Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Financial Times: Lex Column: Big cap oil and mining

Published: May 17 2007 03:00 | Last updated: May 17 2007 03:00

They run some of the world’s largest listed companies. Their products are indispensable in modern society. They hobnob with world leaders regularly, discussing geopolitics and climate change. Sadly, this is not enough to get their share prices rerated.

Energy and mining chief executives have a problem. Despite high commodities prices and record cash flows, their stocks have suffered the worst derating of earnings multiples of any sector barring technology since 2003. It is a particular problem for the big boys – those with market values above $100bn such as Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Rio Tinto. Maintaining growth is a struggle. Meanwhile, an equity market hungry for mergers and acquisitions is focused on mid-cap stocks and investors seem unwilling to buy into the notion of a commodities supercycle.

On balance, the miners have it easier. When it comes to gaining access to new resources, they do not have to contend with the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. Consolidation has a certain logic in an industry where investment and pricing indiscipline have fuelled boom-bust cycles. China’s increasing role as both top consumer and swing exporter for several metals and minerals is one fly in this particular ointment but investors seem unperturbed. BHP Billiton’s $10bn buyback, unveiled with fanfare in February, was well-received. But it took talk of a leveraged buy-out or a possible bid for Rio to really set BHP’s stock racing. M&A activity here is likely to intensify.

The oil sector’s problems are more existential. Cost inflation is eroding the benefits of high oil prices – one reason for the outperformance of oil services providers relative to the majors. Political barriers and the rise of state-backed competitors severely constrain opportunities for organic growth. No amount of consolidation will strengthen pricing power in a global oil market where Opec’s share of production is set to rise.

Why should investors own the majors if capital and technology can be provided by others and they are too big or too heavily protected to be bid targets? One reason is valuation. Both Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan reckon that the market currently values the upstream businesses of the likes of BP, Shell and Total at about $10-$11 per barrel of oil equivalent of reserves. That is roughly half the multiple paid in recent asset deals or the average finding and development unit costs. That may reflect a conglomerate discount: majors’ upstream businesses lump in growth areas such as liquefied natural gas with declining, but cash-generative, mature oil fields. Morgan Stanley suggests, sensibly, that the majors should break this out for investors.

There is also the potential for more radical action. Mega-mergers or splitting upstream from downstream operations are obvious tools but may be too blunt. Mergers facilitate diversification but create bigger conglomerates that still struggle to replace reserves. The integration of refining and marketing assets, meanwhile, is valuable, as demonstrated by Shell’s last set of quarterly results.

Asset swaps, carve-outs or mergers involving true like-for-like businesses – say, combining LNG assets – could make sense. Smaller, more focused companies may then be more obviously appealing to different types of investors, including private equity. They might also be more willing to embrace different business models. They could, for example, sacrifice ownership of barrels in the ground in favour of better service contract terms with host governments. Conceivably, unlike the majors, they could offer equity stakes to state-controlled companies in exchange for access without raising political hackles.

The industry is undergoing its biggest realignment since the 1970s. By coincidence, the three big western oil majors and three big diversified miners have all either recently installed new chief executives or will do so in the next two years. That presents an opportunity to move beyond business as usual.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007


This website and sisters,,,, and, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.