Posts from ‘February, 2010’

Lobbyists bid to turn RBS, BP and Shell annual meetings into green referendums

Posting on Shell Blog on Feb 27th, 2010 at 10:19 am by “guest1″, a regular contributor.

Associated Press, 02.26.10, 12:52 PM EST

HOUSTON — Royal Dutch Shell PLC and IBM Corp. are teaming up to research how to extend the life of oil and natural gas fields.

IBM’s analytic and simulation experience will be melded with Shell’s subsurface and reservoir expertise to create a more efficient and accurate picture of how to tap the reserves, the companies said.

The two companies will reformulate and automate the task of reconciling different sets of data, including flow rates and pressure, time-lapse seismic data from subsurface rock formations and sound wave data from between wells.

The new reconciliation process should help save costs and will become part of Shell’s proprietary reservoir modeling tool kits.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Tar sands are shaping up to be the thorn in BP (BP-) and Shell’s (RDSB) sides as concerns over potential expense prove almost as rife as worries over the environmental impact.

BAGHDAD, Feb 26 (Reuters) – Talks between Iraq and Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) on a natural gas deal near the southern oil hub of Basra are taking longer than expected but still ongoing, a senior Iraqi oil official said on Friday.

“The heads of agreement will be extended and the project will be presented to the next government,” the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The Iraqi government has been working to finalize the joint venture between its South Gas Company, Shell and Mitsubishi (8058.T). The deal would capture huge amounts of gas for domestic use or export, which is currently wasted by being flared at the oil fields.

(Reporting by Rania El Gamal; Editing by Sue Thomas)

© Thomson Reuters 2010 All rights reserved.

REUTERS ARTICLE

Adeola Yusuf: 25 February 2010

Lagos — Federal Government came down hard on Royal Dutch Shell on Wednesday over its opposition to the Petroleum Industry Bill (PIB), insisting that the oil major was wrong in its assessment that the bill would block investment.

Ann Pickard, outgoing Regional Executive Vice President, Shell Exploration and Production, Africa, had on Tuesday described the PIB as “a cumbersome document that lacks insight into the very basics of our industry.”

While forecasting a bleak future for the oil and gas industry post-PIB, Pickard, during a public lecture, also criticised the fiscal provisions of the proposed law which she described as the “harshest in the world”.

But Minister of Petroleum Resources, Rilwanu Lukman, told journalists on the sideline of the Nigeria Oil and Gas (NOG) conference in Abuja that Pickard was economical with facts in her presentation.

“Let’s wait and see. Very soon we would know who is wrong,” he said. Lukman’s opinion was corroborated by Pedro Van Meurs, world renowned energy consultant, who described Shell’s opposition to the fiscal provisions of the PIB as one induced by the desire to make more profit for its shareholders.

A statement by the Group General Manager, Group Public Affairs Division of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Levi Ajuonuma, maintained that “fresh insight was provided on why Anglo-Dutch oil behemoth, Shell, is at the fore-front of a renewed attempt to scuttle the planned passage of the Petroleum Industry Bill, PIB, which is currently before the National Assembly.”

Meurs, who incidentally is from Netherlands, home country of Shell, according to the NNPC’s statement, stated that there is nothing in the proposed law that will scuttle future investment in the industry.

“There is no truth in the allegation that PIB fiscal system is the harshest in the world or that it will halt investment.

“I have been advising governments all over the world for over 40 years and I know that this is a battle whereby the oil company will try to get out of the parliament the highest possible share.

“So they make loud noise so maybe somebody out there might be listening to them. But the role of the minister is to make sure that the country’s interest is protected by insisting on a fair share.

“I can tell you that for every one company that is planning to leave, I know of 50 new ones that are planning to come in once the door is open,” he was quoted as saying.

