The whole being valued at 65 billion a yearFor the CEO of Bourbon the indicators are indeed well orientedEstablished physicians are less concernedInvestors they do not snapped his titlesThat this time may include measures of magnitudeAnd it is again the left which has benefitedA game of musical chairs opens to replaceThe constitutional reform is passed by thereWithin a decade their number has doubledAll the parts do not have the same interestAfter having touched the $ 150, barrel dropped around $ 40. Is - this dangerous for a group like yours
This greater volatility is bad. It is the fear of recession which causes this free fall of the courts. Research on carbon dioxide storage, geothermal energy, or the next generation of biodiesel are very expensive. And with a barrel less than $ 60, we will see more and more energy groups reduce their investment in protection of the environment and research of new conventional or innovative deposits. This policy will ultimately cause a shortage of energy. A new crisis could occur and the price of a barrel could this time exceed $ 200. MOL has however not too suffered from the recent drop courses, since we produce only equivalent to 90,000 barrels of oil per day. However, we want to increase our resources. It is for this that we have signed an agreement which gives us rights of first refusal for some exploration concessions that it owns in exchange for 8 of our capital with the Omani group Oman Oil. The joint company mounted with the Czech company CEZ to build two power stations of 800 megawatts allows us, in addition, put a foot on the electricity market. And then the crisis also offers opportunities for the acquisition. Illiquid companies will need to find partners and we have a line of credit of EUR 1.3 billion to complete possible occasions.
After eighteen months of battle, OMV threw the sponge in August and removed its OPA on your group. What balance are you getting this iron arm
Our two groups lost much in this case. For a year and a half, we had to apply to many leaders to deal with this issue instead of working on the development of our group and we have been investing millions of euros in legal costs and share repurchases in order to avoid a takeover by OMV. After the announcement of the OPA, we said that this operation was a mistake that would destroy lots of value for shareholders. It would have been easier to listen to us... OMV, however, still has 20 of our capital. This is a situation that is bad for our two groups. But, in the light of the brutal fall of our action, I do not consider that the participation of OMV represents a real danger. All at least in the medium term.
To not run out of raw materials, the construction of new pipelines seems necessary. But the two major European projects, Nabucco and South Stream, take much delay. Should we focus on one of the two programs
Not at all. In ten years, the annual consumption of gas in Europe will be increased by 300 billion cubic metres. We will then need to exploit all the deposits that will be found. It is crucial for our continent to maintain good relations with the Russia. We should stop thinking that a pipeline would kill the other. Europe needs both Nabucco, in which we are involved, and South Stream, which is led by Gazprom and ENI. On South Stream, the Russia has delayed its opening by 2015 due to funding problems. For Nabucco, the problem is different. To justify its construction, its proponents want to ensure that the resource will be available in time, but the producers want, be certain that this project will see the day before working on deposits. It is the story of the chicken and the egg. It should be that the authorities agree to finance the beginning of the work before that private groups take over. I have the impression that politicians are more aware of this dilemma. The countries of Eastern Europe are those with the most need for Nabucco, but, if members of the Union the rich do not want to help them in this folder, it is useless to speak of Community solidarity.
