Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts Tagged ‘Sakhalin Energy’

BP’s Exploration Plans in the Arctic of Russia Draw Opposition From Partners

A version of this article appeared in print on January 19, 2011, on page B3 of the New York edition.

By ANDREW E. KRAMER and JULIA WERDIGIER

MOSCOW — The British petroleum giant BP’s new deal to explore the Russian Arctic in partnership with a state-owned oil company has drawn protests from a group of private Russian investors with whom BP has a separate partnership.

The Russian private partners of BP’s separate and longstanding joint venture here, TNK-BP, say they were not adequately consulted about the Arctic exploration agreement that BP announced on Friday with the state-owned Rosneft.

On Tuesday, a representative of the TNK-BP partners said the Rosneft deal violated a 2003 shareholder agreement that required BP to first consult the management of that joint venture before negotiating new business with others in Russia or Ukraine.

Stan Polovets, the chief executive of the consortium that represents the wealthy Russians in the TNK-BP partnership said on Tuesday the group had concluded that “there appears to have been a breach” of their agreement with BP.

“The shareholder agreement is clear,” he said. “Notice needs to be made in detail and in writing before either shareholder engages in material negotiations with a third party or makes any financial commitments, and that has not been done.”

Some analysts say the dispute raises questions about the future of the seven-year-old joint venture. TNK-BP is Russia’s second-largest privately owned oil company, behind Lukoil.

Rosneft is Russia’s largest oil extractor and one of two large state companies expected to win rights to Arctic exploration.

BP has said it adhered to existing agreements and consulted with the partners last week before announcing the Rosneft pact, which calls for the two companies to swap shares and to cooperate in exploring the blocs in the Kara Sea, off Russia’s northern coast. Rosneft will hold a 5 percent stake in BP, and BP will hold a 9.5 percent share in Rosneft.

The BP-Rosneft deal has the support of Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin.

Mr. Polovets said the shareholder agreement required BP to submit its investment proposal with Rosneft first to TNK-BP management, which had the right of first refusal. Only then, he said, could BP initiate negotiations.

A spokesman for BP in London, Robert Wine, described the reaction by TNK-BP’s Russian partners to the Rosneft deal as businesslike and said BP would “keep them informed” as final details of the deal were settled.

BP’s relations with TNK-BP have a tempestuous history, and a dispute with the private investors greatly curtailed the British company’s operations in Russia two years ago.

The new rift underscores the risks for BP as it invests more heavily in Russia, as it seeks new opportunities after last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill. BP faces years of litigation in the United States over the spill. But Russia poses its own hazards.

In 2006, for example, Russian officials compelled Shell to sell control of its Sakhalin II oil and gas development to the state company Gazprom. At the same time, BP also confronted problems with regulators and threats to its licenses.

But BP’s largest challenge came not from the state per se, but rather from the 2008 dispute with the private partners in TNK-BP. They are members of the wealthy coterie of businessmen known as the oligarchs and have close ties to certain factions in government.

They forced BP to cede some control over the TNK-BP venture. And Robert Dudley, who led TNK-BP at the time, went into hiding outside Russia after the worsening disputes led to the revocation of his work visa. Mr. Dudley is now BP’s chief executive.

Discussion of BP’s prospects here now hinge on the interrelationship between the two main types of risk in Russia — effective nationalization by the state or conflict with private oligarchic partners.

Aleksei V. Kokin, oil and gas analyst at Uralsib bank in Moscow, said the agreement with Rosneft should ensure the Russian state was on BP’s side in any future dispute with the partners.

“In theory, it should help” reduce risk in Russia, Mr. Kokin said. But BP’s elaborate maneuvering could collapse at some point, he said. “It’s not over yet. It may get way too complicated.”

BP has about a third of its global business and 40 percent of its shareholders in the United States. But Russia had been an important market for BP even before the Rosneft deal.

The British oil giant gets about 25 percent of its output and reserves from TNK-BP, based in Moscow. TNK-BP’s profit rose 25 percent, to $1.45 billion, in the third quarter from the previous three months, benefiting from a weaker ruble.

