In a front page lead story in the Financial Times, our site was properly credited with breaking news of the restructuring plans of Peter Voser.
FROM OUR ARCHIVE: EXTRACT FROM A RELATED EMAIL MESSAGE SENT BY JOHN DONOVAN TO OVER 400 SENIOR SHELL EXECUTIVES
Congratulations!
I am writing to offer our best wishes on your appointment/new title, as announced on our website royaldutchshellplc.com within the lists of Shell senior executive appointments we published on 22 June and 3 August.
The unauthorised publication of leaked Shell confidential information on our site has become a news event in its own right, regularly reported by The Wall Street Journal and other news organisations.
Our insider sources know that we will protect anonymity. If you ever feel the need to supply information, please contact me and I will advise on setting up secure communications.
SHELL BLOG
Comments posted by Shell employees on our “Shell Blog” have been quoted in many news articles.
If you want to keep in touch with uncensored grassroots opinion of Shell stakeholders, I would strongly recommend regular visits to the facility, as the comments are often insightful and reflect all shades of opinion. Why not post your own views? You can do so anonymously. What do you think about Shell executives being forced to reapply for their jobs? What do you make of the callous comment by Peter Voser that asking staff to reapply had been “an interesting exercise“?
You are also welcome to supply Shell related articles for unedited publication under your own name. We have published numerous articles on this basis from eminent Shell retirees, Shell executive Paddy Briggs, Shell International HSE Group Auditor, Bill Campbell, and Royal Dutch Shell Global Chief Petroleum Engineer, Iain Percival.
The Shell Blog has replaced “Tell Shell”, the official Shell Internet forum for open and lively debate, “temporarily suspended” (permanently) after we exposed the secret censorship of postings considered too open and too lively.
Shell General Counsel Richard Wiseman (now RDS Plc Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer) confirmed to us in an email dated 11 November 2005 Shell’s censorship of Tell Shell postings.
In the same email, Mr Wiseman stated:
The extraordinary tolerance shown to your internet activities ought to demonstrate better than anything else the fact that we are uninterested in, and unmoved by, your current activities
Richard Wiseman subsequently, at his own initiative, sent us an updated photograph of himself to display on our website (left).
In a further development revealing the truth, as opposed to the spin, we found out from documents obtained under the Data Protection Act that Shell set up a team in an attempt to counter our activities. The relevant internal email exposes the hostility towards us and the fact that it is is held in check by fear of reprisal on our part. If you find this difficult to believe, read the email.
So much for being uninterested and unmoved!
Update: Richard Wiseman retired from Shell in March 2011.
FROM IAIN PERCIVAL (RIGHT), RETIRED GLOBAL CHIEF PETROLEUM ENGINEER OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL (Iain retired from Shell in 2006 after 33 years of service.)
when Shell so-called “value creation teams”, were already engaged in activities leading to the falsification of Shell’s oil and gas reserves and one of the biggest investor frauds in history.
I wish to correct any impression the team members were in any way conducting themselves in any other way than as competent, dedicated technical professionals conducing a root and branch examination of the huge volume of hydrocarbons in Shell’s resource portfolio categorized as “Scope for Recovery”. The aim of the exercise was to identify activities & projects which could (I emphasise the word could) lead to booking volumes of hydrocarbons as “Expectation” volumes, not proved, and only if there was a reasonable level of certainty the projects would go ahead. The outcome of the Value Creation initiative was a complete change in the way the company goes about generating hydrocarbon development concepts, designing and executing well programmes, defining and executing major engineering projects and optimizing the way facilities are operated and maintained. The current suite of E&P Global Processes, operating standards, learning & development programmes, best practice sharing / knowledge management owe their existence to the pioneering work conducted by the Shell technical professionals who worked in the Value Creation Teams.
The implication that the Value Creation work led to the falsification of hydrocarbon reserves and investor fraud is false. The work has led to value generation for investors in Shell resulting from increased efficiency in the use of capital and increased effectiveness of the technical staff in their daily work.
I remain immensely proud to have been associated with the value creation effort and the implementation of the subsequent changes to how we did our work.
