Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts from ‘April, 2010’

Shell employees: American vs European pay

Shell should learn from the Asian and put them in key positions but instead they are sending more Americans and European to Asia.

Posting on Shell Blog by AsiaDragon on Apr 18th, 2010 at 3:27 am

So much about American vs European pay, how about their capability and competency in this challenging World. It is outdated model. It is also a case of a Pot calling a Kettle black. The Asian’s pay are 30-50% lower or even more but working twice as hard. Look at both the Top and Middle level management in the last 1 year, who has delivered more businesses. Shell should learn from the Asian and put them in key positions but instead they are sending more Americans and European to Asia. It only increases the cost and reduces productivity. So much about diversity, why not include an Asian in the EC to start with. Time to wake up. Vision 2010.

Posting by “MUSAINT” on Shell Blog Apr 19th, 2010 at 8:20 am

American expats are indeed about twice as expensive as European expats due to the US taxation scheme on worldwide income. Likewise both are more expensive than any local staff equivalent (not just in Asia). I do however disagree that Asian’s (in Shell) work twice as hard on a direct comparison with the expat in a similar position. I never experienced this when working in Asia for Shell.

OFFSHORE DRILLING: Blazing a trail far out at sea

A view from a helicopter shows a supply vessel near the massive Perdido hub, which is temporarily burning off natural gas until production begins.

Blazing a trail far out at sea

By BRETT CLANTON Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle

April 17, 2010, 12:24AM

Astronauts just had to get to the moon. They didn’t have to figure out how to extract oil from it.

With the new $3 billion Perdido oil and natural gas platform, in a remote deep-water area of the Gulf of Mexico, Shell and its partners have effectively done both.

After more than a decade of work, they began last month pumping oil at the massive floating facility, which sits in nearly 8,000 feet of water and draws from wells that far below the sea floor, setting several records along the way.

A recent visit to Perdido, roughly 200 miles south of Houston, brings the scope of the achievement into focus.

It also offers a glimpse of what could be ahead for the oil and gas industry as it presses farther into one of the last remaining U.S. regions where big quantities of crude oil are still being discovered.

“What we’re seeing here is the start of a new frontier in the Gulf of Mexico,” Bill Townsley, Shell’s Perdido venture leader, said as he stood aboard the hulking steel structure, staffed with 150 people, that he has dedicated the last three years of his life to building.

Indeed, Perdido could offer a template for rivals to follow in coming years as they develop fields of their own in an emerging deep-water area known as the Lower Tertiary trend. In recent years, more than a dozen big oil discoveries have been in made Lower Tertiary formations — deposited from 65 million to 35 million to 23 million years ago — in a 300-mile band on the outer edge of the U.S. Gulf between Texas and Louisiana.

Shell’s Perdido — which in Spanish means “lost” — is the first to achieve commercial production there, but Lower Tertiary fields are also being developed by BP, Chevron Corp. and others and are expected to help reverse years of oil and gas output declines in the well-plowed offshore region.

Perdido alone is capable of producing 100,000 barrels of oil and 200 million cubic feet of natural gas per day — enough to meet the energy needs for over 2 million households for a year.

Though not at that level of production yet, getting to this point hasn’t been easy. Shell, with partners Chevron Corp. and BP, has done the equivalent of moving mountains to bring the project online.

To make the project feasible, Shell, the lead operator, and partners devised an elaborate plan for tying in three distinct fields — called Great White, Silver Tip and Tobago — and handling their production through a single platform. Doing it, however, would require drilling at least 35 wells, some as far as seven miles from the platform and all extremely costly.

“When we came at them with 35 wells, people’s heads exploded,” Townsley said.

Has its own drilling rig

To help reduce costs, the platform was designed with its own drilling rig, which will drill nearly two dozen of those wells over the next few years and is itself a marvel of engineering. A mobile drilling rig will drill the rest.

Jutting out of the top of the platform, the onboard rig can move on a track to six different slots running through the middle of the buoylike spar that serves as Perdido’s base. Nine mooring lines, which anchor Perdido to the sea floor, can also be adjusted to move the entire 50,000-ton structure within an area the size of a football field to aid the rig in drilling wells.

But perhaps the biggest innovations are not visible from onboard.

