Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts from ‘November, 2011’

Shell produces oil from world’s deepest subsea well in Gulf of Mexico

English.news.cn 2011-11-18 11:34:39

HOUSTON, Nov. 17 (Xinhua) — Shell Oil Company said Thursday it has started producing oil from a well 9,627 feet (2934 meters) below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, the deepest underwater well in the world.

The well is located in the Tobago Field 200 miles (322 kms) southwest of Houston in the ultra-deep water of the Gulf of Mexico, the company said in a written announcement.

Shell, the operator, has a 32.5 percent ownership stake in the Tobago Field, while Chevron has a 57.5 percent share and Nexen 10 percent.

Tobago breaks the world water depth record for subsea oil production, previous held by Shell’s Silvertip field, at 9,356 feet (2852 meters) of water, Shell said.

Tobago is one of three fields producing through the Perdido drilling and production platform.

“Through our highly skilled workforce and cadre of global geoscientists, Shell has applied its advanced seismic and drilling technologies at Perdido to produce additional sources of oil and gas,” said Marvin Odum, Upstream Americas Director for Shell.

Moored in about 8,000 feet (2438 meters) of water, the Perdido platform is jointly owned by Shell, BP and Chevron and is the deepest drilling and production facility in the world with a capacity to handle 100,000 barrels of oil per day and 200 million standard cubic feet of gas per day, according to Shell.

Editor: Xiong Tong

Public comment opened for Shell Chukchi drilling

The Associated Press November 17, 2011, 11:59AM ET

ANCHORAGE, Alaska

The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has opened public comment periods for Shell Oil’s drilling exploration plan in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska’s northwest coast.

BOEM announced Wednesday that the plan by Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. and its supporting documentation were sufficient for the agency to begin a full analysis.

The agency by law has 30 days to analyze and evaluate the exploration plan.

Shell has proposed wells 70 miles off the coast in about 140 feet of water starting next year. The company’s drill ship would be accompanied by support vessels.

The BOEM announcement says the public has until Nov. 26 to comment on issues the agency should consider in preparing a site-specific environmental assessment and until Dec. 7 to comment on the exploration plan.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Turkey, Shell Exploration Deal Not ‘Political Move’, Yildiz Says

November 18, 2011, 6:28 AM EST

By Aydan Eksin

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — An oil and gas exploration agreement Turkey will sign with Royal Dutch Shell Plc next week is not “a political move”, Turkey’s Energy Minister Taner Yildiz said.

The accord for exploration on land and in sea, including the Mediterranean, is planned to be signed on Nov. 23 or Nov. 24, Yildiz said in televised comments in Istanbul today.

–Editor:

To contact the reporter on this story: Aydan Eksin in Istanbul at aeksin@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Shaji Mathew at shajimathew@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

How Suing Shell Could Backfire on Human Rights Activists

Nov 17 2011, 9:00 AM ET

International groups have long been using a 1789 tort to sue corporations for acts on foreign soil. An upcoming Supreme Court case might put an end to that.

REUTERS

This past October, a 15-year legal battle between Royal Dutch Petroleum and a Nigerian political movement finally went before the Supreme Court — of the United States, that is. On October 17, the Court decided to hear a lawsuit filed by Esther Kiobel, whose husband, Dr. Barinem Kiobel, was one of nine activists from the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People hanged by Sana Abacha’s military government on November 10, 1995. Kiobel alleges Shell was partly responsible for her husband’s death, and for other human rights violations committed in the oil-rich Ogoniland region.

Esther Kiobel’s lawsuit against Shell is hardly a standard Supreme Court case. After all, Kiobel v. Dutch Royal Petroleum involves a foreign national suing an Anglo-Dutch oil company, and the violations were allegedly committed by a foreign government on foreign soil. But the case landed in U.S. court because of a much-debated, sentence-long statute in the Judiciary Act of 1789, a law whose meaning and scope is still hotly contested.

The Alien Tort Statute states, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” In other words, U.S. courts have jurisdiction over cases involving American citizens’ alleged violations of “the law of nations,” or international law.

The question the Supreme Court will ponder in the Kiobel case is whether American courts  can be held liable under international law – in this case, a multinational company with a major American presence. Royal Dutch Petroleum is headquartered in The Hague and has its registered office in London. But its U.S. subsidiary, Shell Oil, accounts for 15 percent of its gas and oil business.

