Carrie Tait, Financial Post Published: Friday, March 19, 2010

Courtesy of Royal Dutch Shell Royal Dutch Shell PLC, under pressure from a small group of shareholders, has responded to critics’ concerns with a report detailing its activity in Alberta’s oil sands.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC, under pressure from a small group of shareholders, has responded to critics’ concerns with a report detailing its activity in Alberta’s oil sands.

Shell said it published the 17-page report because it shares many of the same environmental and economic worries expressed by the shareholders who are demanding the oil and gas giant provide greater transparency with respect to its operations in northern Alberta.

“All aspects of oil price outlook, oil demand, regulatory framework, cost of CO2 and industry cost structure” are “taken into account when … investment decisions are considered,” Shell said in the easy-to-read document.

“When we assess the economic attractiveness of our major projects we include an expected future price for green house gas emissions (‘carbon price’) over the full life of the project,” Shell said. “Shell includes the expected carbon price in its economic assessments, which is higher than the current carbon price [of $15 per tonne for every tonne emitted above a certain reduction target] in Alberta, anticipating that potential future greenhouse gas regulation could lead to a higher carbon price.”

Shell expects to pay between US$2-million and US$3-million in Alberta for its carbon emissions in 2009, but did not provide further financial details regarding its carbon price predictions.

The company also talked about reclamation, the process of rebuilding the hills, forests, wetlands, and fens that are torn up as companies mine for bitumen. Shell takes a provision on its balance sheet for this process, booked as land is disturbed and reflecting the discounted value of the expected future costs.

Shell expects to spend between 3% and 5% of operating costs on reclamation, which it considers before starting a project, the report said.

Other financial, environmental, and social concerns were addressed in the online report. Shell’s oil sands operations churned out 78,000 barrels of oil per day in 2009 and it expects that to hit 150,000, or 4% of its total production, in the next few years. Mining is its primarily extraction method.

FairPensions, a British lobby group, rustled up enough shareholder support to get a resolution on the ballot at Shell’s upcoming annual meeting demanding more disclosure. It is almost certain that the resolution will fail.

But despite the resolution’s long odds, FairPensions attracted considerable media attention on both sides of the Atlantic, to the point where a British MP has tabled a resolution in the House of Commons asking the MPs’ pension fund to side with FairPensions.

Shell explicitly said its report is in response to the resolution.

“We’re quite cheered that Shell has taken a look at the resolution and decided it has some merit,” Duncan Exley, a spokesperson for FairPensions, said. “We need to look through [the report]…with our partners” before deciding whether it meets their disclosure demands.

BP PLC is facing the same shareholder resolution.

ctait@nationalpost.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/energy/story.html?id=2703351#ixzz0ifAy0FoK
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

LONDON, March 19 (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) and Canadian oil explorer Nexen Inc (NXY.TO) said they had made a “significant” discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, the latest in a string of big finds in the Gulf in the past year.

The companies said in statements on Friday that they had made the discovery at the Appomattox prospect in Mississippi Canyon blocks 391 and 392.

The companies added that the find lifted confidence in other unexplored sites in the area.

“The Appomattox discovery confirms our confidence in the play and provides a strong basis to evaluate the remainder of our significant acreage position in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico,” Nexen Chief Executive Marvin Romanow said.

Shell owns an 80 percent interest in Appomattox and Nexen owns 20 percent.

The Gulf of Mexico, one of the world’s most mature oil provinces, continues to be key to Western oil companies’s portfolios as new technology has opened ever deeper water to exploration.

(Reporting by Tom Bergin; editing by Simon Jessop)

REUTERS ARTICLE

Boston Common is one of more than 140 institutional investors supporting a shareowner resolution asking Shell to report on the strategic risks of Canadian oil sands investments in the face of “future carbon prices, oil price volatility, demand for oil, anticipated regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and legal and reputational risks arising from local environmental damage and impairment of traditional livelihoods.”

BP PLC’s $7 billion deal with Devon Energy Corp should help dispel some of the misgivings that have weighed on the British oil major’s stock in recent years—particularly doubts about its ability to keep pumping more and more oil.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By Phil Craig
Of FINANCIAL NEWS

UK politicians today backed a shareholder revolt against oil giants BP and Shell, giving a substantial boost to demands that the companies assess the risks associated with their controversial investments in Canada’s tar sands.

A cross-party group of MPs has today published an Early Day Motion, a means by which politicians can raise an issue in parliament, calling on the parliamentary pension fund to vote in favour of shareholder resolutions requiring the oil giants to report on their tar sands projects.

Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes, the shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change, said: “Tar sands are a very risky investment ??? financially, environmentally and socially. The resolutions ask BP and Shell to report to their investors on how they are managing these risks.

“Government should lead by example and be a responsible investor; for this reason it is essential that the MPs’ pension fund supports these resolutions.”

Tar sands, also known as oil sands, have attracted substantial attention from campaign groups. Canada’s tar sands are one of the largest proven sources of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia’s reserves, but converting tar sands into a usable form of oil produces many more greenhouse gases than extracting oil by other means.

So far six MPs have backed the motion ??? the maximum allowed before a motion is tabled. They include members of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Other MPs are now free to back the proposal.

The involvement of the parliamentary pension scheme would add substantial weight to the revolt, which is organised by FairPensions, a campaigning organisation focused on encouraging ethical investment practices. A spokesman for FairPensions said that some sovereign wealth funds are also interested in supporting the resolutions, but declined to name which funds are considering the proposals.

The coalition already includes the Co-operative Asset Management, the Unison Staff Pension Scheme, Rathbone Greenbank, CCLA Asset Management and other fund managers, foundations and faith groups that declined to be identified.

BP and Shell have confirmed that the resolutions are valid, and will be discussed at their annual general meetings, in April and May respectively.

A spokesman for BP said that the company is in discussions with shareholders about the issue. Shell declined to comment for this article.

Web site: www.efinancialnews.com

WSJ SOURCE ARTICLE

Daily Telegraph

Last updated: March 11th, 2010

An area near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, where oil sands are believed to lie

The group of investors vociferously trying to persuade BP and Shell to re-evaluate their potential investments in the Canada tar sands has now enlisted a group of MPs in Britain to propose an early day motion questioning the project’s financial viability.

The move is part of a pretty well-coordinated campaign mobilised by FairPensions (members: ActionAid, WWF and a number of trade unions). This year, the rebels have managed to get enough shareholder support to submit motions to the oil companies’ annual meetings against the Alberta prospects, which environmentalists argue will be responsible for high levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

Shareholders obviously have a perfect right to kick up a fuss about investments they’re not keen on. Around 25pc of the FTSE-100’s dividends are paid out each year by BP and Shell, so the importance of these two companies’ decisions to UK pensions cannot be under-estimated.

However, it does seem slightly disingenuous that FairPensions is trying to claim that a big reason for their concern is the economics of the projects. They question the margins that will be made by the oil companies and warn of possible high legal fees from environmental challenges, plus the rising costs of climate change legislation.

But if they were so concerned about the right economic decisions being made by companies like BP, they would be having a look at its portfolio of renewables and “other” unit, which made a stonking $2.3bn loss in 2009. Yet there seems to be no issue with wind, solar and biofuels: all eco-friendly, low-carbon projects that are undertaken to improve the company’s green image and prepare for a future of heavier regulation of emissions/higher financial penalties, rather than turn an immediate profit.

What’s more, if you look at an investment like BP’s Project Sunrise, it represents a low proportion of the company’s overall capital expenditure. It is currently planning to spend $1.25bn on the venture over the next few years out of a total $20bn yearly budget on exploration and new projects. If given the go-ahead, BP’s oil sands will only be pumping out 60,000 barrels out of 4m barrels per day by 2014 – around 1.5pc of overall output.

I’m not taking sides on the environmental controversy of this debate. BP claims the extra carbon dioxide emissions of Project Sunrise – from well to wheel – will only be an additional 5-15pc. The campaigners put this figure at a much higher 12-40pc.

It’s just that all the talk about the oil sands’ profitability seems to obscure this real purpose of this argument – do the tar sands pose an unacceptable environmental risk and how much do we care about it? Obviously the economics of the project are borderline unless oil stays in the $80-100 per barrel range, confirmed by the fact that Shell’s Peter Voser has decided to slow the pace of investment at the moment to concentrate on conventional reserves.

But it is highly unlikely that BP and Shell would have been examining these prospects if there were not a probability that they could make some money and they will be subject to the same financial feasibility tests as every other investment – there would be little point in them wasting all this time and money just to spite the environmentalists. And I somehow doubt that the campaigners would be putting all this effort into an anti-tar sand campaign if the projects were the cleanest form of crude extraction in the world.

SOURCE ARTICLE

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

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

REUTERS

Shell oil sands costs rise again, partner says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Reporting by Scott Haggett)

REUTERS ARTICLE