Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

BP has been treating Russians as subjects

FT Home

BP has been treating Russians as subjects

By Mikhail Fridman (chairman of the board of TNK-BP)

Published: July 7 2008 03:00 | Last updated: July 7 2008 03:00

Today an extraordinary meeting of the board of TNK-BP, the oil joint venture, has been called in Moscow to remove Robert Dudley from his role as chief executive. Viktor Vekselberg, a 12.5 per cent share-holder in TNK-BP and chair of the board compensation committee, has also made a formal request to BP to nominate an independent candidate to the post. This is the latest development in our attempts to reverse years of underperformance at TNK-BP.

We have been left with no choice. Sadly, BP has refused to engage meaningfully with any of the proposals we have made in recent years. Rather than talk to us, it has chosen to misrepresent our objectives and the nature of the dispute between us.

However, we are agreed with BP on one point – that this is a dispute for control of TNK-BP. It is a traditional, commercial dispute about different ambitions for the strategic development of the business. Should TNK-BP remain narrowly focused, run by BP as if it were its subsidiary, and restricted to operating in Russia and Ukraine? Or should it be free to compete for the enormous opportunities available elsewhere, evolving into an independent, dynamic international oil company?

To say TNK-BP has underperformed would be a gross understatement. From September 1 2003, when it was formed, to June 1 this year, TNK-BP’s market capitalisation rose only 138 per cent. By contrast, Lukoil’s value has increased 467 per cent and the Russian stock market rose by 355 per cent. In the past two years, as other oil groups have delivered record dividend growth, shareholders in TNK-BP have been asked by its chief executive to take a 75 per cent dividend cut and accept a total shareholder return of 4 per cent.

Why is our company stagnating? Because BP does not want it to grow into an international competitor and sees it simply as a vehicle for adding reserves to shore up its own stock price, which has remained flat since 2003. It has fenced TNK-BP within the borders of Russia and Ukraine, although no restrictions in the shareholder agreement prevent the company expanding internationally.

Directors and executives from BP have rejected or stalled 20 international projects proposed by the company’s executives since 2003, including exploration opportunities in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Iraq, and refinery opportunities in Poland, Germany and the Baltics. These are just the sort of projects that TNK-BP is particularly well-suited to exploit given its unique ownership structure and political -connections.

AAR, a consortium of TNK-BP’s Russian investors, is committed to its long-term strategic development. We are frustrated by BP’s narrow view of its capabilities. This limited view might be in BP’s interests but is not in the interests of the company or all its shareholders, including minorities in our subsidiaries. We have politely argued this case for years to little avail. That is why change is needed.

An independent chief executive must be appointed to act in the interests of TNK-BP, not one shareholder. There should also be independent directors. The new chief executive – whom BP has the right to nominate – must be empowered to assemble a management team without obligation to a single shareholder. The business must reduce its dangerous overreliance on BP secondees and recruit more technical experts from other international oil companies. We believe these requests are reasonable and conform to international norms of corporate governance.

BP has chosen to portray AAR as corporate raiders and erroneously implies that this dispute is about the rule of law in Russia. Perversely, it seems oblivious to the fact that some of TNK-BP’s foreign staff have been investigated about possible infringement of Russian employment, migration and tax laws, which exposes TNK-BP and its shareholders to legal risk.

The recent controversy about visa applications for TNK-BP’s foreign workers is a case in point. BP is not the “victim of power struggles within the administration” as the Financial Times editorial on July 2 suggested. The truth is far more mundane. Mr Dudley’s action in withdrawing powers of attorney from company lawyers responsible for liaising with the federal migration service caused serious problems in the visa application process. Yet the international media leapt to BP’s defence.

We see a long-term future for the joint venture and have no intention of selling out of a business with great prospects. Indeed, we would be happy to extend the moratorium on the sale of shares we own in TNK-BP. We are bullish about the oil industry and the Russian economy. We want to increase the company’s revenue and profitability and restore its dividend returns. We want to build TNK-BP into a great international oil business.

But we can only do this if BP treats us as its partners, not its subjects.

The writer is chairman of the board of TNK-BP and founder of Alfa Group, which owns 25 per cent of TNK-BP. Alfa, Access Industries and Renova Group have formed the AAR Consortium, which controls 50 per cent of TNK-BP

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comment Rules

  • Please show respect to the opinions of others no matter how seemingly far-fetched.
  • Abusive, foul language, and/or divisive comments may be deleted without notice.
  • Each blog member is allowed limited comments, as displayed above the comment box.
  • Comments must be limited to the number of words displayed above the comment box.
  • Please limit one comment after any comment posted per post.