The U.S. court system is an imperfect recourse for human rights advocates, but if the Supreme Court affirms the ability to sue multinational corporations, it could become an important one. “U.S. courts are not particularly fabulous with international law,” says Kayleen Hartman, a post-graduate fellow at Georgetown University Law School’s Human Rights Institute, “but it’s important to have a remedy in U.S. courts because every company is here.”

On September 17, 2010, the Second Circuit court stunned legal observers by determining that the ATS does not allow individuals to sue corporations. The two-to-one decision, which held that the “law of nations” doesn’t include corporate liability, broke with 15 years of case precedent and four other circuit-level federal courts. Maria LaHood of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which submitted an Amicus brief on behalf of Kiobel, disagrees with the court’s decision.  ”You look to general principles of law of nations, and corporations can be held liable,” she says. “Nobody even thought this was an open question until the [Second Circuit's] Kiobel decision came down.”

Human rights activists have already used the Alien Tort Statute to sue corporations. For instance, in 2004, the non-profit group Earths Rights International successfully sued the energy company Unocal for its alleged cooperation with the Burmese military junta. That same year, the Supreme Court affirmed that human rights violations could be the subject of ATS suits, though only if they were the kinds of very serious abuses banned under “customary international law.” In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, a partial win for human rights advocates, the Court decreed that rigidly defined crimes like genocide or torture could be the subject of an ATS suit. Less-established legal concepts, such as environmental degradation or violence against women, could not.

If the Supreme Court sides against Kiobel, the scope of the Alien Tort Statute could severely narrow. Paul Hoffman, who is the lead attorney for Kiobel and also argued Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, says limiting the application of ATS would reinforce the corporations’ sense of impunity. “What’s at stake is the very important principle that if there’s a corporation involved in very serious human rights violations, are we going to shut the courthouse door on the victims trying to get accountability for those violations?” Hoffman, who is a member of Amnesty International’s International Executive Committee, adds, “If [the Supreme Court justices] affirm the Second Circuit decision that these cases can’t be brought at all, then if there’s another IG Farben in today’s world, they would get a pass,” referring to the German producer of Zyklon B gas used in Nazi concentration camps.

Another possible consequence of the case, according to LaHood, is that if the court decides against Kiobel, it will curtail the accepted principle that international law can and does have a role in U.S. court. As long ago as 1900, in the landmark Paquete Habana v. United States decision, the Supreme Court determined that customary international law is relevant to the U.S. legal system. “It’s no different for the court to determine and interpret international law than any other type of law,” LaHood says.

Arguably, closing U.S. courts to foreign nationals suing American-based companies goes against the long-accepted idea that international law has a place in the American legal system. LaHood believes that in this case, a limited view of the role of international law in the U.S. would simply be a means of protecting corporations from civil exposure. “Indigenous Ogoni people, most of whom probably live in villages in rural Nigeria, are challenging one of the most powerful entities in the world,” says LaHood. “Corporations don’t like it. They don’t want to be held accountable for how they behave in developing countries.”

But how exactly did Shell “behave,” and does that particular behavior make the company liable? In 1990, the Ogoni people, an ethnic group with about 500,000 members living in an oil-producing region of the eastern Niger Delta, spearheaded a major protest movement. Their activism targeted both the oil companies and the Nigerian military government, which owned 55 percent of Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary. “They felt as if they needed to have control over their land, their resources and their political autonomy” says Deirdre LaPin, a development scholar who worked with both USAID and Shell in Nigeria during the 1990s. “It was something of an Arab Spring. There are strong parallels.”

Although the Ogoni were a relatively small population in a region of over 30 million people, eloquent and charismatic Ogoni leaders, like writer and television personality Ken Saro-Wiwa, help popularize the movement. In 1993, about 300,000 people attended an Ogoni Day rally in the Nigerian town of Bori; later that year, amid increasing unrest, Shell suspended all of its operations in Ogoni areas.

The Abacha dictatorship was keen on preventing the situation in Ogoniland from spiraling out of control, regardless of the cost. “Gradually there was a larger and larger presence of the military in the region and there was a joint task force which was assigned to the Ogoni area,” says LaPin. In 1995, Abacha ordered the execution of the nine most prominent members of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, including Ken Saro-Wiwa.

