Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Comment from Tim Newman on the article: The Sakhalin II controversy continues

Tim Newman

*Tim Newman

Sunday 07 January 2007

From the article…

(06/01/2007 The Sakhalin II controversy continues )

What is not in dispute is that: –

Sakhalin II costs doubled to an admitted $20 billion, thereby ruining Shell’s reputation for competent project management.

Tim’s comment..

I put it to you that whereas the first part of the above sentence is not in dispute, the second part can hardly be claimed to be beyond dispute. Cast a poll across the industry tomorrow of which oil and gas OPCO enjoys the best reputation for competent project management and it’d be a fair bet Shell would be very close to the top. Despite the cost overruns and the other difficulties with the Sakhalin II project, it is not true to say that Shell’s reputation for competent project management is in ruins across the oil and gas industry.

Tim Newman

*This appears to be the Tim Newman who authored this comment.

His weblog is at…

Article mentioning his namesake at Sakhalin Energy, Tim Newman and its sister websites,,,,, and are all owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia article.

1 Comment on “Comment from Tim Newman on the article: The Sakhalin II controversy continues”

  1. #1 Tim Newman
    on Jan 8th, 2007 at 07:36

    Rather than trying to discredit what I wrote by telling your readers I work for Shell Exploration & Production, you’d have been far better responding to the comment itself, i.e. by saying exactly why you disagree with what I have written.

    Instead you have made a rather catastrophic blunder in assuming I work for Shell, and I do not. I have no connection whatsoever with Shell and I never have done. I am simply an oil and gas professional, albeit a rather outspoken one, who lives in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk and disagrees with your assertion that Shell’s reputation for competent project management lies in ruins following the Sakhalin II project.

    In the original post on which I commented you said that:

    We genuinely welcome open and lively debate.

    If you wish your readers to believe that this is true, surely it would have been a better course of action to respond properly to my criticism of your assertion rather than seeking to discredit me personally by branding me a Shell insider? After all, had my comment been written not by me but by a Shell employee, in what way would that have invalidated the point being made?

Leave a Comment