News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Although BP and Shell have pulled out of the UK offshore market, others such as Masdar, the Abu Dhabi government’s investment vehicle for sustainable energy, moved to fill the gap. Masdar acquired a 20 per cent stake in in the £2bn London Array offshore wind project after Shell walked away.
Click to continue reading “Will the hoped-for green jobs materialise?”
In May, Shell provoked uproar when it withdrew from the world’s largest offshore windfarm – the London Array in the Thames Estuary – after the costs allegedly had risen from £1 billion in 2003 to £3 billion.
Click to continue reading “Stranded but not sunk amid a deepening financial storm”
Shell is experimenting with a plan to heat oil shale in situ — in place underground — and then extract high quality oil suitable for uses such as jet fuel.
Click to continue reading “Government offers discount royalty rates on shale”
We continue to be deluged with corporate advertising claiming that the multinational oil companies are in the vanguard in promoting the benefits of renewable energy. The latest ads from BP, the “beyond petroleum” company, are a case in point. They say that a combination of Oil+Gas+Wind+Solar+Biofuels will give the world a “dependable energy future”. True of course, although they conveniently miss out nuclear power – presumably because there is certainly no chance that BP will go nuclear.
But the reality is that BP, Shell, Exxon and the rest are just as ill-equipped to be players in the renewable energy sector as they would be (and in Shell’s case once were) in Nuclear Power – and the constant stream of advertising that suggests otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme. The oil majors are pretty good at what they do best – looking for, discovering, farming, transporting and refining hydrocarbons. Over decades they have built up leading edge competencies in all of these areas. But none of them has much of a track record in diversification.
Take Shell for example. Shell still has a petrochemicals business it is true but this is a shadow of its former size and breadth with many sub-sectors of the chemicals business, like agrichemicals for example, long since having been disposed of. But there is a logic to Shell’s chemicals business – it links in with the mainstream hydrocarbons business pretty closely and in a sense the production of commodity products like Ethylene, for example, is not that much different from producing petrol or aviation fuel. But where the hydrocarbon stream is in no way involved Shell has been much less successful.
The list of Shell businesses which have been started and then disposed of is a long one and it proves the point. Metals (Billiton); Coal (Shell Coal); Renewable forest cultivation (Shell Forestry); Power Generation (Intergen); much of the Solar business (Shell Solar) and Nuclear (a Joint Venture with Gulf in the USA) are all businesses which were once lauded as examples of Shell’s diversification focus, but all of which no longer exist as Shell operations.
The reality is that there is actually no logical reason at all why oil companies should be good at Renewables. The skill set necessary to build, say, a substantial wind energy business just does not naturally exist in an overwhelmingly hydrocarbon experienced company like Shell or BP. True they can if they wish buy in those skills – but why would this be a preferred route either for the company or for society at large? Surely it makes far more sense for a wind energy business to be built up by focused and specialised wind energy experts? In a Shell or a BP Renewables will always be on the fringes of the business and, furthermore, be in direct conflict and competition with the core hydrocarbons business from time to time. If you are seeking new outlets for your capital investment programme wouldn’t you favour, say, a new oil or gas field where you are in your comfort zone, rather than the problematic world of wind energy about which you know nothing and for which no corporate memory exists in your company?
Oil companies claim to be good innovators – and over time this is true so long as that innovation builds on the areas of known strength. Shell’s strength in Liquefied Natural Gas is a good case in point built as it is on some highly sophisticated technological innovations all the way along the product flow from production to consumption. But building and running wind turbines is a wholly different matter. Shell and the rest should stop pretending that they have something exceptional and distinctive to offer in this area – and stick to their hydrocarbon knitting.
ABOUT PADDY
Paddy Briggs worked for Shell for 37 years during the last fifteen of which he was responsible for Brand management in a number of appointments. He was the winner of the “Shell/Economist” writing prize (internal) in 2001. Paddy retired from Shell in 2002 to form the brand consultancy BrandAware ™ and to write and speak on brand and reputation matters.
Paddy is active as a director of training courses on brand and reputation management.
