Earlier this month it delivered the Big Australian a shopping list of improvements, including the demerger of all its oil and gas assets.

But for BHP talk of doing something about these US shale assets serves only to remind even the most supportive investors that in the past the company was capable of making some dire investment decisions.

In 2011, the former chief executive of BHP, Marius Kloppers, spent almost $US20 billion - on US shale operations and a further $US17 billion developing them.

The current BHP boss, Andrew Mackenzie, has been trying to sort out the mess since he took over in 2013.

At various times over the past few years BHP has made references to cleaning up the shale portfolio but it's probably no accident that having an aggressive activist shareholder judging and sharing its thoughts publicly is an incentive for BHP's management team to amp up its efforts in dealing with these assets.

Around a year ago BHP's chief finance officer, Peter Beavan, made some pretty frank admissions at an investment banking conference - saying the company paid too much for the shale assets and then over-invested and shareholders suffered.

Indeed more than $US13 billion ($17 billion) in impairments on these assets have been taken since they were acquired.

A March production update from BHP released on Wednesday shows clearly that capital expenditure for 2017 year-to-date across US shale oil and gas has fallen from $US1.1 billion to $US400 million against the previous corresponding period and the number of wells completed has halved.

"Since our entry into Onshore US, we have made significant advances in our operating capability and capital productivity which underpin the development of these fields at the optimal pace as prices recover," BHP said in its operational review statement.

"Having initially invested for growth, we have learnt from experience and our value over volume strategy, combined with strict adherence to our capital allocation framework and use of a hedging strategy to mitigate downside risks, ensures that every decision is focused on generating shareholder value."

The decision to "initiate the divestment of non-core acreage for value" includes 50,000 acres in southern Hawkville and a review of the Fayetteville fields which could also involve a sale.

BHP said that the portfolio management of these various fields has been active for years and that over this period the net acreage has fallen from 1.5 million to around 840,000 - presumably in an incremental way that didn't attract much disclosure.

Of course the economics on these oil and gas assets blew up over the past three years when the oil price plummeted. And although the oil price has staged a bit of a recovery over the year it is still less than half the level it was in 2011.

And, putting aside the oil price, the smart money said getting into shale was a mistake back then.

One wonders if Elliott Associate's founder Paul Singer would be taking some credit for Wednesday's announcement from Mackenzie. On the face of it BHP has roundly rejected Elliott's push to collapse the company's dual-listed structure and the spin off of its oil and gas assets.

Singer certainly couldn't complain about the performance of the iron ore division which posted record production from the Pilbara.

But strikes and bad weather marred the production in copper and coal, in particular. In Chile a strike stopped production for 44 days and it has downgraded its 2017 production estimates.

Quiet climate talks

Oil and gas company Santos is engaged in a behind-the-scenes battle with some large investors who are supporting a resolution put by environmental activists pushing for the company to be more open about climate related risk.

Investors supporting the resolution have been loath to make their views public. But with estimates they account for between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of the register, Santos will be keenly aware that this could become a focal point at the annual meeting set for May 4.

Santos is clearly not looking for a noisy debate on the issue. Its response to this push for more climate related transparency was to quietly post a statement on its website on Friday on its climate change disclosure.

It said that Santos "uses scenario analysis to consider a range of future energy mixes and climate policies. These scenarios are used to understand the demand for Santos' products and how this changes under different climate change policies. These scenarios are discussed annually with the Santos board".

For some investors this won't be enough. For others this statement will get Santos across the line and diffuse potential for a backlash at the meeting.

But the issue will undoubtedly raise its head again.