Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

February 3rd, 2006:

I-Newswire: Royal Dutch Shell Plc, the newly merged giant Anglo-Dutch multinational, destroyed $2.9 billion in shareholder value in 2005…

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, the newly merged giant Anglo-Dutch multinational, destroyed $2.9 billion in shareholder value in 2005 simply as a result of the accounting policies they use.
(I-Newswire) – Lisbon, Portugal ( i-NewsWire ) February 3, 2006 – Royal Dutch Shell Plc, a global group of energy and petrochemical companies, permanently destroyed $2.974 billion of shareholder value during 2005 as a result of the application of the stable measuring unit assumption in the accounting of their Retained Income.
This amounts to 11.75% of their recently announced record total income attributable to shareholders of $25.311 billion in 2005. The real value destruction of $0.36 per share is 156% of the fourth quarter dividend of $0.23 per share ( subject to exchange rates ).
Shell implements the stable measuring unit assumption in accounting its Retained Income. Retained Income is a constant real value non-monetary item and cannot be updated in terms of Historical Cost Accounting rules in a low inflationary economy.
Retained Income is in essence the same as cash in a zero interest bank account under the Historical Cost Accounting model.
If all Shell’s activities had been conducted in a hyperinflationary economy during 2005 they could have updated Retained Income in terms of International Accounting Standard IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies. The $2.974 billion would not have been permanently destroyed and in stead could have been paid out to shareholders in dividends.
They are not allowed to do this in a low inflationary economy in terms of Historical Cost Accounting rules. IAS29 is only applicable in hyperinflationary economies.
If Shell continue accounting their Retained Income based on the Historical Cost Accounting model for the next ten years the combination of low inflation and the stable measuring unit assumption may permanently destroy an additional $29.74 billion of shareholders´ real value in their Retained Income. Their Retained Income was $90.578 billion as at the end of December 2005.
Retained Income may be declared as dividends to shareholders. Shell’s shareholders permanently lost $2.974 billion in 2005. They may also never receive that $29.74 billion over the next ten years when Shell apply the stable measuring unit assumption to account their Retained Income.
Changing over to Real Value Accounting™ will stop the destruction of shareholder’s real value in Shell’s Retained Income and may gain the petrochemical giant’s shareholders at least $29.74 billion over the next ten years.
( Value date: Dec 2005 – US CPI 196,8. All the above values have to be updated as the US CPI changes every month. )
Contact
Nick Smith
RealValueAccounting.Com™
Tel +351 918386974
www.realvalueaccounting.com
If you have questions regarding information in this press release contact the company listed below. I-Newswire.com is a press release service and not the author of this press release. The information that is on or available through this site is for informational purposes only and speaks only as of the particular date or dates of that information. As some companies / PR Agencies submit their press releases once per week/month or quarter, make sure check the official company website for accurate release dates as our site displays the I-Newswire.com distribution date only. We do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information on or available through this site, and we are not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in that information or for actions taken in reliance on that information. read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Corribsos.com: Rossport Five Press Statement

FEB 2 2006
On the 29th June last we were imprisoned due to our opposition to Shell’s proposed pipeline in North Mayo. Since then, our position has been vindicated by the Accufacts and Corcoran Reports and even, despite its flawed and limited terms of reference, the Advantica Report.
In our ‘Open Letter’ from prison in August we proposed entering into talks with Shell to resolve the conflict once their injunction on us was lifted. On the day prior to the application by Shell to the High Court to vacate the injunction, Minister Dempsey proposed mediation between Shell and us. We accepted this proposal in good faith hoping that it indicated Shell’s acceptance that their project could only proceed with community consent.
On that day, September 29th, the Minister said:
''Following the debates [in the Dail] I contacted both sides in an effort to break the impasse and have indicated that the Government will appoint a mediator if both sides are willing to participate in a mediation process. I am now calling on both parties to create the conditions which will allow
such a process to commence immediately.''
The following week in the Dail the Minister announced:
''As the House is aware, both sides responded positively to my indication on Thursday last that the Government would appoint a mediator provided both sides were willing to respond positively. The response was positive, the injunction was lifted and the men released … I am now moving, in consultation with both sides, to identify a person or body who might be willing to undertake that work. It is my intention that by this weekend a list of possible mediators will be provided to both sides to establish their acceptability and to see if we can come up with an agreed name. As soon as that process is complete, the mediator will then commence the work.”
It is clear from these remarks that mediation was envisaged and understood by us and any reasonable observer to be between the Rossport Five and Shell.
On the 29th October, Minister Dempsey announced:
''The Minister for Communications, Marine & Natural Resources, Noel Dempsey T.D., has today appointed Peter Cassells as mediator in the Corrib Gas Project Dispute. It has been agreed that Mr. Cassells will have access to and support from the Mediators Institute Ireland''.
In our early informal discussions with Mr. Cassells he confirmed to us that mediation was to be a process between the Rossport Five and Shell.
It now transpires that Minister Dempsey misled us and possibly the Dail as to the true nature of what he understood mediation to mean. On January 25th, the Minister stated in a written reply to Jerry Cowley TD:
“I also nominated a mediator, Mr. Peter Cassells, to work with the community and the developer”.
In addition, the Minister said:
“The role of the mediator is wider than just the gas project and I understand he is looking at the availability of services generally throughout the region, including in particular, the role of gas supply in the area.”
Nothing in our understanding of mediation could have implied our acceptance of this definition of the process. The Minister was now unilaterally proposing that the mediation process include anyone who had any views to contribute. This clearly was against what had been agreed with us and rendered mediation impractical and amounting more to a process of investigating local views. As late as yesterday evening the Minister was on local radio in Mayo informing listeners that he had never meant the mediation to be between Shell and the imprisoned men.
Our agreement to enter into direct talks with Shell was a serious decision. Shell after all were responsible for our jailing and the breaking up of our families for three months. It is with great concern and anger that we discover that Minister Dempsey omitted to tell the Dail and us in October that he had in mind a much wider process that could not warrant the designation ‘mediation’.
Our concern is that the Minister’s real intentions all along have been to obtain a favourable safety report from Advantica, complete a bizarre form of mediation and then announce to the public the continuation of the Corrib gas project whatever the cost. Subjugation not mediation!
We call on the restoration of proper mediation where both sides work together, confidentially and without reporting to a third-party, to reach agreement. We call on Minister Dempsey to cease interfering with and re-defining the process agreed by Shell and ourselves. Finally, we call on Mr. Cassells to defend the integrity of the mediation process from this political inteference.
Vincent McGrath
Michael O Seighin
Willie Corduff
Philip McGrath
Brendan Philbin
For verification and comment contact Dr. Mark Garavan 087-9023687 read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

