Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts Tagged ‘Halliburton’

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

BP sues Gulf rig operator for $40bn over oil spill

Latest update: 21/04/2011
BP has filed a $40 billion lawsuit against Transocean, the operator of the Gulf of Mexico oil rig, alleging the disastrous explosion on the oil rig was due to the firm’s “misconduct”. The company also filed suit against Halliburton and Cameron.

By News Wires (text)

AFP – BP has filed a lawsuit against rig operator Transocean for $40 billion in damages over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, in a legal fightback by the group a year after the disaster.

The British firm, the target of blame during the crisis, filed suit against Swiss-based Transocean on Wednesday, the one-year anniversary of the start of the biggest maritime oil spill in history, and also against oil services giant Halliburton and parts manufacturer Cameron.

Transocean operated the Deepwater Horizon rig which was hit by an explosion on April 20, 2010, killing 11 workers and sparking the environmental disaster.

At one point during the crisis, the future of BP as a group appeared to be at risk from the potential long-term costs.

“But for Transocean’s improper conduct, errors, omissions, and violations of maritime law, there would not have been any blowout of the exploratory well,” a court filing from BP argued.

“Nor, but for Transocean’s misconduct, would there have been any explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon, or any deaths and personal injuries, or an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.”

The documents, filed in a New Orleans court, added that BP was seeking “at least $40 billion (27 billion euros, £24 billion) in damages and contribution from Transocean.”

Solemn ceremonies took place in the US on Wednesday a year on from the start of the environmental catastrophe.

It took 87 days to cap the well, by which time 4.9 million barrels (206 million gallons) of oil had gushed out of the well deep below the surface of the Gulf.

In a separate statement, BP said it had “filed suit against Halliburton in order to hold the company accountable for its critical role in the Deepwater Horizon accident.”

Halliburton mixed the cement that cemented the blown-out well in the accident.

BP said that Halliburton had not provided it with the results of failed cement tests and company employees “missed critical signals that hydrocarbons were flowing into the wellbore.”

On Cameron, BP said it that was suing the parts manufacturer over its design of the blowout preventer on the Macondo well.

“BP has sued Cameron for its faulty design and manufacture of the blowout preventer (BOP), and its negligence in the maintenance and modification of the BOP,” said BP.

It was “a critical safety device that failed to prevent the blowout of the Macondo well,” added the energy giant.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Inquiry Puts Halliburton in a Familiar Hot Seat

By BARRY MEIER and CLIFFORD KRAUSS

A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010, on page A20 of the New York edition.

Halliburton is back in the spotlight, and once again, in an uncomfortable way.

In recent years, the giant energy services company has found itself under scrutiny over allegations that it performed shoddy, overpriced work for the United States military in Iraq, bribed Nigerian officials to win energy contracts and did brisk business with Iran at time when it faced sanctions.

On Thursday, a government investigation panel said that Halliburton might have played an important role in the April explosion of the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico by supplying cement that the company knew was unstable to BP, which used it to seal the well. Halliburton has repeatedly blamed BP, the owner of the well, of failing to test the cement and making other errors that led to the accident, which killed 11 people and spewed millions of barrels of crude oil into the gulf.

“Halliburton has a history of walking on the energy high beam without a net,” said Chris Ruppel, managing director of capital markets at Execution Noble, an international investment bank. “Because they have been very aggressive, working on very high-profile types of projects, when anything goes wrong, they will be front and center.”

The company, which was led by former Vice President Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000, has drawn repeated fire for some of its past actions, mostly involving its Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary, which it finished selling in 2007. Last year, for example, Halliburton and KBR agreed to pay $579 million to settle charges brought by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with bribes that KBR had paid to top Nigerian officials over a decade. The companies still face criminal liability in Nigeria over the episode, which involved contracts to build a liquefied natural gas complex.

Several experts said on Thursday that the report by the staff of the commission investigating the accident could have legal and business consequences for Halliburton, which is based in Houston. Investors were certainly concerned, sending the company’s stock plunging 16 percent in the minutes after the report was released. The shares ended the day at $31.68, down 8 percent.

In a statement late Thursday, Halliburton said that it believed there were significant differences between its own tests and those performed by the commission.

“The commission tested off-the-shelf cement and additives, whereas Halliburton tested the unique blend of cement and additives that existed on the rig at the time Haliburton’s tests were conducted,” the company said.