In a first for the Gulf of Mexico, new equipment separates water from oil and natural gas at the sea floor, rather than having to do it all on the platform. Subsea boosting systems also help push oil to the top of low-pressure reservoirs, improving recovery rates.

Finally, powerful pumps are used to send the oil and natural gas back to the platform, nearly two miles above, for further processing, before it is finally sent to shore in pipelines.

“This is serial number one for this type of project,” Townsley said, who said some of the technology on Perdido did not even exist in 1996 when Shell acquired government leases to explore the fields.

Larry Goldstein, a director at the nonprofit Energy Policy Research Foundation in Washington, said other oil companies could develop their own ways to solve challenges posed by producing oil from Lower Tertiary discoveries. But the example of Perdido, which draws on fields discovered in 2002, could help speed development of other projects, he said.

Gary Luquette, president of Chevron North America Exploration and Production Co., a Houston-based arm of the California oil major, said while there are great incentives to bring large deep-water projects up faster, he doubts it can be done, given the vast amount of exploration and technical work required.

“When you stack all this stuff together, eight to 10 years is pretty damn good,” he said.

Four more are possible

Meanwhile, Shell says it is already thinking beyond Perdido. After a string of recent exploration successes, the company is considering adding as many as four major oil and gas production platforms in the Gulf to complement the six it has there today.

The platforms, or hubs, as Shell calls them, would be akin to Perdido in that they would tie in production from multiple fields that alone may not be substantial enough to warrant development. The hubs would be near recent Shell discoveries called Vito, Stones and Appomattox, and by the Mars field, where the company already has a major platform, officials said.

A final investment decision on the first of those could come as early as this year, Marvin Odum, Royal Dutch Shell’s top U.S executive, said in an interview.

“We’ll sort out through our normal processes which ones we’ll move forward on first,” he said. “What I can tell you, though, is the Gulf of Mexico opportunities are very attractive.”

The doubling down by Shell in the Gulf of Mexico highlights the region’s rising importance to Western oil companies as access to new oil and gas resources becomes tougher around the globe.

It also suggests there could be much more life ahead for a U.S. offshore basin that after being left for dead many times continues to surprise.

“The honest answer about whether we’re running out of oil,” said Goldstein, with Energy Policy Research Foundation, “is that we don’t have an honest answer.”

brett.clanton@chron.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

SHELL FINED £3,354,615 FOR TOBACCO PRICE FIXING

“It is impossible to reconcile Shell’s continuing participation in price fixing cartels and other unlawful market manipulation activity, with its claimed business principles pledging honesty, integrity and transparency in all of Shell’s dealings.”

Comment by John Donovan.

It is impossible to reconcile Shell’s continuing participation in price fixing cartels and other unlawful market manipulation activity with its claimed business principles pledging honesty, integrity and transparency in all of Shell’s dealings.

PRESS STATEMENT FROM UK OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING

OFT imposes £225m fine against certain tobacco manufacturers and retailers over retail pricing practices

39/10    16 April 2010

The OFT has found that two tobacco manufacturers and ten retailers engaged in unlawful practices in relation to retail prices for tobacco products in the UK, and has imposed fines totalling £225m.

The tobacco manufacturers involved are Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher, and the retailers are Asda, The Co-operative Group, First Quench, Morrisons, One Stop Stores (formerly T&S Stores), Safeway, Sainsbury’s, Shell, Somerfield and TM Retail.

The OFT has concluded that each manufacturer had a series of individual arrangements with each retailer whereby the retail price of a tobacco brand was linked to that of a competing manufacturer’s brand. These arrangements restricted the ability of these retailers to determine their selling prices independently and breached the Competition Act 1998.

The infringements span different periods between 2001 and 2003 for different parties, and related variously to the markets for UK duty paid cigarettes, hand rolling tobacco, pipe tobacco, and cigars and cigarillos. The current value of these markets is estimated at around £13 billion.

Asda, One Stop Stores, Sainsbury’s and Somerfield have benefitted from discounts in their fines under the OFT’s leniency programme, which provides co-operating parties with a discount in fines where they proactively volunteer information which assists the OFT’s investigation. Sainsbury’s had alerted the OFT to the infringements and as the first to apply to the OFT for leniency, it receives complete immunity from fines.

