The Motley Fool

By David Lee Smith
March 18, 2010

In the hierarchy of Big Oil, I don’t have to work up a sweat to place ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) overall in first place — both qualitatively and quantitatively — while for several years now, Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS-A) has brought up the rear.

BP leads the way
That’s not to say, however, that the companies can’t change positions, much like NASCAR participants, passing one another when things are going especially well, or falling behind when bad luck hinders them. Take BP (NYSE: BP) for instance. It wasn’t long ago that the company was simultaneously trying to fend off the ramifications of a lethal explosion at a Texas refinery that killed 15 and injured scores of others, all while dealing with leaks in its Alaska pipelines. At about the same time its Indiana refinery was shut down by a fire, and an abrupt top management change all seemed to leave the company even further behind the eight-ball.

But in just the past couple of years, CEO Tony Hayward and the team he’s assembled have BP roaring back. In fact, the company is as clear-cut a demonstration as I can conjure up of the real value of quality management to corporate success. And now it appears that Shell, which until recently couldn’t find oil in a Jiffy Lube, may be following in the footsteps of its European rival.

And here comes Shell
If, as this week’s version of the company’s annual strategy session appeared to indicate, Shell is shedding its ineptitude, still new CEO Peter Voser will have performed a miraculous feat. After all, this is the same company that in 2004 admitted to overstating its reserves by 20%, or about 3.9 billion barrels. The result for the company was a fine of more than $350 million, plus administrative costs and other charges, along with the termination of several top executives.

And then there’s been the company’s geologic incompetence. As you know, one of the keys to judging an oil and gas producer involves the percentage of its production it’s able to replace each year. For instance, Exxon replaced 133% of its production in 2009, departing the year with more reserves than it started off with. From Shell’s perspective, as recently as 2007, the company replaced a shameful 17% of its production. In 2008, it replaced just 98% of its output.

Like a new company
Then came 2009 and surprise stardom for Shell. Believe it or not the company’s reserve-replacement ratio reached a whopping 288%, the highest in the industry. And while that ratio hasn’t yet manifested itself in Shell’s financials, in my opinion, Mr. Voser and his team have set the stage for some solid results going forward. For instance, next year two huge projects in Qatar — the Pearl Gas-to-Liquids project and Qatargas 4, a massive liquefied natural gas project — will come on stream. Also an expansion of the Canadian oil sands project that it shares with Chevron (NYSE: CVX) and Marathon (NYSE: MRO) will likely start up in the next couple of years. As Mr. Voser told the assembled analysts, the result could be an impressive 11% increase in barrels of oil equivalent production by 2012.

And it wasn’t just the discovery of 2.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent, its top performance of the past decade, that made 2009 the company’s turnaround story so strong. In addition, cost cutting received plenty of attention. By laying off 5,000, or 5%, of its employees, along with taking other measures, Shell was able to save $2 billion in expenses during the year. Further, it appears that the company is far from through in the fat-trimming department. Indeed, Mr. Voser stated during the session that another 2,000 Shell hands will be laid off by the end of next year.

Wanna buy a refinery?
Beyond that, there obviously will be asset sales as well. A month ago, rumors were rampant that the company was looking to dispose of about $10 billion worth of its properties, potentially including oilfields in the North Sea, three refineries in Europe, onshore acreage in Nigeria, and retail outlets in Africa. Whether or not that target number is accurate, the company made it clear on Tuesday that there will be refineries and retail facilities on the block.

Clearly this is not the ideal time to be in the refinery business, and, with margins having withered in that sector, all the integrated companies, from ExxonMobil on down, are struggling with their downstream operations. In fact, companies like France’s Total (NYSE: TOT), along with several other members of the Big Oil fraternity appear intent on cutting refinery capacity, and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) may sell some small units.

So all in all, it’s not solely because spring is arriving that I recommend that Fools do some “Shelling.” There could be some money to be made in this clear-cut turnaround situation.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Ian Lyall, Daily Mail
16 March 2010, 9:52pm

He said he was ‘energised’ and up for the fight. But as he stood at the podium to deliver the company’s annual strategy review, Shell boss Peter Voser (right) looked anything but.

