The Secret Behind Better Oil Major Earnings

By Gregory Brew – Aug 02, 2017, 6:00 PM CDT

After several years of austerity and belt-tightening, the major international oil companies posted substantial profits in Q2 of 2017. The five largest private oil companies together generated more than $30 billion in profit, an indication that most have successfully adapted to the current bout of low prices, while a few have publicly indicated their belief that prices will hover around $50 for the foreseeable future.

What this means is that the “mega projects” that dominated many companies’ balance sheets for the last decade will become increasingly rare, as the majors pivot towards short-term, low-risk ventures with a faster turnaround. A closer look at each company shows how individual firms have adapted in distinct ways to this new era.

Chevron Corp, the second-largest U.S. major after ExxonMobil, invested heavily in large upstream projects when the price of oil shot past $100 again after the 2008-2009 global recession. The massive Gorgon natural gas facility and Wheatstone complex in Western Australia, with a combined price tag of more than $50 billion and a cost overrun of nearly $20 billion, represented a huge, costly investment for Chevron and one that struggled to reach optimal output.

For most of 2016, the news out of Gorgon wasn’t good and Chevron’s flagship project looked increasingly like a boondoggle. The company’s upstream activity fell off, declining from 2.67 million boe/d to 2.59 boe/d from 2011 to 2016, while earnings from upstream fell with prices: from $20.8 billion in 2013 to $1.96 billion in 2015, according to SEC filings.

All that’s changed, however, as earnings from upstream rose in 2016 and are now on-track for a solid recovery. The company posted a loss of $102 million in its U.S. upstream operations, but that’s down from $1.11 billion a year ago, and profits from international upstream were $955 million, compared to a loss of $1.35 billion in 2016. Investment in the U.S. patch has ramped up as Chevron looks to capitalize on the shale boom: the company’s portfolio in the Permian Basin is worth at least $43 billion.

In Q2 of 2017 Chevron’s output reached 2.78 million boe/d, with a positive outlook for Q3. The bulk of new output came from the company’s major projects. Production was up an impressive 252,000 boe/d from 2016, as Gorgon’s growing pains receded.

Chevron posted Q2 profits of $1.5 billion, compared with a loss of $1.5 billion in Q2 of 2016. The company’s earnings exceeded expectations and share price rose 1 percent at the news.

ExxonMobil also reported healthy profits of $3.4 billion in Q2, though the report wasn’t enough to impress the market. Share prices fell 2 percent as the company reported relatively stagnant upstream activity: upstream volumes fell 1 percent to 3.9 million boe/d. Earnings were high primarily thanks to slashed capital expenditure and exploration, which is down 24 percent from a year ago, and the rising price of oil and natural gas compared to 2016, which helped the company realize upstream profits of $1.18 billion, up from just $294 million a year ago.

While the world’s largest traded company appears strong and is still a veritable cash machine for investors, its performance disappoints when compared to its peers. There’s also the news out of the U.S. patch, where Exxon has been pumping more money and paying more attention. Despite the low cost of operating in the Permian, Exxon posted a U.S. upstream loss of $183 million.

Neither Chevron nor Exxon has voiced concerns about “peak oil demand,” which some analysts and market watchers feel could be coming as soon as 2040. But that hasn’t stopped other internationals from pivoting towards a future of low price and low demand.

Royal Dutch/Shell beat expectations with a strong earnings report, posting a $3.6 billion profit in Q2 of 2017, tripling its earnings from a year ago. Shell managed its improvement through cutting costs in the face of low prices, which the CEO believes might improve in the short term. He’s stated that Shell will be “resilient to oil prices,” and will follow improved efficiency with a more diverse portfolio.

Upstream profits were $339 million, a major improvement from Q2 of 2016 when Shell posted a $1.3 billion loss. Production nevertheless declined from 3.752 million boe/d to 3.495 million boe/d, a trend which will continue as Shell sheds assets in Malaysia and Australia. The company’s debt-to-assets ratio improved, though last year was marked by Shell’s massive acquisition of BG Group for $54 billion.

Anticipating “lower for longer” oil prices, Shell has positioned itself as the most forward-looking major company. It’s CEO says he intends to purchase an electric car, Shell followed the BG Group purchase with statements that the future would be in cleaner fuels like natural gas, rather than conventional oil, and unlike the US majors Shell sees peak oil demand coming as soon as the 2030s, according to its CEO.

