How Royal Dutch Shell saved Hitler and the Nazi Party (Same motive then, as for Shell dealing with the terrorist Gaddafi, the corrupt Saudi regime and the fanatical Iranian mullahs now: access to oil)

By James Paton

March 12 (Bloomberg) — Royal Dutch Shell Plc and PetroChina Co. may need to increase their offer by as much as 55 Australian cents a share to A$3.7 billion ($3.4 billion) to acquire Arrow Energy Ltd., said an analyst at RBS Morgans.

“Shell and PetroChina may have to sweeten their offer for Arrow to as much as A$5 a share,” Nik Burns, a Melbourne-based analyst, said in a note to investors. While the companies may need to raise the bid to at least A$4.80 a share, the transaction is “more than likely to proceed,” said Burns, who predicted last month that Shell may make an offer for Arrow.

David Williams, a Shell spokesman in the Hague, and Andrew Barber, spokesman for Brisbane-based Arrow, both declined to comment.

Shell and PetroChina offered A$4.45 a share for Arrow’s Australian coal-seam gas business, the company said on March 8. That values the proposal at about A$3.3 billion. Shareholders would also get stock in a new company comprising Arrow’s international assets.

If Shell is successful, the company may move fast to acquire AGL Energy Ltd.’s coal-seam gas interests in Queensland’s Bowen Basin, potentially for A$900 million, Burns said. Sydney-based AGL may sell its 50 percent stake in the Moranbah field should Shell acquire Arrow, it said yesterday.

Shell and PetroChina may be bidding for Arrow as part of a 50-50 joint venture, according to Burns.

–Editors: Alex Devine, Raj Rajendran.

To contact the reporter on this story: James Paton in Sydney at jpaton4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Amit Prakash in Singapore at aprakash1@bloomberg.net.

SOURCE ARTICLE

A reshuffle on the Royal Dutch Shell board, which drew investor approbrium over pay last year, sees the hiring of former DuPont chief executive Chad Holliday Jr . The American is a co-author of Walking the Talk, putting a business case for corporate responsibility.

As Shell chairman Jorma Ollila endeavours to placate investors, Sir Peter Job , former head of the pay committee, and Shell nomination committee head Lawrence Ricciardi , a Citigroup director, retire at the May annual meeting.

people@ft.com

FULL FT ARTICLE (SUBSCRIPTION)

BP PLC’s $7 billion deal with Devon Energy Corp should help dispel some of the misgivings that have weighed on the British oil major’s stock in recent years—particularly doubts about its ability to keep pumping more and more oil.

Royal Dutch Shell said it was reviewing its refinery operations with the idea of keeping only those with the best growth potential.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By Phil Craig
Of FINANCIAL NEWS

UK politicians today backed a shareholder revolt against oil giants BP and Shell, giving a substantial boost to demands that the companies assess the risks associated with their controversial investments in Canada’s tar sands.

A cross-party group of MPs has today published an Early Day Motion, a means by which politicians can raise an issue in parliament, calling on the parliamentary pension fund to vote in favour of shareholder resolutions requiring the oil giants to report on their tar sands projects.

Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes, the shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change, said: “Tar sands are a very risky investment ??? financially, environmentally and socially. The resolutions ask BP and Shell to report to their investors on how they are managing these risks.

“Government should lead by example and be a responsible investor; for this reason it is essential that the MPs’ pension fund supports these resolutions.”

Tar sands, also known as oil sands, have attracted substantial attention from campaign groups. Canada’s tar sands are one of the largest proven sources of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia’s reserves, but converting tar sands into a usable form of oil produces many more greenhouse gases than extracting oil by other means.

So far six MPs have backed the motion ??? the maximum allowed before a motion is tabled. They include members of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Other MPs are now free to back the proposal.

The involvement of the parliamentary pension scheme would add substantial weight to the revolt, which is organised by FairPensions, a campaigning organisation focused on encouraging ethical investment practices. A spokesman for FairPensions said that some sovereign wealth funds are also interested in supporting the resolutions, but declined to name which funds are considering the proposals.

The coalition already includes the Co-operative Asset Management, the Unison Staff Pension Scheme, Rathbone Greenbank, CCLA Asset Management and other fund managers, foundations and faith groups that declined to be identified.

BP and Shell have confirmed that the resolutions are valid, and will be discussed at their annual general meetings, in April and May respectively.

A spokesman for BP said that the company is in discussions with shareholders about the issue. Shell declined to comment for this article.

Web site: www.efinancialnews.com

WSJ SOURCE ARTICLE

LAGOS — Shell said Thursday it had closed down two gas plants feeding Nigeria’s power stations so that it could carry out repairs on a damaged supply pipeline in the restive oil-producing region.

Daily Telegraph

Last updated: March 11th, 2010

An area near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, where oil sands are believed to lie

The group of investors vociferously trying to persuade BP and Shell to re-evaluate their potential investments in the Canada tar sands has now enlisted a group of MPs in Britain to propose an early day motion questioning the project’s financial viability.

The move is part of a pretty well-coordinated campaign mobilised by FairPensions (members: ActionAid, WWF and a number of trade unions). This year, the rebels have managed to get enough shareholder support to submit motions to the oil companies’ annual meetings against the Alberta prospects, which environmentalists argue will be responsible for high levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

Shareholders obviously have a perfect right to kick up a fuss about investments they’re not keen on. Around 25pc of the FTSE-100’s dividends are paid out each year by BP and Shell, so the importance of these two companies’ decisions to UK pensions cannot be under-estimated.