The Kiobel suit holds that the oil company played a key role in the chain of events leading up to the execution of the Ogoni activists.  “The allegations are that Shell, through its subsidiary, was in very close cooperation with the Abacha regime,” says Hoffman. “The end point of that was the execution of the Ogoni Nine.” LaHood alleges that Shell had actually paid the Nigerian military to go into parts of Ogoniland, and had called in the army to suppress protests against the oil industry. Shell was possibly even involved in bribing witnesses in the trial of the Ogoni Nine.

But there are still several ambiguities in the Kiobel case, and it’s unclear if the suit will be successful even if the Supreme Court decides that corporations can be sued under the ATS. To be held liable, Shell’s activity must qualify as “aiding and abetting” human rights abuses, according to the liability standard set in Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy Inc., another landmark ATS decision. And the alleged actions of Shell and the Abacha government must meet the Sosa standard as a violation of customary international law. Currently, ATS cases are difficult to prosecute because even terms like “aiding and abetting” and “violation of customary international law” are subject to radically different interpretations.

As University of California law professor Chimène Keitner explains, the legislative branch could help clarify how and when the ATS should be used. “At some point, Congress should probably take up the question of tort liability for corporations aiding egregious misconduct overseas,” she says. But in such a polarized political environment, she doesn’t expect this to happen. “That’s the challenge of the Supreme Court more broadly in this political climate. On the one hand, they have to give guidance to parties in lawsuits, without on the other hand doing what Congress is supposed to do, which is figure out these difficult social tradeoffs.” With ATS cases, the courts are forced to negotiate such tradeoffs with only one sentence worth of legislative guidance.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Kiobel case will be one small part of this process. Keitner says that she expects a party-line vote when the case comes before the Supreme Court this February, although she says that some conservative justices, like those who sided with the plaintiffs in the controversial Citizens United case, might be swayed by the idea that corporations are “are private actors within the domestic legal system.” Says Keitner, “I’m not the first observer to note that there is some incongruity in saying that corporations have First Amendment rights but can’t be sued for violations of international law.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell, BP Gain From U.S. Seaway Oil Pipeline Reversal, RBC Says

By Eduard Gismatullin – Nov 17, 2011 9:15 AM GMT

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) and BP Plc (BP/) will benefit from a plan to reverse the direction of the Seaway pipeline in the U.S. and pump crude to the Gulf of Mexico coast, RBC Capital Markets said.

Shell and BP will each pump about 13 percent of their total oil output in North America through the pipeline, said Peter Hutton, a London-based analyst at RBC. The reversal will ease the glut of West Texas Intermediate oil at the U.S. benchmark’s delivery hub at Cushing, Oklahoma, and narrow the spread with Brent oil. That will boost adjusted earnings for Shell and BP by 3.2 percent and 3 percent respectively, Hutton said.

“Market reaction at Shell should be more positive,” Hutton wrote today in an e-mailed report. BP “used to produce a higher proportion of liquids in North America, but the greater decline in U.S. Gulf of Mexico, and the expansion by Shell of oil sands production, has closed the gap.”

Enbridge Inc. (ENB) yesterday agreed to pay $1.15 billion for ConocoPhillips (COP)’s share of a north-flowing pipeline that extends from Houston-area refineries in the Gulf of Mexico to Cushing. Together with Enterprise Products Partners LP (EPD), the line’s other owner, the companies will reverse the flow.

WTI oil’s discount to Brent narrowed to the smallest margin in eight months after the Seaway pipeline reversal plan was announced.

RBC increased its forecasts for WTI to $93.50 a barrel from $91.50 in 2011 and to $100 a barrel from $90 in 2012. It left its forecasts for Brent oil unchanged at $109.50 and $109 respectively.

To contact the reporter on this story: Eduard Gismatullin in London at egismatullin@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Will Kennedy at wkennedy3@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell Ready to Move on Alaska Wells — If Alphabet Soup of Challenges Would End

By FoxNews.com: Published November 16, 2011

An estimated 27 billion barrels of oil are sitting just off the northern coast of Alaska in waters controlled by the United States, but despite spending more than five years and $4 billion, Shell Oil Company still can’t get to it.

The company was planning to announce this week plans to move ahead with drilling three test wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas next summer, but it’s still lacking several permits and a roadmap of how to get them.