Kind regards,
Iain Percival
COMMENT ENDS
REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN
I have supplied below some information from independent sources on the issue raised by Iain Percival.
In 1998 Shell created five Value Creation Teams (‘VCTs”) to find radical new ways to improve Shell’s Exploration and Production business (“EP”) profitability and reputation and hence aid growth in the EP business. One VCT was tasked with creating the maximum value from Shell’s hydrocarbon reserves. A paper dated May 1998 entitled “Creating value through Entrepreneurial Management of Hydrocarbon Resource Values” made a number of recommendations including changing Shell’s reserves guidelines. On 16 September 1998 the revised guidelines were issued to Shell’s operating units. These revised guidelines resulted in an overstatement of Shell’s proved reserves of 940 million boe for the two years ended 31 December 1999.
Below is a link to the “REPORT OF DAVIS POLK & WARDELL TO THE SHELL GROUP AUDIT COMMITTEE: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY” dated 31 March 2004. Every page of the 202 page report is marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”
I invite readers to download the report and run a search on “value creation team” and read the information on the related ten pages. I will provide a few extracts here, but recommend that the entire 10 pages are read so the information can be seen in context.
From page 32 (or Court numbering — page 52 of 202)
The Value Creation Team prepared a report for EP BusCom that was widely distributed within EP entitled “Creating Value through Entrepreneurial Management of Hydrocarbon Resource Volumes.”
From pages 45 & 46 (UsingCourt numbering — pages 66 and 67 of 202)
In 1998 and 1999, a diagram known as the “cascade model” developed by the Value Creation Team appeared in the Guidelines. The”cascade model” illustrated the “migration of volumes between resource categories during the development life cycle.” In the diagram, “undeveloped reserves” appeared before “final investment decision” or FID (although the diagram does not make clear whether these volumes include proved undeveloped reserves).
Beginning in 1993, the Guidelines also introduced the concept of “commercial viability” (or later,”commercial maturity”) as a counterpart to technical maturity. As explained in the 1996 Guidelines, commercial viability implied that the project would yield an expected positive net present value (NPV) based on “advised Group reference criteria for commerciality.” Such viability was adequate for the inclusion of “reserves,” even though a more robust demonstration of “economic viability” (i.e., positive NPV under a number of technical risk downside scenarios) was necessary to obtain investment approval. In other words, it appears that the Guidelines permitted the booking of reserves (whether proved or expectation) with respect to projects that would not survive the Group’s capital allocation process, again a result that appears to fall short of “reasonable certainty.”
Pages 7 & 8 (or Court numbering — 86 & 87 of 202)
C. Revisions to the Shell Guidelines — “Volume Value Creation Team”
In each of 1997 and 1998, Shell’s RRR performance significantly exceeded 100%. During these years Shell’s proved reserves were significantly boosted, not by exploration and development activity, but rather by significant modification to Shell’s methodologies for booking proved developed reserves. This change was at least partly the result of a review that was conducted under the auspices of a “Hydrocarbon Resource Volume Value Creation Team” (the “Value Creation Team”) within EP that was, in turn, established as part of Shell’s Leadership and Performance “LEAP” Focused Results Delivery Project. Similar to the relaxation in standards for booking proved gas reserves in 1990, this initiative was driven by the perception that Shell’s approach to booking proved developed reserves was more conservative than its competitors’, and that Shell’s reserves were therefore not maximizing value.
Footnote of page 4 (or Court numbering page 83 of 202)
It should be noted that the main increases in proved reserves resulting from the Value Creation Team’s revised Guidelines in 1997/1998 (See Section II C, below) related to proved developed reserves. Such proved developed reserves did not make up a significant portion of the reserves recategorization announced on January 9, 2004.
The problems at Royal Dutch/Shell can be traced to the first half of the 1990′s, when executives and investors began to grow concerned that the group’s reserves were not keeping pace with production. Their concern led them in 1997 to instruct the leadership and performance group, known within the company as LEAP, to “create value through entrepreneurial management of hydrocarbon resource volumes,” according to one company document.
