Jump to content

 

 

Shell plans to move headquarters to the UK


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

They’re not coming because of Brexit. The point is that whatever their reason, Brexit hasn’t deterred them. We were told there would be an exodus and no company would want to come into pariah state Britain.

I was reading a report just this week- I will try to find it, that stated that hardly any financial operations had left the UK (except the odd creation of an office in the EU) Technical financial operations which were a target and part of project fear such as clearing which is a specialist operation of over £1Tn in value that Frankfurt and Paris would love to have but no companies would trust them with it. Same goes for flotations with all the large issues still happen in the UK. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stewarty said:

Is this because of Brexit or because Shell are trying to wriggle away from their obligations to reduce GHG emissions?

 

 

It couldn't be because of Brexit.

 

Someone at Shell must have gone mad.

 

Brexit will destroy Britain, Shell and any nearby fossil fuels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

It couldn't be because of Brexit.

 

Someone at Shell must have gone mad.

 

Brexit will destroy Britain, Shell and any nearby fossil fuels.

Finally you are seeing the error of your ways.  There’s hope for you yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, stewarty said:

Tax efficiency is no doubt a factor, but the Dutch courts ordering them to reduce emissions seems more significant.  The optics for a Dutch company doing this, activist shareholders trying to force change and the general trend towards ESG among other governance challenges… seems like a lot going on in the business and I shall be interested to see how it goes.   

I fail to see how the Dutch courts ordering them to reduce emissions is more significant.  What difference does moving to the UK make to that ruling ?  None.  They will still be either forced into doing so or face significant fines, which would happen regardless of whether they are HQ'd in London or Holland.  Regardless of their jurisdiction they will ultimately face the same consequences.

 

More likely is the fact that by moving from a Dutch to UK residency they can remove the 15% dividend tax charged to Dutch domiciled companies.

 

Regarding ESG, Shell are literally no different to any other major integrated oil company - they all have made commitments to drastically reduce their carbon emissions in the medium term.  Shell have actually brought forward their commitment from 2030 to 2025.  Eni (the Italian major) have committed to becoming net carbon neutral by 2025 - these numbers, by the way, mean very little.  They sound good on the outside but the reality is that all these companies will do, if they have to, is buy carbon credits to get to net neutral.  Elon Musk battered Bitcoin for being energy draining and environmentally unfriendly.... what Elon wasn't telling everyone was that he HAD to distance himself from Bitcoin because he needs the US federal energy credits because Fiat, who Tesla sold energy credits to in order for Fiat to become net carbo neutral, have decided to enter the EV market and thus won't need Elon's/Tesla's energy credits - so Tesla are now more heavily dependent on the fed energy credits.

 

Rating agencies are taking much more pro-active interest in companies from an ESG perspective, but these entities have such solid ratings, and the rating agencies also have to be wary of initiating a global market collapse by downgrading these companies - they also have to realise that this is a "long game" scenario - you simply cannot expect these massive oil companies to become "green" in a handful of years - aside from anything else, quite simply, the energy grid and power storage capabilities aren't ready, not even close.

 

Its all literally like shifting deckchairs on the Titanic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Scott7 said:

They’re not coming because of Brexit. The point is that whatever their reason, Brexit hasn’t deterred them. We were told there would be an exodus and no company would want to come into pariah state Britain.

Interestingly, and I hadn't read this until this morning, Unilever have also announced they will be relocating to the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, craig said:

I fail to see how the Dutch courts ordering them to reduce emissions is more significant.  What difference does moving to the UK make to that ruling ?  None.  They will still be either forced into doing so or face significant fines, which would happen regardless of whether they are HQ'd in London or Holland.  Regardless of their jurisdiction they will ultimately face the same consequences.

 

More likely is the fact that by moving from a Dutch to UK residency they can remove the 15% dividend tax charged to Dutch domiciled companies.

 

Regarding ESG, Shell are literally no different to any other major integrated oil company - they all have made commitments to drastically reduce their carbon emissions in the medium term.  Shell have actually brought forward their commitment from 2030 to 2025.  Eni (the Italian major) have committed to becoming net carbon neutral by 2025 - these numbers, by the way, mean very little.  They sound good on the outside but the reality is that all these companies will do, if they have to, is buy carbon credits to get to net neutral.  Elon Musk battered Bitcoin for being energy draining and environmentally unfriendly.... what Elon wasn't telling everyone was that he HAD to distance himself from Bitcoin because he needs the US federal energy credits because Fiat, who Tesla sold energy credits to in order for Fiat to become net carbo neutral, have decided to enter the EV market and thus won't need Elon's/Tesla's energy credits - so Tesla are now more heavily dependent on the fed energy credits.

 

Rating agencies are taking much more pro-active interest in companies from an ESG perspective, but these entities have such solid ratings, and the rating agencies also have to be wary of initiating a global market collapse by downgrading these companies - they also have to realise that this is a "long game" scenario - you simply cannot expect these massive oil companies to become "green" in a handful of years - aside from anything else, quite simply, the energy grid and power storage capabilities aren't ready, not even close.

 

Its all literally like shifting deckchairs on the Titanic.

Completely agree, its all a bit of a game of cat and mouse.  What I meant was that it seems like a big GIRUY to the Dutch authorities in response to the court ordered reduction in GHG emission reduction which I have no doubt will have extremely serious consequences to their business model, more so than their HQ domiciliary.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stewarty said:

Completely agree, its all a bit of a game of cat and mouse.  What I meant was that it seems like a big GIRUY to the Dutch authorities in response to the court ordered reduction in GHG emission reduction which I have no doubt will have extremely serious consequences to their business model, more so than their HQ domiciliary.   

 

 

I doubt it will have that significant an impact on their business model mate - all these major integrated oil companies are in the process of "going green" because they recognize the ESG issues as well as the activism.  They have been in that process for years now.  The only real change, I would imagine, is timing.  But all these companies have been implementing renewables for some time (Eni have massive solar panel fields in Africa for example) - the issue isn't renewables or going green, it is the inability of the electricity grid to handle the load, but they don't want to talk about that.

 

I am sure you are right in that there is an element of GIRFUY to the Dutch authorities - Shell's excuse is that by being singularly domiciled in London it makes access to the financial markets easier as their primary listing is LSE - but I am not really buying that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, craig said:

Rating agencies are taking much more pro-active interest in companies from an ESG perspective, but these entities have such solid ratings, and the rating agencies also have to be wary of initiating a global market collapse by downgrading these companies - they also have to realise that this is a "long game" scenario - you simply cannot expect these massive oil companies to become "green" in a handful of years - aside from anything else, quite simply, the energy grid and power storage capabilities aren't ready, not even close.

There’s also the small point of oil consumption forecast to rise over the next 20 years and the need to fulfil that demand, despite having to condemn OilCo’s for political purposes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.