Shell doesn’t blame strict environmental protections. The company’s beef is with a seemingly endless web of legal appeals and challenges available to drilling opponents.

“We’re not disputing any of the high standards we’re being asked to work with,” said Pete Slaiby, vice president of Shell Alaska. “What’s concerning to us is the fact that there’s not any real certainty in how these processes will be met.”

The Environmental Protection Agency granted an air permit in September, but the permit is still in legal limbo because it’s been challenged a second time by Earthjustice and other environmental groups — despite the fact the closest village to the proposed drilling is 70 miles away and has a population of 245. An EPA board now must weigh in again.

“The majority of them are not thinking about America,” said Alaska’s lone congressman, Don Young, a Republican. “They’re thinking about their own little agenda.”

Young said if Alaska’s resources were tapped, the U.S. would not have to buy $400 billion worth of oil each year from overseas and consumers would not have to pay nearly $4 a gallon at the pump.

Young has introduced legislation that would strip away every federal environmental regulation and force the agencies to get Congress to reauthorize them. Environmental groups say it would be a disaster.

Earl Kingik is an Alaska Native from Point Hope, a small village near the Chukchi Sea. He says offshore drilling regulations are not strong enough, and points to the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence.

“The fishermen lost everything,” Kingik said. “I don’t want to lose everything up north. We’ve been living like this for thousands of years.”

In addition to still needing an air permit from the EPA, Shell has to clear nine other government hurdles before it can drill. The list is an alphabet soup of federal agencies and red tape.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOERME) has to sign off on Shell’s Exploration Plan. It gave conditional approval in August but needs to wait for Shell to clear other bureaucratic hurdles before granting final approval. The bureau also is considering the company’s Oil Response Plan and Application for Permit to Drill.

The U.S. Coast Guard has yet to approve Shell’s Safety/Security Zone application. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must issue Incidental Harassment Authorization, which would allow for the incidental killing of whales and seals.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has yet to issue a letter of authorization for the incidental take of protected polar bears and Pacific walrus. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers still must approve the Oil and Gas Structure, Nationwide permit.

And the EPA is still considering Shell’s Discharge Authorization and Vessel General Permit. Most of the permits have been approved by the various agencies, but they have been challenged in court, which leads to uncertainty.

Shell officials say they can move forward with some of the permits tied up in court battles, but the EPA air permit must be in hand before they can proceed. Pete Slaiby is confident the company will succeed this time.

The decision rests with the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board, a panel that hears challenges when permits are issued. In March, a three judge panel rejected Shell’s air permit ruling its calculations for how much pollution would be produced by the drilling rigs were wrong.

Environmental Appeals Board members are appointed by the EPA Secretary Lisa Jackson. All three judges on the Shell case are registered Democrats and one, Kathie Stein, was an activist attorney for the powerful Environmental Defense Fund.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell’s China Moves: Can Shell keep riding this tiger?

The Anglo-Dutch energy giant and state-owned PetroChina have teamed up to get gas out of the ground in China—and to tap new sources of energy worldwide

November 16, 2011, 11:10 PM EST

By and

The hilltop city of Yulin, about 500 miles southwest of Beijing, was once a strong point in the defensive wall that protected the Chinese heartland from the tribes to the north. An ancient fortress survives in the old part of the city, the Chinese characters for “Suppress the Barbarians” carved over its gate. Today, Yulin’s a boomtown in the oil- and gas-rich Ordos Basin. In the streets not far from the fortress walls, where men sell roasted goat heads from carts, young boys hand out brochures for apartment towers built for newly wealthy oil workers and coal miners. If fresh characters were carved into the old fortress gates now, they might say “Resource Barbarians Welcome!” Or they might simply be a pair of corporate logos: one for PetroChina (PTR), the publicly traded wing of CNPC, China’s largest oil company, and a second for its foreign partner, Royal Dutch Shell, the second-largest Western oil company.

A half-hour drive from the city is a new, white building that stands out in the desert scrubland. Clean and bright, it has offices, conference rooms, and a big second-floor terrace overlooking acres of neatly arranged tanks and piping. This is the Changbei gas field. An estimated $1.3 billion joint venture, the field is managed by Shell for PetroChina and produces more than 3 billion cubic meters of gas a year. Over a lunch of stir-fried chicken and snow peas, tangy local peaches, and green tea in the building’s high-ceilinged commissary, the plant’s two bosses, General Manager Xu Lin, a Shell man, and PetroChina veteran Xu Yanming, his deputy, banter about Changbei. Xu Yanming, dressed more like a local merchant than an oil man—in slacks and a dark windbreaker—ribs Shell’s Xu, who has a degree from Oxford University and wears the standard blue, one-piece Changbei boiler suit.

