Top Stories

MUSAINT: At $30 - $50/bbl many deepwater projects are likely to be still profitable (even afetr the likes of Greedy Gordon & corrupt Nigerian officials have taken their cut). Others may wish to comment on the other "White Elephants" you mention. My humble view is that not all will be turkeys as the service industries / rigs / construction yards now have to drop their rates to reflect this present economic environment and thereby lower the break-even $ price.

Guest: It looks as though Brent is about to fall through $50... Tar Sands? GTL? Shale Oil? Deep Water? These might be long term investments, but in the short term they are "white elephants" - the days of record oil company profits are now behind us.

Guest: If Total has $15bn to spend on a friendly takeover, they should perhaps visit The Hague... with Shell's US liabilities now under control, and friendlier relations between France and the US, Total's historical concerns about such a move would seem to have been addressed...

Guest: It's noticeable that some of the large movements in Shell's share price over the past couple of weeks involve relatively small quantities of shares being traded - are Shell's repeated share buybacks being used to (mis) lead the market? With oil below $60 there will be far less free cash available for this kind of market manipulation.

Guest: Anyone who thinks that the euphemism "reclassification" somehow justifies the fraud that was perpetrated on the market should read the attachments to the depositions published on this site. The intention throughout was to paint a rosier picture of Shell's reserves in comparison with those of their competitors than could be justified by the facts (Shell's primary competitors had to work with SEC rules too). The fact that Shell provided incentives and bonuses to those who complied with Watts' directives, and suppressed the views of their own reserves auditors should be evidence enough. Walter vd Vijver summed it up when he said that he was "sick and tired of lying" Annual reports are supposed to be prepared according to a unified set of rules to allow comparisons to be made between companies. Deliberately inflating a company's asset base (whether its oil in the ground, widgets in the warehouse, or cash in the bank) is fraud.

John Donovan: There was a reserves scandal. It wasdescribed by the US SEC as a securities fraud. The fraud by Shell executive directors cost Shell around $850 million in fines by regulatory authorities, class action settlements, and legal costs of suing parties. Add on Shell's own legal costs and the whole bill would probably amount to over a billion USD. Of course this is not a major problem for an oil giant making obscene profits.

European: uscitizen - there is no relationship between remuneration level and "more reserve scandals", your logic escapes me. Massive salaries (in return for competence??) did not prevent genuine scandals at Enron,Worldcom, Parmalat. By the way, there was no reserves scandal; there was a reserves reclassification.

Paddy Briggs: USCitizen “…as usual your logic mystifies”. Not sure what this gratuitous insult adds to your argument. I doubt that my logic always mystifies – even I would struggle to be that opaque! “You need to do some research…” Research what? I am quite aware that there has been a spiral of corporate compensation that “justifies” the Shell top executive salaries. I don’t need to research that – it’s in the public domain. Doesn’t make it right, though – and that’s my point. “To say that you can get a CEO for Shell, one of the top 5 companies in the world for $1,500,000 / year is ludicros. Geez, you are talking about a $355 billion dollar a year company, you will not find any one qualifed to run this company for that amount of money” RUBBISH! The trap you fall into is to assume that because other companies pay ridiculous compensation therefore Shell needs to as well. Why? Barack Obama’s salary as President of the United Sates will be only $400,000. Doesn’t seem to have put him off seeking the job! I want top people to be decently remunerated but I have little doubt that the attractions of running Shell at around $1.5million a year would be sufficient to attract some pretty good people. The Dutch companies you refer to seem to do all right despite being “paid on average only about a quarter of what US CEOs make”. “Perspective is important dude!” With respect you seem to have only one perspective, that of the harlot through the ages. “If I didn’t do it someone else would”. My perspective is somewhat broader than this – and a lot more morally robust – Dude!

uscitizen: Paddy - as usual your logic mystifies. You need to do some research before making comments like; "As far as Director’s compensation is concerned the main driver of the obscene remuneration of Shell and other oil companies directors in recent times has been the Banks and the other financial institutions. This led undoubtedly to a spiral across the corporate sector as a whole. Hopefully this will now all change! Mark Moody-Stuart was paid £1m in 1998 – I think that you could find a decent CEO for Shell today at this level!" Shell execs are not paid nearly the "obscene" numbers that other companies pay their execs. You will not find Shell execs getting 30-50 million dollars/year. To say that you can get a CEO for Shell, one of the top 5 companies in the world for $1,500,000 / year is ludicros. Geez, you are talking about a $355 billion dollar a year company, you will not find any one qualifed to run this company for that amount of money, which I know is a huge amount of money to folks like us, but not for folks who work at that level. You want more reserve scandals, hire incompetency at that level. The issue has happened in the past granted, but it had nothing to do with competency, rather principles. You try to hire someone to run Shell and tell them their salary is $1,500,000, you will get laughed at! Do some research on what people get paid for jobs like that, dial it back some and you get our salary structure - which is not obscene at all for this size company. Check out this data from "By the Fault" blog - In 2005, the Dutch economy ranked 16th in the world, with a GDP of €505 billion. Despite running world-class companies, Dutch CEOs are paid on average only about a quarter of what US CEOs make. And the Dutch have come to believe that that is too much. And so Dutch citizens are pressing lawmakers to do something about it. Perspective is important dude!

Paddy Briggs: MUSAINT Thanks for your message. I’m looking for a new paradigm (sorry for the word but it works I think!) which includes the following elements: (1) Energy supply and demand managed as a coherent whole within which energy policy has a long term strategy. This needs international cooperation and strong Government and extra Government involvement. This cannot be left to Shell and the other multinationals whose aspirations are much shorter term and whose whole raison d’être is hydrocarbon based. (2) Investment policy to be determined at the same level as Energy policy, of which it is of course part. Investment cannot be left to the vagaries of private corporations often whimsical priorities (often compensation driven). (3) To put above into effect there has to be a far greater involvement on the part of Western Governments (US and Europe) in energy policy – they should be directing far more the key decision making of Shell and the rest. As far as Director’s compensation is concerned the main driver of the obscene remuneration of Shell and other oil companies directors in recent times has been the Banks and the other financial institutions. This led undoubtedly to a spiral across the corporate sector as a whole. Hopefully this will now all change! Mark Moody-Stuart was paid £1m in 1998 – I think that you could find a decent CEO for Shell today at this level!