The TNK venture, though, has no prospects in the offshore areas north of Siberia, which BP says could hold as much oil as the British sector of the North Sea. The fact that BP reached the deal with Rosneft directly and not through TNK-BP raises questions about BP’s plans for the joint venture, some investors said.

Kaha Kiknavelidze, managing partner at the investment firm Rioni Capital in London, which owns a stake in BP and Rosneft, said TNK-BP might need to find its own partnership or merge with another oil company.

Andrew E. Kramer reported from Moscow, and Julia Werdigier from London.

New York Times Article Online

Shell led Sakhalin II construction threatens endangered gray whales

The multi-billion-dollar project, led by Royal Dutch Shell, has also been accused of inflicting large-scale damage on Sakhalin’s ecosystem, including illegal deforestation, the dumping of toxic waste, and soil erosion.

The construction of a third oil platform for the Shell-led Sakhalin II energy project may threaten a critically endangered population of gray whales off Russia’s eastern coast, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) said on Monday.

The company, which already has two platforms in the Russian Far East, announced in December its plans to build another one near the crucial feeding habitat of the gray whale population.

“The construction and operation of an additional off-shore platform could have numerous negative impacts on the whales, potentially disrupting feeding behavior and increasing the chance of fatal ship strikes,” WWF said in a statement. “Also, a third platform heightens the risk of an environmentally catastrophic oil spill in this sensitive habitat.”

Activists from various environmental groups have repeatedly voiced their concern about the possible negative impact of seismic work on gray whales, listed in the International Red Book of endangered species.

“Just around 30 female western gray whales of breeding age remain – the population is already on the brink of disappearing forever,” the statement quoted Alexei Knizhnikov, Oil ans Gas Environmental Policy Officer for WWF-Russia, as saying. “The loss of even a few breeding females could mean the end for the population.”

The multi-billion-dollar project, led by Royal Dutch Shell, has also been accused of inflicting large-scale damage on Sakhalin’s ecosystem, including illegal deforestation, the dumping of toxic waste, and soil erosion.

MOSCOW, January 17 (RIA Novosti)

Shell and Gazprom sign ‘global co-operation’ pact

guardian.co.uk home

Deal will give Shell access to Russia’s huge oil and gas reserves

Tuesday 30 November 2010 19.05 GMT

Tim Webb

In 2006, Shell was forced to halve its controlling stake in Sakhalin II and hand control to Gazprom following intense pressure from the Kremlin. Photograph: Newscast/Jess Jones/EPA

Almost four years after Shell was forced to cede control of a $20bn (£12.8bn) gas project to its Russian rival Gazprom, the two companies have signed a new agreement on “global co-operation”.

The pact will make it easier for Shell to access Russia‘s vast oil and gas reserves in Siberia and the far east. In return, state controlled Gazprom will become a partner on as yet unspecified Shell projects outside Russia.

Analysts said that the arrangement would allow Gazprom to reduce its dependence on selling gas via pipeline to Europe – where demand for gas is falling – and help it to tap growing markets such as Asia. Gazprom, which does not currently produce significant quantities of gas outside Russia, will also be able to develop its technical expertise, particularly on projects producing liquified natural gas, which can be shipped around the world by tanker.

Gazprom’s influence – and financial clout – have been weakened recently because of an unexpected global “gas glut” as new techniques make unconventional projects like shale gas and coal bed methane gas viable.

Shell, like most non-state controlled international oil companies, is finding it increasingly hard to access new reserves. More of the world’s oil is now controlled by state-owned companies. In December 2006 Shell was forced to halve its controlling stake in the huge Sakhalin II project in Russia’s far east and hand control to Gazprom following intense pressure from the Kremlin.

Peter Hitchens, analyst from stockbroker Panmure Gordon, said it was “slightly ironic” that the company was forging such a pact with Gazprom given the pair’s history. But he added that the experience demonstrated that foreign companies partnered with Gazprom do better than those operating independently in Russia. The project began production last year and both companies are now discussing the possibility of expanding Sakhalin II so it can export more liquified natural gas.

