Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts under ‘Simon Henry’

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 Losing $1 Billion a Year on U.S. Gulf Drilling Delays

February 02, 2012, 1:20 PM EST

By Eduard Gismatullin

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) — Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s largest oil company, is losing about $1 billion a year from drilling delays in the Gulf of Mexico since the 2010 Macondo disaster.

Shell’s production in the region will be curbed by about 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent this year, similar to 2011, Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry said. The company expects to return to planned operations off the Gulf coast by 2014.

“The cash flow implications are a billion dollars or more per year relative to where we want to be,” Henry said in London today. “We are catching up.”

The company, which in March said it planned to raise output to 3.5 million barrels of oil equivalent a day in 2012, is now warning that production could be lower due to Gulf drilling delays, asset sales and oil and gas prices in the U.S.

The U.S. Interior Department issued new safety regulations after lifting the drilling moratorium in October 2010 put in place after BP Plc’s Macondo well exploded in April the same year. The blowout, which killed 11 and sank the drilling rig, led to hundreds of lawsuits against BP and its partners and contractors.

–Editors: Stephen Cunningham, Randall Hackley.

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 Looking At Ways Ways To Improve US Gas Profits

FEBRUARY 2, 2012

– Shell aiming to exploit difference in price between U.S. gas and LNG, GTL

– Investment in U.S. gas exploration to be at lower end of planned spending

– Company to make further moves into oil-rich shales

By Alexis Flynn

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

LONDON (Dow Jones)–Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) is actively looking at ways to improve the profits it gets from U.S. natural gas, including seeking out land for a potential gas-to-diesel plant, the company said Thursday.

The Anglo-Dutch energy giant has invested heavily in U.S. shale gas assets, but new extraction techniques have led to abundant supply. Prices have fallen to a decade low and risk driving up the costs of Shell’s recent shale acquisitions. By contrast, the oil price has risen some 40% in the last two years.

“We have been looking for ways to leverage Shell’s strong resource position in North America,” said Chief Executive Peter Voser.

Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry said Shell was examining plans to develop the gas into products that are more closely linked to oil prices, such as liquefied natural gas for export and gas-to-liquids technology that turns gas into a transport fuel.

He said Shell was even seeking out land to build possible sites to build the types of facilities needed but cautioned that at a cost of “around $5 billion to $10 billion a project, we have to be selective.” Shell completed a giant gas-to-diesel project in Qatar last year, but its final cost was in the region of around $18 billion, rather than the $5 billion initially estimated in 2003.

Voser also said Thursday the company would broaden its focus to include oil-rich shale, with the company planning to spend $1 billion on liquid-rich shales alone in 2012, with production from the source expected to account for as much as 250,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day by 2017. By contrast, Voser said Shell’s expected outlay on U.S. gas exploration would be at the low end of its spending range given the weak pricing environment.

“Spending could be in the range of $5 billion and $6 billion per year on a worldwide basis over the next few years, including exploration, of which $3 billion to $5 billion could be North American gas plays,” said Voser.

The depressed U.S. natural gas price has compelled some U.S. firms to cut back on drilling. However, Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), the country’s largest natural-gas producer, said Wednesday it had no intention of curtailing its output.

-By Alexis Flynn, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 207842 9471, alexis.flynn@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell sees large global oil refining surplus

Thu Feb 2, 2012 9:13am EST

* Shell says global refining surplus of 6 million barrels

* Predicts more refinery closures in Europe

* Shell made Q4 loss from oil refining and marketing

By Alex Lawler

LONDON, Feb 2 (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell said on Thursday the global oil refining industry is facing about 6 million barrels per day (bpd) of surplus capacity, and predicted more plants would close in Europe.

Refining crude oil into fuels such as gasoline and diesel, traditionally the second-largest business for global oil firms such as Shell and rivals like BP Plc, has come under pressure from weak profit margins.

Shell, Europe’s largest oil company by market value, made a loss of $278 million from oil refining and marketing in the fourth quarter. The collapse of Swiss-based refiner Petroplus has raised the prospect of more plant closures in Europe.

“Globally, the world has about 7 million barrels a day too much capacity. Recent events whether Petroplus or otherwise have seen about a million barrels affected globally, so that’s only 6 million barrels,” Shell’s chief financial officer, Simon Henry, said at a news conference.

“Two million barrels of new capacity came on stream last year and probably another one and a half this year. So actually, the world is still building more capacity than is going out.”

