Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts under ‘Australia’

Shell to sell 24% stake in Woodside

The share price of oil and gas firm Woodside dipped on Friday after oil major Shell announced it would sell its stake in the Australian company.

3rd February 2012

PERTH (miningweekly.com) – The share price of oil and gas firm Woodside dipped on Friday after oil major Shell announced it would sell its stake in the Australian company.

Royal Dutch Shell CFO Simon Henry said overnight that its 24.27% stake in Woodside no longer fitted the company’s long-term plans, and would be sold when the time and price was right.

The oil and gas major said that divestments were expected to reach between $2-billion and $3-billion in 2012.

In its upstream portfolio, Shell was expecting some 250 000 barrels of oil equivalent a day of asset sales and licence expiries over the 2012/17 timeframe, and assuming that these impacts played out, oil and gas production was expected to average some four-million barrels of oil equivalent a day in 2017/18, an increase of some 25% from the 2011 levels of 3.2-mllion barrels of oil a day.

Shell reported that during 2012, the company would invest some $30-billion in capital, of which around 60% would be spent in North America and Australia.

CEO Peter Voser said that the company’s strategy was innovative and competitive, with its improving financial position creating an opportunity to increase both its dividends and its investment levels.

“We have worked hard to generate a strong pipeline of investment opportunities for Shell, and we put the emphasis firmly on a competitive financial performance. Shell’s investment programme creates cash flow growth, which in turn funds our dividends,” said Voser.

“All of this is supported by efficiency gains from our continuous improvement programmes where the opportunity set runs to billions of dollars for Shell.”

Woodside fell to A$33.85 a share, from Thursday’s closing price of A$34.15 a share. By late afternoon, the stock traded at A$34.09 apiece.

Edited by: Mariaan Webb

Shell CEO Says the Potential for Shale Gas in Europe Is Limited

By John Buckley

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) — Royal Dutch Shell Plc chief Peter Voser said the potential for shale gas development in Europe is limited by the region’s regulations and its dense population.

Shell expects expansion in shale and tight gas — which is locked in rock that’s difficult and expensive to break — in North America, China and Australia, and has signed a deal in Ukraine, the chief executive officer said in an interview in Shell Venster, the company’s Dutch-language personnel magazine.

“We are looking further at possibilities in Europe, but the development of shale gas there will be limited as a result of regulation, legislation, high population density and the challenge of obtaining permits,” he said in the interview.

Shell, based in The Hague, applied for permits to drill for oil in Arctic regions this year and next, he said. “We have all the permits we need but we have a long way to go before we start drilling. The emphasis is on Alaska and to a certain extent Greenland, and in Russia some possibilities may arise.”

The company said in September it agreed to invest as much as $800 million to explore for oil, natural gas and shale gas in Ukraine. Shell will cooperate with Ukraine’s Ukrgasvydobuvannia to explore six license areas covering about 1,300 square kilometers (500 square miles) in the Kharkiv region. Drilling of the first deep exploration well would begin this year, it said.

–With assistance from Eduard Gismatullin in London. Editors: Tony Barrett, Randall Hackley

To contact the reporter on this story: John Buckley in Amsterdam at johnbuckley@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Voss at sev@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell’s Arrow Energy Cleared by Australia, China to Purchase Bow

December 16, 2011, 2:21 AM EST

By James Paton

Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) — Arrow Energy Ltd., the natural gas producer owned by Royal Dutch Shell Plc and PetroChina Co., won approval from Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board to buy Bow Energy Ltd. for A$535 million ($534 million).

The transaction was also cleared by Chinese authorities, Brisbane-based Bow said today in a statement. The decisions follow approval earlier this month by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission.

Arrow, seeking additional resources for a liquefied natural gas venture in Queensland state, agreed in September to increase its takeover offer to A$1.52 a share in cash from A$1.48. The accord was 72 percent more than Bow’s price of 88.5 cents in Sydney before Arrow made its initial offer Aug. 22.

Brisbane-based Bow was valued at between A$1.14 and A$1.53 a share by independent analyst Grant Samuel, the company said Nov. 17. Samuel found the deal “highly attractive,” given the uncertain economic and market conditions, the premium given to shareholders and the “remote prospect of Bow shares trading above A$1.52 per share in the foreseeable future,” Bow said.

Arrow, also based in Brisbane, plans the fourth LNG venture in Queensland to meet rising Asian demand, following approvals for more than $50 billion in developments led by BG Group Plc, Santos Ltd. and ConocoPhillips. The acquisition may allow Arrow to expand output at the venture’s first two units by as much as 15 percent, it said in September.