PLC Law Department: General Counsel File – Beat Hess, Shell

Part of a PLC Law Department series profiling general counsel in the world's leading companies.
Brief career to date: Held various positions in private practice, government and courts. From 1977, worked in various legal roles for Brown Boveri of Switzerland, including as head of the Brown Boveri legal department where he, together with his legal team, handled the merger between ASEA of Sweden and Brown Boveri. Since that merger in 1988, held the role of senior vice president, general counsel and secretary to the board of ABB until 2003 when assumed the role of group legal director for the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies.
Location of company headquarters: The Hague, The Netherlands.
Primary industry sector: Oil and Gas.
Number of employees worldwide: Over 112,000 within the Shell Group.
Turnover of the company in the last financial year: Net income of US $18,536 million (approximately UK£10.498 million).
Subsidiaries: Approximately 1,947 active subsidiaries
How many lawyers are there in the company worldwide? Approximately 650 (excluding tax lawyers).
In which locations is the law department based? Principally in The Hague, London and Houston. Additionally, however, there are numerous in-house lawyers employed by various Shell companies around the world in over 50 countries.
How is the legal function structured? See previous answer. Additionally, the legal function is multi-structured along business function lines, headquarter function lines, and regional lines.
Who has overall responsibility within the company for the business ethics and corporate governance functions? A combination of me, Jyoti Munsiff (our chief ethics & compliance officer) and Michiel Brandjes (the Royal Dutch Shell plc corporate secretary). They both report to me, but also have direct access to the Chief Executive and Chairman.
Which areas of legal risk do you predominantly encounter in your sector? US litigation risk; regulatory compliance legal risks; health, safety & environmental legal risks; product liability risks and so on.
Which areas of law does the legal function provide advice on, and which does it tend to outsource and why? Our in-house lawyers provide advice in all areas of the law. External lawyers are used on an exceptional basis, either to handle litigation or where a particular expertise or resource is needed which cannot be accessed in-house.
Which two law firms (anywhere in the world) that you have instructed over the last few years have most impressed you and why? Kirkland & Ellis (David Bernick) and Debevoise Plimpton (Ralph Ferrara, Ann Ashton, Jon Tuttle, Kolby Smith).
What type of actions would be most likely to induce you to dismiss an external law firm? Poor quality of work and refusal to work within agreed standards or guidelines.
What do you consider to be the three most successful improvements you have introduced to your department over the last few years?
1) Globalisation of the legal function by establishing a “One Team” model where all lawyers providing in-house legal services to Shell companies feel and are part of a global functional legal team;
2) Functional reporting world-wide (i.e., all Shell lawyers functionally report, directly or indirectly, to me as legal director); and
3) Movement toward a single global legal functional budget.
What have been the three most challenging issues that your law department has faced over the last two years?
1) Litigation and regulatory investigations resulting from hydrocarbon reserves recategorisation issues;

2) Unification of our former parent companies into one parent company (Royal Dutch Shell plc); and
3) Functional globalisation and unification of the various Shell legal departments world-wide.
What are the three most challenging issues that your law department is likely to face over the next two to three years?
1) Apparent increasing trend of US courts and regulatory authorities extending their jurisdiction extraterritorially;

2) Continued management of “big ticket” legal risks, and
3) Successful legal management succession planning.
How would you describe your typical day? I generally get in around 07:30 or 08:00. I drive into the office. My first priority is to vet my email and voicemail for urgent messages. My closing time varies considerably depending on the issues of the day. On a “normal” day I get home around 19:30.
Which piece of technology could you not operate without ? The telephone, to talk to my wife and children.
If not a lawyer what would you be? A painter or a medical doctor.
What is the one piece of advice you would pass on to any prospective general counsel? Don’t say “Yes” if you would prefer to say “No”. read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Daily Express (UK): ARE SHELL'S PROFITS OBSCENE?

AS THE OIL GIANT DELIVERS RECORD RESULTS OF 313 bn WE ASK…
ARE SHELL'S PROFITS OBSCENE?