Paddy is also a sports journalist and a member of the “Sports Journalists Association” and the “Cricket Writers’ Club”. He has had weekly columns in the “Bahrain Tribune”, the “Khaleej Times”, the “Emirates Evening Post” and “Ameinfo”. He is currently working on a commission to write the biography of the Kent and West Indies cricketer John Shepherd.
Paddy’s book of light verse “Jumeira Jane”was published in Dubai in 2001 and the first edition print run of 5000 copies was sold out.
Jan van der Eijk, Royal Dutch Shell’s chief technology officer, oversees the oil major’s technology initiatives, such as use of seismic imaging to map out possible oil deposits beneath the sea floor, mining Canada’s oil sands and squeezing more oil from existing wells.
Click to continue reading “Shell’s technology chief has his eye on innovation”
“We are pleased to have demonstrated through the delivery of our first crude vegetable oil the potential of jatropha as a biofuel crop,” said Lord Oxburgh, the former chairman of Shell who is now chairman of D1.
Click to continue reading “Biodiesel breakthrough comes at £13m cost to BP-backed firm”
Isn’t the professed devotion of Shell and BP today to renewables mere greenwash, though? “Greenwash is a pejorative term. I’m not sure that’s warranted. These are companies like any other companies and they exist to make money.”
…at every turn the oil majors risk coming up against competitors that are more expert than they are.
Click to continue reading “The majors: The older oil giants move into a new and troubled world”
John Barry: We know that the C02 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up measurably in recent years. We also know that it’s not what’s happened so far that is the problem. It’s what’s going to happen over the next 100 years if we don’t start to manage the problem.
That’s John Barry with Shell. He leads one of Shell’s efforts to manage carbon dioxide emissions – thought to be changing Earth’s climate. He spoke of carbon dioxide capture and storage.
John Barry: Carbon dioxide capture and storage is one of the technologies that offers the most promise for making a difference to CO2 emissions in the short to medium term – I’m thinking 10 or 20 years. A hundred years out, maybe there will be technologies we haven’t thought of today.
He said the best hope of capturing CO2 is at what he called point sources.
John Barry: Think of oil refineries in my own business. They use a lot of energy to make the fuel we use to drive our vehicles. You actually have a hope of capturing that CO2 at the point source, using some sort of a chemical technology to capture the carbon dioxide and take it to a point where you can store it safely, deep underground.
So the idea is to filter the carbon out of the exhaust from a power plant with a chemical before it reaches the smokestack. The CO2 gas is then sent via pipeline under thousands of feet underground or below the sea floor, in a sense back where it came from. Or the carbon can be captured before anything is burned in newer plants that first convert coal into a gas, where the CO2 is more easily separated out. Either way, Barry is hopeful about carbon capture and storage.
John Barry: That’s potentially one of the most promising technologies, because about a third of the emissions today are coming from things like power stations, where this sort of technology might be applicable and might make a radical difference to the CO2 emissions from those power stations.
Barry said Shell is in an early stage of rolling out full scale projects after proving each part of the technology over many years, and spoke of efforts underway in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.
He also pointed to the FutureGen in the US and the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants as efforts underway now to build coal-fueled, near-zero emissions power plants.
John Barry: We’ve done some calculations, and we think that rolling out carbon capture and storage, from about 2020 onwards on a large scale, will avoid about 230 gigatonnes, or 230 billion tonnes.
That’s close to eight years worth of CO2 emissions at today’s levels.
This podcast was made possible in part by Shell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
Our thanks to:
John Barry
Shell International
Exploration and Production
Vice President for Unconventional Oil and Enhanced Oil Recovery
Written by JORGE SALAZAR, DEBORAH BYRD
AN EARTHSKY EXTENDED PODCAST 29 June 08
Listen or download (to the right) to hear this 12-minute presentation
.
Image credit: Greg Foley
Jan van der Eijk is Chief Technology Officer for Shell. He spoke with EarthSky’s Jorge Salazar about what he called the ‘three hard truths’ of meeting the world’s energy needs.
To subscribe to this and other free science podcasts, visit the subscribe pageat earthsky.org.