Many people fondly remember the advertising slogan…
“You can be Sure of Shell”
The legendary crooner, Bing Crosby, sung the praises of Shell in the 1950′s.
Our research indicates that the slogan
“YOU CAN BE SURE OF SHELL”…
was first used in Great Britain by Shell in 1937 (right) months after the forced resignation of Sir Henri Deterding, the man most responsible for the creation and global success of the Royal Dutch Shell Group.
Sir Henri in his latter years as the undisputed strong man ruler of Royal Dutch Shell, had become a fascist and an ardent Nazi, who provided massive financial support to his friend Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. The relationship and the financial support for the Nazis generated negative publicity for Shell.
We assume that the “YOU CAN BE SURE OF SHELL” slogan was designed to rebuild confidence in the company and its products and was no doubt directed at consumers and potential investors.
Fortunately, we have a comprehensive explanation from a Shell Chairman, Mark Moody-Stuart. It is in the form of a letter from him published by The Guardian newspaper on 2nd December 1997.
As can be seen, basically the slogan was meant to get across the message that Shell now has principles that it will not sacrifice to profit. It supposedly respects human rights and is trustworthy because it follows an ethical framework.
His illuminating letter, partly the product of the Shell PR propaganda department, was in response to a truly extraordinary indictment of the oil giant, in a Guardian article:
Reference was made in the article to Shell’s double-dealings (secret negotiations) with Hitler and the Nazis, a relationship which continued long after the resignation of Sir Henri Deterding as Director-General of Royal Dutch Dutch.
Ironically, the Moody-Stuart letter was published at the time when Shell so-called “value creation teams”, were already engaged in activities leading to the falsification of Shell’s oil and gas reserves and one of the biggest investor frauds in history.
I assume that the regret for what was done “in a different historical or social context” was a reference to the historical fact thatShell conspired directly with Hitler, heavily financed the Nazi Party, was at times anti-Semitic and sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis.
At the time the slogan was introduced in 1937, Shell was already in bed with Hitler and the Nazi Party. Royal Dutch Shell Director General, Sir Henri Deterding, had a very close relationship with Hitler. There was a report in a gossip column that his wife, Lady Lydia, had an even closer relationship with Hitler.
Some of this happened in 1937, the year the “YOU CAN BE SURE OF SHELL” advertising campaign was launched.
Shell was stabbing Great Britain in the back, dealing with and funding the most evil regime in history, while treacherously pretending that Shell could be trusted by the British public.
It’s about time that Shell issued a full formal apology for its past corporate sins, which contributed to the horrific deaths of millions of people, instead of including an apology for unspecified misdeeds within a carefully contrived letter attempting to defend the indefensible.
No wonder Shell has ceased using the slogan.
Earlier this month, Royal Dutch Shell threatened legal proceedings against us in relation to these matters.
EMAIL FROM MICHIEL BRANDJES, 3 MARCH 2011
From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Date: 3 March 2011 09:02:21 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL
Dear Mr Donovan,
Thank you for your message. Except for this message the company does not wish to respond to you other than to convey that it strongly disagrees with your views and allegations, objects to your actions and reserves its legal rights, including with respect to copyrights.
On an exceptional basis we tested your views about history with the relevant historians. They convincingly refute with evidence what you claim in contradiction with A History of Royal Dutch Shell.
Best Regards,
Michiel Brandjes
Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Registered office: Shell Centre London SE1 7NA UK
Place of registration and number: England 4366849
Correspondence address: PO Box 162, 2501 AN The Hague,
The Netherlands
I pointed out in my response that Shell’s paid historians provided not a single example of any factual inaccuracy. Furthermore, as I correctly predicted, no legal action has been taken. This is most definitely not a subject that Shell wants aired in open court, as the evidence confirms our published conclusion that Shell is the most evil multinational corporation in existence.
And history repeats itself.
In recent days we have seen the latest reincarnation of a ruthless Shell leader, Peter Voser (who made thousands of Shell employees reapply for their own jobs), defend Shell’s dealings with the latest reincarnation of a ruthless dictator, Gaddafi.