Shell plans on spending $1 billion on its New Energies division to prepare for the transition toward renewable power and electric cars. It’s very likely that Shell will follow its current round of divestments by shedding even more assets, pulling itself away from traditional upstream activities and diversifying to meet changing future demand and persistent low prices.

Looking at these three majors, it’s clear that big oil is taking the changing market conditions into account as they pivot away from expensive long-term projects that depend on high prices. Shell, along with BP and Total, are also looking to increase their diversification, though Chevron and Exxon may count on projects on the US patch and in the Gulf of Mexico keeping them in the black.

In the event that prices stay in the $50s, each major may find new ways to stay profitable, adding credence to a recent report from Goldman Sachs that oil in the $50s may be more profitable than oil in the $100s, at least for the biggest firms.

By Gregory Brew for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

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

DISCLAIMER

This is not a Shell website. That fact should be abundantly plain from the overall content of this home page and our sister Shell-focussed websites, including shellnazihistory.com. Click on the Disclaimer link at top of this page for more information. You Can Be Sure Shell does not endorse or approve of this website. There are no subscription charges nor do we solicit or accept donations. It is an entirely free to use website drawing attention to the negative side of Shell while also publishing positive news about the company. The Shell logo image with the white text used on this website, as per the above example, is in the public domain because its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous. It can be found on WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. Our shellenergy.website publishes Shell Energy customer complaints posted on Trustpilot where there is an ample supply. Use this link for Shell’s own website.

NAZI HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

Royal Dutch Shell conspired directly with Hitler, financed the Nazi Party, was anti-Semitic and sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis. Shell had a close relationship with the Nazis during and after the reign of Sir Henri Deterding, an ardent Nazi, and the founder and decades long leader of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. His burial ceremony, which had all the trappings of a state funeral, was held at his private estate in Mecklenburg, Germany. The spectacle (photographs below) included a funeral procession led by a horse drawn funeral hearse with senior Nazis officials and senior Royal Dutch Shell directors in attendance, Nazi salutes at the graveside, swastika banners on display and wreaths and personal tributes from Adolf Hitler and Reichsmarschall, Hermann Goring. Deterding was an honored associate and supporter of Hitler and a personal friend of Goring.

Deterding was the guest of Hitler during a four day summit meeting at Berchtesgaden. Sir Henri and Hitler both had ambitions on Russian oil fields. Only an honored personal guest would be rewarded with a private four day meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat.

MORE INFORMATION
Shell appeased and collaborated with the Nazis. The oil giant instructed its employees in the Netherlands to complete a form giving particulars about their descent, which for some, amounted to a self-declared death warrant. Shell used slave labor and was a close business partner in Germany of I.G. Farben, the notorious Nazi run chemical giant that also used slave labor and supplied the Zyklon-B gas used during the Holocaust to exterminate millions of people, including children. Shell continued the partnership with the Nazis in the years after the retirement of Sir Henri and even after his death. It was money generated on Shell forecourts around the world, profiteering from cartel oil prices, that funded the Nazi party and saved it from financial collapse. Evidence about Shell's Nazi connections can be found in extracts from "A History of Royal Dutch Shell" Volumes 1 and 2 authored by historians paid by Shell, who had unrestricted access to Shell archives. There are 67 pages in total, so takes some time to download.

Photograph (full size here) shows a Swastika flag flying at the head office of Royal Dutch Petroleum, 30 Carel van Bylandtlaan, The Hague, during the Nazi occupation of the in World War II (From Image Database Hague Municipal)

Sir Henri Deterding, the founder of the Royal Dutch Shell Group - known as "The Most Powerful Man in the World" - who became an ardent Nazi and financial supporter of Hitler and the Nazi party.

SHELL IP PIRACY

Reading between the lines in various legal documents, it seems that the allegations are that after the technology in question had been disclosed to a Shell company in the USA, the information was passed to Shell in the Netherlands in breach of confidentiality. And Royal Dutch Shell subsequently exploited the technology without payment or credit to the company holding the rights; Newton Research Partners. The inference seems to be that Twister B.V. was founded by Shell partly on trade secrets stolen from Bloom/Newton.