SOURCE ARTICLE

REUTERS

Shell oil sands costs rise again, partner says

* Athabasca oil sands expansion’s costs rise to $14.3 bln

CALGARY, Alberta, Feb 25 (Reuters) – The cost of a 100,000-barrel-per-day expansion of Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s (RDSa.L) Athabasca oil sands project has climbed to $14.3 billion, Chevron Corp (CVX.N), one of its partners, said in a filing.

The new estimate amounts to $600 million more than the estimate provided by Chevron a year earlier.

Chevron, which hold a 20 percent stake in the oil sands mining and upgrading project, said the expansion will boost output to 255,000 barrels per day.

The cost of completing the project has steadily climbed well beyond Shell 2006 estimate of between C$10 billion and C$12.8 billion ($9.4 billion to $12 billion). Just a year ago, Chevron pegged the cost of the project at $13.7 billion.

A spokesman for Shell declined to confirm Chevron’s estimate.

Over the years, cost overruns have been widespread for the massive projects needed to tap the oil sands, the largest crude reserves outside the Middle East.

However, rival producers in the region said costs have fallen during the past year, mostly because of reduced labor costs. As most projects were rejigged, delayed or canceled because of the financial crisis, the squeeze on a limited pool of skilled labor has eased.

Chevron’s filing did not say why it had boosted its cost estimate for the project.

Shell owns 60 percent of Athabasca, with Chevron and Marathon Oil Corp (MRO.N) each holding 20 percent. The project includes an oil sands mine near Fort McMurray, Alberta, and an upgrading refinery near Edmonton. ($1=$1.06 Canadian)

(Reporting by Scott Haggett)

REUTERS ARTICLE

We should not give the impression that we are over-concerned with the D’s website, or that management spends a lot of time worrying about it. (Shell)

By John Donovan

I am still studying the Shell internal documents and communications the company was recently obliged to supply to me in accordance with an application under the Data Protection Act.

It is interesting to note the way events in our unusual relationship with Shell have been spun by Shell lawyers, depending on who is being given the information.

Richard Wiseman (right) is now the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. We crossed swords with him many times during the seven separate court actions we brought against the oil giant, which settled ALL of these claims, involving breach of confidence, breach of contract and libel.

You would never guess this when reading the written briefings given regularly to a Shell senior management obsessed with our activities, to the extent of running a global spying operation against Shell employees, the Donovan’s and our website. This includes “invisible” investigations involving Shell Corporate Affairs Security (CAS), trying to discover who is supplying us with insider information, and who is visiting or posting information on our Shell Blog from Shell premises.

Since Wiseman was intimately involved in the bouts of litigation heading up Shell’s legal team, it is inconceivable that he has not had an input into the written briefings, at the very least checking to ensure accuracy. Indeed, he informed me when we last met at a Shell AGM (in 2006?) that he is still brought in to all matters involving the Donovan’s, including the royaldutchshellplc.com domain name battle, which Shell also lost.

I will just pick out a few examples of blatant spin in a briefing dated 31 August 2007.

1. The first sentence of the first paragraph states:

We should not give the impression that we are over-concerned with the D’s website, or that management spends a lot of time worrying about it.

This is like a boxer trying to pretend that punches to his midriff are not making any impression, when everyone else is gasping at the obvious damage from sickening blows. A small selection of Shell internal documents, mainly from 2007 onwards, confirm that contrary to the self-delusion, Shell management is indeed obsessed by our activities.

2. Shell says in the briefing document:

…the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Ds and will continue to do so.

Anyone who has seen the recent published email correspondence I had with Wiseman in relation to the worlds biggest breach of employee data knows this claim is more BS. Extracts from what Wiseman said to me in his email replies were republished around the world. Shell lawyers have provided comment many times previously as would be obvious to our regular visitors.

