|Bid||0.00 x 0|
|Ask||0.00 x 0|
|Day's Range||7.80 - 8.16|
|52 Week Range||5.98 - 13.61|
|Beta (5Y Monthly)||1.09|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||5.32|
|Earnings Date||Feb 14, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.48 (6.27%)|
|Ex-Dividend Date||May 14, 2020|
|1y Target Est||14.56|
(Bloomberg) -- Airborne methane levels rose markedly last year, according to a preliminary estimate published today by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The results show a dramatic leap in concentration of the second most-powerful greenhouse gas, which is emitted from both industrial and natural sources. “Last year’s jump in methane is one of the biggest we’ve seen over the past twenty years,” said Rob Jackson, professor of Earth system science at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project. “It’s too early to say why, but increases from both agriculture and natural gas use are likely. Natural gas consumption surged more than two percent last year.”Methane levels have accelerated twice in the last 15 years, first in 2007 and again in 2014. Scientists have yet to pinpoint the exact cause (or causes). Virtually every contributor to the global methane problem may play a role, from the oil-and-gas industry to human agriculture to wetlands changing with the climate.Methane is about 25 times more powerful a heat-trapping gas than its nearest competitor—carbon dioxide—when extrapolated over the course of a century. Oil and gas producers have long been criticized for tolerating methane leaks at gas well sites, pipelines, and compressor stations. A June 2018 study by the Environmental Defense Fund estimated that these leaks are equivalent to $2 billion in losses for the industry. The EDF did not take into account the gas producers purposely burn at at well sites to keep even more crude flowing, a practice that enrages environmental activists.Some of the world's biggest oil and gas producers have recently become more vocal about addressing leaks and setting climate goals. Last month Bernard Looney, the recently appointed chief executive officer of BP PLC, pledged to cut carbon dioxide emissions from the company's own operations and production by 2050, the boldest plan yet from the fossil fuel industry.Energy use and economic activity are tightly connected, which means that the halt in global production from the Covid-19 pandemic is likely to cause the highest drop-off in emissions seen in decades.The recent collapse in crude prices may also lessen the need to flare gas, which was already on the decline in the Permian over the first three months of 2020, according to data released Monday by Rystad Energy AS.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
3 April 2020 Information regarding the voting rights and shares (Article L.233-8-II of the French Commercial Code and 223-16 of the General Regulations of the.
At its meeting on this day, EDF’s Board of Directors decided to hold the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting behind closed doors at EDF’s registered office on 7 May 2020. To meet the challenges of solidarity and responsibility imposed by the current situation, EDF’s Board of Directors has also decided to propose to the Shareholders’ Meeting not to pay a final dividend for the 2019 financial year. Due to the containment measures introduced by the French Government to combat the spread of the coronavirus, the Board of Directors has decided, on an exceptional basis and in accordance with Article 4 of Order no. 2020-321 dated 25 March 2020, that EDF’s Annual Shareholders’ Meeting will be held on 7 May 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (Paris time), behind closed doors (i.e.
The EDF Group is fully mobilized to maintain critical activities in the context of the Covid-19 sanitary crisis. Thanks to its constant policy of anticipation of its financial needs, the Group has a strong liquidity position, with €22.8 billion of liquidity* at end-2019. In addition, the Group has confirmed and fully undrawn revolving lines of credit for a total amount of €10.3 billion.
Bulgaria will give more time for shortlisted investors to file binding bids for its Belene nuclear power project after measures over the coronavirus outbreak have limited access to the project's data room, the energy minister said on Sunday. Russia's Rosatom, China's CNNC and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co had to file their offers to invest in the estimated 10 billion euro ($10.7 billion) project by the end of April. French energy company EDF's Framatome and U.S. group General Electric, which had both offered to provide equipment for the 2,000 megawatt project and arrange financing, will also be part of the process.
Like a puppy chasing its tail, some new investors often chase 'the next big thing', even if that means buying 'story...
Press release on filing of the Universal Registration Document 2019 - Annual Financial Report Paris, March 13, 2020. EDF’s Universal registration document for the 2019.
12 March 2020 Information regarding the voting rights and shares (Article L.233-8-II of the French Commercial Code and 223-16 of the General Regulations of the “AMF”).