In its report, investigators said that internal tests run by Halliburton found that the cement mixture it had developed for use at BP’s well, called Macondo, did not meet industry standards for stability. Halliburton had shared some but not all of the test results with BP, and the companies proceeded to use the faulty mixture.

The report did not conclude that the problems with the cement caused the disaster, but did say that they raised the likelihood that a blowout would occur.

Lawyers suing BP, Halliburton and other companies on behalf of workers killed or injured in the disaster seized on the report, arguing that it would expand Halliburton’s potential liability.

“The report makes clear for all to see that, by rushing the cement job, BP and Halliburton put their corporate profits ahead of worker safety,” Paul Sterbcow, a plaintiffs’ lawyer in New Orleans, said in a statement.

Cement failure is a frequent cause of deepwater oil well blowouts. And Halliburton, which is one of the world’s biggest producers of oilfield cements, also provided the material used in an offshore well near Australia that blew out last year.

Oil industry experts were split on the report’s business implications for Halliburton. “It’s going to make people take a second look for other options, other cement companies,” said Donald Van Nieuwenhuise, director of petroleum geoscience programs at the University of Houston.

But Robert MacKenzie, managing director for energy and natural resources research at FBR Capital Markets, had a different view, calling the stock market response an overreaction. “I don’t think a report written by nontechnical people is going to affect industry perception,” he said, adding that Halliburton “does billions of dollars of work every year, and one job doesn’t make a reputation among their customers.”

Indeed, Halliburton, a global company with $14.7 billion in revenue last year, has weathered a string of public controversies.

While KBR was still part of Halliburton, it came under intense scrutiny for large cost overruns and was accused of shoddy work in construction projects for United States military operations in Iraq. In 2003, the Halliburton subsidiary had received a multibillion-dollar, no-bid contract from the American government for work in the war-torn country.

In 2007, Congressional Democrats criticized Halliburton for moving the offices of its chief executive from Houston to Dubai, charging that it was an effort to lower its taxes. The company countered that the second headquarters allowed it better business opportunities.

That year, Halliburton also said that it was ending its business dealings in Iran. Under longstanding American sanctions, American companies are forbidden from conducting most business with Iran.

Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, said harsh criticisms of Halliburton were based on “attitudes that harken back to the Cheney connection and the Bush years that make them convenient punching bags.”

“They are worldwide giants in what they do, and they are thoroughly reputable,” Mr. Hunt said. “They have a strong, proven record of quality work.”

But Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the company resembled Zelig, the fictional Woody Allen film character who repeatedly turned up unexpectedly at events.

“Except Zelig was innocent,” Mr. Markey said. “Halliburton thinks cutting corners is good business.”

SOURCE

Halliburton paid $180 million in bribes to senior Nigerian government officials

In a wide-ranging foreign-corruption investigation, fired former Halliburton Co. executive Albert J. “Jack” Stanley pleaded guilty to orchestrating more than $180 million in bribes to senior Nigerian government officials. The bribes were used to win a contract to build a liquefied-natural-gas plant in Nigeria.

Click to continue reading “Halliburton paid $180 million in bribes to senior Nigerian government officials”

Halliburton Completes 100 Percent Acquisition of WellDynamics

Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) announced today that it has closed the previously announced acquisition of the 49 percent equity of Shell Technology Ventures Fund 1 B.V. in WellDynamics B.V. With this transaction complete, Halliburton owns 100 percent of WellDynamics.

Click to continue reading “Halliburton Completes 100 Percent Acquisition of WellDynamics”

Oil Majors Say U.S. Restrictions Delay Iran Projects

Despite an urgent need to replenish reserves, Anglo-Dutch oil giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Spanish-Argentine Repsol YPF said they wouldn’t sign a $10 billion contract to enter South Pars, the Iranian side of a giant natural-gas field shared with Qatar. Instead, the two oil giants are considering entering later phases of the project.

Click to continue reading “Oil Majors Say U.S. Restrictions Delay Iran Projects”

Bidding War for Expro International

Rising oil prices and depleting reserves at existing fields forced oil companies to seek access to oil in politically fragile locations that are harder and more expensive to reach. Some analysts expect oil companies, like Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron, to increase their spending on exploration this year.

Click to continue reading “Bidding War for Expro International”

Financial Times: US to probe Nigeria oil industry payments

US anti-bribery investigators are targeting a former Halliburton subsidiary over its work on a key Royal Dutch Shell project in Nigeria, widening a corruption probe into the country’s troubled oil industry.

Click to continue reading “Financial Times: US to probe Nigeria oil industry payments”