Seven million barrels a day is more than the entire demand of Japan, the world’s third-largest consumer, and amounts to almost 8 percent of the 90 million bpd the International Energy expects the world will need in 2012.

The challenges of the refining industry in Europe, a mature oil market where demand is no longer growing, were illustrated by the difficulties of Petroplus, which has closed three of its refineries after lenders froze credit lines.

Shell Chief Executive Peter Voser said in Europe there were too many small refineries that are not very profitable, a legacy of an era when every country wanted its own plants.

“Shell has reduced its European portfolio significantly over the last few years. We have done it from our side but some others have not done the same steps like close refineries and that shake out is still to happen,” he said.

“I think we will just see a few big refineries surviving in the long term and hopefully that the current slowdown will actually help to make this shakeout finally now, so that we can have the right refining industry in Europe.”

Despite the loss from refining, Shell reported net income of $6.46 billion in the fourth quarter earlier on Thursday. Most of the company’s profit comes from producing oil and gas.

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

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 voices long-term concerns over Europe as profits double

By Emma Rowley

EUROPE’S failure to cultivate growth is a bigger worry for oil and gas major Royal Dutch Shell than the region’s current sovereign debt crisis.

The Anglo-Dutch company has cut its support of European projects to just 15pc of its total investment spend, which it puts at $100bn (£62bn) over four years. Shell expects to keep reducing that share amid longer-term concerns about the region, according to Simon Henry, its chief financial officer.

“Europe’s macroeconomic position can only recover, and the sovereign debt crisis can only be addressed, through underlying economic growth, and we do not see the European Union creating the conditions for that – in fact, quite the opposite,” he said. “Most moves made by the Commission, one way or the other, tend to almost, either directly or indirectly, reduce the competitiveness of European industry.”

The warning came as Shell, Europe’s largest oil company in terms of market value, reported profits had doubled in the third quarter of this year, boosted by the climbing oil price. Earnings were $7.2bn (£4.5bn), up 106pc on a year earlier, on a current cost of supplies (CCS) basis, an industry measure stripping out changes in inventory.

Shell’s overall oil and gas production fell 2pc to 3.01m barrels of oil equivalent a day, but was rising when the impact of its programme to sell off non-core assets was taken out. Several major new projects should come on stream in the next few years.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) performed well, with sales up 12pc. Shell is working on plans to export LNG from Canada to Asia, where prices are much higher and the problems with nuclear plants following the Japanese earthquake have boosted demand for other energy sources.

BG Group this week announced an $8bn deal to buy LNG to export from the US, a landmark in the country’s shift to becoming an exporter of gas now that technology means it can access its vast shale reserves.

Shell also said that it hoped to be able to return to Libya to resume its exploration programme.

Analysts welcomed the results and said Shell had hit a “sweet spot”. Its “B” shares closed up 11p – O.47pc – at £23.30, as the wider FTSE 100 climbed 2.89pc.

Separately, US rival ExxonMobil said quarterly earnings rose 41pc to $10.3bn as the high oil price offset falling production.

Published in the Business Section of the Telegraph on Friday 28 October 2011

Shell looks to North Sea as European investment cut

MARK WILLIAMSON

28 Oct 2011

ROYAL Dutch Shell said it would curb investment in Europe where it expects the economy to stagnate, but made clear it would still spend in the North Sea.

Announcing bumper profits driven by high oil prices, the oil and gas giant said it will shift a growing share of its investment to places like Qatar, where the launch of huge projects will underpin growth for years.

Noting that Shell only devotes 15% of its investment to Europe, chief financial officer Simon Henry said the continent’s share will shrink amid concerns about the fallout from the debt crisis.

The day after European ministers finally agreed a plan to try to stabilise the eurozone, Mr Henry indicated Shell executives have been unimpressed by the response to the problems.

He told reporters: “Europe’s macroeconomic position can only recover and the sovereign debt crisis can only be addressed through underlying economic growth. We do not see the EU creating the conditions for that – in fact quite the opposite.

“Most moves by the [European] Commission one way or another tend to almost directly or indirectly reduce the competitiveness of European industry.”

Mr Henry said Shell had identified plenty of global opportunities to put its money to good use, including developing 20 major projects in countries such as Canada and Australia that will underpin growth for years. However, Shell still sees scope to invest in the North Sea.

Mr Henry noted Shell recently confirmed it will invest in the £4.5 billion BP-led Clair Ridge project west of Shetland, among the 20 growth projects he cited.