YES says Tony Woodley: TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION

THOUSANDS of people are anxious about their pensions. Industry is worried about mounting energy costs.
A lot of older people are dreading the next fuel bill. That's why the T&G believes a windfall such as rising oil prices should deserve special tax treatment.
That is why it sticks in the throat when vast companies such as Shell rake in multi-billion-pound profits through no great risk-taking – and hand the bulk of it to lucky shareholders.
There are environmental concerns too. As Friends Of The Earth said yesterday: “Oil companies must be forced to face up to their wider responsibilities -on climate change, on the environment and on human rights.”
Shell's £13billion profit announced yesterday comes hard on the heels of record results at Exxon and anticipated records next week at BP
As a trade unionist from a manufacturing background I recognise the high levels of investment these companies make. I know the risks my members take in working offshore as well as delivering fuel to forecourts. But these profits are down to one thing – sky-rocketing world oil prices (up 44 per cent last year) – not enterprise or initiative by the companies.
We don't propose this new windfall tax just to punish the oil majors. There is a real social problem this unearned cash could help solve. Tens of thousands of loyal employees at companies such as United Engineering Forgings, ASW, Dexion and others have seen their pensions evaporate through bankruptcy or corporate cutbacks.
It is to help them that lobbying and legal actions by unions have forced Government action such as the Financial Assistance Scheme. The Pension Protection Fund has also been set up to help those including MG Rover workers who have seen their pensions put under pressure as companies collapse. But there is more to be done.
This is where the windfall tax comes in because those whose pensions were robbed have only limited access to the Financial Assistance Scheme.
Behind the headlines are people struggling to make ends meet. Those struggles, ironically, involve fears of rising fuel and energy prices. It is the elderly who, even after the Government's winter fuel payments, still live in fear of the bills. Track those bills back and the big oil companies are implicated. They also stand accused of raising prices to industry, which puts jobs and pensions under even greater pressure.
That is why when such companies as Shell and BP enjoy the benefits of rising prices, the Government should say they have a duty to the rest of the community to donate part of their windfall.
Critics say an extra tax is anti-business and anti-profit. Nonsense. Are Shell and BP saying they won't carry on investing and paying shareholders' dividends? Of course not. The truth is they have got lucky and should put a bit more in to help the rest of the country with the real difficulties we face.
• Tony Woodley is general secretary of the TGWU.
NO says Chris Skrebowski: EDITOR OF PETROLEUM REVIEW
WHY does [financial success by an oil company attract such consistently negative reactions? During the Second World War it was said of American GIs that they were “overpaid, over¬sexed and over here”.
The oil companies appear to be heirs to this sort of simplistic analysis. Part of the resentment of the GIs was the subconscious realisation that success in the war depended on them. Similarly, do we resent the oil companies because we depend on them so much?
Western society is wholly dependent on the oil industry's products for transportation, and for food in both its growing (pesticides, fertilisers) and its delivery and packaging.
All our petrochemicals, lubricants and solvents are oil derived.
As President Bush observed, our societies are “addicted to oil”. Even if we use the less pejorative term “dependent”, it is easy to see how we resent our dependence while remaining fearful that the supply might dry up.
It is hardly a revelation that there is increasing concern about the price and availability of future energy supplies. The traditional oil companies that you can buy shares in, such as Shell, now produce only about 16 per cent of the world's oil supplies – although, by buying from other producers, they supply more than 20 per cent of global demand.
Since the oil crisis of the Seventies, oil companies have had little or no ability to set prices. Initially, this passed to Opec but since the mid-Eighties the market has determined the price of oil.
The market simply reconciles the buyers and sellers – and what the steady rise in the oil price is telling us is that there is more demand than there is supply. The world is operating flat out, with a limited volume of technically unattractive crude in Saudi Arabia as the planet's only spare capacity.
Oil company profits are the basic source of investment capital and shareholder reward. So, at a time when we want oil companies to be investing to increase supply, and at a time when we are worrying about the solvency of our pension funds, shouldn't we be rejoicing that they are making large profits? (One pound in eight earned by our pensions funds comes from BP and Shell).
If we examine Shell's latest results, we find that the company is already struggling to maintain its oil and gas output but is committed to investing in alternatives and building at least some of these into major new businesses.
The power of oil companies means that they will always have more critics than friends. However, we would do well to wish them success in balancing out investment to increase oil and gas production, rewards to shareholders – to give many of us pensions – and the amounts to be invested in the new energies which are the future.
Oh, and if they could just make sure they don't trigger climate change as well, please.
• Petroleum Review is published by the Energy Institute. read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Daily Express (UK): Motorists protest at Shell's £13bn profits

'It is absolutely ridiculous with drivers hit on all sides by tax and profiteering'
OIL giant Shell provoked a backlash from motorists yesterday after making profits of £1.5million an hour last year – a record for a UK business.
The company – full name Royal Dutch Shell – generated £12.93billion during 2005, up 30 per cent on the previous year. That amounts to £400-a-second profit.
Shell bosses said the company had benefited from high world-wide oil and gas prices.
But last night the firm came under attack from consumer groups and environmentalists. “It is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous,” said Andrew Spence, chairman of the Fuel Lobby which last year organised protests to galvanise the Government into bringing down tax on fuel. “Yet again the British motorist is being hammered by, if not excessive taxation, then excessive profiteering. We are getting hit on all sides.”
Shell chief executive Jeroen van der Veer, who earned £l.77million in salary and expected bonuses, rejected the criticism. He said: “It is not correct to think that all the profits are coming out of the UK. It is a world market and these are world market prices. This is the reality of the world.” He added: “Our good performance in the fourth quarter 2005 gives us a solid platform to build on in 2006. We delivered record cash and earnings. Success in exploration and gaining access to new resources continues.”
Shell said its profits came from more than 140 countries, with operations outside the UK making up significantly more than 90 per cent of the figures.
Mr van der Veer said Shell had invested significantly in the UK over the past 10 years and this had been very important for the UK economy.
But Roger King, of the Road Haulage Association, said: “How much of this profit is generated-by sweat and how much because of the record price of a barrel of oil? We suspect it is the latter. “Shell has benefited from high global prices.
Meanwhile, road hauliers' dependent on corresponding high price of diesel can barely make ends meet with increasing numbers going out of business. It seems all gain for some, and all pain for others. “We suggest that the Government takes a little more from the oil companies and uses this to reduce fuel tax for road transport operators, a tax that is still some 24p per litre more on average than that paid by our EU competitors.”
Other critics were more concerned about the home-heating costs faced by pensioners this winter. Derek Simpson, general secretary of union Amicus, said: “It's difficult to reconcile these colossal profits with the fact that some of the most vulnerable people in society can't heat their homes and industry is struggling to keep going.”
Karen Darby of price comparison and switching service SimplySwitch.com said: “It's not just motorists that get hit by high oil prices. “Every household will feel the pinch – from the increased cost of manufacturing everyday items such as supermarket plastic bags to oil-fired power stations which generate electricity.
Householders have, seen their energy bills rocket in the past year and have been told to expect further rises of up to 15 per cent in 2006. With providers blaming increases on the rise in the wholesale cost, this latest profit announcement will not be well received.” She urged lower-income customers to check to ensure they were getting the best deal.
Tony Woodley, general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, said he was concerned the rich were getting richer and the poor poorer. “Part of this windfall should be handed back to the public through a one-off tax to help ease the pensions crisis facing thousands of workers,” he said.
Friends of the Earth also called for a windfall tax on Shell, which it claimed was profiting from climate change, with the revenue invested in renewable technologies to heat and power public buildings. Spokesman Craig Bennett, said: “Shell is profiting from the current high oil prices, but we are all paying the price. Oil companies must be forced to face up to their wider responsibilities -on climate change, on the environment and on human rights.”
A Shell spokeswoman said: “Fuel prices in the UK before tax are among the cheapest in Europe. Fierce competition in the UK has driven down prices making fuel retailing a high-volume low-margin business.” read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Daily Star: Shell bonanza: Shell OIL GIANT IN £8.5BN PLEDGE

