
BEWARE!! SHELL CHANGED 18 DEGREES

Shell surges as $12B credit facility boosts dividend hopes

Mar. 31, 2020 10:30 AM ET|About: Royal Dutch Shell plc (RDS.A)|By: Carl Surran, SA News Editor
Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A +5.6%) opens with strong gains after saying it expects only a "relatively minor" impact from the coronavirus on overall demand for its oil products during Q1.

Shell sees oil products sales volumes at 6M-7M bbl/day for the quarter, compared with 6.5M bbl/day in the year-earlier period, with Q1 upstream oil and gas production estimated at 2.65M-2.72M boe/day, with margins affected by the weak environment.

The company says it has secured a new $12B credit facility as it seeks to safeguard dividends, which follows a $10B facility obtained in December, combining to boost available liquidity to more than $40B.

"Shell has the balance sheet capacity and ability to cut capex to survive in the current environment without a significant cut to dividends, but if this outlook was to last for more than 9-12 months, we would expect a cut," says RBC analyst Biraj Borkhataria.

Shell's board "seems to be sending a clear message that the dividend payment is not under discussion," says Russ Mould, director of investment at AJ Bell.
American Muse profile picture
How wrong about the dividend.
M
This article is just fluff even if I agree with that it saids. I don't understand why cutting the dividend is the bad thing, the money saved stays with the companies to invest in other projects, how is that bad for market capitalization of a company?
d
BECAUSE
ARTIKEL FROM SA 4 WEEKS AGO
BEWARE!! SHELL CHANGED 18 DEGREES

Shell surges as $12B credit facility boosts dividend hopes

Mar. 31, 2020 10:30 AM ET|About: Royal Dutch Shell plc (RDS.A)|By: Carl Surran, SA News Editor
Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A +5.6%) opens with strong gains after saying it expects only a "relatively minor" impact from the coronavirus on overall demand for its oil products during Q1.

Shell sees oil products sales volumes at 6M-7M bbl/day for the quarter, compared with 6.5M bbl/day in the year-earlier period, with Q1 upstream oil and gas production estimated at 2.65M-2.72M boe/day, with margins affected by the weak environment.

The company says it has secured a new $12B credit facility as it seeks to safeguard dividends, which follows a $10B facility obtained in December, combining to boost available liquidity to more than $40B.

"Shell has the balance sheet capacity and ability to cut capex to survive in the current environment without a significant cut to dividends, but if this outlook was to last for more than 9-12 months, we would expect a cut," says RBC analyst Biraj Borkhataria.

Shell's board "seems to be sending a clear message that the dividend payment is not under discussion," says Russ Mould, director of investment at AJ Bell.
d
Article is devoid of facts.
Josh Young profile picture
Yeah it was a little frustrating. This and a couple other thin articles motivated me to write something a little more substantial about Shell and its business model and challenges, going beyond just "its not green" - seekingalpha.com/...
d
thanks!
S
The author says: "Given the inherent safety issues and lack of scale potential with nuclear energy, the future lies in a transition to renewable energy."

Then doesn't cite any facts to support this. Pretty typical argument against nuclear that I see everywhere. It goes something like this: "Nuclear is bad, so nuclear is bad. Therefore, nuclear is bad."

In fact the opposite is true- nuclear is good, so nuclear is good. Therefore, nuclear is good. Oh and here is a fact to support that - nuclear energy is clean and extremely safe. More people have died during the construction of wind turbines than have died from a nuclear accident.
The Profit Hunter profile picture
@Scott the Robot you have to consider exit costs as well as entry costs. Decommissioning of all nuclear power reactors in the world would require US$187 billion. One of the major environmental issues is the storage of nuclear waste left behind by the plant which stays toxic for 1000s of years and then there is the huge quantum of fossil fuels required to power the cooling tanks. Chernobyl killed 42 and affected hundreds of thousands. Fukushima detroyed large swaths of our marine life, poisoning the fish. More than 9 years after the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis, radioactive water is continuing to flow into the Pacific Ocean. Milleanials and younger have cast their vote and it's in favour of a cleaner plant. Oil execs have started to take note.
enge2103 profile picture
@The Profit Hunter

Entry costs and decommisioning and recycle and energy costs of all Windmills and Solarpanels and batteries will cost several Trillions of USD`s worldwide and recycling of all this dirty stuff will also produce huge amounts of CO2 and many other pollutants, use huge amounts of energy, and so on.

Nuclear Powerplants are in principal very simple processes, nothing more than a Nuclear Reactor Hot Water Boiling Pot driving a Turbine-Generator producing electrical power and they have been made ridiculously expensive due to incredible amounts of bureaucracies, mountains of paper work and huge government and politicians and bureaucrats interfearances.