Earlier this year Shell approved plans for the £3bn redevelopment of the Schiehallion and Loyal fields, also west of Shetland.

In May, Shell’s chief executive Peter Voser told The Herald that it could remain in the North Sea for decades.

However, the firm told the Government that tax hikes in the Budget could jeopardise investment in smaller projects.

Shell said it will continue to dispose of non-core assets, although at a slower pace than in the past two years. Shell has already raised $6.2bn (£3.9bn) against a target of $5bn.

Richard Griffith, an oil and gas analyst at Evolution Securities, said Shell’s third quarter results showed the company is in a “sweet spot”.

Stripping out the effect of changes in inventories, the company doubled third quarter profits to $7.2bn, from $3.5bn in the same period last year.

Shell benefited from a 48% rise in oil prices – partly caused by unrest in the Middle East and Africa. Production increased by 2% annually, excluding asset sales, to 3.01 million barrels oil equivalent daily.

Upstream earnings increased 58% annually, to $5.4bn. Profits in the downstream business, which includes forecourt sales increased by 25% to $1.8bn.

Asked what respite Shell would provide to hard-pressed motorists, Mr Henry said: “We do a good job in getting the lowest cost fuel to customers. The Government is probably the first people you should call.”

Mr Henry said the Government takes two-thirds of the price of a litre, adding: “It is a volume business on which we make a very small margin.”

Mr Henry said Shell could not use the profits from its upstream business to subsidise the downstream.

The company announced an unchanged third quarter dividend of $0.42 per ordinary share.

Shares in Royal Dutch Shell closed up 27p at £22.80.

SOURCE ARTICLE

OIL GIANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PROFITS BONANZA

By David Cralk: Friday October 28,2011

OIL giant Royal Dutch Shell unveiled a doubling in profits ­yesterday thanks to higher prices as it vowed to slash European investment because of economic fears.

Chief executive Peter Voser said the group was making good progress as it reported third-quarter profits of $7.2billion (£4.5billion) for the period to the end of September up from £2.1billion last time.

It said oil prices, often soaring above $100 a barrel and new projects particularly in Canada and Qatar, had been the main drivers offsetting a 2 per cent dip in production to 3million barrels a day after a ramp up in asset sales such as its SDHp Norwegian gas pipelines.

However, finance chief Simon Henry said it was planning, though not expecting, for oil prices to fall to $80 a barrel next year.

“The economic environment is uncertain. It varies day-to-day.

“The price will depend on demand from emerging economies and OPEC discipline,” he said.

Shell said the economic gloom would lead it to cut back on the amount it spends on European projects.

“At present 15 per cent of our annual investments is spent on Europe. That is likely to decrease,” Henry said.

“We do not see the European Union creating the conditions to stoke economic growth, in fact quite the opposite. Most moves by the Commission tend to reduce the competitiveness of European industry.”

Shell said it would continue to focus its operations in Ukraine, Australia, North America and Africa.

It is ready to relaunch exploration projects in Libya and to export ­liquid natural gas (LNG) from ­Canada to Asia. Analysts RBC called the update “reassuring”.

The shares rose 11p to 2330p.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell considers joining legal fight over Gulf drill ban

By Eduard Gismatullin
Bloomberg News May 24, 2011

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s largest oil company, is examining plans to bring legal challenges over possible losses after last year’s Macondo oil spill, the worst in U.S. history.

“I am considering, but only considering,” Peter Rees, a legal director at Shell, said today at an International Bar Association’s webcast. “Before launching any form of action or deciding not to launch any form of action you need to gather as much information as you can.”

Shell production may be reduced by 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day in 2011 because of delays in acquiring drilling permits from the U.S. government after the spill, Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser said on May 17. If delays continue it may impact 2012 output.

The U.S. Interior Department issued new safety regulations after it lifted the drilling moratorium put in place after BP Plc’s Macondo well exploded in April 2010. The blowout, which killed 11 and sank the drilling rig, led to hundreds of lawsuits against BP and its partners and contractors.

Shell Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry said April 28 the company had lost between 25,000 and 30,000 barrels a day of production in the first quarter because of permit delays.

The company may lose about $600 million in revenue this year as a consequence of the spill, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. said in February. The company postponed about $700 million of investments in the Gulf of Mexico and lost $260 million because of idled rigs in the region last year, Henry said Feb. 3.

Shell has until April 2013 to decide whether to bring any legal challenges, Rees said today.

SOURCE ARTICLE