By BILL MARTIN
OIL giant Royal Dutch Shell is looking to return more than £8.5 billion to shareholders after reporting record year-end profits.
Chief executive Jeroen van der Veer said the company will return £5.5bn through an above-inflation rise in its dividend payout. And he pledged a further £3bn through a share buyback. The promise came as the company unveiled a 30% hike in underlying profits from £l0bn to £13bn for the year to December.
Profits were driven by high oil prices, which sent profits in the group's exploration and production division soaring by 45% to £7.9bn, despite a drop in production from 3.8m to 3.5m barrels of oil a day hit by the Gulf of Mexico hurricanes.
“We had good results last year,” said van der Veer. “We do realise oil and gas prices were high, but we had a good operational performance and made our production targets.” He insisted the company has not profited at the expense of British motorists, pointing out that the UK is one of the most competitive markets for selling petrol.
Shell made less than 10% of its total profits in the UK, which also include gas and oil production interests in the North Sea, and had paid UK taxes of £675m.
Despite the record profits, the City was not happy. Analysts said Shell had failed to repeat Exxon Mobil's achievement in beating forecasts when reporting £20bn year-end profits earlier this week. More serious concerns were also expressed by Shell's failure to replace all the reserves it pumped out of the ground last year.
The company said its so-called reserves replacement ration was between 60% to 70%. Exploration chief Malcolm Brinded said he had only “reasonable confidence” that the company will hit a target of 100% reserves, replacement ratio by 2008.
Shell shares fell 49p to 1956p. Analysts say Shell is also having to deal with rising labour and equipment costs – plus the fact that new oil discoveries are harder to extract because they are in sand, shale or beneath deep water.
Shell promised to invest more money in “green” energy options such as solar, hydrogen and wind power. read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Daily Star (UK): Obscene: Fury at Shell's £13bn profits

By PAUL MALLEY
OIL giant Shell made a staggering profit of £12.93 billion last year – an all-time UK record.
The megabucks sum works out at almost £1.5m every HOUR and is a massive 103 times bigger than tonight's £125m EuroMillions jackpot.
Shell's profits rocketed 30% on the previous year's haul, thanks to sky-high oil and gas prices around the world.
Consumer groups called the figure obscene, claiming motorists and householders are being hammered by “excessive profiteering”.
Shell's results come as motorists face petrol prices of about 90p a litre at the pumps – compared to 79.6p a year ago.
Edmund King, the RAC Foundation's executive director, said: “I think drivers will be surprised that oil companies are making record profits while they pay record prices.”
Andrew Spence, chairman of the Fuel Lobby, which last year organised protests over the high levels tax on fuel, blasted: “It is absolutely ridiculous. “Yet again the British motorist is being hammered by excessive taxation and excessive profiteering. “We are getting hit on all sides.”
Charity National Energy Action (NEA) says thousands of vulnerable people are being forced further into the poverty trap. William Gillis, chief executive of NEA, said: “Continuing domestic energy price rises will lead to a major increase in the number of households struggling to pay their bills, or paying the health and social costs of living in cold damp homes. “We urge Shell to consider gas consumers facing debt and cold homes.”
Ann Robinson, director of consumer policy at switching and comparison service uSwitch.com, said: “It's great news for shareholders but little comfort for the 1.8m households that are currently victim to fuel poverty in the UK. “We believe that organisations' like Shell should be doing more to protect UK consumers who are footing the bill.”
Tony Woodley, general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, said: “Part of this windfall should be handed back to the public through a one-off tax to help ease the pensions crisis.”
Friends of the Earth called for a windfall tax on Shell to tackle climate change. The campaign group's head of corporate accountability, Craig Bennett, said: “Oil companies must be forced to face up to their wider responsibilities – on climate change and the environment.”
Defending the profit – which could buy 645 Wayne Rooneys or build more than 17 Wembley Stadiums – Shell said it will use some of the windfall to return billions of pounds to investors in share buybacks; It's the Business: Page 51
[email protected] read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Dow Jones Newswires: Morgan Stanley cuts Royal Dutch Shell

Friday, February 03, 2006 5:28:18 AM ET
0911 GMT [Dow Jones] Morgan Stanley cuts Royal Dutch Shell (RDSB.LN) to equalweight from overweight, price target to 2,100p from 2,150p on “disappointing” cash return. “With the results for 4Q '05 (Thursday), Shell announced its intention to buy back up to $5 billion of shares in 2006”, a surprise “on the downside.” Says “either the company is planning major acquisitions, or there are real risks of further capex increases.”
read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Daily Telegraph: Will oil giants be over a barrel when 'bubble' bursts?