In addition, Gallaher, Asda, First Quench, One Stop Stores, Somerfield and TM Retail received reductions in their fines because, following receipt of the OFT’s Statement of Objections issued in April 2008, they each admitted liability in respect of the infringements alleged against them and agreed to a streamlined procedure enabling parts of the case to be resolved more quickly so reducing the costs of the investigation.

Having considered representations made by the parties, the OFT has decided not to pursue allegations made in respect of the relationship between each of Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher with Tesco in its Statement of Objections as it considers it has insufficient evidence to proceed to an infringement finding. For the same reason, the OFT has also decided not to pursue additional allegations relating to the indirect exchange of proposed future retail prices against Imperial Tobacco, Gallaher, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Shell, Somerfield and Tesco.

Simon Williams, OFT Senior Director of Goods, said:

‘Practices such as these, which restrict the ability of retailers to set their resale prices for competing brands independently, are unlawful. They can lead to reduced competition and ultimately disadvantage consumers.

‘This enforcement action will send out a strong message that such practices, which could in principle be applied to the sale of many different products, can result in substantial penalties for those who engage in them.’

NOTES

  1. See a list of the parties involved and the fines imposed (pdf 45kb).
  2. The £225m fine represents the largest total fine imposed by the OFT to date in a case under the Competition Act 1998.
  3. The Competition Act 1998 prohibits, among other matters, agreements and practices that have the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition in the UK or a part of it and which may affect trade in the UK or a part of it (‘the Chapter I Prohibition’).
  4. In April 2008 the OFT issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against certain tobacco manufacturers and retailers. See PN56/08 for more details. On 11 July 2008 each of Gallaher, Asda, First Quench, One Stop Stores, Somerfield and TM Retail reached an early resolution agreement with the OFT admitting its involvement in the alleged infringing agreements to which each was party, in breach of the Chapter I Prohibition. See PN 82/08 for more details.
  5. The SO noted that the alleged infringing agreements had an anti-competitive object and/or likely anti-competitive effect. The OFT has found that the infringing agreements were, by their very nature, capable of restricting competition and therefore had an anti-competitive object in breach of the Chapter I Prohibition. The OFT is no longer pursuing the allegation regarding the likely anti-competitive effect of the infringing agreements.
  6. The infringing agreements were in breach of the Chapter I Prohibition from 1 March 2001, as although they were entered into and took effect before 1 March 2000 they benefited from a one-year period from 1 March 2000 during which the Chapter I Prohibition did not apply to them. The one exception was the infringing agreement in respect of Gallaher/Shell, which existed from 20 August 2001. Subject to three exceptions, the OFT has taken 15 August 2003 as the cut-off date for all the infringements, which is when the OFT sent out the first request for documents and information under section 26 of the Act. The exceptions are the infringing agreements in respect of Gallaher/First Quench (which ended on 19 December 2002) and Imperial Tobacco/Sainsbury’s and Gallaher/Sainsbury’s (both of which ended on 9 March 2003).
  7. The full OFT decision is expected to be published on the OFT website later this year following the redaction of commercially sensitive information.

SOURCE PRESS STATEMENT

Shell and 11 other companies fined total of $348.8 million for price fixing

MarketWatch: OFT fines U.K. tobacco manufacturers, retailers

By Sarah Turner April 16, 2010, 2:15 a.m. EDT

LONDON (MarketWatch) — The Office of Fair Trading said Friday that two tobacco manufacturers and ten retailers engaged in unlawful practices in relation to retail prices for tobacco products in the U.K., and has imposed fines totalling 225 million pounds ($348.8 million). The tobacco manufacturers involved are Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher, and the retailers are Wal-Mart Stores’ Asda unit, The Co-operative Group, First Quench, Morrisons, One Stop Stores, Safeway, Sainsbury’s, Shell, Somerfield and TM Retail. The 225 million pound fine represents the largest total fine imposed by the OFT to date in a case under the Competition Act 1998.

BBC News: ‘Unlawful’ tobacco pricing leads to £225m fine by OFT

Retailers and manufacturers colluded to set prices, the OFT found

The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has fined two tobacco companies and nine retailers a total of £225m for “unlawful” tobacco pricing.