ENDS
COMMENT ADDED ON 1 APRIL 2011 FROM IAIN PERCIVAL, RETIRED GLOBAL CHIEF PETROLEUM ENGINEER OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL (Iain retired from Shell in 2006 after 33 years of service.)
John – in your posting dated 31 March 2011 “You can be sure of Shell – the biggest confidence trick in history”, you wrote
when Shell so-called “value creation teams”, were already engaged in activities leading to the falsification of Shell’s oil and gas reserves and one of the biggest investor frauds in history.
I wish to correct any impression the team members were in any way conducting themselves in any other way than as competent, dedicated technical professionals conducing a root and branch examination of the huge volume of hydrocarbons in Shell’s resource portfolio categorized as “Scope for Recovery”. The aim of the exercise was to identify activities & projects which could (I emphasise the word could) lead to booking volumes of hydrocarbons as “Expectation” volumes, not proved, and only if there was a reasonable level of certainty the projects would go ahead. The outcome of the Value Creation initiative was a complete change in the way the company goes about generating hydrocarbon development concepts, designing and executing well programmes, defining and executing major engineering projects and optimizing the way facilities are operated and maintained. The current suite of E&P Global Processes, operating standards, learning & development programmes, best practice sharing / knowledge management owe their existence to the pioneering work conducted by the Shell technical professionals who worked in the Value Creation Teams.
The implication that the Value Creation work led to the falsification of hydrocarbon reserves and investor fraud is false. The work has led to value generation for investors in Shell resulting from increased efficiency in the use of capital and increased effectiveness of the technical staff in their daily work.
I remain immensely proud to have been associated with the value creation effort and the implementation of the subsequent changes to how we did our work.
Kind regards,
Iain Percival
COMMENT ENDS
REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN
I have supplied below some information from independent sources on the issue raised by Iain Percival.
In 1998 Shell created five Value Creation Teams (‘VCTs”) to find radical new ways to improve Shell’s Exploration and Production business (“EP”) profitability and reputation and hence aid growth in the EP business. One VCT was tasked with creating the maximum value from Shell’s hydrocarbon reserves. A paper dated May 1998 entitled “Creating value through Entrepreneurial Management of Hydrocarbon Resource Values” made a number of recommendations including changing Shell’s reserves guidelines. On 16 September 1998 the revised guidelines were issued to Shell’s operating units. These revised guidelines resulted in an overstatement of Shell’s proved reserves of 940 million boe for the two years ended 31 December 1999.
Below is a link to the “REPORT OF DAVIS POLK & WARDELL TO THE SHELL GROUP AUDIT COMMITTEE: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY” dated 31 March 2004. Every page of the 202 page report is marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”
I invite readers to download the report and run a search on “value creation team” and read the information on the related ten pages. I will provide a few extracts here, but recommend that the entire 10 pages are read so the information can be seen in context.
From page 32 (or Court numbering -- page 52 of 202)
The Value Creation Team prepared a report for EP BusCom that was widely distributed within EP entitled “Creating Value through Entrepreneurial Management of Hydrocarbon Resource Volumes.”
From pages 45 & 46 (UsingCourt numbering -- pages 66 and 67 of 202)
In 1998 and 1999, a diagram known as the “cascade model” developed by the Value Creation Team appeared in the Guidelines. The”cascade model” illustrated the “migration of volumes between resource categories during the development life cycle.” In the diagram, “undeveloped reserves” appeared before “final investment decision” or FID (although the diagram does not make clear whether these volumes include proved undeveloped reserves).
Beginning in 1993, the Guidelines also introduced the concept of “commercial viability” (or later,”commercial maturity”) as a counterpart to technical maturity. As explained in the 1996 Guidelines, commercial viability implied that the project would yield an expected positive net present value (NPV) based on “advised Group reference criteria for commerciality.” Such viability was adequate for the inclusion of “reserves,” even though a more robust demonstration of “economic viability” (i.e., positive NPV under a number of technical risk downside scenarios) was necessary to obtain investment approval. In other words, it appears that the Guidelines permitted the booking of reserves (whether proved or expectation) with respect to projects that would not survive the Group’s capital allocation process, again a result that appears to fall short of “reasonable certainty.”