The seismic shock of President George W Bush's mid-week bombshell that America had to break its addiction to oil continues to send ripples across the Atlantic.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's In Business last night, former US vice president Al Gore said too many big US corporations are living in a “bubble of unreality” by failing to look beyond the carbon economy.
Mr Gore quoted a senior Bush-supporting CEO at one of America's biggest companies saying: “Let's face it, 15 minutes after President Bush leaves office the United States will have a new policy on climate change and carbon emissions.”
The former Veep might earn a living from saying this sort of thing nowadays (he runs a consultancy that advises companies on investing in a sustainable future) but his warning carries weight.
He continued: “Many business leaders are now looking at their whole cards, as we say in America, and realising America is in a kind of bubble of unreality. As soon as the current administration leaves, and perhaps before it leaves, there will be a change and those companies that get out in front of this curve are going to be a better positioned.”
Shell is one European oil company which might reasonably be described as ahead of the curve on alternative energy. Yesterday it (fruitlessly) tried to divert attention away from more claims of profiteering by accompanying its announcement of record annual profits with a press release trumpeting its green credentials. “New developments in biofuels, wind, solar and hydrogen,” it boasted, “Shell has now invested over $1billion in alternative energies, making it one of the world's leading companies in the sector.”
Shell's investment in alternative energy amounts to little more than a week's worth of profits and represents a fraction of the $19billion that Shell will spend on capital expenditure this year. Even Shell's chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer would probably admit that oil seed or straw are never going to replace oil and gas as the world's number one energy source.
However, betting on different energies is spreading the chips at the roulette wheel. Sooner or later, Shell will produce a winner which it can add to the “energy mix” it offers to customers.
The current enthusiasm for these alternative energies (two months ago BP unveiled plans to invest $8billion in non-carbon energies over the next 10 years) makes sense with oil prices at $60 a barrel.
But what will happen when the oil price comes down? After all, the barrel price is just a product of supply and demand. History tells us that today's shortage is almost always tomorrow's glut. read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Daily Telegraph: We're not running out of oil says record-breaking Shell

By Christopher Hope, Industry Editor (Filed: 03/02/2006)
Royal Dutch Shell yesterday shrugged off suggestions from US president George W Bush that America should lose its addiction to oil, adding that the world was nowhere near to running out of black gold.
The news came as Shell, the world's third biggest oil and gas company, unveiled record profits for a British-listed company of $22.9billion (£12.9billion), up 30pc, on surging oil prices and strong refining margins. This is likely to beat the $21.7billion forecast for BP next week.
Jeroen van der Veer, Shell's chief, said: “President Bush has to run America and we have to run Shell, but there is a huge energy challenge in the world. We have plenty of opportunities. This is not about proved resources, but hydrocarbon resources.”
Shell was feeling “very good” about the prospect of finding plenty of oil and gas, by developing hitherto untouched parts of the globe.
World oil and gas production was nowhere near peaking because of the potential of untapped reserves made economic by the higher oil price.
He said: “There is the theory of 'peak oil' – that the big discoveries have all gone. But we don't know where the peak will come with oil sands. With oil shale, we have not yet started. There will be many peaks in many time frames.”
Shell's production last year fell from 3.7m barrels a day (bpd) to 3.5m after hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico knocked out some platforms. Production would not be more than 3.65m bpd in 2006, it added, although Shell is targeting up to 5m bpd by 2015.
A lingering concern was local unrest affecting the company's interests in Nigeria, which meant that Shell has lost 1m barrels of oil production over the past 10 days. Shell was working to bring full production back on stream, it said. It admitted it only replaced six or seven of every 10 barrels the company extracted last year, up from five out of every 10 in 2004.
It stuck to a target of averaging a “reserve replacement ratio” of more than 100pc, a figure it last surpassed in the 1990s, between 2004 and 2008, however.
Shell is increasing capital expenditure to try to find more oil and gas, spending $19billion on looking for more hydrocarbons this year, compared with $15.6billion in 2005.
Last year seven out of 12 “big cat” prospects – containing more than 100m barrels of oil and gas – were drilled successfully. This year, Shell will drill between 15 and 20 similar wells.
Shell brushed off renewed claims it was profiteering, though pre-tax profits were up 41pc to $44.5billion, less than the world record $59.4billion posted by Exxon Mobil last week. Despite record petrol prices in the UK, Shell said it derived only a small part of these profits at UK petrol pumps. Its UK tax bill doubled to $1.2billion. Shell's shares closed down 49 at £19.56.
In London last night, the Brent oil price closed down $2.15 at $62.88.
Listen to Christopher Hope talk to Jeroen van der Veer at podcast.telegraph.co.uk read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Los Angeles Times: Shell's Net Income Slips 4%