“Shell has had four managers—and the whole time it has just been me,” Xu Yanming says. An earlier Shell manager, whom he dubbed a yangren—old-fashioned slang for Westerner—assumed ridiculously high costs, including $20 per diems for Chinese staff. Shell had also factored in exorbitant costs for water. “Some at Changbei think PetroChina had stronger cost controls than Shell,” Xu Yanming chuckles.

Changbei is the most visible playing field for a tricky high-stakes game Shell has entered into with the Chinese behemoth, an engagement that mirrors the larger global shift of power from the big petro majors to the fast-rising national oil companies. PetroChina wants Shell’s expertise to unlock the unconventional gas and oil resources, such as shale gas, that require new techniques to extract. Shell wants PetroChina’s help in gaining access to the mainland, China’s newly hot gas fields, and its energy-hungry consumers. The U.S. Energy Information Administration said in April that Chinese shale may hold 1,275 trillion cubic feet of gas, 12 times the country’s conventional natural gas. The “technically recoverable” reserves are almost 50 percent greater than the 862 trillion cubic feet estimated for the U.S., the EIA also said.

Last year, China became the largest energy consumer in the world, surpassing the U.S., according to BP’s (BP) Statistical Review of World Energy. China is expected to account for almost half the world’s growth in oil consumption in the next two decades, becoming the largest market for oil, and it is trying to more than double the use of gas in its economy, to 8 percent of the energy mix, by 2015.

Shell isn’t just angling for the natural gas and domestic Chinese market. As China and Asia surge in importance, the company wants to use its Chinese partnerships to help gain influence over the flow of all global resources destined for China, from the Middle East to Australia. “It is a foreshadowing of the new energy landscape,” says a former Shell executive. “If you asked Shell 15 years ago if they would do a strategic partnership with CNPC, they would have laughed.”

No one’s laughing now. The company is going all out to please Beijing. In June company directors visited Changbei and the Iron Man Wang Jinxi Memorial Hall, a shrine to an iconic 1960s oil worker, at PetroChina’s largest field, Daqing. Shell executives believe they’ve picked a winner in PetroChina. “This is the most advanced Chinese alliance; this is about the future,” says Jerry Kepes, a partner at the Washington (D.C.) energy consultant PFC Energy. “Shell gets it. But Shell has to deliver.” The relationship carries plenty of risk. For Shell, it’s that once PetroChina has absorbed its know-how, it will become a competitor that not only will take Shell’s share of the business but also will one day attempt to swallow the Anglo-Dutch giant whole.

The Chinese have long known there was gas in Changbei, but they didn’t think they had the skills or technology to extract it. So they went looking for a partner that did. Even though the pair seemed to be made for each other—both are gigantic, bureaucratic, and eager to be top players—CNPC and Shell courted for more than a decade before getting serious in the late ’90s. “It was like getting elephants to dance,” says a banker who negotiated deals between them.

The two companies signed a production-sharing agreement in 1999, but Shell’s bosses dithered on giving the final go-ahead for investment. Shell executives changed their minds when China lifted gas prices and the market outlook improved. At roughly the same time, the company spurned an invitation to participate in the $12 billion West-East Gas Pipeline that China wanted to build to bring gas to its major cities. Shell’s management did not think the terms were adequate. “It became clear that we did not share the same priorities and expectations,” says Shell Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry. Some insiders were dismayed at passing on the chance to be an owner of China’s most important piece of gas infrastructure. “That was incredibly shortsighted and stupid,” says a former Shell executive. “That was an opportunity to own 40 percent of the spine of China’s gas market.” Shell is very cautious, and its top managers didn’t give the green light on Changbei until 2005, after lower-level executives warned management the oil giant was on the verge of losing the deal, and another great opportunity.