Shell has also found itself partnered with Gazprom on the Salym oil and gas field in western Siberia. Its original partner, the UK-based Sibir Energy, was taken over by Gazprom last year.

Alexey Miller, chairman of Gazprom’s management committee, said: “This agreement is a vivid example of the mutually beneficial development of strategic partnership between the world’s largest energy companies. Ahead of us, we have new large-scale projects and growing joint presence in new markets.”

Shell’s chief executive, Peter Voser, said: “Russia is an important area for new energy development for Shell and I expect it will play a big role in meeting the world’s growing demand for oil and gas in the years ahead.”

In March, Shell announced a $3.2bn joint takeover with PetroChina to buy Australia’s coal seam gas producer Arrow.

SOURCE

Shell, Gazprom to Combine Beyond Russia

By JAMES HERRON

LONDON—Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Russian gas giant OAO Gazprom signed an agreement on Tuesday that will deepen their existing partnership within Russia and see them work together outside Russia for the first time, Shell said in a statement.

The agreement promises “further development of bilateral cooperation in exploration and production of hydrocarbons in western Siberia and the far east of Russia [and] cooperation in the downstream oil products business in Russia and Europe, as well as Gazprom participation in Shell upstream projects outside of Russia,” Shell said.

The pact was signed in Moscow by Gazprom Chief Executive Alexey Miller and Shell CEO Peter Voser. It will give Gazprom “new large-scale projects and growing joint presence in new markets,” said Mr. Miller.

“This underscores the strong partnership our companies have built in recent years,” said Mr. Voser. Gazprom and Shell are already partners in the Sakhalin-2 liquefied natural-gas export project in Russia’s far east, although Gazprom’s entry only came about after sustained pressure from the Russian government for Shell to cede control of the project.

“We are happy to invite foreign partners to develop our upstream reserves, but only if in exchange we get the access to their first class projects somewhere in the world,” said Gazprom Deputy Chief Executive Alexander Medvedev on Monday. “We do know Shell has good assets, which could be of interest for us.”

Under former Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer, Shell discussed participating in the development of huge energy resources in the remote Yamal Peninsula, which are seen as vital to Russia’s ability to meet future demand for natural gas.

“Russia is an important area for new energy development for Shell and I expect it will play a big role in meeting the world’s growing demand for oil and gas in the years ahead,” said Mr. Voser.

WSJ ARTICLE

Gazprom and Shell To Expand Cooperation – Medvedev

MOSCOW -(Dow Jones)- Russia’s state-run gas firm OAO Gazprom (GAZP.RS) and Royal Dutch Shell PLC(RDSA.LN) are to sign a memorandum on the expansion of their cooperation in and outside Russia, Gazprom Deputy Chief Executive Alexander Medvedev said Monday.

Gazprom’s cooperation with Shell could expand in Sakhalin, Medvedev said, without giving any more details on the memorandum.

“We are happy to invite foreign partners to develop our upstream reserves, but only if in exchange we get the access to their first class projects somewhere in the world,” Medvedev said. “We do know Shell has good assets, which could be of interest for us.”

Gazprom and Shell jointly operate the Sakhalin-2 project on Russia’s Pacific Coast and launched Russia’s first liquefied natural gas plant in February last year. The companies cooperate through the Sakhalin joint venture, in which Gazprom holds a 51% stake, Shell a 27.5% stake, Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (8031.TO) 12.5% and Mitsubishi Corp. (8058.TO) 10%.

-By Nadia Popova, Dow Jones Newswires; +7 495 232-9192, nadia.popova@dowjones.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

November 29, 2010 11:56 ET (16:56 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

SOURCE

Gazprom, Shell Sakhalin Gas Venture Reports Unexpected Profit

BusinessWeek Logo

July 16 (Bloomberg) — OAO Gazprom and Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s Sakhalin-2 venture in Russia posted an unexpected profit last year after oil and liquefied natural gas shipments beat targets to offset losses from a delay in the project.