His audience of a hundred or so British and foreign journalists listened with an air of resignation rather than in rapt attention.

Voser isn’t a natural orator. His clipped Swiss accent and the dry delivery may work well around the boardroom table, but his style is hardly inspirational.

Which is a pity. Because his message was an uplifting one for Shell investors, and addressed the concerns of the critics who dismiss the Anglo-Dutch giant as low growth, bureaucratic and bloated.

Voser’s trick was to come up with a fairly punchy production target and spice it with a subtle change of direction and emphasis.

And it seemed to work, with the company’s London-listed A shares rising 27.5p to close the day at 2920p.

The briefing re- capped the impact Voser has made in his short tenure. Since becoming chief executive in the summer of last year, he has spearheaded an impressive $2bn cost cutting drive that has seen the loss off 5,000 jobs, mostly mid-ranking managerial posts.

An extension to that programme was unveiled yesterday. It will save another $1bn by cutting a further 1,000 roles, though the workforce still numbers more than 100,000.

But what grabbed the analysts’ attention was his plans to have Shell pumping around 3.5m barrels of oil a day by 2012.

This implies an annual growth rate of 3.5%, which is well ahead of the rather pedestrian performance of rival BP at around 1.5%.

Shell even seems to have raised its game in finding new oil and gas fields, with its reserve replacement rate running at a healthy 288%.

Voser showed he recognised the lingering misgivings of investors, though he was careful to couch the message in diplomatic terms that wouldn’t offend his colleagues and predecessor.

‘When I became chief executive in the middle of last year, I did think the organisation of the company was working against us,’ he told the meeting at a central London hotel.

‘Shell had become too complicated, and slower than I’d like, and working on too many areas and options.’

The simplification of Shell, which has many moving parts, is borne out of necessity.

With the oil price hovering at, or close to, $80 a barrel, more investment is going into exploration and production.

For recession-hit refining, in the middle of the worst slump in 20 years, the pendulum has swung the other way. Capacity is set to be cut by around 15%, with plants sold or even shut down.

And the marketing operation, which owns the company’s filling stations and also sells motor oil and jet fuel, is also undergoing a shake-up. It is focusing on fewer markets to improve profitability.

Only one of the laggards seems to have been spared the Voser treatment: Shell’s gas business.

It has been hit by the downturn but is deemed to be a fundamentally sound business.

Voser trumpeted a series of exploration success stories that tell a tale of a growing conservatism, so we heard about the company’s strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, Australia and North America.

Relatively expensive regions in which to work, they do have the upside of being politically stable and incredibly easy places to do business.

Air-brushed from the literature were the likes of Nigeria and Russia.

It was only when prodded that Voser commented on the war-torn African nation, where the oil reserves are plentiful, but the region is a mess of infighting and instability: ‘In the past, as I have said many times, Shell has depended a lot on the growth of Nigeria. In today’s situation, we still have the same growth potential in Nigeria. But we have seeded plenty of projects in other parts of the world where we also can achieve growth.’

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the country’s prospects.

Some analysts, such as Collins Stewart’s Gordon Grey, see Voser’s latest strategy pronouncement as ‘an important turning point operationally’ for Shell.

The respected and experienced Richard Griffith of Evolution has been following the company for far too long to be totally convinced: ‘It’s a positive statement, but there is still plenty to be delivered.’

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.”

Co-op backs oil sands awareness campaign

By Ed Crooks, Energy Editor

Published: March 15 2010 22:32

The Co-op is backing Dirty Oil, a new documentary that had its premiere in London on Monday night.

The film alleges pollution from oil sands production is contributing to high rates of cancer among local communities; a claim that is rejected by the industry.

The Co-op has put £100,000 towards marketing and distribution of the documentary in Britain. Its asset management arm is part of a campaign against oil sands investment by Royal Dutch Shell and BP.

FULL FT ARTICLE

Shell’s oil facilities in the Niger Delta have suffered from a number of criminal and militant attacks, leading Peter Voser, chief executive officer, to declare that the country is no longer a key area for growth.