Since then, Shell’s expertise, coupled with PetroChina labor, has made Changbei work. The field’s gas is “tight,” meaning it’s trapped in rocks that don’t easily give up their treasure. Shell solved the problem with horizontal wells that level off when they reach the gas, which is deposited in layers about 10,000 feet below the surface. A two-pronged pipeline is then drilled out from the bottom of the well horizontally for about 6,000 feet so that the well can suck gas from a huge expanse of rock. So much gas flows into these pipes that Changbei’s fields are highly prolific.

Before teaming up with Shell, PetroChina used to take more than 250 days to drill a well like this. Now it takes about 130 days, slashing costs on the 25 wells that have been drilled so far from about $17 million to $10 million each. Xu Lin says rock-bottom development costs of less than $1 per barrel of oil-equivalent make Changbei highly profitable. Although Shell won’t disclose the profitability of the project, one analyst, who asked for anonymity due to fear of repercussions, estimated that it earned at least a 30 percent return.

While noteworthy, Changbei is merely the first step of a much larger plan. Shell, which has only $4 billion or so invested in China—tiny, considering the size of China’s economy—wants to be China’s energy concierge, catering to the oil and gas industry’s needs. CNPC is the only avenue available to fulfill such ambitions.

The breakthrough in Shell’s China strategy occurred in August 2009 at a meeting held in the Hague, where Shell has its headquarters. Peter Voser had recently become Shell’s chief executive officer and had cut short his vacation to meet with a CNPC delegation led by Chairman Jiang Jiemin. The chemistry was good between Jiang and Voser, a hard-nosed Swiss who has instilled more financial discipline at the once loosely managed conglomerate. Since then, meetings have occurred every few months, either in the Hague or at CNPC’s 25-story headquarters in Beijing’s Dongcheng district, in a conference room one Shell executive says is “the size of an aircraft hangar.”

These meetings resemble high-level diplomatic summits more than business negotiations—not surprising, perhaps, given the size of the respective companies. The chairman of CNPC, which has more than 1.5 million people on the payroll and revenue of $271 billion, is more like the governor of a major province than a CEO of a company. Each session follows the same format. The CEOs sit at the top end of a horseshoe-shaped table and converse through an interpreter hidden by a huge arrangement of flowers. Aides sit along the sides of the horseshoe. The CEOs reach agreements in principle on ideas to pursue and signal to aides to work out the details before the next meeting three or four months later. Invariably there are lunches and dinners and drinks. The talks recently have been enlivened by the fiery Chinese liquor Maotai. Every executive is expected to drain a toast to each person present, with no half measures tolerated.

Shell executives have warmed to Jiang because he appears to be receptive to their ideas, unlike some of his counterparts at state companies. CEOs of Chinese state companies are political animals whose decisions aren’t driven strictly by profit motive. “These are talented, tenacious people that should not be underestimated—but at the end of the day they are still government functionaries,” says Jeff Layman, a partner at law firm Baker Botts in Beijing. “They may be looking at their futures beyond the companies they are managing.”

The powwows between the two companies have produced a list of projects, some of which are already under way. If they all come to fruition, they could be investing $50 billion together, not only in China but also in Qatar, Australia, and elsewhere over the next decade or so. Shell also let CNPC into a small joint venture in Syria that the Chinese company hoped would be an entrée into the Arab world. The deal has fizzled, and Shell is no longer lifting crude since the Syrian regime was hit with international sanctions following its bloody crackdown on dissidents.

For Shell executives, this elaborate courting of the Chinese reflects a growing awareness of the energy market’s new realities. Forty years ago major Western oil companies such as Shell controlled more than 60 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Thanks to waves of nationalizations and depletion of oil fields in the West, the producing countries now control the bulk of that oil. With few exceptions, the only way to make an impact in such places—whether Venezuela, Russia, or Abu Dhabi—is through partnerships with the national oil companies. China is the biggest of these. According to Xinhua, China’s official news agency, China plans to invest $828 billion in its power industry by 2015, developing oil and gas fields, building refineries and pipelines across the country, and adding power plants, wind farms, and nuclear reactors. Green energy production is a priority because China also wants to cut carbon emissions and reduce the energy intensity of its economy by 2015.

PetroChina’s plans are ambitious, too, and its objective is clear: It wants to be on the level of Shell someday and is pushing its partner to help it become a global player. For instance, Shell sponsors a leadership development program for senior Chinese executives run by Peter Nolan, a professor at the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge. The company supplies materials and speakers for the program to build relationships with the Chinese executives and prepare them to work on joint ventures. A former Shell executive in China says the Chinese are eager to hold seminars with their Western counterparts, not just to learn about technology but also to talk about issues such as corporate governance. PetroChina executives have even visited the Hague to learn how Shell complies with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulations.