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The new U.K. budget promises a massive new infrastructure push, especially for the “left behind” areas of England and Wales. That sounds positive; but large-scale infrastructure projects in Britain have a checkered record. If the government is to avoid past mistakes, it will have to show it has learned from them.Four major projects that have run into difficulty illustrate the problems well. The first, CrossRail, is a 73-mile line running east to west across London, both under- and over-ground. Two years ago it was seen as a great success: on time, on budget and with an impressive U.K. supply chain. But problems in the complex software systems required for signalling and station operations meant the opening has been delayed for at least two years until spring 2021 soonest. The cost has escalated, adding 3 billion pounds ($3.92 billion) to the estimated cost of 15 billion pounds. The project has become an embarrassment for the publicly owned Transport for London and the contractors.Then there is HS2, a high-speed line from London to Birmingham and, from there by a bifurcating route, to Manchester and Leeds. It was agreed in principle a decade ago but there have been growing doubts about its economic value (cost estimates have risen from 37.5 billion pounds to over 100 billion), the chosen route and environmental impact. Boris Johnson recently gave the project a green light, but even if the new line gets to Birmingham, the prospects for the northern sections have slipped back.The third big project is the proposed 14 billion pound third runway at Heathrow. There has been wide agreement that London needs more airport capacity. Parliament voted two years ago for expanding Heathrow, despite strong competition from other projects, unresolved questions over funding for the required infrastructure, fierce resistance from residents in west London over noise pollution and opposition from British airways, the main hub user.The Court of Appeal recently upheld a plea by environmental campaign groups arguing that climate change impacts hadn’t been properly considered. The legal wrangling may end up in the Supreme Court but if the project is blocked, it will be a great relief to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a long-time opponent of the scheme, who once promised to “lie down in front of the bulldozers” to stop it (the airport is next to his parliamentary constituency).A fourth major project is Hinckley Point C, the first of Britain’s next generation of nuclear power plants. Like Heathrow, but unlike rail and road projects, power generation is seen as suitable for private rather than public finance. The project was agreed in principle back in 2008 and was expected to be complete in 2020. It is now likely to be operational at best in 2025, assuming that a new technology, yet to be proven, actually functions. The fact that it is under construction at all is due to the determination of Electricite de France (EDF), the owner of Britain’s nuclear industry, and what is generally regarded as an extremely generous contractual terms. The current estimated cost of 20 billion pounds will make this the most expensive nuclear plant in the world.These four projects are very different in purpose, funding arrangements and stages of development; but all suffer from what has been called the iron law of megaprojects, which is that they run “over budget, over time, over and over again.” Over a decade ago an influential government report warned that, especially in transport, enthusiasm for these large-scale projects was distorting infrastructure priorities. Emphasis instead should be given to smaller, less high profile, projects connecting existing infrastructure. Such projects have higher returns and carry less risk. There is little sign that successive governments have paid heed.A National Infrastructure Plan was launched in 2010 to remedy what was seen as the “uncoordinated, incremental, wasteful” approach to infrastructure planning. The U.K. has a National Infrastructure Commission to identify long term priorities and an Infrastructure and Project Authority to track progress.Rather than simply pledge more investment, the new Chancellor should explain to what extent the existing objectives have been met and recognize the problems inherent with large-scale projects. The Chancellor’s predecessor, Sajid Javid, talked airily about large additional sums for public investment but it was far from clear how this related to the infrastructure plan or to the fiscal rules. There are some big unresolved questions.First, how will capital spending be accommodated in the government’s fiscal rules? The Treasury has long regarded capital projects as an easy target to squeeze under financial pressure. Capital is in effect treated as competing with current spending and at present there are great pressures to relax current spending. The sensible way to deal with this problem is to adopt the golden rule, originally employed by former Chancellor Gordon Brown, which commits to balancing only current spending and receipts over the business cycle.Second, there is a whole series of Brexit consequences and a key question for the budget will be how honestly they will be confronted. The economy has slowed and will slow further, affecting tax receipts. Will the government allow deficit financing to grow? Or will the government’s concern for their financially conservative reputation take precedence?Another consequence of Brexit is the loss of infrastructure project funding from the European Investment Bank -- important in itself and also in providing comfort for private investors. The government promised a replacement for the EIB but none is in sight. There is also uncertainty over future financial regulation. Infrastructure financing increasingly relies on pension funds and insurers looking for safe long term returns no longer available from government bonds. But the rules governing that industry -- known as Solvency II-- are EU based. Will they be tightened or relaxed post-Brexit?A lot also depends on the government’s popularity and stability. More infrastructure could be funded if rail fares, water rates, electricity prices and other utility charges were set to generate more income and if tolls were to be introduced for road projects. But a populist government is unlikely to risk voter unhappiness, even if it meant fulfilling its promises to improve infrastructure.(Corrects third paragraph reference to the HS2 route from Birmingham, adding Manchester. )To contact the author of this story: Vince Cable at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Therese Raphael at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Vince Cable is a former U.K. secretary of state for business and was leader of the Liberal Democrats from 2017 to 2019. He was previously chief economist at Royal Dutch Shell. He is currently a visiting professor at the London School of Economics. His next book, "Politicians and the Politics of Economics," will be published later this year. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has completed a periodic review of the ratings of Electricite de France and other ratings that are associated with the same analytical unit. The review was conducted through a portfolio review in which Moody's reassessed the appropriateness of the ratings in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers.