C. Revisions to the Shell Guidelines -- “Volume Value Creation Team”
In each of 1997 and 1998, Shell’s RRR performance significantly exceeded 100%. During these years Shell’s proved reserves were significantly boosted, not by exploration and development activity, but rather by significant modification to Shell’s methodologies for booking proved developed reserves. This change was at least partly the result of a review that was conducted under the auspices of a “Hydrocarbon Resource Volume Value Creation Team” (the “Value Creation Team”) within EP that was, in turn, established as part of Shell’s Leadership and Performance “LEAP” Focused Results Delivery Project. Similar to the relaxation in standards for booking proved gas reserves in 1990, this initiative was driven by the perception that Shell’s approach to booking proved developed reserves was more conservative than its competitors’, and that Shell’s reserves were therefore not maximizing value.
Footnote of page 4 (or Court numbering page 83 of 202)
It should be noted that the main increases in proved reserves resulting from the Value Creation Team’s revised Guidelines in 1997/1998 (See Section II C, below) related to proved developed reserves. Such proved developed reserves did not make up a significant portion of the reserves recategorization announced on January 9, 2004.
The problems at Royal Dutch/Shell can be traced to the first half of the 1990′s, when executives and investors began to grow concerned that the group’s reserves were not keeping pace with production. Their concern led them in 1997 to instruct the leadership and performance group, known within the company as LEAP, to “create value through entrepreneurial management of hydrocarbon resource volumes,” according to one company document.
Messers Pals & Kennedy of Bloomberg really ought to research a topic before writing about it. Just what is meant by “Shell is targeting hard-to-reach rock formations in Australia, the U.S. and China”? Coal seams for CBM in Australia are not in the criteria of hard-to-reach. There are undoubtedly challenges in the optimal exploitation of CBM but the technology / techniques are hardly new or “hard-to-apply”. In any case the geoscience and engineering capability in Shell is more than enough to address the task. My comment applies equally well to the (presumably) tight gas assets in North America and China. The tone of the article implies Shell will have trouble delivering meaningful gas production from these “hard-to-reach” formations. Yes, the technical challenge is greater than with conventional gas, but then Shell has invested serious money in researching the technologies and techniques required. Will Bloomberg reporters write an article in the same vein throwing doubt on the ability of the BG-Group to deliver from similar formations in the same countries? One thing is for sure, the BG-Group do not have recourse to the R&D back up in-house to Shell.
COMMENTS END
The following information, links and photograph of Iain Percival are all sourced from the Internet. They were not supplied or suggested by him.
Iain Recognised for Mentoring Work
Shell retiree and former Group Chief Petroleum Engineer, Iain Percival, took the award for Outstanding Individual Achievement at the Energy Industry (EI) Annual Awards, for his work mentoring a number of young professionals, both in Shell and other organisations.
Iain is currently spending time with students and staff at RGU and the University of Aberdeen, and visits schools in his home area of the north of Scotland. Iain retired from Shell in 2006 after 33 years of service.
Iain remarked, “It is an honour I appreciate but of course I do derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from my activities.”
I have been enjoying the delights of my home in the Scottish Highlands for a few weeks without the “benefits” of internet connection and have only now caught up with the news / comments on the site.
“Insider” posted a message on 23 September asking me if I was about to change my mind with respect to the technical capability of petroleum engineering within Shell. Of course I have an opinion. Those who know me from my long career with Shell would be surprised if I did not! Of course my opinion does not count for much; I am now “ex-Shell” and nothing is more true than the comment made by a political commentator the day after the departure of Margaret Thatcher when asked what she would have thought. His reply was “She’s cold potatoes now”.
I remain totally confident in the capability of individual petroleum engineers in Shell. In fact, for what it is worth, that confidence extends to the entire community of genuine technical professionals in the company. However, I do have an issue with the new approach to Petroleum Engineering functional leadership.