Bow expects the transaction to be completed Jan. 11, it said last month.

–Editor: Keith Gosman,

To contact the reporter on this story: James Paton in Sydney at jpaton4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew Hobbs at ahobbs4@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Qatar Has World in Its Sights for Power Projects

Qatar also signed an initial agreement with local Chinese authorities, the Chinese state-run oil company C.N.P.C. and Royal Dutch Shell to be part of a petrochemical and refining complex in China, the world’s second-biggest oil consuming nation.

Click to continue reading “Qatar Has World in Its Sights for Power Projects”

Shell quiet on refinery

SHELL Australia has again failed to guarantee the future of its refinery operations in Geelong, as the company looks to scale back in the face of increased Asian competition and reduced margins.

Cameron Best   |  December 6th, 2011

SHELL Australia has again failed to guarantee the future of its refinery operations in Geelong, as the company looks to scale back in the face of increased Asian competition and reduced margins.

While the company issued its standard “we never speculate on speculation” line, it admitted the Geelong refinery faced challenging times in a highly competitive environment.

“While the company does not speculate on the future of any of its assets, it is worth noting significant investment decisions made by Shell in the last 12 months,” Shell Australia spokesman Paul Zennaro said.

Over the past year, Shell has invested $47.5 million in Barwon Water’s Northern Water Plant and $20 million in new bitumen facilities at the Geelong refinery.

The company also has an ongoing maintenance program at the refinery, despite the decision to axe 22 maintenance jobs at the refinery in October.

At the time, refinery general manager Mark Schubert said it was a difficult, but necessary, decision aimed at improving the refinery’s sustainability.

Shell made the decision to close its smaller Clyde refinery in Sydney earlier this year, converting it and the company’s Gore Bay Terminal into a fuel import terminal.

The company blamed the rise of “mega-refineries” in the Asian region, which depressed industry margins for refined products.

Both relatively small in world terms, the ageing refineries at Geelong and Clyde process nearly 200,000 barrels a day, or about 25 per cent of Australia’s petrol needs.

Shell Australia vice-president of Australia downstream Andrew Smith told The Australian Financial Review there was no commitment on expanding Geelong in the wake of Clyde’s closure.

Mr Smith said the 120,000 barrel-a-day Geelong refinery was a better economic proposition than Clyde but there were a “cupboard full of options” for Geelong.

Scheduled to be completed next year, Shell’s bitumen manufacturing plant in Geelong will produce about 160,000 tonnes of bitumen per year in three key grades.

The company supplies more than one-third of all bitumen used for private and government roads.

cameron.best@geelongadvertiser.com.au

SOURCE ARTICLE

Big Oil Heads Back Home

Energy companies are shifting their focus away from the Middle East and toward the West—with profound implications for the companies, global politics and consumers

DECEMBER 5, 2011

By GUY CHAZAN


Big Oil is redrawing the energy map.

For decades, its main stomping grounds were in the developing world—exotic locales like the Persian Gulf and the desert sands of North Africa, the Niger Delta and the Caspian Sea. But in recent years, that geographical focus has undergone a radical change. Western energy giants are increasingly hunting for supplies in rich, developed countries—a shift that could have profound implications for the industry, global politics and consumers.

Driving the change is the boom in unconventionals—the tough kinds of hydrocarbons like shale gas and oil sands that were once considered too difficult and expensive to extract and are now being exploited on an unprecedented scale from Australia to Canada.

The U.S. is at the forefront of the unconventionals revolution. By 2020, shale sources will make up about a third of total U.S. oil and gas production, according to PFC Energy, a Washington-based consultancy. By that time, the U.S. will be the top global oil and gas producer, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia, PFC predicts.

That could have far-reaching ramifications for the politics of oil, potentially shifting power away from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries toward the Western hemisphere. With more crude being produced in North America, there’s less likelihood of Middle Eastern politics causing supply shocks that drive up gasoline prices. Consumers could also benefit from lower electricity prices, as power plants switch from coal to cheap and plentiful natural gas.

And the change is reshaping the oil companies themselves, as they reallocate their vast resources to new areas and new kinds of fuel. Working in the rich world—with its more predictable taxes and investor-friendly policies—removes some of the risks about the big oil companies that worry investors, making them less vulnerable to the resource nationalism of petrostates like Russia and Venezuela.

“A company like Exxon Mobil can eliminate the technological risk” of developing unconventionals, says Amy Myers Jaffe, senior energy adviser at Rice University’s Baker Institute. “But it can’t eliminate the risk of a Vladimir Putin or a Hugo Chavez.”