This podcast was made possible in part by Shell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
“I think the unconventionals will play a major role in the world’s energy future. I think they have to,” said physicist Harold Vinegar of Royal Dutch Shell.
Those “unconventionals” are reserves of oil that can’t be easily pumped to the surface. Dr. Vinegar spoke of their potential for the coming century with EarthSky’s Jorge Salazar – and about a new way to recover unconventional oil by drilling holes and placing heaters underground.
This podcast was made possible in part by Shell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
Carl Mesters is an internationally recognized chemist and Chief Scientist for Chemistry and Catalysis for Shell.
Masters spoke with EarthSky’s Jorge Salazar from his office in the Netherlands, about creating synthetic fuels from natural gas. This process is known as gas-to-liquids technology.
To subscribe to this and other free science podcasts, visit the subscribe page at earthsky.org.
This podcast was made possible in part byShell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
Expert Lee Schipper describes transportation in the years ahead as “a gradual shift toward people and goods needing to go less distance to enable us to lead enriched lives.”
In this Clear Voices for Science podcast, Schipper speaks to EarthSky’s Lindsay Patterson about the way we humans move around now – and how that might change as the 21st century progresses.
Now a Visiting Scholar at Berkeley, Schipper is a former director of research for EMBARQ – the World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport.
This podcast was made possible in part by Shell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
http://www.earthsky.org/clear-voices/52705/john-barry-on-carbon-capture-and-storage
By Paddy Briggs
This is important news. These two major companies would not have made this investment if they did not think that the project was viable. So Shell’s withdrawal has nothing to do with the inherent merits of the project but with their continued aversion to activities away form their core hydrocarbon business. As a shareholder I have no problem with this. As Tom Peters wisely said – STICK TO YOUR KNITTING !
What I object to, however, is the continued claims by Shell and other Oil Majors that they are genuinely interested in “Renewables”. The reality is that they have neither the time nor the skills nor the imagination to be heavily involved in Wind Energy (etc.). The number of staff, the capital investment and the revenue expenditure on Renewables is minuscule compared with the core hydrocarbon business. But the rhetoric in the corporate advertising of Shell and the rest is quite disproportionate to this reality. It really is utterly hypocritical.
About Paddy
Paddy Briggs worked for Shell for 37 years during the last fifteen of which he was responsible for Brand management in a number of appointments. He was the winner of the “Shell/Economist” writing prize (internal) in 2001. Paddy retired from Shell in 2002 to form the brand consultancy BrandAware ™ and to write and speak on brand and reputation matters.
Paddy is active as a director of training courses on brand and reputation management.Paddy is also a sports journalist and a member of the “Sports Journalists Association” and the “Cricket Writers’ Club”. He has had weekly columns in the “Bahrain Tribune”, the “Khaleej Times”, the “Emirates Evening Post” and “Ameinfo”. He is currently working on a commission to write the biography of the Kent and West Indies cricketer John Shepherd.
Paddy’s book of light verse “Jumeira Jane”was published in Dubai in 2001 and the first edition print run of 5000 copies was sold out.
: THE ARTICLE "Donovan email to Gavin White, Shell International Limited: 10 March 2010" has been updated with a self-explanatory email reply received on 11 March from Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
: The Forbes article implies that by stopping sales of gasoline to Iran, Shell is complying with US sanctions. Shell's investments in the upstream sector in Iran are not mentioned, even though these are of far greater significance for both Shell and the Iranians.
: Amnesty International has been an informed and courageous critic of Human Rights abuses around the world for many decades and they are certainly not adverse to criticising governments in Nigeria, Burma, Zimbabwe and all around the world. The point about international companies like Shell is that they have a choice. They are not obliged to operate anywhere if they find that the local conditions are in conflict with their principles. Amnesty’s recent criticisms of Shell have certainly been strong and I am aware that in Shell there is a feeling that they have been unfair and to some extent uninformed. So a dialogue between Amnesty and Shell is very much to be welcomed. Amnesty is a highly respected organisation – indeed a former top executive of Shell, Sir Geoffrey Chandler, was a senior officer of Amnesty in his post Shell years.