However, it does seem slightly disingenuous that FairPensions is trying to claim that a big reason for their concern is the economics of the projects. They question the margins that will be made by the oil companies and warn of possible high legal fees from environmental challenges, plus the rising costs of climate change legislation.

But if they were so concerned about the right economic decisions being made by companies like BP, they would be having a look at its portfolio of renewables and “other” unit, which made a stonking $2.3bn loss in 2009. Yet there seems to be no issue with wind, solar and biofuels: all eco-friendly, low-carbon projects that are undertaken to improve the company’s green image and prepare for a future of heavier regulation of emissions/higher financial penalties, rather than turn an immediate profit.

What’s more, if you look at an investment like BP’s Project Sunrise, it represents a low proportion of the company’s overall capital expenditure. It is currently planning to spend $1.25bn on the venture over the next few years out of a total $20bn yearly budget on exploration and new projects. If given the go-ahead, BP’s oil sands will only be pumping out 60,000 barrels out of 4m barrels per day by 2014 – around 1.5pc of overall output.

I’m not taking sides on the environmental controversy of this debate. BP claims the extra carbon dioxide emissions of Project Sunrise – from well to wheel – will only be an additional 5-15pc. The campaigners put this figure at a much higher 12-40pc.

It’s just that all the talk about the oil sands’ profitability seems to obscure this real purpose of this argument – do the tar sands pose an unacceptable environmental risk and how much do we care about it? Obviously the economics of the project are borderline unless oil stays in the $80-100 per barrel range, confirmed by the fact that Shell’s Peter Voser has decided to slow the pace of investment at the moment to concentrate on conventional reserves.

But it is highly unlikely that BP and Shell would have been examining these prospects if there were not a probability that they could make some money and they will be subject to the same financial feasibility tests as every other investment – there would be little point in them wasting all this time and money just to spite the environmentalists. And I somehow doubt that the campaigners would be putting all this effort into an anti-tar sand campaign if the projects were the cleanest form of crude extraction in the world.

SOURCE ARTICLE

EUROINVESTOR.co.uk

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) applauds Royal Dutch Shell for its decision to end its sales of gasoline into Iran, but calls on Royal Dutch Shell to sever all business ties in Iran.

UANI, in a letter dated December 17, 2009, called on Shell to disclose the full extent of its business in Iran and to end its business in Iran. Shell responded to UANI on January 14, 2010 and UANI replied to Shell on February 12, 2010. The SEC indicated in response to UANI’s letter that it would “consider the information…in connection with our monitoring of Royal Dutch Shell filings.”

In response to Shell’s decision, UANI President, Ambassador Mark D. Wallace said, “UANI applauds Royal Dutch Shell for making the responsible decision to end its sales of gasoline into Iran. Such a decision, however, only goes half way to isolating the Iranian regime.

Shell must end its hydrocarbon development business in Iran. Proceeding with such Iran-based business makes Shell too toxic for its investors and the many western businesses and governments that do business with Shell. We call on Royal Dutch Shell to end its extensive hydrocarbon projects focused on Iran, and to sever all business ties in Iran.”

According to Shell:

• In early 2007, Shell and Repsol entered into a service contract with respect to development of the South Pars fields for the Persian LNG project. However, the parties will not reach a final decision on whether to proceed with the project until the remaining significant commercial and engineering work is complete. Shell Exploration B.V. (Shell interest 100%) has a 70% interest in an agreement with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) concerning the Soroosh/Nowrooz fields. The development phase is completed and all permanent facilities were handed over to NIOC in 2005. Since then, the Soroosh/Nowrooz fields have been producing with NIOC responsible for all aspects of the operations. The term of the agreement expires when all petroleum costs and the remuneration fee have been recovered, which is expected to occur by 2012.
• A project framework agreement for the Persian LNG project (Shell interest 25%) was signed in 2004 with Repsol and the National Iranian Oil Co. to take forward the Persian LNG project to the next stage of design. Under this agreement, it is envisaged that Shell would acquire a 50% interest in a project to develop phases of the South Pars field in the Northern Gulf and a 25% interest in the midstream liquefaction company. Front-end engineering design work for the offshore facilities and for the liquefaction plant continued during 2008. The parties will not reach a final decision on whether to proceed with the project until the remaining significant commercial and engineering work is complete.
• Since 1966, a Shell entity has a 25% interest in Pars Oil Company, a joint venture that blends and markets lubricants. Pars Oil Company owns 51% in Pars and Shell Company (PASH), which markets and distributes Shell branded lubricants in Iran. A Shell entity also has a 49% in PASH. We have received legal advice that, contrary to the assumption in your letter, the company is in compliance with its disclosure and listing obligations.

UANI has effectively pressured companies such as General Electric, Huntsman, Siemens, Caterpillar, and Ingersoll Rand to end their business in Iran.

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI)

Kimmie Lipscomb, (212) 554-3296

press@uani.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

By Javier Blas and Carola Hoyos in London
Published: March 10 2010 23:11

Royal Dutch Shell on Wednesday said it has stopped selling refined petroleum to Iran, joining a growing list of oil companies and traders which have halted supplies for Tehran.

Shell’s withdrawal is the latest sign that the threat of sanctions and Washington’s behind-the-scenes efforts to convince companies not to sell to Iran are paying off.

The US is an increasingly important part of Shell’s business. The company has 22,000 employees in the US and pumps 14 per cent of its total oil and natural gas volumes from there, having big stakes in fields in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Shell’s US refining and marketing operations span all 50 states and the company is in the process of more than doubling the capacity of a refinery it owns jointly with Saudi Aramco in Texas.

FULL FT ARTICLE (SUBSCRIPTION)