Just for your information: A complex Oil-refinery and for example a Nafta Cracking Petrochemical Complex and for example a Fisher Tropsch Synthesis Complex is each many times more complicated and more difficult to operate than any Nuclear Powerplant, only one handicap for Nuclear is the "radioactivity danger", even that can be improved strongly by going Thorium Nuclear.
Also chemical plants/refineries use and need dangerous chemicals like Boron Tri-Fluoride, HF, Phosgene, Cyanates, H2S, CO and so on and so on, we in the industry can safely handle this, I know for sure, because that is what I did all my working life and in 48 years of responsability never a serious and or deadly accident, I am proud of that!

Just for your information: in case we would have an explosion of a 40 tons railroad-car of Propylene, LPG, Propane, etc. in a crowded populated area, many-, many- many hundreds or possibly thousands of people could be killed, uptill 3 miles around.

Stop exagerating the problems of nuclear powerplants, without too much government interfearance, this will be the cheapest and the cleanest way to produce electrical power and very High Pressure Superheated very High Temperature Steam, needed for all heavy industries.

Nuclear Powerplants are now-a-days unnescessary expensive, due to huge bureaucracy, this should be corrected and much improved.

Regards,
The Profit Hunter profile picture
Some interesting points on nuclear and agree that thorium has some advantages over uranium. But the tens of billions of dollars to build thorium plants and infrastructure could be better spent on clean energy. Although thorium itself is not very radioactive, many decay products of thorium are. Mining thorium exposes workers to alpha raditation particles, which are extremely dangerous. The problem of high-level nuclear waste is the toxicity and radiation intensity.
t
Electricity takes hydrocarbons.
K
IMO the electric car revolution is, hopefully, going to be for transport what the CFL was for lightbulbs. A marginally better, at best, transitional technology with major downsides - to be replaced by a much better technology

Its interesting that so many champion these ridiculously old technologies as solutions we should tie ourselves to for our future. Same people ignoring the downsides of mercury filled CFLs for a marginal power savings vs incandescent bulbs.

Better solutions than windmills and countless billions of toxic lithium batteries have to be on the horizon because neither would exist to any great extent if they were subsidized. Techologies with downsides that are significant and net positives that are small are poor options, not worth pursuing

Find a good entry point and buy RDS and other oil Majors. We are going to be using a LOT of oil for a very long time.
t
Shell did the right thing, XOM and CVX are borrowing to pay their dividend. Lowering cap x just lowers future production and revenue. How long it takes transportation to bring demand up is the question. I think it is still too early to buy. When I do, I buy on the expectation we will have a production shortfall down the road as demand exceeds supply creating a spike in oil prices.(as in the past) That would be a good exit point.
The Value Portfolio profile picture
It's a bet on how long the crash will last for. ExxonMobil and Chevron are betting on a shorter crash and the ability to maintain their reputation as dividend payers.

However, dividend cuts or no dividend cuts - at least in the immediate term - shouldn't change the thesis of a good investment.
W
The big guys who knowing the oil industry better even than shell CEO, are buying.
Norway fund bought add 90 millions rdsb price 20 to 30, plus to 90 millions already exist.
Saudis fund bought 20 millions rdsb price 30 to 38.
So the buyers who waiting 20, 10 5 or 0.50 look something else.
For shorts beware cause maybe they burned in a few minutes.
Both Norway and saudis waiting to buy another tranche.
We will see at what price they want it.
@Wisdomspeaking

They bought before the dividend was cut. Can you point to any fund that has bought AFTER the Cut? I still say part of the reasoning for this cut was Saudi Aribia buying a ton of Shell stock. It's like they wanted to send a message.
W
Dead broke
Norway's bought 18-24 march, and saudis 27 march-3 april.
Who is buying after the cut is too early to know.
But the saudis bought european majors after the collapse of oil with opec+ responsibility.
And the shell seems that didn't want to touch the dividend, but, what a coincidence , after the cut 67% from equinor few days later they cut it exactly the same.
By the way Norway's fund divesting from all oil companies except shell.
All these facts drives me that they baking something big.
s
@THE Profit Hunter : you say “electricity is gaining market share”, and seem to be relating that to power production. That’s like saying that lunch is taking market share away from beef. Electricity and fossil fuels don’t compete in the power generation market. Electricity is the output and fossil fuels are some of the different input options.
The Profit Hunter profile picture
Think of gas vs electric for cooking or heating
James Hanshaw profile picture
@The Profit Hunter. Gas now generates much of the electricity used for cooking and heating!
J
But they do compete in the transportation sector, as electric cars have a much higher efficiency than internal combustion engines. So over time, it's rational to project that electricity will take market share from fossil fuels in transportation.
j
I think Boeing and Airbus are retooling the plants as we speak to install Solar Panels on the wings of the revamped 737. By 2060, I think. I’ll be 110 then. Can’t wait.
s
@jdgreen54 : if solar cells were 100% efficient at using the available sun rays (current best production panels are under 25% efficient), the wingspan of a 737 fully-utilized as solar space is enough to produce electricity equivalent to a base Tesla Model S motor (circa 270 kw). I guess every little bit helps.... Not to rain on your 110th birthday celebration on a suddenly-unpowered airborne bus.
The Profit Hunter profile picture
It will take many many years to go 100% electric but short-haul hybrid planes are going to happen sooner than people think www.bbc.co.uk/...
enge2103 profile picture
@jdgreen54

I agree, can`t wait not to fly in solar panels driven passenger planes for 300 passengers.

