News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
A “mega-merger”, between BP and Royal Dutch Shell, for example, would be a phenomenally complex transaction, creating a company with almost 200,000 employees and rousing huge political and antitrust concerns.
Click to continue reading “Conditions ripe for a reshuffle of energy sector pack”
Given the likely horror in London and The Hague and the equal dismay in Brussels we can expect some swift defensive manoeuvres to be soon under discussion. Prime amongst these has to be the oft trumpeted merger of Shell and BP into one seriously big and European managed corporation.
Click to continue reading “How will Shell respond to the threat of an ExxonMobil takeover?”
Nor would Van der Veer give me a straight answer to another straight question: “Is there any investment you would not make on ethical grounds?” I asked this six times. He was unable to furnish me with an example.
Click to continue reading “It will take more than goodwill and greenwash to save the biosphere”
In the latest of his groundbreaking encounters with the figures whose decisions shape our environment, George Monbiot challenges Jeroen van de Veer, chief executive of oil and gas giant Shell, on ethics, greenwash advertising, renewable energy investments and gas-flaring in Nigeria.
The passengers worked for two Shell Oil Co. contractors and the company said they were on their way to its Gulf of Mexico platform.
Click to continue reading “Shell employees killed in Louisiana helicopter crash”
Thanks to record oil prices over the last few years and a cautious investment strategy that drew fire from critics, the company has nearly $40 billion in cash reserves. It has another $225 billion in repurchased stock tucked away for a rainy day. That’s enough money to pay a nearly 60 percent premium, in cash, for every share of its next largest competitor - Royal Dutch Shell.
Click to continue reading “Analysts think Exxon Mobil will buy Royal Dutch Shell”
LONDON, Oct. 25.-It is reported confidentially from Berlin that the object of Sir Henry Deterding’s recent visit to Chancellor Hitler at Berchtesgaden, where he stayed for four days, was to discuss the conditions for granting a monopoly to the Royal Dutch and Shell Companies of petrol distribution in Germany for a long period of years.
One of the knock-on effects from Shell’s dysfunctionality over their declaration of fictitious hydrocarbon reserves was that they were obliged by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to pay $120million to investors. All investors who bought shares between 8th April 1999 and 17th March 2004 were entitled to a share of the payout. As a (very) small investor I qualified for this – in theory anyway.
When the initial wodge of papers arrived from the “Settlement Administrators” I tried hard to understand them and eventually worked out that I would need to know the precise dates of all purchase and sales of Shell shares over this period. I don’t bother to keep such records and all of my purchases were under a staff savings scheme anyway. Not a lot of money in my case so my inclination was not to bother with the claim.
In October 2008 I received from BNP Paribas who administered the Shell share savings a scheme a very helpful and clear letter which, or so I thought, gave me all the information I needed to have in order to progress my claim. So I decided after all that I might as well go ahead with it.
On December 7th the Settlement Administrator wrote to me with a “CLAIM DEFICIENCY NOTICE” . This said that my claim was deficient because I had not provided them with the “Transaction Amount” for each transaction. This was NOT TRUE. The BNP Paribas statement which I had given them clearly showed the value of each transaction
In sharing this experience with the wider world I do so for two reasons. First an ordinary shareholder with a modest holding like me would be likely to be intimidated by the original document – I certainly was. However if we did persevere, in my case using the good information proved by BNP Paribas, it seems that Shell’s “Settlement Administrators” still aren’t satisfied.
I shan’t bother to pursue this any more – it’s not worth the hassle. But it is just yet another example of how the small man, be he an impoverished pensioner, a disgruntled motorist or a small shareholder just doesn’t count with Shell any more. Sad isn’t it?
Shell, based in The Hague, postponed a decision to expand its Athabasca oil-sands project in Canada. Valero Energy, the largest U.S. refiner, said in October it will defer projects to cut spending by about $500 million, or 17 percent.
Click to continue reading “Oil Curve Steeper Than ‘99 Shows Crude May Gain in ‘09 on OPEC”
: A great resource - many thanks!
: Interesting suggestion from Business Week...however, Shell might not be able to come up with the necessary finance, while BP might just be able to do so.... the question then becomes whether Total would be willing to act as a white knight to save Shell from BP's clutches.
: hollymp Email me at paddy_briggs@yahoo.co.uk and I'll be pleased to help you.
: Hi, really great site. Im currently doing a piece of work for my degree regarding the effectiveness of Shell's communication functions, both Internal and External. I would be really gratefull if someone could provide me with any expert information or guidance on where to find any good literature. Thanks.