This new way of looking at risk is at the heart of the transformation. International oil companies traditionally face a choice: They can either invest in oil that is easy to produce but located in politically volatile countries. Or they can seek opportunities in stable countries where the oil is hard to extract, requiring complex and expensive production techniques.

Now, in a sense, the choice has been made for them. Big onshore fields in the world’s most prolific hydrocarbon provinces are increasingly the preserve of national oil companies, state-owned behemoths like Saudi Aramco and Russia’s OAO Rosneft and OAO Gazprom. For foreign majors like Royal Dutch Shell PLC and BP PLC, their former heartlands in the Gulf sands are now largely off-limits.

Shut out of the Middle East, they have responded with a huge push into new areas, both geographic and technological. Over the past few decades, they have built vast plants to produce liquefied natural gas, or LNG. They have drilled for oil in ever-deeper waters, ever farther offshore. They have worked out how to squeeze oil from the tar sands of Alberta. And they have deployed technologies like hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling to produce gas from shale rock.

Wood Mackenzie, an oil consultancy in Edinburgh, says that more than half of the international oil companies’ long-term capital investments are now going into these four “resource themes”—a huge shift, considering how marginal the companies once considered them.

There are also drawbacks to the new focus on nontraditional kinds of hydrocarbons. Environmentalists strongly oppose shale-gas extraction due to fears that fracking may contaminate water supplies, the oil-sands industry because it is energy-intensive and dirty, and deep-water drilling because of the risk of oil spills like last year’s Gulf of Mexico disaster.

There are financial considerations, too. While conventional assets are relatively easy to develop and historically have offered good returns, projects in some more technically difficult sectors—like deep-water and LNG—typically take longer to bring on-stream, and are higher cost, meaning returns are lower.

But there is an upside for the majors. “The silver lining is the shape of the profile of these projects, which is different than conventional ones,” says Simon Flowers, head of corporate analysis at Wood Mackenzie. LNG ventures, for example, can deliver contract levels of gas at a steady rate over 20 years. “So the returns may be lower, but overall you have a more dependable cash-flow stream,” he says.

By pursuing these nontraditional fuels, the oil companies are committing themselves ever more deeply to the wealthy nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Wood Mackenzie says $1.7 trillion of future value for all the world’s oil companies—52% of the total—is in North America, Europe and Australia. The consultancy has identified a “significant westward shift” in oil-industry investment, away from traditional areas like North Africa and the Middle East “towards the Brazilian offshore, deepwater oil in the Gulf of Mexico and West Africa and unconventional oil and gas in North America.” And then there’s Australia, far out east, “which is in the early stages of a spectacular growth phase.”

Consider Shell. Seven years ago, the oil giant, synonymous with turbulent hot spots like Nigeria, decided to shift resources to more-developed nations that offered a friendly environment for investors and predictable tax regimes. Shell used to split spending on the upstream—the basic business of exploring for and producing oil and gas—roughly 50/50 between nations in the OECD and those outside of it. It’s now 70/30 in favor of the OECD, with the bulk going to Canada, Australia and the U.S.

“The risks in OECD are technical, but they’re easier to manage than political risk,” says Simon Henry, Shell’s chief financial officer. “In the OECD, you have more control of your operations.”

With the new turf comes a new focus: Shell will soon be producing more natural gas than oil. That might have scared investors a decade or two ago. But with gas demand set to grow strongly, especially in Asia, the future for gas-focused companies is looking increasingly rosy—especially after the Fukushima disaster, which prompted a rethinking of nuclear power in Japan and elsewhere.

Entrenching Its Position

Like Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp. is entrenching its position in the Americas, home to just over half its resource base. Its unconventional resources have grown by almost 90% over the past five years to 35 billion oil-equivalent barrels—partly thanks to its 2010 acquisition of XTO Energy, a big shale-gas player. Exxon’s U.S. unconventional production alone is expected to double over the next decade.

Some giants are looking further afield. Chevron Corp.’s three focus areas—the parts of the world that account for the bulk of its exploration budget—are the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, offshore West Africa and the waters off western Australia.

In particular, the company has staked out a huge position in Australian natural gas; its Gorgon LNG project in Australia is one of the world’s largest. The push is based on expectations of surging demand for the fuel in Asia, largely in China, which wants to improve air quality in its heavily polluted cities by switching from coal to gas in power generation and running more commercial vehicles and buses on natural gas.

It “wasn’t a conscious decision” to move into the OECD, says Jay Pryor, head of business development at Chevron. The company doesn’t decide what projects to pursue based on where they are in the world, but on the quality of the resource, the commercial terms and the geopolitical risk. “The best rocks with the best terms are going to get the quickest investment,” he says. Money has flowed into the U.S. and Australia because they offer the best incentives to oil companies, he says.