The partners had estimated a loss because a delay in the start of LNG output forced them to compensate customers for contracted volumes, two people familiar with the results said, declining to be identified in line with company policy. The Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Island-based venture doesn’t report financial results. Sakhalin is off Russia’s far eastern coast.

Sakhalin Energy loaded the first commercial LNG cargo in March 2009, a delay from a planned start in the second half of 2008. A total of 81 cargoes of LNG and 59 cargoes of oil were loaded, beating targets for the year by more than 47 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

The LNG plant has allowed Russia, the holder of the world’s biggest gas reserves, to break into Asia Pacific markets and 65 percent of the volume contracted for Japan. LNG is gas cooled to a liquid for transportation by ship.

Capex, Expenses

Sales reached $3.6 billion last year and the venture cut operating expenses to $1.56 billion and capital expenditure to $846 million from a planned $2 billion and $1.14 billion, respectively, according to the presentation.

Gazprom, the majority shareholder, declined to comment on the presentation as did Ivan Chernyakhovsky, a spokesman at Sakhalin Energy. Vera Surzhenko, a Shell spokeswoman in Russia, confirmed the venture posted a profit before interest and after taxes last year. She declined to provide figures or comment on the presentation.

The venture reached operational profitability last year, Shell Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser said in an interview with newspaper Vedomosti published yesterday.

The Sakhalin-2 partners had $21.3 billion in capital expenditure from 2001 through 2009, while total costs exceeded $24 billion, according to the presentation.

In 2005, Shell, then majority owner, said the second phase of the project, which involved year-round crude output and production of LNG, would cost $20 billion, double an original estimate. The announcement stirred controversy with the Russian government, which will share royalties only after the investment is recouped. The dispute on costs and environmental damage led the Hague-based company to agree to cede control of the project to state-run Gazprom in 2006.

Russia in 2007 approved a second stage of investment for Sakhalin-2, allowing the spending of $19.4 billion until 2014. That level refers to costs which under production sharing agreement can be recovered.

Gazprom controls Sakhalin Energy and Shell owns 27.5 percent. Mitsui & Co. holds 12.5 percent and Mitsubishi Corp. 10 percent.

–Editor: Jonas Bergman, Stephen Cunningham

To contact the reporter on this story: Anna Shiryaevskaya in Moscow at ashiryaevska@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Will Kennedy at wkennedy3@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell Says Sakhalin LNG Project With Gazprom Turns Profit

Bloomberg

By Ilya Khrennikov – Jul 14, 2010

Shell Says Sakhalin LNG Project With Gazprom Turns Profit, Vedomosti Says

Royal Dutch Shell Plc said its liquiefied natural gas venture with OAO Gazprom on Russia’s Sakhalin Island reached operational profitability, Vedomosti reported, citing Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser.

Shell is seeking licenses to produce oil in Russia, both by itself and with domestic companies, Voser was cited as saying in an interview published in the Moscow-based newspaper today.

Voser also reiterated Shell’s interest in joining Russia’s second LNG project, run by OAO Novatek on the Yamal Peninsula in the Arctic, Vedomosti reported.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Blog costs Shell US$15 Billion

Article by Glen Frost, Editor, The PR Report

Yes, 15 billion. This is the claim of John Donovan, a UK blogger who campaigns against  the global oil producing giant Shell (full name Royal Dutch Shell) using his blog www.royaldutchshellplc.com .

Arguably the most powerful blog in the world dedicated to covering one company; and intrigued as to how the site developed such influence, Glen Frost met with the blog’s founders, John and Alfred Donovan, to get the full story.

EXTRACTS

The blog is now so popular, and trusted, the site appears on the front page of major newspapers (see pictures), and has ex‐employees from Shell contributing regular articles

The Russian connection: the scoop that made the  Donovan’s blog famous

The Donovans had been collecting and publishing information online about Shell’s activities since 2001; this information dates back to the mid 1980’s and their former business relationship with Shell. Over the years, more and more people in the oil industry discovered the website, and the Donovan’ s have been swamped with information about Shell from both suppliers, contractors, insiders and former employees.