: Same old, same old. Amnesty International and their human rights again go for the soft underbelly of the international companies rather than the real problem in Nigeia which is their corrupt Government. Good on Shell for attending and agrreing to being questioned. BUT, surprise, surprise nobody from the Nigerian Government (perhaps they didn't get enough of a bribe to appear or perhaps Amnesty knew they would get nowhere with them). Pollution in the Niger Delta remains a problem, albeit that conditions are slowly improving. Living conditions, infrastructure and most other normal day-to-day things should be the responsibility of the corrupt Government not international oil companies. These evil governments such as Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Burma need to be bought down by the UN so that their people might have a better chance of a reasonable life.
: Very polite correspondence between Wiseman and the Donovans. I estimate Wiseman's hourly internal tariff at around 500 U$ per hour (his salary plus support plus extensive overheads). Over the years Shell must have spent a fortune discussing the Donovans, putting the most expensive lawyers on the case, and developing policy how to battle them. It becomes Churchillian: 'we will fight them on the web, and in the courtrooms, and in their own offices and on the streets. But we wil NEVER surrender. With unlimited funds this maybe so, but it is wasting shareholders money and it solves nothing. I do not see the Donovans give up anytime soon. So perhaps a new paradigm needs to be developed? Any ordinary man or woman at the coalface would solve this problem within minutes and for less money than what is being burned now. But the Shell kings are no ordinary people, they live in cloud cuckoo land. I will keep following with great interest how all this develops, it is even better than the daily Dilbert!!!
: W.E. Pratt knew it already a hundred years ago when he said "Oil is found in the minds of men" But he was one of the founders of the Standard Oil company, whereas the people who try to make us believe that IBM can come to the rescue of Shell appear to be only good at getting rid of their most experienced minds.
: Oh dear, regarding this collaboration between Shell & IBM - it does not appear to have started off very well if I read the press announcement. I refer to the following: "Shell can reduce the educated guesswork and extract natural resources with more certainty and efficiency, thereby optimizing the recovery of oil and gas". Shell used to employ geoscience & petroleum engineering expertise. Is reserve estimation and production forecasting now in the hands of "educated guess workers"? That ought to really worry shareholders. The fundamental lack of understanding of the business gets even better with comments on geophysics: "For example, geophysicists must examine time-lapse seismic data from subsurface rock formations; reservoir engineers receive well and laboratory data, and geophysicists receive information - sound waves - covering wide spaces between the wells". Errr - what's the difference between the two geophysical activities quoted? Is this some IBM person speaking who has just bought a book "E&P for beginners", or is it the level of understanding within Shell now much of the real technical experience and expertise has been cleared out?
: Agree completely with Guest1. IBM once bought (and subsequently sold at a huge loss) a company called Tigress, and had plans for integrated Corporate Data Bases based on POSC. Unfortunately Schlumberger and Landmark know that part of the business rather better than IBM ever will. If Shell can't find oil with the help of Schlumberger and Landmark, what hope do they have with IBM?
: What a load of nonsense in the Forbes article. Shell and IBM to team up etc. We HAD all the expertise but that was removed by the HR and FN idiots that run Shell now. What does IBM know about oil and gasfields? This surely looks like another project, doomed to fail, whereby IBM is going to suck a lot of money out of Shell. Presumably Brinded bought a lot of stock in IBM. RDS appears more and more like an overweight blob, unable to move, being sucked out by the service industry and governments and waiting to die. The sooner someone takes over RDS, splits it up and gets on with the business, the better. The fact they accept all the abuse by the Donovans and are unable and unwilling to defend themselves speaks volumes. If RDS cannot even handle two old codgers with a website, how will they handle real competition???? John and Alfred, perhaps you have to increase the pressure and speed up the demise of RDS.
: A number of people both inside and outside Shell seem to share your view. A commonly held view inside Shell is that while decisions often turn out with hindsight to have been wrong, a far greater problem for Shell is their inability to make timely decisions when required.
Shell Blog RSS Feed