3.  Shell also said in the internal briefing document:

In the early ’90s when Shell wanted to use Make Money again, Mr D claimed that he still owned the concept. Shell paid D for the transfer of the concept. Mr D then launched legal action against Shell in connection with two other promotions. While Shell was confident of defeating the claim, in the interest of saving costs for both sides, it was agreed that the matter would be settled. Following this settlement, Mr D sued Shell again. He claimed that he had invented the Smart promotion and that Shell had “stolen” it from him. The case went to court but Mr D eventually abandoned his claim

Yes, Shell did settle the Make Money claim, but only after we issued High Court proceedings seeking an injunction.

With regards to the litigation concerning “two other promotions”, Shell says it settled to save both sides costs. How unusually generous of Shell. We previously received an entirely different explanation from Mr Wiseman in his email dated May 1997. At the time, he was claiming  that Shell had settled out of a moral obligation which  arose out of the termination of the Company’s long standing relationship with us, not out of any particular claim. In fact, Shell settled after independent mediators reached the conclusion, after accessing the evidence and interviewing key witnesses, that “Don Marketing has been pissed on from a very great height”. A memorable verdict.

Wiseman claiming that Shell settled with us on moral grounds is on a par with the claim by Shell executive director, Malcolm Brinded, that Shell settled the Wiwa litigation last June on the court room steps for $15.5 million as a “goodwill gesture”, after Shell had dragged out the proceedings for many years. Oil and morals do not mix. All such decisions by Shell are taken on purely commercial grounds, which factor in potential reputational damage.

Shell also misrepresents the outcome of the SMART trial. Shell made two settlement proposals. I rejected the first and accepted the second only after it was agreed that my legal costs would be paid and that I would receive a secret payment not even disclosed to the trial Judge.

What hope is there for Shell management to make informed decisions when such inaccurate self-serving information, trying to cover-up past embarrassments, is conveyed to them?

By Tom Burgis in Abuja

Published: February 24 2010 16:13 | Last updated: February 24 2010 16:13

Nigeria on Wednesday hit back at claims by Royal Dutch Shell and other foreign groups that planned reforms threaten $50bn of investment and the country’s status as Africa’s biggest energy producer.

Pedro Van Meurs, a veteran designer of fiscal systems for oil producers who is working as an influential consultant to the government on the legislation, warned that dire warnings voiced a day earlier by Ann Pickard, Shell’s outgoing Africa chief, and other executives, should not be heeded.

Shell’s long relationship with Nigeria has been as lucrative for the Anglo-Dutch group as it has been fraught. Ms Pickard insisted that the company had no intention of pulling out despite its misgivings.

FULL FT ARTICLE (SUBSCRIPTION)

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.

Comments from our sources on recent statements about Shell’s operations in Angola made by it’s Executive VP for sub-Saharan Africa, Ann Pickard (Right).

Shell’s exit from Angola was not a success story and it throws a slightly different light on Ann Pickard’s remarks in Nigeria.

Her comment about Angola’s production exceeding that of Nigeria sounds like an attack on Bichsel et al who pulled Shell out of Angola a few years ago. It is Brinded and (especially) Bichsel who threw the Angola opportunity away.

I remember our explorers bid for some blocks and got all of the crap while the others found big fields. And what we sold off turned out to be much better than expected.

Shell had the opportunity to obtain block 17, but decided that the huge structure visible on the seismic was too big to be an oilfield. It was in fact the Girassol field, and Elf (now Total) got it!

Shell pulled out of Block 16 (where they were operator), selling out to CNR who in turn sold it to Maersk (who have recently made major discoveries in the block.

Shell sold their interest in Block 18 (operated by BP) to the Chinese. It is currently producing very large amounts of oil…

Basically the whole Angola story is proof of the inability of Shell to find oil. You cannot find oil and gas via a strictly controlled process whereby after ticking all the standard boxes you have a big field. One needs top professionals in their fields and surely they should be guided by some simple processes so you don’t overlook something critical. But it is the professionals that do it. And they have mostly left or are kicked out.

Because professionals are difficult people, they may say things that managers do not want to hear…

Angola’s Oil Exploration/Production Blocks January 2005