The firms were found to have colluded on prices between 2001 and 2003.

The OFT said that there was an understanding that the price of some brands would be linked to rival brands in order to limit competition.

It is the largest combined fine handed out by the OFT for anti-competitive practices.

Retailers the Co-operative and Asda received the heftiest individual fines at more than £14m each.

However, Morrisons was landed with a total fine of nearly £20m – made up of £8.6m for its own business and another £10.9m for that of Safeway, which Morrisons subsequently bought in 2004.

The other companies involved in the pricing practices were manufacturers Imperial Tobacco and Gallaher, and retailers First Quench, One Stop Stores, Safeway, Sainsbury’s, Shell, Somerfield and TM Retail.

The OFT said it had dropped an investigation into whether Tesco had also colluded with the two manufacturers, due to “insufficient evidence”.

The OFT first began to investigate tobacco prices in April 2008, and six companies admitted unlawful practices – Asda, Somerfield, First Quench, TM Retail, One Stop Stores and tobacco firm Gallaher.

However, the OFT offered to be lenient with those firms, so long as they co-operated fully with the enquiry.

According to the OFT, Asda, One Stop Stores and Somerfield have been granted discounts on their fines.

Sainsbury’s escaped receiving any fine at all, because it had been the first to alert the OFT to the pricing practices and thus received “complete immunity” from the fines.

Imperial Tobacco owns brands such as Embassy, John Player Special and Lambert & Butler while Gallaher’s best-selling products include Benson & Hedges and Silk Cut.

Royal Dutch Shell CEO leaves UBS AG board

“Voser departs as UBS faces criticism over the bank’s increased bonuses and a proposal to absolve former executives of responsibility for a U.S. tax evasion fiasco and billions of dollars in losses.”

15 April 2010

LONDON — Royal Dutch Shell PLC said Thursday that its chief executive has left the board of UBS AG.

CEO Peter Voser stepped down as a UBS director on Wednesday. In September, the oil company said Voser would leave the Swiss bank’s board to concentrate on his CEO job.

Voser departs as UBS faces criticism over the bank’s increased bonuses and a proposal to absolve former executives of responsibility for a U.S. tax evasion fiasco and billions of dollars in losses. UBS has been trying to regain investor and client confidence and has issued repeated apologies.

The company’s chairman, Kaspar Villiger, told shareholders Wednesday that UBS lost entire investment teams and their clients to rival banks in 2009 after cutting back too much on bonus payments. He said the bank’s board would stick to its proposal to absolve former top executives of responsibility for “the debacle” that saw UBS post record losses of 21 billion Swiss francs ($19.9 billion) in 2008 and require a government bailout.

SOURCE ARTICLE

LINDA’S LOLLY: $30 MILLION PLUS PAYOFF FROM SHELL

She was universally hated and in the end Shell thankfully ducked appointing her as CEO and she cleared off in a hissy fit! Laughing all the way to the bank no doubt.


Graphic From Daily Mail Article: Shell braced for yet another revolt over directors’ pay

Wilt Staph Posting on Apr 15th, 2010 at 10:16 am

Shell insiders will be shocked but not surprised by the revelations about Linda cook’s departure. There are two main factors at play in this sorry saga – Americanisation and diversity. Senior American executives in Shell have historically had bonus and pay structures which far exceed those of their mainly European colleagues. The uneasy relationship between Shell’s US subsidiary, Shell Oil, and the rest of RDS over the years led to a number of high-flying Americans moving into the Shell international arena to try and address this problem. In virtually every instance these moves have been unmitigated disasters.

Steve Miller was on the CMD in the 1990s and was an expensive failure. He had little or no feel for the complexity and diversity of Shell’s business outside of the US and he was eventually sent home with his tail between his legs – the only CMD member effectively to be sacked. John Hofmeister became the head honcho of Shell’s HR function and managed to unravel decades of a more paternalistic (but successful) approach to employee relations and by his own efforts reduce morale to new lows. Like Miller before him he was repatriated in the end to Houston – unliked and unmissed in Shell Centre and The Hague. Finally Linda Cook was not only supposed to smooth relations between the Dutch/British management mafia and their American cousins but also add to Shell’s diversity status by being a very senior woman on the Board. The carrot of perhaps succeeding to the top job when van der Veer retired was undoubtedly dangled in front of her – as well as a mind-blowing remuneration and pension package. Cook was by all accounts utterly unsuited to a top international job (all of her prior Shell experience had been in the US) and her ambition was such that she tried to trample on any in her way. She was universally hated and in the end Shell thankfully ducked appointing her as CEO and she cleared off in a hissy fit! Laughing all the way to the bank no doubt.