Regards,
J
Worked 35 years in wholesale energy production, including oil and gas and last ten years of my career for one of the largest wind generation company (Iberdrola). I saw everyday how wind projects performed, or more accurately underperformed. Since retirement I have researched how we realistically can reduce carbon emissions associated with energy production. Most importantly, we need an escalating price on CO2, in the form of a revenue neutral federal carbon fee and dividend policy. I believe renewables are part of the solution, but the idea that we can do it all with renewables is not based on the math, and is a dangerous fantasy that will lead us astray. The author dismisses nuclear as too dangerous, when empirically it has one of lowest death rates of any energy source, even with worst case indirect deaths at Chernobyl. And that is old school technology. Nuclear is necessary, and it is up to the task. I give Rotary presentations on this and have found my audiences to be quite receptive to this message. I gather that they are skeptical of the "100% renewables" approach, and rightfully so.
@Jdh.energy

What are your thought on Shell going forward after the big Dividend cut? Seems like the same company with a much less burden that they can use to pay down debt, etc.
j
@Jdh.energy - I think you’re spot on especially when it comes to nuclear. To replace the current fossil fueled power plants with renewable sources is pure fantasy, in my view. It could mean a large wind turbine at every other street corner and 100% solar paneled roofs. Project renewable technology efficiencies over time and do the math. Unfortunately, improvements in nuclear have been few and far between but that’s where to start.
J
I think Shell probably did the right thing. Large, integrated oil and gas companies (I worked for Texaco) have to re-invent themselves. Otherwise they are in liquidation mode. That takes risk capital as well was working capital. Simply shifting to renewables doesn't cut it, because the ROI on renewables has been too low. Should we pass carbon fee and dividend and get rid of the patchwork of renewable subsidies and mandates, then I could see consolidation in renewables and with it an ROI that might work for oil and gas companies in transition.
starwilddog profile picture
If you believe in a shift towards renewables as they are popularly (mis)understood, buy into big oil as an investment in natural gas. How do you think the electricity to charge EV's is produced?
H
I never thought I'd be saying this ...but see/watch Michael Moore's new documentary......
r
pivoting to renewables and the huge debt were always a problems for shareholders but they stayed because of the dividend. renewables are 25 years away. debt is taking up too much cash. NGL still is not profitable. the reason to stay is no longer in place. the base RDS investor is leaving. perhaps new renewable investors will take their place. maybe not. time will tell.
b
A good summary article but Those that push for renewables seem to gloss over some important facts.
1. Hydropower has been mostly fully developed in the US and has been around for a 100+ years and it produces about as much electricity as wind. Including it in the RE statistics always makes RE penetration into the market look better than it is.
2. Most people also show renewables as a percent of electricity produced but when you view it as a total % of all energy sources it is a really small number.
3. Solar and wind have to either be built 2X bigger or need to have fossil fuel as backup when the wind doesn’t blow. This cost is never in the RE numbers.
4. Wind and solar are likely being installed in the most efficient areas first. This means that the profitability will slowly decrease,
5. The disposal costs, maintenance costs and the life of the solar panels or turbines isn’t mentioned.
w
Is there still a debate: oil and gas vs renewable energy sources? We will need all of the above for decades but it is reasonable to gradually pivot towards more renewable sources over time, as BP and Shell are. The biggest issue facing energy companies is potential long term energy demand destruction. The energy markets need to re-balance at a sustainable level that enable the best companies to not only survive but to thrive and make the best investments in our energy future. I just don’t see how this future includes all these US E&P companies, many of which were highly indebted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Exxon, Chevron, BP, Total and Shell can produce all of the energy our country and many others require and have the capacity to drive innovation and efficiency. The debate is not about the superiority oil and gas vs renewables, but between the major integrated energy companies and the smaller E&Ps. If market forces prevail, this should be settled within a few years. I’m not sure whether Exxon and BP will maintain their progressive dividend policies, but I have little doubt that they will ultimately emerge stronger in a consolidated energy marketplace.
andrew19067 profile picture
The real debate should be crude oil vs natural gas/LNG: renewables are helpful, but can't power industry or heat cities n towns. So other than fuel for cars, natural gas/LNG wins every time...meaning RDS-B, ET, USAC, and similar are great buys today.
w
Sure, natural gas/LNG have plenty of advantages. But aren’t oil and gas often co-produced? If you can’t leave it in the ground, you advocating that oil not be used for energy but rather for other applications such as lubricant, plastics etc?
Disagree with this article? Submit your own. To report a factual error in this article, . Your feedback matters to us!

About SHEL

SymbolLast Price% Chg
Market Cap
PE
Yield (TTM)
Rev Growth (YoY)
Short Interest
Prev. Close
Compare to Peers

More on SHEL

Related Stocks

SymbolLast Price% Chg
SHEL
--
To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.