From Bloomberg News
Royal Dutch Shell, the world's third-biggest oil company, said Thursday that profit in the fourth quarter fell 4% as hurricane damage left it unable to take advantage of near-record crude oil prices.
Net income declined to $4.4 billion, or 66 cents a share, from $4.6 billion, or 68 cents, in the year-earlier period, The Hague-based company said in a statement. Shell said it would buy back about $5 billion of its shares this year, half the level expected by some analysts.
Shell, whose output growth has lagged behind competitors', is the first major oil company to report a drop in earnings as oil trades near records. Exxon Mobil posted the biggest quarterly and annual profit in U.S. corporate history.
Shell Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer plans to spend $19 billion this year compared with more than $15 billion in 2005 to boost reserves.
“Production growth is not going to be anything spectacular over the next couple of years,” said Albert Thomson, who helps manage $6.5 billion, including Shell shares, at Aberdeen Asset Management in London. “For world-class output growth, investors need to focus on 2008 and afterward.”
Profit, excluding changes in inventory values, gained 3% to $5.4 billion, in line with the median forecast from nine analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News.
Full-year profit was $25.3 billion, a record for Shell. Revenue in the fourth quarter, excluding sales taxes and excise duties, slipped 1% to $75.5 billion.
Oil prices peaked at $70.85 a barrel in New York intraday trading Aug. 30, a day after Hurricane Katrina struck the U.S. Rita swept through almost four weeks later, and production has yet to return to normal.
Production in the fourth quarter fell 8.9% to 3.5 million barrels of oil equivalent a day, compared with 3.8 million a year earlier, Shell said. read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Shell Profit Falls On Lower Margins For Oil Refining

By CHIP CUMMINS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 3, 2006; Page A3

LONDON — Royal Dutch Shell PLC reported a 4.4% drop in fourth-quarter net income to $4.37 billion, as big year-earlier gains and softer refining-profit margins offset the high oil and natural-gas prices that have boosted profits throughout the industry.
The energy company, the world's largest by market value behind Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP PLC, benefited from last year's run-up in oil, gas and fuels prices spurred in part by hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Profit at Shell's core exploration-and-production unit rose 22%, even as the storms contributed to a 9% drop in oil and gas production. For the year, Shell earned $25.31 billion, a record for the company and 37% higher than in 2004.
In addition to the year-earlier gains, Shell was held back by its oil-products division, which includes its refining and marketing operations. Shell saw a weakening in its refining margins, or the difference between the price of crude oil and the price of selling fuels such as gasoline, especially in the West Coast, Europe and Asia.
Shell indicated that it continues to face trouble replacing all the oil and gas reserves it depleted last year.
The results disappointed some analysts. Shell shares fell 2.4% to 18.66 ($33.10) in London yesterday, off 45 pence.
Shell said fourth-quarter net income amounted to 66 cents a share, compared with net income of $4.57 billion, or 68 cents a share, a year earlier. Revenue fell 1% to $75.5 billion. Its numbers conform to international financial reporting standards, which differ from U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
The results reflected a net gain for nonoperational items of $34 million, compared with a $499 million net gain in the year-earlier quarter, which included proceeds from divestments and the reversal of a large impairment.
The results come as governments around the world ratchet up pressure on oil companies, who are throwing off a gusher of profit from today's high energy prices. Some U.S. lawmakers have threatened to impose new “windfall” taxes on oil companies. Meanwhile, countries from Britain to Bolivia have boosted the share of the revenue they take from oil and gas produced on state-controlled acreage by the international oil giants.
Despite the government moves and despite sharply escalating costs for everything from drilling rigs to engineers, high oil prices have more than made up the difference for Shell and its largest rivals.
Shell reported total oil and gas production of 3.5 million barrels of oil equivalent a day.
Its refining margins — the difference between the price of crude oil and the price of selling fuels such as gasoline and heating oil — softened during the fourth-quarter compared with the year-earlier period amid higher crude prices.
The company said it estimates its closely watched reserve-replacement ratio — the rate at which a company finds new reserves of oil and gas to replace the energy it pumps out of the ground each year — was between 60% and 70% for 2005. Companies typically try to achieve 100% reserve replacement to satisfy investors concerned about future production growth.
Write to Chip Cummins at [email protected] read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

The Times: Taxman benefits as Shell's profit soars 30% to $22.9bn

By Carl Mortished, International Business Editor
RECORD profits at Royal Dutch Shell last year yielded an extraordinary harvest for the Inland Revenue which collected $1.2 billion (£674 million) from the oil giant, double the amount Shell paid in UK taxes in 2004.
Soaring oil and gas prices pushed Shell’s current cost profit up 30 per cent to $22.9 billion but investors were disappointed by a 3 per cent gain in profit to $5.4 billion in the final quarter.
Lingering doubts over Shell’s ability to replace the oil and gas it produces with new reserves and disappointment that the oil company did not match ExxonMobil’s strong fourth quarter gain pushed Royal Dutch Shell “B” stock down 2.4 per cent to £19.56 per share.
Jeroen Van der Veer, chief executive, said that the company had a good year, meeting its investment and production targets. The oil giant spent $15 billion on new projects and plans to raise that to $19 billion this year. But output slipped in the fourth quarter from more than 3.8 million barrels per day (bpd)in 2004 to 3.5 million bpd, partly due to loss of production caused by damage to offshore platforms during last year’s violent hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr Van der Veer said that Shell was continuing to target an increase in output to between 4.5 million and 5 million bpd over the next decade. The group found some two billion new barrels of hydrocarbons last year but is only booking between 750 million and 850 million to its formal statement of reserves.
Soaring oil prices boosted Shell’s cash flow from $28 billion to $35 billion but it disappointed some investors by failing to boost its share buyback programme. Shell bought in for cancellation some $5 billion in stock in 2005 and paid out $10.7 billion in dividends. read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