The big question is: Can Shell keep riding this tiger? What prevents PetroChina’s parent, CNPC, from exploiting the Western producer for what it wants and then tossing it aside or perhaps even taking it over? For now, CNPC appears content to see what it can gain through the partnership. Shell CFO Henry, who manages the PetroChina relationship, said in an interview that there is a quid pro quo for being permitted to work in China: helping the Chinese company acquire oil and gas resources outside of China. Qatar, the little emirate that is the world’s leading gas exporter, is a place where Shell is playing the energy concierge with considerable skill. In 2008 the company sold more than one-third of the output of its Qatargas 4 plant in Qatar to PetroChina in long-term contracts.

That deal impressed Shell’s majority partner in the project, Qatar Petroleum, and has led to two others: Shell, Qatar Petroleum, and PetroChina are planning a refinery and petrochemical complex in China’s southeastern Zhejiang province. And Shell has brought in PetroChina as a 25 percent partner to explore for yet more gas in Qatar. If that arrangement yields a big find, it could lead to a new $10 billion to $15 billion liquefied natural gas plant. “This tripartite relationship is important to us,” says Andy Brown, Shell’s Qatar chief. “We can play a role between a major energy-producing country and a major energy-consuming one.”

Shell is delivering not only in Qatar but also on Curtis Island, a 30-by-15-mile strip of land within Australia’s Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area. In 2010 it joined forces with PetroChina to buy Arrow Energy for A$3.6 billion ($3.7 billion). Arrow has plans to build a $20 billion LNG plant to feed gas to China. Henry says being able to buy an energy company in a developed country such as Australia earned Shell “huge Brownie points.”

Still, the long-term risk remains that PetroChina will learn to develop even difficult oil and gas fields with the aid of technology-rich service companies such as Schlumberger (SLB) and Halliburton (HAL), then kiss Shell goodbye. “Even though Shell has been clever in leveraging its position, you can’t ignore the fact: You are now partnered up with the guy who doesn’t want to be partnered with you long-term,” says a former executive. “CNPC is not in this to be a partner with Shell. They want to be Shell. They want to replace you.” That’s the thing about the energy game in China: Sooner or later, someone has to lose.

With James Paton

Reed is a reporter-at-large for Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek. Roberts is Bloomberg Businessweek‘s Asia News Editor and China bureau chief.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell pulls out of Kurdistan oil talks – FT

LONDON | Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:39pm EST

Nov 17 (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell Plc has pulled out of oil-development talks with the Kurdistan regional government in an effort to protect lucrative investments in southern Iraq, the Financial Times reported on Thursday.

The newspaper cited people familiar with the discussions as saying Baghdad is seeking to impose a de facto ban on companies operating in Kurdistan, a semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq.

Over recent days Iraqi government officials have threatened to cancel an existing oil field contract with Exxon Mobil Corp and on that basis, Shell’s move is precautionary to protect a potential $17 billion natural gas deal, according to the FT’s sources.

“Baghdad’s real power lies in denying future contracts and Shell still had something else on the table. They still had not signed the southern gas field deal,” said one person familiar with the talks, cited in the article.

Shell’s gas deal with the Iraqi government cleared its last major hurdle on Tuesday after it was approved by Baghdad’s council of ministries.

Royal Dutch Shell was unavailable for immediate comment.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Biggest Oil Find in Decades Becomes $39 Billion Cautionary Tale

After 11 years and $39 billion of investment, Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) and their partners have yet to sell a drop of oil from what was touted as the world’s biggest discovery in four decades.

Click to continue reading “Biggest Oil Find in Decades Becomes $39 Billion Cautionary Tale”

Shell pulls out of Kurdistan oil talks

FINANCIAL TIMES

November 16, 2011 10:05 pm

By Sylvia Pfeifer and Javier Blas in Erbil, northern Iraq

Royal Dutch Shell has pulled out of oil-development talks with the Kurdistan regional government in an effort to protect lucrative investments in southern Iraq, including a potential $17bn natural gas deal.

FULL FT ARTICLE