In recent years, Chevron has also expanded into another promising part of the OECD—Europe, which some estimates suggest has shale-gas reserves comparable to those in the U.S. Chevron has picked up millions of acres of land in Poland and Romania, where it will soon be drilling for shale gas. That’s part of a wider trend: Dozens of companies are now exporting to Europe technologies used to open up shale deposits in the U.S.

Holding Back

Not all oil companies have piled into unconventionals the way Shell and Chevron have. BP, for one, has far fewer investments in tar sands and shale gas than its peers, though it has an unrivaled position in deep-water oil. That means it has less of a presence in the OECD than Shell: Its biggest projects are in poorer countries like Angola, Azerbaijan and Russia, and in recent years it has won a string of licenses and contracts in India, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan.

Yet even BP has been bolstering its position in the OECD. It said recently it was pressing ahead with a £4.5 billion ($7 billion) investment in the North Sea’s Clair oil field, part of a five-year, £10 billion program.

Still, being in the OECD doesn’t guarantee oil companies an easy ride. Operators in the North Sea were shocked earlier this year when the U.K. government suddenly increased taxes on oil producers. In France, authorities recently banned hydraulic fracturing. And in the U.S., the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, imposed after the Deepwater Horizon blowout, threw many of the majors’ plans into disarray.

But still, for the most part, the risks are much greater in the non-OECD. “The majors went to Venezuela and lost their property,” says Ms. Myers Jaffe of the Baker Institute. “They went to Russia and had to whisk their CEO off to a safe house. They went to the Caspian and realized they couldn’t get the oil out. I for one would much rather invest in a company that had 70% of its spending in the OECD.”

Mr. Chazan is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal’s London bureau. He can be reached at guy.chazan@wsj.com.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Royal Dutch Shell conducts global meeting in Oman

Sun, 04 December 2011

By A Staff Reporter – MUSCAT — Royal Dutch Shell’s Chief Executive, Peter Voser, has hosted 190 of his most senior management colleagues, at the luxury Shangri-La Hotel in Muscat.

The executives gathered with government dignitaries and business luminaries from around the world to discuss Shell’s global strategy and to celebrate a year of achievements.

The annual meeting, known as the 2011 Senior Executive Forum and usually held in Europe or North America, lasted for three days last month.

Shell is intent on becoming the world’s most competitive and innovative energy company and the event focused on driving greater competitiveness, technological innovation and leadership.

In the past year, Shell has finished building the world’s largest GTL plant, Pearl, in Qatar. Shell has also announced plans to build the world’s first floating liquefied natural gas plant (FLNG) off Australia’s north-west coast.

Shell is a joint venture partner with PDO (34 per cent), Oman LNG (30 per cent) and Shell Oman Marketing Company (49 per cent). Oman was chosen as the location for this year’s gathering to signal Shell’s commitment to the country as well as the company’s appreciation for the longstanding working relationship between the two parties.

Speaking to delegates at the opening ceremony, Peter Voser, Shell’s Chief Executive Officer, said: “We are proud of our relationship with Oman, its leadership and the Omani people. We are especially proud of the development of our joint ventures, which have contributed to the growth of the Omani economy and the development of this great nation.”

Peter Voser and other Shell executives met with a wide range of senior Omani guests from Government, businesses and NGOs. There was much lively discussion then and YB Senator Dato’ Sri Idris Jala, Minister in the Malaysian Prime Minister’s Office and Chief Executive Officer, PEMANDU, spoke about “enhancing the role that governments and private enterprise play in developing countries, in contributing to the growth and well being of the economy, in a rapidly evolving world”

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

Overuse and waste of invaluable water resources within the oil and gas sector

EXTRACTS FROM THE RepRisk WATER SCARCITY REPORT

RepRisk is the leading provider of dynamic business intelligence on environmental social and governance risks.

In 2010, access to clean water received recognition as a basic human right through a majority vote of the United Nations General Assembly. According to the UN, nearly 900 million people have no access to clean drinkable water, almost 1.8 billion live in areas where water is scarce, and a further 1.6 billion live in countries, which lack the infrastructure to extract water from natural sources. The World Bank calculates that by 2030, water demand will exceed supply by 40 percent, as a growing world population demands more water for agricultural, industrial and personal use.

OIL AND GAS SECTOR

The overuse and waste of invaluable water resources within the oil and gas sector is often related to the practice of hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) or tar sands extraction. Fracking, a process patented by the US company Halliburton, uses huge quantities of water, which is pumped underground together with sand and chemicals, to break apart rock formations and release gas.