Some of this information concerned Shell’s activities in Russia from 1996. A Shell‐led consortium (called Sakhalin Energy) and the Russian Government entered into a production sharing agreement. It was information on alleged environmental abuses by the consortium from the Donovan’ s that killed the deal. John Donovan said he suspected his information was the trigger but didn’t know for sure until Oleg Mitvol, a senior figure in the Russian Government, stated so in a media interview.

Asked by a journalist from PetroleumArgus, a trade magazine, who his sources were for the environmental abuse charges that Mitvol laid against the Sakhalin Energy consortium, Mitvol, then deputy head of Russia’s environmental watchdog Rosprirodnadzor, said he had “email correspondence between executives in Sakhalin Energy management from 2002.”

The compromising material had come from Donovan, owner and blogger of the anti‐Shell website www.royaldutchshellplc.com, Mitvol said.

Donovan estimates the value lost to Shell is US$15 billion.

The Donovan’s website is a full frontal attack on Shell’s management and ethics. Shell has tried to shut the site down on the grounds that it uses the company name. However, the site www.royaldutchshellplc.com  makes no money, and, crucially, is registered in the USA, where laws on websites are weighted in favour of the domain owner.

“Our site receives up to 2.2 million hits a month; we want it to become a magnet for people who have a problem with the
company,” says Donovan.  “Many of the people using the site are Shell employees.

Blog publishes market sensitive information

Donovan publishes market sensitive information on the site, and he, and the website, are now quoted by esteemed news organisations like Reuters and The Financial Times. For example, Donovan  published information questioning the level of Shell’s reserves, in which the company was found to have inflated its oil and gas reserves by some 20% in 2003‐04, which led to negative media headlines.

The picture (right; The Daily mail, UK 8th Sept 2009) shows how Donovan’s blog published details of staff cuts before Shell had announced them to the markets and the media.

Because of the blog, and the Donovan’s insistence on publishing all information he can verify about Shell, good and bad, John Donovan’s influence with the media is now global, instant and at a senior level – John lists the names of all the UK, US and global media outlets, their Editors or senior correspondents covering corporate news or the oil sector as his contacts.

Shell’s external PR advisors

A post on the Donovan’s website links to an article in a recently published book on corporate reputation and the rise of blog sites that attack, or expose, poor corporate ethics and illegal or dubious corporate activity, and what CEOs should do about such sites; http://www.shellnews.net/images/CorporateReputationAED.pdf ‐ the book is written by Dr Leslie Gaines‐Ross, who, incidentally, was previously CMO of Burson‐Marsteller USA, who manage Shell’s public relations.

FULL ARTICLE (FREE SUBSCRIPTION)
Previous PR Report issues here: http://thepublicinterest.ning.com
PR Report Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/ykg6p7j
PR Report YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/theprreport

EXTRACT FROM BOOK REFERRED TO ABOVE: “REPUTATION LOSS – 12 Steps to safeguarding and Recovering Reputation”

One such empowered activist is arch Shell critic Alfred Donovan. No one was more surprised than Royal Dutch Shell PLC to learn that this 88-year-old British army veteran had purchased the Internet domain name www.royaldutchshellplc.com. The gadfly Donovan was a well-known, though underestimated, critic of the company. By acquiring the domain name, Donovan obtained the perfect platform to voice his criticisms of the oil giant. Who would have thought a decade ago that such an unlikely individual could stand up to a corporate powerhouse, waging a war of words against one of the world’s largest companies?

