Royal Dutch Shell

Once again, there has been a flurry on the web in several places, some of them unexpected, about a possible BP merger with Shell. The FT has long reported that the idea of a merger was kicked around by BP in 2005, when its management was one of the most respected in the world. (FT story may require subscription.) Then, BP was riding high, and Shell was weakened by the scandal over reserves misreporting that broke in 2004.

Now, the positions are reversed. The logic of merger still applies, however, and so do the arguments against. On the pro side, there would be a lot of duplicated costs that could be saved, and perhaps a way to unlock the hidden value that some analysts have found in Shell and BP. One the con side, there are the terrifying regulatory issues in the dozens of different jurisdictions in which the two countries operate. The management challenge of integrating the two companies would also  be horrendous, and a dangerous distraction from what should be their real focus now: getting their operations right and finding more oil and gas.

But perhaps even more than that, there is the quiestion of personalities. Who would end up running the company created by this supposed "friendly" merger? At BP, Tony Hayward has only just climbed to the top of the greasy pole to become chief executive. At Shell, Jeroen Van der Veer deserves longer to enjoy the rewards of having steered the company into calmer waters, and the board has given him just that. Why on earth would either of them choose to play second fiddle?

Shares in Royal Dutch Shell continued to rise on Friday after climing 2.5 per cent on Thursday, helped by a note from Neil Perry at Morgan Stanley that has been attracting some attention. The argument is that after four years of "relentless" de-rating for the oil super-majors, "the large cap now represents the cheapest access to energy in the world."

That goes for BP and Total, but it is particularly true of Shell, which is sitting on a hidden $120bn in shareholder value, if only someone could find out a way to unlock it, say Mr Perry and his team. If you put sensible valuations on Shell’s downstream businesses such as refining and chemicals, at the current share price investors in the company get 8.4bn barrels of oil equivalent for free.

Well, maybe. If assets appear to be persistently mis-priced, there is generally a reason for it. It is hard to see any of the usual liberators of hidden value, such as private equity or activist investment funds, wanting to walk into the political and operational minefield of the big oil business. A merger between two majors, such as the BP / Shell tie-up kicked around a couple of years ago, would seem similarly likely to founder on the rocks of regulation, as BP concluded at the time.

That’s not to say that financial engineering is pointless. As Morgan Stanley suggests, some smarter management of Shell’s assets and liabilities could improve  its performance. But the fundamental challenge facing the majors – the ever more arduous quest for resources – cannot be magicked away. As this story demonstrates all too clearly.

My colleague Lucy Kellaway has a characteristically brilliant – and almost persuasive – defence of the widely-discussed motivational email from David Greer, the deputy chief executive of Sakhalin Energy, who leant heavily on the words of General Patton (FT stories require subscription.) The email has also been published on www.royaldutchshellplc.com, an anti-Shell website run by a father and son partnership that has been a long-running thorn in the company’s side.

Lucy writes: "Not only is it not the worst motivational e-mail ever written, it is actually one of the better ones," commending Mr Greer’s honesty and plain speaking.

Many of the comments in the discussion about the memo support her view, and some criticise the FT for reporting the leaked email at all. Contributors who say they know Mr Greer speak highly of his commitment to the Sakhalin 2 project and his management skills.

Even so, the lesson of all this, it seems to me, is that email is by its nature a pretty rotten motivational tool. Even General Patton’s original address to the 3rd Army would have fallen flat if it had pinged into their in-boxes one morning.

More FT Blogs and Forums

  • Clive Crook's blog The FT's chief Washington commentator blogs about intersection of politics and economics
  • Economists' Forum Leading economists and the FT's chief economics commentator, Martin Wolf, debate the big issues
  • Gadget Guru The FT's personal technology expert Paul Taylor answers your gadgetry questions
  • Gideon Rachman's blog The FT's chief foreign affairs commentator on world issues and his travels
  • The Undercover Economist Tim Harford's blog on economics in everyday life
  • Willem Buiter's Maverecon The LSE professor blogs on 'economics, politics, ethics, religion, culture, free and open source software (FOSS), and whatever'
  • Brussels Blog By our Brussels writers
  • Westminster Blog By our UK Parliament writers
  • Dear Lucy Columnist Lucy Kellaway and readers solve your workplace woes
  • FT Tech Blog Our San Francisco and world correspondents look at the intersection of technology and business
  • Technology Policy Forum James Boyle, Richard Epstein, Eli Noam and Thomas Hazlett debate regulatory and legal issues
  • John Gapper's blog FT chief business commentator talks about business, finance, media and technology