The Times: Shell profits bring little cheer

By Carl Mortished, International Business Editor
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL yesterday announced the largest profit ever recorded by a company on the London Stock Exchange. And the annual combined profits of Shell, ExxonMobil and that anticipated from BP next week, well exceed the annual income of a small nation such as Bulgaria, Sri Lanka or Tunisia.
So much money but not much cheer for the energy titans because they are struggling to achieve their core purpose: to meet the world’s ever-increasing demand for fuel. ExxonMobil suffered a decline in production after years of flat performance, Shell suffered its third year of falling oil and gas volumes, and analysts expect BP and Total to show small declines in output for 2005.
The image of a champagne reception on the bridge while the mechanics struggle in the engine-room to get the propellers turning is embarrassing to the oil industry.
Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s chairman, was at pains to explain to motorists that Shell’s $22.9 billion (£12.9 billion) profit had little to do with UK petrol retailing, still an impoverished offshoot of the multinational empire. The company pays $18 billion in taxes worldwide, of which $1.2 billion are pocketed by Inland Revenue — a figure that may rise this year with the Chancellor’s increase in oil and gas taxation.
Investment levels have soared: the company spent $15 billion last year and will spend $19 billion this year. Shell drilled 15 major prospects in 2005, known as “big cats”, with the potential of delivering at least 100 million barrels of oil or gas. Of the twelve that have been assessed, seven were successful in Australia, Malaysia, Norway and Nigeria.
It is a good performance in an industry where wildcat exploration has a one in twelve success rate and exploration in known hydrocarbon regions generally yields one in three.
Still, the output challenge remains. This year’s production figures from the majors will be peppered with qualifications — hurricanes, riots and the depressing effect of high oil prices on output governed by production sharing contracts.
These should not be seen as excuses in an industry for which war and revolution are as frequent problems as bad weather. Last week Repsol YPF, the Spanish oil major, had to remove a quarter of its oil reserves, in large part because Bolivia’s new tax laws make further investment uneconomic.
With global oil demand rising at between 2 and 3 per cent per year and Opec running at near full capacity, it is not reassuring that the world’s top three private sector producers are shrinking.
SHELLING OUT
What can you do with $23bn (£13bn)?
Give every Tesco customer in the UK a 50 per cent refund on everything they bought last year
Rival Lebanon for size, the world’s 103rd largest economy, according to the latest IMF figures
Buy every Shell employee an Aston Martin Vantage sports car, with change to spare
Clear 80 per cent of student debts built up with the Student Loans Company
Pay off all secured and unsecured loans taken out by consumers in December 2005 read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

The Independent: Jeremy Warner's Outlook: Gazprom takes a tilt at Centrica, but is it safe to be embraced like this by the Russian bear?