In the past 12 months alone, RepRisk detected widespread criticism against fracking in locations across the globe, including the US, Europe, and South Africa. Much of this criticism focused on water contamination. In Poland, critics expressed concern about the effects of fracking on water sources. In France, Greenpeace called on the government to revoke the drilling licenses of Hess Corp and Toreador Resources due to concerns about excess water consumption and pollution. In South Africa farmers are opposing plans by Sasol and Shell to drill for gas using the fracking technique, claiming that it uses valuable water resources and produces toxic wastewater.

Similarly, tar sands extraction has proved to be highly contentious, with the majority of water-related criticism focused on operations in Canada and the US. In the Canadian province of Alberta, local authorities filed 19 lawsuits against the Norwegian company Statoil for alleged violation of water usage at its Leismer Oil Sands Project. Also in Alberta, a USD 33 million lawsuit targeted Encana Corp for alleged methane-contamination of water resources. In Utah, environmentalists claim that Earth Energy’s planned oil sands operations will pollute groundwater. In April 2011, a New York Times article alleged that TransCanada’s Keystone XL oil pipeline project might threaten underground reservoirs in the US.

Outside of North America, Total’s test mining of tar sands around Madagascar’s Bemolanga and Tsimi- roro Oil Fields has been strongly criticized due to potential impacts on the water supply of over 120,000 people should it proceed with the drilling. Shareholders at the annual general meetings of Total, Exxon and Chevron have also voiced concerns about tar sands activities.

Other gas extraction methods have also been criticized in relation to the overuse or contamination of water resources. In Australia, environmentalists oppose the Queensland Curtis LNG Project and the gas projects of Santos, Shell, ConocoPhillips and the BG Group in Queensland. In Nigeria, Shell’s pollution of water sources due to pipeline ruptures was again highlighted in the past year.

Contact

For more information about the RepRisk tool or this report on water scarcity and contamination, please contact Karen Reiner at reiner@reprisk.com, ph: +41 43 300 54 48, or visit our website: www.reprisk.com.

Disclaimer

The information herein (other than disclosed information relating to RepRisk) was obtained from various public sources. RepRisk AG does not guarantee its accuracy. The information contained in this report is not intended to be relied upon as, or to be a substitute for, specific professional advice. No responsibility for loss occasioned to any persons and legal entities acting on or refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication can be accepted.

Water Scarcity – FULL REPORT

Woodside Petroleum: To Shell or Not to Shell?

NOVEMBER 8, 2011

By Gillian Tan

It’s been a year to the day since Royal Dutch Shell blindsided Australia’s largest oil and gas company Woodside Petroleum by selling down a 10% stake for A$3.3 billion (US$3.4 billion).

Appeasing Woodside, Shell promised to hold onto its remaining 24.27% interest for a year unless a takeover offer or a strategic buyer surfaced.

Given that no industry interest arose even when stock fell to a three-year low below A$30 (US$31.08), analysts believe the only way Shell can divest is to return to the market.

Apart from the fact that the stock has lost a fifth of its value since Nov. 8, 2010, the timing seems a little off too.

“There’s no liquidity in Woodside at the moment, it’s not the right environment to be dumping stock,” Macquarie analyst Adrian Wood told Deal Journal.

Wood shut down the possibility that Shell could swap its A$6.9 billion stake for equity stakes in Woodside’s various liquefied natural gas projects.

“An asset swap could have happened at any time in the past 12 months, and I think it is unlikely Woodside would give up growth projects and cancel shares given it’s the only stock in its sector that needs to justify the fact it is trading at a growth premium,” he said.

Shell — which failed in its attempt to take over Woodside in 2000 — is focusing on solidifying an Australian presence through direct interests in assets and joint ventures.

These include a 25% stake in the A$43 billion Chevron-operated Gorgon LNG project and a 50% stake in Arrow Energy, which it owns with PetroChina.

Woodside Petroleum chief executive Peter Coleman last month told reporters Shell had not flagged any urgency to sell its stake and that Woodside had offered its services to help market it.

BHP Billiton, rumored to be interested in Woodside earlier this year, instead spent US$17 billion on North American shale gas, buying assets from Chesapeake Energy and acquiring Petrohawk Energy.

For now, it seems Woodside is stuck in a classic catch-22. The very presence of Shell on the register is likely to continue weighing on the stock, but the depressed share price means Shell is unlikely to sell out.

A white knight in the form of a takeover could be its only method of rescue.

SOURCE ARTICLE