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

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

March 4, 2010, 12:55 PM ET

By Jim Carlton and Neal Lipschultz

Despite recent defections of two other oil majors, Royal Dutch Shell PLC has opted to stay in an influential lobbying group that has focused on shaping climate-change legislation, Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser said.

Mr. Voser, speaking Thursday at the Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara, Calif., was asked why Shell remained in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) after two of its peers, BP PLC and ConocoPhillips, pulled out last month. The partnership is a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases, and the defections came amid growing debate over climate change.

“We feel we can actually do more being inside USCAP to achieve the right outcome,” Mr. Voser said.

But Mr. Voser agreed with a growing number of skeptics who don’t believe a climate change bill will be passed on Capital Hill this year. Asked how much money he would put betting on such an outcome, the CEO smiled wanly and said: “I think I can spend my money somewhere else.” Earlier at the conference, Michael Morris, chairman, president and CEO of utility giant American Electric Power, had pegged the chances of a climate bill’s passage in 2010 as “less than 50%.”

“The timing will be longer than we expected, but we will do our part” in influencing the bill, Mr. Voser said. He added Shell favors a market-based system of controlling carbon emissions, and that “I would like to have a marketplace that works on a global scale.” Mr. Voser said he believed eventually there would be carbon legislation in the U.S. and many other parts of the world, despite the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks to achieve a consensus.

“I think this is a journey,” Mr. Voser said. “We need more time.”

When asked about the theory of “peak” oil in the world and whether that theory was now dead, Mr. Voser said “I think what is dead is cheap oil.”

You need more technology, innovation and will find oil further away from markets, Mr. Voser said. More will be spent to get oil and consumers will pay, both for oil and gas.

Mr. Voser also said oil price volatility is here to stay. More money is flowing into commodities and there are more players in the market.

Shell, meanwhile, has been moving to become more of a natural gas supplier and continues to invest in alternative energies like biofuels, he said. With global energy demand expected to double by 2050, Mr. Voser said the world will need many sources of fuel, including oil. He predicted electricity would be needed to power 40% of  the world’s automobile fleet by 2050, when he predicted it would double to two billion vehicles from one billion.

WSJ ARTICLE

REUTERS

By Poornima Gupta

SANTA BARBARA, Calif., March 4 (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSa.L) expects electricity-powered vehicles to account for as much as 40 percent of the worldwide car market by 2050, Chief Executive Peter Voser said on Thursday.

Voser, speaking at The Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics conference in Santa Barbara, said technological improvements and increases in the cost of producing gasoline will give a boost to vehicles that run on alternative power.

“We think between now and 2050, we will go from 1 billion cars to 2 billion cars worldwide,” he said. “We think by 2050, roughly 40 percent of those 2 billion cars will be electric.”

In the next 40 years, the market needs low-carbon fuels, more efficient engines and hybrid vehicles, Voser said.

“I think there will be room and space to develop all of them,” he added.

Gasoline demand in developed countries like the United States has started to decline, partly as vehicles running on alternative fuels have entered the market. Companies such as Shell and BP (BP.L) are spending more money on those newer technologies, including for next-generation biofuels.

Automakers such as Ford Motor Co (F.N) and Nissan Motor Co Ltd (7201.T) are racing to launch electric cars, betting these will be the environmentally friendly transportation of the future. Small players like Tesla Motors already sell electric vehicles.

Voser said Shell was investing 25 percent of its research and development budget into renewables, including wind power and biofuels.

Shell has bet big on ethanol by striking a deal with Brazil’s Cosan (CSAN3.SA) to create a $21 billion a year ethanol joint venture.

The 50-50 joint venture, with almost 4,500 filling stations nationwide, will better position Cosan and Shell to compete with the two top players in the market, state oil giant Petrobras (PETR4.SA) and Ipiranga, a unit of Brazil’s Grupo Ultra (UGPA4.SA).

(Reporting by Poornima Gupta. Editing by Robert MacMillan)

REUTERS ARTICLE