The function has a new leader to replace Roelof Platenkamp who in turn replaced me. However, in contrast with the full time position filled by Roelof and myself, the new man will “double hat” as PE functional leader and VP Front End Studies Europe, Middle East, Africa in the Global Solutions Upstream organisation. This has not been done with the wells community for example where there is a true global functional head in the person of Peter Sharpe. In addition, I was most surprised to learn that the new incumbent of petroleum functional leadership is a relatively recent newcomer to Shell (formerly XOM) with a strong exploration background. I do admit however to knowing nothing at all of the abilities of the gentleman in question (Glen Daley); he joined Shell just before I retired in 2006. I shared my concerns with Matthias Bichsel and Malcolm Brinded and to his credit, Matthias replied almost by return. He thanked me for my continuing interest in the company but in essence he maintained that the way Roelof and I had led the function had given rise to isolation with a focus on process and technical excellence but to the detriment of integration with wells and engineering in pursuit of robust projects. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Roelof and I were clear on the criticality of close iterative and integrated working across all the functions (including production operations) in order to maximise full field life cycle value. I believe what has happened concerns the personalities and prejudices of the leadership of the former EP Solutions, i.e. the subsurface study entity spread over Rijswijk, Aberdeen, Houston and Bangalore in the period 2003 until mid 2009. The view strongly held was that EP Solutions was the natural home for functional leadership in addition to petroleum geosciences / petroleum engineering / development planning excellence. John Darley (a petroleum engineer through and through) and the predecessor to Matthias did not share this view but with his departure this “wisdom” resonated with Matthias as I presume it would given shared exploration background and the “bonding” of shared membership of the Petroleum Development Oman leadership team.
In answer then to the question from Insider, I believe the reorganisation as it impacts the petroleum engineering function / community to be a retrograde step. The message is loud and clear with the appointment of 3 non petroleum engineers to the 3 Front End Studies Groups in Rijswijk, Houston and Bangalore – (i) there is no senior home grown petroleum engineer in Shell capable of leading the community, (ii) a “single hat” leadership role cannot be justified. I am in receipt of much comment from petroleum engineers both long in the company and not so long (I keep in touch with many and still mentor more than a few) and the general reaction is one of dismay.
In the enjoyable and satisfying consulting work I have pursued since retirement from Shell, I have found acceptance and indeed promotion of the need for strong distinct functional excellence – especially in the domain of petroleum engineering. As the head of petroleum engineering in a successful NOC put it to me “if you are not totally on top of and really push your understanding of the physics and chemistry of the rocks and fluids in addition to a real knowledge of lithological spatial relationships in the sub surface – how can you claim to be an industry leader especially in an era of increasing focus on IOR / EOR?” Precisely!
It has given me just so much satisfaction to be invited by a growing number of significant players in the business to advise on the architecture of functional technical excellence. The satisfaction is tempered however by the disappointment of what appears to be a different approach in the company where I learned so much. Since retirement I have continued to be an active ambassador for Shell – in particular for the practice of functional & discipline excellence since its reintroduction in the early 2000’s (after the dreadful mistake of abandonment in 1995). However, I feel I can no longer speak to students at home and abroad with the same conviction and acted accordingly with SPE Young Professionals and students at Offshore Europe in early September. I am prepared of course to be convinced otherwise.
In conclusion let me wish the community and Glen well. As I have stated several times on this site, Shell is staffed with competent, dedicated technical professionals whose only wish is to do a good job for the business, to have their efforts recognised and to be well led. What none of us who wish Shell well want is an echo of the observation of a German general in the first world war in respect to lions and donkeys in the British army.
Article Ends (Text highlighting in red by royaldutchshellplc.com not by Iain Percival)
The following information, links and photograph of Iain Percival are all sourced from the Internet. They were not supplied or suggested by him.
Iain Recognised for Mentoring Work
Shell retiree and former Group Chief Petroleum Engineer, Iain Percival, took the award for Outstanding Individual Achievement at the Energy Industry (EI) Annual Awards, for his work mentoring a number of young professionals, both in Shell and other organisations.
Iain is currently spending time with students and staff at RGU and the University of Aberdeen, and visits schools in his home area of the north of Scotland. Iain retired from Shell in 2006 after 33 years of service.
Iain remarked, “It is an honour I appreciate but of course I do derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from my activities.”