6 March 2020 Information regarding the voting rights and shares (Article L.233-8-II of the French Commercial Code and 223-16 of the General Regulations of the “AMF”).
China's announcement of more than 5,000 new coronavirus cases and 121 new deaths indicate the epidemic hasn't peaked yet. A pan-European index is in fact opening at record highs, buoyed by … answers on a postcard. The thinking appears to be the virus impact will not last, it’s not spreading outside China as fast as feared and above all, central banks can step in -- slower growth will bring more stimulus, or at least lower interest rates for longer.
ROBUST 2019 ANNUAL RESULTSALL FINANCIAL TARGETS ACHIEVEDSTRONG GROWTH IN EBITDA AND NET INCOME 2019 Financial Results (1) Highlights Sales EBITDATarget of.
Electricité de France S.A. (EPA:EDF) shareholders should be happy to see the share price up 24% in the last quarter...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Everywhere you look, it seems there’s another ad trying to persuade people that natural gas is the key to a clean energy future. The American Petroleum Institute (API) is running a seven-figure campaign touting its climate benefits, despite the fact that natural gas is a fossil fuel with a significant carbon footprint.The industry conducts misleading campaigns like this one because pressure to reduce greenhouse emissions is building. People are coming to realize that we need a 100% clean economy, and they increasingly want pollution-free energy.To be sure, gas can be lower-emitting than other fossil fuels: For example, gas releases about half as much carbon dioxide as coal during combustion. But natural gas is made of the potent greenhouse gas methane, and methane leaks are far too common across the industry. The result is emissions that can be staggeringly large, threatening to undermine whatever near-term climate advantages gas offered in the first place.And even as the industry promotes natural gas as an eco-friendly alternative to coal, it’s fighting rules to curb those harmful leaks. Groups like the API are championing the Trump administration’s plans to abolish EPA regulations on methane emissions across the oil and gas supply chain, and to remove all federal air pollution rules for pipeline and storage facilities. Together, that could result in 5 million metric tons of methane entering the atmosphere each year — equivalent to the emissions from 109 coal plants. So much for that clean energy future.Fortunately, not everybody wants to roll back the environmental clock. Leading producers like Shell, BP, Equinor, Pioneer and Jonah Energy have indicated opposition to Trump’s proposal, with some even calling for stronger federal regulation. Leading gas customers — more than a dozen electric and gas utilities, including Calpine and Exelon — support the standards, too.But the vast majority of American oil and gas companies, collectively responsible for nearly 90% of total U.S. production, have stayed conspicuously quiet in the face of a rollback that will make their product dirtier.Consider the implications for climate change. Methane from human activities is responsible for more than a quarter of the global warming we’re experiencing today, and the oil and gas industry is responsible for a quarter of that. Each pound of methane released has more than 80 times the warming power of the same amount of carbon dioxide the first 20 years after it is released.That means every company with an interest in natural gas — producers, users, distributors — has a vital stake in reducing methane emissions and supporting the policies necessary to do the job. This includes the electric utilities banking on gas to meet their own climate targets, along with investors in each of these areas.Worldwide, oil and gas companies release an estimated 79 million metric tons of methane each year. A five-year series of studies organized by EDF recently concluded that emissions from the U.S. oil and gas sector were a full 60% higher than EPA estimates. And much of that research predates the massive production boom in the Permian Basin, where research suggests the amount of methane escaping has tripled in just the past two years.Some operators are setting targets and implementing straightforward measures like replacing leaky valves and inspecting more regularly for leaks. But in a fragmented industry with thousands of companies, regulations are essential to raise the bar for everyone.The best science tells us that to have a fighting chance at climate stability, the U.S., European Union and other advanced economies need to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century, with the rest of the world following soon after. While there are different scenarios for achieving that goal, there’s no doubt industry’s methane pollution must be virtually eliminated.And there’s no doubt it can be done.The International Energy Agency estimates that oil and gas methane emissions can be cut by 75% using technologies available today, and that two-thirds of that can be achieved at no net cost. And according to the IEA, the environmental upside is staggering: Those no-cost reductions alone would have the same climate benefit as immediately shutting all the coal-fired power plants in China.That’s one reason why investors managing more than $5.5 trillion across both sides of the Atlantic have opposed the rollback, and have called on the industry to speak up in support of the U.S. methane rules. A growing number of leading oil and gas firms have acknowledged that methane is a major challenge, but also an important opportunity to demonstrate real, measurable climate progress.The private sector has a critical role to play in opposing rollbacks in the U.S., and supporting new policy in the EU, which has a unique opportunity to leverage its role as a major gas buyer. If oil and gas companies really want to be part of a cleaner global energy future, it’s time for them to step up and support strong methane rules.To contact the author of this story: Fred Krupp at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Tracy Walsh at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.Fred Krupp is the president of Environmental Defense Fund and has guided EDF for three decades.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.