Gazprom raking it in at the expense of Shell

Below an extract from a Wall Street Journal article published today reporting on the profits of Gazprom and Sakhalin Energy, the company in which Shell was forced to surrender its majority stake.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

FEBRUARY 1, 2010

Foreign-Exchange Gains Boost Gazprom’s Net

By JACOB GRONHOLT-PEDERSEN

Sakhalin Energy, a Gazprom joint venture with Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Japan’s Mitsui Co. Ltd. and Mitsubishi Corp., posted earnings of 10.65 billion rubles in the third quarter. Sakhalin Energy opened Russia’s first plant for liquefied natural gas last February and shipped 5.5 million tons of LNG in its first year.

COMPLETE ARTICLE

John Donovan Russian intervention cost billions – no denial by Shell

Documents released by Royal Dutch Shell Plc under the Data Protection Act to John Donovan, a prominent critic of the world’s largest oil company, show that Shell does not deny that his intervention in the Sakhalin2 project in Russia cost Shell billions – according to the Sunday Times – $22 billion.

Shell internal correspondence from December 2006 to March 2007 reveal that Shell was concerned that:

“…the Sunday Times has picked up the Sakhalin/drilling leaked e-mail story from Donovan’s website, They are responding with agree Os and As that have been used previously with the Guardian, but are first trying to kill the story by pointing out that is old news – slim chance that this will work.”

The story said that insider information supplied by John Donovan to the Russian government official Oleg Mitvol, known as the “Kremlin attack dog”, had cost Shell $22 billion, according to calculations made by the newspaper based on information from Shell annual accounts.

The article also featured an interview with Mitvol in which he indicated his surprise at the lack of a fight put up by Shell before it surrendered its majority stakeholding in the project. The interview with him was mentioned in a Shell internal email dated Saturday 3 February 2007. Later that same day, just hours before planned publication on Sunday 4 February, the article, which was so embarrassing to Shell senior management, was killed.

A Shell internal email dated 22 March 2007 headed “Subject: RE: News Management Grid”, reported our speculation that Shell had managed to suppress the article. There was no confirmation, nor any denial.

A Shell internal email dated 20 July 2009 discussed a Sunday Times article that was published on 19 July 2009, two years after the aborted article. The new article, which had been scrutinized by Shell, contained the following reference to the same subject:

In 2005, when the Kremlin was building a case against Shell over the Sakhalin gas project, the Donovans provided confidential documents regarding alleged environmental infractions directly to Oleg Mitvol, the minister who led the case. Shell was ultimately forced to sell a stake to the Russians, leading to billions in lost revenue. Mitvol publicly acknowledged the help provided by the Donovans in building his case.

The Shell email took issue with a reference in the article to the outcome of the most recent High Court action John Donovan brought against Shell. The person who authored the email was apparently misled by the Shell press statement issued at the time, which was a classic example of Shell Media spin (outright deception).There was however, no challenge to the veracity of the statement about Shell Sakhalin losses.

An extract from a recent Guardian article covering the same issue:

Four years ago Shell was embroiled in a bitter dispute with Russia’s environmental regulator over drilling for gas at Sakhalin Island. It was eventually forced to relinquish its majority stake in the project, costing Shell billions in lost revenue. Later, the regulator, Oleg Mitvol, publicly acknowledged the Donovans’ help in getting information about alleged claims of environmental abuses by Shell.

It is notable that in none of the Shell internal communications has Shell ever taken issue with the claim that the involvement of John Donovan and his website royaldutchshellplc.com in Sakhalin2, did indeed cost Shell billions. It also resulted in the resignation of the Project Director and Deputy Chairman of Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, David Greer. But that is another story (scandal).

Related extracts…

Prospect Magazine: Rise of the gripe site: 25 February 2007

…it is the home of www.royaldutchshellplc.com, a website which can claim to have cost Shell billions of dollars—and helped Vladimir Putin score another victory over western energy interests.

one world trust Accountability in Action Newsletter July 2007:

Royaldutchshellplc.com – The power of a website:

The site has not only cost Shell billions of dollars in Russia, but Prospect Magazine reports that the Ogoni tribe of Nigeria also use the website to spread information about Shell’s activities in the Niger Delta, and that even Shell insiders unhappy with the company use it.