Shell: not enough profit, too little investment; Eurotunnel: more misleading claims
Published: 03 February 2006
Just a giant ramp, or is Gazprom serious about bidding for Centrica? Whatever the answer, Centrica's chief executive, Sir Roy Gardner, will be pressing the Takeover Panel for an urgent clarification after remarks yesterday from a senior Gazprom official to the effect that a bid is indeed being considered. If he hasn't already done so, Sir Roy will also be beating a trail to No 10 Downing Street to establish whether it is remotely acceptable for the state-controlled Russian gas monopoly to acquire such a key part of the British gas supply market.
From Norsk Hydro to Shell, Gaz de France and BG Group, every man and his dog is rumoured to be interested in bidding for Centrica, yet Gazprom has long been the most outspoken in expressing an interest. The world's largest gas producer is on record as saying it would like to have at least 20 per cent of the British gas market by 2015, with acquisitions the most obvious way of achieving this goal. Indeed, it is a little puzzling that yesterday's remarks from Alexander Shkuta, Gazprom's deputy general director, should have had such an electrifying effect on the share price, since the company has admitted its interest before.
Even so, I guess there's something of a difference between possibly being interested in bidding, and yesterday's admission that it is actively considering, analysing and reviewing such a move. Mr Shkuta insisted last night that something had been lost in translation, and that in fact his remarks were directed at the UK market as a whole, not Centrica in particular, yet it is hard to see who else he could mean.
Assuming Gazprom is serious, is there any reason for obstructing its advances? As things stand, Russia supplies only about 2 per cent of the UK market's gas needs, but this is expected to rise strongly over the years ahead as North Sea sources of supply decline. To make Britain so beholden to such a potentially hostile and politically unstable source of energy supply is in itself worrying enough, and is one of the main reasons for the Government's belated energy review.
Yet to allow what is in effect an arm of the Russian government to acquire a company which still accounts for 60 per cent of Britain's gas supply market might seem almost wantonly neglectful. As things stand, Centrica derives its gas from a variety of different sources and contracts. In order to protect itself from high levels of volatility in the gas price, it has also been acquiring its own sources of supply, both in the North Sea and the west coast of Africa. The underlying strategy is to seek security of supply in diversity.
With Gazprom as owner, Centrica would presumably quite quickly become only a conduit for Russian supply. In the short term, this might have some positive impact on the price. Gazprom lays claim to about 60 per cent of Russia's gas reserves and is responsible for about a fifth of the world's supply of gas. Despite its inefficencies it is also one of the cheapest sources of gas around.
Yet to see how potentially dangerous it might be for Britain so wholeheartedly to embrace the Russian bear, just look what happened to Ukraine, where for largely political reasons the Russian government overnight trippled the price. In a diplomatic crisis, what is there to stop Gazprom turning off the taps entirely? Britain has prospered by keeping its borders open to inward investment, but there are genuine issues of national security involved here.
Back in the 1980s, the Kuwait Investment Office was ordered to slash its stake in BP on the grounds that this was a sovereign state attempting to take control of a strategically important company. The same standard should be applied with Centrica. It took huge amounts of political capital to free Centrica, once part of British Gas, from the dead but at least largely benign hand of the British state. To stand idly by and watch it renationalised by the Russians really would be a pretty pass.
Shell: not enough profit, too little investment
First Exxon, now Shell, next week BP. We are in the midst of another round of record profits from the oil majors, which for those who still think of profit as a dirty word, means it's oil bashing time again. The UK government has already had two bites at the “windfall” profits of the oil majors, the last one in the pre-Budget report two months ago, but the TUC wants one-third, with the money to go to the pensions compensation scheme or some such other worthy cause.
It's a natural enough response, since a rising oil price feels to most of us like a tax, eating away at our disposable income. Why should the fruits of this tax go to the City? I don't want to act as an apologist for Big Oil, but scratch the surface of the $25bn of annual profits announced yesterday by Shell, and you can begin to see the answer.
The profits were at a record, but oil production was sharply lower and the reserve replacement ratio – the rate at which the company matches the oil it sells with new finds – is down to a miserable 60-70 per cent. The days of easy oil – accessible reserves capable of being developed at marginal cost – are over.
To satisfy the world's demand for fossil fuels, the oil majors must drill in ever more inaccessible and inhospitable places. The oil isn't yet running out, but it is becoming ever more expensive to extract. The political complications of the Middle East make the remaining sources of cheap supply look uncertain too.
Jeroen van der Veer, Shell's chief executive, reacts with almost visible anger to any suggestion that he and others in the industry are deliberately underinvesting so as to keep the oil price high. Not so many years ago, when the world was flush with spare capacity, Shell's annual capital spending would rarely top $10bn. For this year, it will be almost double that number.
Throughout the industry, oil companies are ramping up investment in exploration and development. The only constraints are the lack of available assets and the capacity of the oil majors and the industries that service them to cope. The service sector has had 15 years of famine and so far just two years of feast. It's going to take time to manage the necessary adjustment.
In his State of the Union address, President George Bush committed himself to reducing American dependence on oil. Good luck to him. The only surprise is that it has taken him so long to realise that from both a geopolitical and environmental perspective this is a desirable public policy aim.
Yet in the meantime the world's demand for the stuff just keeps growing, and with it the costs of extraction. It's small wonder that after the reserving fiasco of a few years back, Shell is being so mean with the share buy-backs. Shell needs all those profits and some if it is to keep the oil gushing.
Eurotunnel: more misleading claims
You say tomato, I say tomato… If you ever wondered why the Eurotunnel share price doesn't seem to connect with anything happening in the real world, then compare the statement the company issued yesterday with the one sent out by its creditor banks.
If Eurotunnel is to be believed then it has concluded a “memorandum of agreement” with the key creditor committee on the restructuring of its £6.3bn in debt. According to the creditor committee, on the other hand, the two sides “have agreed a memorandum of understanding that sets out a road map for a restructuring of Eurotunnel's capital structure”.
There are two important differences between the two statements. First, an “understanding” does not amount to an “agreement” and second, “capital” refers to both debt and equity. In fact, Eurotunnel and the banks are nowhere near an agreement, let alone one which would allow the company to write-off two-thirds of its debt without giving the banks anything back in return. And yet, the Eurotunnel share price rose 10 per cent in Paris and 15 per cent in London, making a company which is essentially bust worth more than £800m. Hey ho.
j.warner@ independent.co.uk read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

The Independent: Shell makes record $23bn profit

By Michael Harrison
Published: 03 February 2006
The oil giant Royal Dutch Shell defended itself yesterday against charges of profiteering at the expense of motorists and householders after announcing the biggest profit in UK corporate history.
The Anglo-Dutch company increased profits last year by 30 per cent to $23bn (£13bn) on the back of surging oil prices, enabling it to pay out $17bn to shareholders. But Shell said it made little money selling petrol in the UK, describing it as “one of the toughest and most competitive markets in Europe”.
Shell said the bulk of the $7.5bn profit made last year from its oil products division had come from refining and retailing operations in other parts of the world. It added that “significantly more” than 90 per cent of total profits had come from outside the UK and yet its UK tax bill had doubled last year to $1.2bn.
The bumper results led to renewed calls for a windfall tax on oil company profits and demands that Shell use its vast profits to cut fuel costs for the poor and protect the pensions of employees in companies which went bust. Friends of the Earth said Shell should pay a windfall tax because it was profiting from climate change and the environment was paying the price.
But Jeroen van der Veer, Shell's chief executive, rejected the idea of a special tax. He also denied claims that it had profiteered by overcharging UK motorists or domestic gas consumers. “That is incorrect. It is a very competitive market with small margins,” he said.
The company said its huge profits had to be seen in the context of an investment programme which was almost as large, with capital spending due to rise by $4bn next year to $19bn. Last year, Shell took on nearly 1,500 extra engineers to help meet its expanded exploration programme.
Shell's performance follows the world record $36bn profit announced on Monday by Exxon of the US and will be mirrored by BP when it reports its 2005 results next week. Mr Van der Veer indicated that returns to shareholders would be even higher this year, with $5bn of share buy-backs and an increase in its $10bn dividend payments last year in line with inflation.
Shell, which was hit by a corporate scandal in 2004 over the misreporting of reserves, said it booked between 750 million and 850 million barrels of new reserves last year, enabling it to replace between 60 and 70 per cent of production, using the stricter definition demanded by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The company aims to achieve a reserves replacement ratio of 100 per cent over the 2004-08 period. read more

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.
Comment Rules

  • Please show respect to the opinions of others no matter how seemingly far-fetched.
  • Abusive, foul language, and/or divisive comments may be deleted without notice.
  • Each blog member is allowed limited comments, as displayed above the comment box.
  • Comments must be limited to the number of words displayed above the comment box.
  • Please limit one comment after any comment posted per post.