: Dear Fellow Pensioners (includes you too Paddy as we are all in the same boat!)- I have a couple of (final?)comments. To pick up on the "right on the nail" comments from fellow pensioner the real scandal in Shell EP has been the departure from the tried and tested practice of only having people at the top (leaders) who actually knew the nuts and bolts of the EP business. This started with the disastrous decision to appoint Cor (if you need geology go to Schlumberger) Herkstroter to the top job. He oversaw the destruction of a E&P organisation which was second to none, the envy of its peer group and a source of pride to all of us working in it. This massive error was compounded by importing huge numbers of US staff totally clueless as to the way the business worked in the many operating units of the world and were typified by an astonishing focus on their year end performance bonus requiring a declaration of success long before the "final result" was actually known. The modus operandi quickly became one of preaching from on high, intolerance of questioning (it's my way or the highway) and a continual reference to a number of "management guru bibles" - US author only, please. (We were not to know then, but it was all terribly prescient of the US Iraq misadventure). Remember, Mission Accomplished - all Hype, Hypocrasy & Hyperbole with Honesty and Humility totally absent. PE (petroleum engineering) became Powerpoint and Excel.The virtue and necessity of time consuming solid technical work became a luxury the company could not afford! Ten years on a massive effort has been expended to recover the situation - but of course in the meantime so much has been lost. That is the real scandal. I will never be an apologist for the truly dreadful Watts and his acolytes but in my more generous moments I honestly believe they did not fully understand what they were doing. I once asked him not to use the expression "economic reserves"; by definition reserves ARE economic and the look he gave me was one of "what on earth are you talking about?". I will leave the matter there but continue to grieve for the company that lost its way.
: Iain Good analysis but a bit lopsided and I must react! Of course you are totally correct that the SEC was way behind modern technology and is now making some amends. But to conclude that Shell EP has been an industry pathfinder and somehow the whole world has erroneously dumped on Shell goes a bit too far. I know you very well and I am convinced that your words come from your heart and were not drafted by some Shell PR spindoctor. But you know that we started to lose the battle around the mid 90s on technology development. Until that time we were very good at inventing new technology, a bit less at implementing it quickly and globally and we dithered perhaps a bit longer than really needed. And our internal bureacracy could also be a bit improved at that time. And we were by far the biggest operator in the world and as such earning the money for many of our competitors. We outperformed many (most?) from the early 70s to the mid 90s. But after the mid 90s, all had to be changed in a major way and we lost basic business controls and created a new attitude in the workforce whereby short term views prevailed, promise was better than performance, open communication was a thing of the past and the ensuing cultural revolution led to many disasters. The breaking of SEC rules was just one of them and in my view a minor one but this point was magnified by everyone. It was fodder for the lawyers and easy to find a culprit that could be sacrificed. But there was something bigger going on behind the scenes, less obvious to the general public. We all know (and you certainly better than anyone) that companies like Schlumberger have a lot more know-how and technology development than we have. They ‘stole with pride’ our systems and enhanced them. And then they applied them too! With all the internal turmoil and american political correctnesss flying about, we lost focus and have forgotten how to find and develop new oil and gas in an economic manner. We lost the ability to consistently do giant projects well. Very few are on time and within budget, certainly not 50 % over and 50% under the objectives. You know that the personal greed has exploded and there is little coherence in the company anymore. We used to have the top people near the coalface, now we have a small group in the headoffice and many processes. But we have no real feel of the local conditions anymore. But having said all this, you are right again that the SEC now themselves should be doing some major ‘mea culpa’ for not overseeing the real criminals in the finance world. Our beloved leader of the past, the borne again christian Philippus Watts, would have made a great investment banker. And he will still occupy a seat next to the likes of bishop Mugabe in his afterlife. And it will be hot there! He was like the present bankers who sold crap and did not even want to know what was in the boxes they sold. It all tumbled when someone opened a box and saw it was empty. In Shell that someone was v.d.Vijver or perhaps Coopman. And like in the finance world it was the messengers that got sacrificed! Apologies for the long reply, but some very bad things happened (and are happening still, just check with your dutch colleagues who are retired and how their pensionfund has been doing) and these things should not be swepped under the carpet. And I wish you and all the readers here a very healthy and prosperous 2009 and hope the Donovans continue with this fantastic forum of REAL open discussion. But I still fear Shell, so I shall remain anonymous!
: Iain The reserves issue was a scandal not because there was confusion about the categorisation of hydrocarbon reserves. It was a scandal because at the very top of Shell there were lies, cover ups, disingenuous public statements, obfuscation and deceit. The revelations about all this led to further disclosures about the management style of Phil Watts and others in the command chain. Those of us who worked for Shell in the Watts era were not surprised at what emerged – we knew him and some of his cohorts for what they were. It was a scandal alright!
: Dear Guest - I have no problem with your comment; infact I agree with it. The SEC "uniform set of rules" to which you refer will now reflect the technologies and techniques of the 21st Century instead of those of the early part of the second half of the 20th. All EP companies will estimate and report accordingly - to the ultimate benefit of the investor community. As I wrote in my previous posting this notable advance is a direct result from the trials and tribulations of Shell and the so-called great reserves scandal. I use the term "so-called" because if all the volumes recategorised had vanished like the money of those investing with the unsupervised, unregulated Madoff, the word scandal would be justified. However the volumes have not vanished inspite of the tsunami of bogus indignation which washed over the company and the many affected employees.
I wish all who contribute and read the contributions on this site a very Happy and spite-free New Year 
: Hi. Good site.
: Have to generally agree what Iain has said, some of which I have voiced earlier. I never realized that the SEC rules for reserves calculation were just for company to company comparison. If true then what a idiotic group the SEC are and the reason why companies such as Shell got nailed with the reserves scandle in 2004.
Shell Live Chat RSS Feed