Iain’s article captures not only the PE community’s concerns. I wish we had such a strong advocate and champion in my discipline. Unfortunately in my area you only make promotion and VP jobs if you know how to handle mirrors and blow white smoke (and of course the creative adaptation of definitions also helps ..). When vd Veer told the investment community that the Reserve issue was the only optimistic reporting problem in Shell, I couldn’t stop laughing for two days! Anywhere you look in Shell there is “optimistic” reporting, in HR, IT and of course HSE!
I have now caught up with the news / comments having returned from a most refreshing break at my home in Scotland – no internet connection which is good, for a while at least
My two pence of observations are as follows.
1. I have written on several occasions that Shell upstream is populated by many, many seriously good and dedicated technical professionals who wish for nothing more than (i)an interesting and rewarding career coupled with recognition for good / original / innovative contribution , (ii) progression based not on WHO you know but on what you know (capability) and demonstrable delivery of technical and / or commercial contribution, (iii) courageous, knowledgeable & honest leadership, (iv) minimal burden of dealing with “stuff”, (v)association with a well respected company name (brand Paddy??).
2.The challenge for Voser et al (those left standing) is to deliver on these five wishes. My perspective is;
(i) “no brainer”; there is just so much to do for the technical community. However, the Company needs to bring back to the “coal face” the supervisors who busy themselves with non core activities – ref comment by Guest 1.
(ii) Take the company back to one which progresses real technical capability. It appears that PE now stands for Powerpoint & Excel rather than Petroleum Engineering. However, Guest 1, I can testify to the fact that there still are reservoir engineers doing reservoir engineering in Shell. I am fortunate to remain a mentor to some Shell staff. Good, capable, competent geoscientists, petroleum, well and facilities engineers do indeed create value!
(iii) This one will be a bit more of a challenge. Unfortunately, a generation of leadership has grown up believing Hype, Hyperbole, Hypocrisy, is accepted practice forgetting that what staff and indeed the outside world appreciate is Honesty, Humility and Hard work. There are of course numbers of honorable exceptions and let them be retained as the example and inspiration for the many who hunger for such leadership.
(iv) There is no problem with well constructed and rigorously enforced process (just look what such an approach has done for Exxon!). Unfortunately, my experience within Shell was to take what started off as a fit for purpose approach and grow in into a beast often by incorporating the opinions of numerous bogus stakeholders. Even worse, the process was elevated into an end in itself rather than a means to an end. The management of a plethora of inflated process has bred the growth of senior “apparatchiks” referred to by Guest 1. More amazingly, one can find untold examples of “local exceptions” to the application of global process. One can ask ligitimately just what have the apparatchiks been doing?
(v) Never underestimate the pride still felt by staff current and past in being associated with the Pecten. I remain active on university campus in the UK as an ambassador for Shell and can report the brand is held in high esteem by students. I revelled in the opportunity to talk about Shell at a SPE young professional event at OTC in Houston three weeks ago ago. In addition, my consulting activities since retiring from Shell have given me the opportunity to see the high regard with which the Pecten is still held in many parts of the global oil & gas business. There is a genuine opportunity for the company to build on this and to minimise further damage.
The dedicated, hard working staff in Shell deserve not only outstanding leadership but also the support of those of us who (think they still) know the company and wish it well.
I have written enough and it is a beautiful day outside.
Posting Ends
The following information, links and photograph of Iain Percival are all sourced from the Internet. They were not supplied or suggested by him.
Iain Recognised for Mentoring Work
Shell retiree and former Group Chief Petroleum Engineer, Iain Percival, took the award for Outstanding Individual Achievement at the Energy Industry (EI) Annual Awards, for his work mentoring a number of young professionals, both in Shell and other organisations.
Iain is currently spending time with students and staff at RGU and the University of Aberdeen, and visits schools in his home area of the north of Scotland. Iain retired from Shell in 2006 after 33 years of service.
Iain remarked, “It is an honour I appreciate but of course I do derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from my activities.”
But having said all this, you are right again that the SEC now themselves should be doing some major ‘mea culpa’ for not overseeing the real criminals in the finance world. Our beloved leader of the past, the borne again christian Philippus Watts, would have made a great investment banker. And he will still occupy a seat next to the likes of bishop Mugabe in his afterlife. And it will be hot there!