Posting by “insider” on Shell Blog Apr 15th, 2010 at 5:00 pm

Wilt Staph, good story, I could not have worded it better. But you were incomplete, the story is worse. What of Boynton who was sacked albeit with a large severance payment. Was she an incompetent and token woman like Cook, or an incompetent american or both or simply corrupt? We will never know. And what of our friend Botts, the cowboy from Wyoming? He ruined EP Europe with his silly ideas and was not sacked but kicked to do something managerial in downstream. All the while raking in humongous american pay. He has gone quiet and this is worth a lot of money! One midlevel engineer american expatriate (say graduate with 10 yrs experience) in the Netherlands costs as much as 4-5 dutch PhDs. The latter ones may not be so flamboyant and gung-ho nor always in agreement with the boss, but they certainly could provide value for money.

The days when Shell Oil would provide good old technical competence are long gone by. But occasionally there is a good one in the senior ranks, I think I know both of them. One retired, one resigned from Shell as he could not take the crap anymore.

So Wilt, thanks for your heads up, perhaps others can complete this staffwork on crooked and overpaid americans? Personally I think you were far too kind on that idiot Hofmeister. He ruined Shell for good and spent enormous amounts traipsing around with the HR community and on himself. All the while pretending to be a sober living Amish. Pretending is an understatement…

Essar flotation warning may rattle Shell Stanlow Refinery workers

Essar Energy’s own advisers have warned investors about “a complex structure and a lack of clarity on the flow of funds between the UK unit and its Indian subsidiaries” – ahead of the company’s flotation.

DAILY TELEGRAPH

Advisers warn of risks in Essar Energy flotation

Essar Energy’s own advisers have warned investors about “a complex structure and a lack of clarity on the flow of funds between the UK unit and its Indian subsidiaries” – ahead of the company’s flotation.

By Garry White and Richard Fletcher
Published: 6:00AM BST 15 Apr 2010

The oil and power company unveiled plans for a $2.5bn (£1.6bn) London flotation last week. The deal will be the City’s largest public offering in four years.

In pre-marketing research, seen by The Daily Telegraph, JP Morgan Cazenove raises a number of concerns about corporate governance.

The investment bank – which is joint book runner alongside Deutsche Bank – also warns of a history of high-profile delays and cost over-runs at the group’s Vadinar refinery in Gujarat. A timely and on budget execution of the next phase was very important to “banish concerns about project execution capabilities and fully restore reputation“, wrote the analysts.

In a separate note, Deutsche Bank warn that the company could also be a hostage to currency movements, with a 10pc depreciation in the Indian rupee against the dollar resulting in a 10pc fall in its sum-of-the-parts valuation.

The company is the second largest Indian power generator and the country’s second largest oil and gas business.

However, JP Morgan goes on to argue that the company’s growth plans chimed well with India’s growing demand for energy and the current very low energy consumption per capita ought to grow significantly in the near to medium term.

Just 44pc of Indian households have access to electricity and the country’s per-capita consumption is 610 kilowatt hours, compared with 2,346 in China.

The company also has a “simple and clearly-defined expansion strategy in both the power and oil and gas segments”, JP Morgan said.

Billionaire brothers Ravi and Shashi Ruia will sell a 20pc to 25pc stake in the group, which will be the largest ever overseas IPO by an Indian company.

Essar’s power unit will be 100pc owned by London-listed Essar Energy, with the company owning 89pc of Essar Oil. The remaining 11pc of the oil division is currently listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange, On Tuesday, Essar Oil posted a profit of 1.8bn rupees (£26.3m) in the quarter ended March 31, compared with INR6.6bn in the same period last year. Sales rose 54pc to 104.5bn rupees.