Illustration of 94 year old Alfred Donovan, founder of royaldutchshellplc.com, displayed courtesy of The Wall Street Journal. DISCLAIMER: This is not a Shell website nor is it endorsed by or affiliated with Shell. It is recommended internally by Shell far above what our own group internal comms puts out.
GoldenTriangle Watchman: With all of this money spent on the CEP expansion, it has been built on an old electrical infrastructure. I guess no one is counting how many times you read about a "short" electrical outage at the plant. Tom Purves and the Motiva leadership know exactly why this is happening and how to fix it. They don't want to pay for it. They have been given the project and have turned it down at least twice. Meanwhile, we just keep having outages. Going ot be interesting when both refineries come down in the future.
Outsider: LondonLad: the lack of stories concerning Shell should be welcomed, if it implies that Shell are cleaning up their act, perhaps due in part to the efforts of the Donovans.
LondonLad: US Observer, surely almost all (NOT all)contributors to this website have an axe to grind against Shell, particularly those who have a perception that they have been screwed by Shell in times gone by. As for Itchy Woman, she clearly has a femanistic / burn-the-bra approach to work in Shell. AND I would like to add that once again an old old article (from someone who has an axe to grind against Shell) has to be republished due to lack of news against Shell (I refer to Briggs 2009 article). COMMENT BY JOHN D. Would it not be fairer to say that everyone posting on this blog, including you, has an axe to grind. It is easy enough to look back over your contributions and reach a conclusion.
US Observer: It is easy to figure out who Witchy Woman is (LC). She has an "ax to grind" and is using this forum
an observer of Shell: @uscitizen
Voser is a competent and amicable chap. You claim Shell has delivered on its deliverables. Let me tell you everyone delivers on their deliverable.... But joking apart, look at the promises over the years and how well Shell has delivered on these promises. Their trackrecord is not very good over the last 15 years or so. They are a good money making machine. And sofar they have delivered on their constant or increasing dividend payments. Sometimes by increasing their debt but they have done it. A nice high oilprice has helped, don't you agree??
So my only observation was that his 'promise' to extend North Sea fields is quite opposite their activities in this area. And they have promised this before and done the opposite. It was a nice promise to build a new and expensive office in Aberdeen, more jobs for the UK and more activity and extending of production. Just check back what they have done.
And predicting future productionlevels by Shell in general and Brinded in particular is nothing but a sick joke.
uscitizen: To - an observer of Shell
Shell has been delivering on its deliverables - why would you paint Voser as some one who is not??
uscitizen: This was not a personal attack now was it Witchy one??
#133 Witchy woman
on May 8th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Marvin Odum who probably has the worst safety record in Shell goes for a diversity vote and someone who has no safety experience to replace the VP of safety he just fired. Clear message where his priorities lie.
uscitizen: Witchy Woman - you blase me for personal attacks???? That is so rich! I am defending people that are attacked if you had not noticed - and yes I do slam the folks who are throwing garbage out! Live with it!! Enjoy your retirement! Shell has a good retirement package in the US dont they??
uscitizen: I feel the value of your posts is also minimal, just a complainer. PS - here is where you bash Denise - remember - or do we need to question your integrity the way folks question Shell leaders??
Witchy woman
on Dec 7th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
In GOM we thought that hurricane season was done. Why is Hurricane Denise causing so much damage then? Like all Hurricanes though they move on the professionals are left to pick up the pieces.
COMMENT ON VOSER: According to the Independent article posted today the boss of Shell is telling us all not to get too emotional about fracking. Has he not seen the confirmation that fracking causes earthquakes? You have cited the Reuters article. There are others including coverage of a fracking earthquake in Blackpool England. I have to conclude that Voser is a fracking idiot.
In a front page lead story in the Financial Times, our site was properly credited with breaking news of the restructuring plans of Peter Voser.
Richard Wiseman subsequently, at his own initiative, sent us an updated photograph of himself to display on our website (left).
Shell Blog RSS Feed