Over the full-year, Its Vadinar refinery had a gross refining margin of $4.38 on each barrel of oil processed, compared with a margin of $7.69 in the previous year, as the industry was hit by falling demand. “We are hopeful that the refining business is gradually coming out of the doldrums,” Essar Oil Managing Director Naresh Nayyar said.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Related:

Essar says ‘no certainty’ in Shell refineries buyout

Rumors: Shell Stanlow Refinery and Essar

Rather than a fire sale, Shell may close refineries

Indian group bidding for Cheshire refinery plans London listing

Ottawa not preventing oilsands water pollution: Complaint

OTTAWA — The Harper government is facing a complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement about whether it is adequately cracking down on water pollution from oilsands operations.

Click to continue reading “Ottawa not preventing oilsands water pollution: Complaint”

Iraq favours Shell, Total, KOGAS for gas fields

REUTERS

BAGHDAD, April 14 (Reuters) – Iraq will invite 15 companies before the end of the year to bid to develop three gas fields and Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L), Total (TOTF.PA) and South Korea’s KOGAS (036460.KS) are favoured, an Iraqi oil official said on Wednesday.

“We are keen to select international companies with experience with gas and which have gas projects across the world,” said Sabah Abdul Kadhim, head of the Oil Ministry’s petroleum contracts and licensing directorate.

“Shell, Total and KOGAS will be at the top of the list because they have good experience in the gas industry and gas operations worldwide.”

(Reporting by Ahmed Rasheed; Editing by Michael Christie)

REUTERS ARTICLE

Shell braced for yet another revolt over directors’ pay

“The oil titan is set to encounter protests over a controversial £4.8m severance deal for its former gas and power chief Linda Cook, a leading institutional shareholder told the Mail.”

By Sam Fleming
Last updated at 11:24 PM on 13th April 2010

Royal Dutch Shell faces another turbulent annual general meeting next month after failing to assuage all of its investors’ concerns about director pay.

The oil titan is set to encounter protests over a controversial £4.8m severance deal for its former gas and power chief Linda Cook, a leading institutional shareholder told the Mail.

Discontent is also simmering after chief financial officer Simon Henry moved to a Dutch employment contract, which will ensure more generous rights. And a hearty compensation package handed to former chief executive Jeroen van der Veer remains a bone of contention.

Shell suffered the humiliation of having its pay report voted down last year after discontent over the generosity of its awards emerged. Remuneration committee chief Sir Peter Job subsequently resigned.

Shell has since embarked on an intensive charm offensive as it sought to heal the rift. A long-term shareholder told the Mail: ‘There is unlikely to be a revolt on the scale of last year’s AGM, but there are still concerns about remuneration.’

The glittering deal given to Cook after she lost out in the battle to succeed Van der Veer has attracted particular attention, the shareholder said.

In addition to a £914,000 salary for 2009 and a £977,000 bonus, Cook was given a £4.8m severance payment and walked away with a pension worth £16.2m.

Shell defended Cook’s severance deal, however, saying it was calculated on a ‘standard formula’ in accordance with laws in the Netherlands, which is where the company is headquartered. Simon Henry’s contract will be covered by Dutch law following his ascent to the main board.

A spokesman said: ‘ Following 2009, we have had extensive consultation with major shareholders. Base salaries have been frozen since July 2008, except on promotion. As a result, chief executive officer and chief financial officer salaries are 20pc lower than (those of) the previous CEO and CFO.’

However, Shell is also likely to be hit by shareholder protests over its controversial oil sands exploration.

Shareholders including Cooperative Asset Management are planning to vote in favour of a resolution calling for greater transparency over its activities in the area.

Canadian oil sands are a tarlike substance that are mined at huge environmental cost. Shell’s arch-rival BP is also braced for protests over its oil sands ambitions and executive remuneration.

Shell’s ‘A’ shares slipped 7p to 1,966.5p, while BP lost 0.4p to 640.7p.

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES: SHELL EXECUTIVE PAY

CNNMoney.com: UPDATE: Shell To Pay $10 Bln Of Dividends; Production Not Replaced: 17 March 2009

Financial Times: Shell pay packages defy poor stock performance: 18 March 2009