For more information read:

ARTICLE: Shell in the US courts again for alleged theft of trade secrets: 20 June 2014

ARTICLE: Twister B.V. by name, Twister by nature?: 09 August 2014

WEBSITE INFORMATION

DISCLAIMER: This is not a Shell website nor is it officially endorsed by or affiliated with Royal Dutch Shell Plc. Originally co-founded by the late Alfred Donovan and his son John, it is now operated by John, Shell's "No.1 Enemy", aided by an expert team, with invaluable support from retired Shell senior executives and officials as guest contributors and leaked information from Shell insiders.

(JOHN DONOVAN, WEBSITE OWNER)
For nearly a decade, we have operated globally under the Royal Dutch Shell Plc top level domain name, dealing on Shell’s reluctant behalf with job applications, business proposals, Shell pension enquiries, shareholder enquiries, complaints, invitations to speak at conferences, an approach from the Dutch Defence Ministry and even terrorist threats. All meant for Shell. Prospect magazine has aptly described this website as being:"An open wound for Shell":
WIPO proceedings by Shell to seize the domain name failed.
NO SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES: All of our watchdog activities monitoring Royal Dutch Shell, including operating this website, are carried out on a non-profit basis. Any advertising revenues generated are used to recover and/or defray operational costs. We are a news aggregator and original content website. All information is available free for educational and research purposes.
SHELL TACIT ENDORSEMENT: WHAT A WELL INFORMED SHELL OFFICIAL SAID ABOUT US: "John and Alfred Donovan well known in UK/Hague. They perceive Shell played them and so have made it their mission to embarrass, belittle and criticize Shell, which they do quite well. Their website, royaldutchshellplc.com is an excellent source of group news and comment and I recommend it far above what our own group internal comms puts out."
WARNING TO SHELL EMPLOYEES: Shell Global Affairs Security "CAS") is spying on Shell employees globally trying to trace who is visiting, posting, or leaking information to this website from Shell premises. Threats, including death threats, have allegedly been made against conscience driven Shell whistleblowers supplying us with information. The worlds biggest leak of employee details as part of a claimed corporate revolution by 116 Shell employees, suggest the espionage operation, threats and draconian litigation have not been entirely successful in cutting off the supply of information to this website. The insider leaks had already cost Shell billions on the Sakhalin Energy project and the loss of SEIC Deputy Chairman, David Greer.
We publish our own carefully researched articles about Shell e.g. "How Royal Dutch Shell saved Hitler and the Nazi Party".
MEDIA COVERAGE: Prospect Magazine, The Sunday Times, and The Guardian, have all published major articles about us: "Rise of the Gripe Site";"Two men and a website mount vendetta against Shell' and "92-year-old's website leaves oil giant Shell-shocked”.
SHELL PETROL STATION images displayed in the website header panel are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Information on copyright issues here.
John Donovan can be contacted at [email protected]

BILL CAMPBELL WHISTLEBLOWER EMAIL TO MP’S

IN JULY 2007, MR BILL CAMPBELL (ABOVE, A RETIRED GROUP AUDITOR OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL SENT AN EMAIL TO EVERY UK MP AND MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS:

THIS IS WHAT IT SAID:

Subject: This could be the most important whistleblower email you have ever received.

Some unfortunate Royal Dutch Shell workers have already lost their lives. More lives are at stake.

My name is Bill Campbell. I am a former Group Auditor of Shell International. I am writing to you on a matter of conscience in an effort to avert the inevitability of another major accident in the North Sea. The consequences could potentially impact on families in many constituencies, including your own.

As Royal Dutch Shell and the Health & Safety Executive would acknowledge, I am an expert on safety matters relating to offshore oil and gas platforms. In 1999, I was appointed by Shell to lead a safety audit on the Brent Bravo platform. The audit revealed a platform management culture that basically gave a higher priority to production than the safety of Shell employees. To our astonishment we discovered that a "Touch F*** All" policy was in place. Worse still, safety records were routinely falsified and repairs bodged.

I personally brought the shocking situation to the attention of senior management including Malcolm Brinded, the then Managing Director of Shell Exploration & Production. I revealed that ESDV leak-off tests were purposely falsified, not once but many times and that Brent Bravo platform management had admitted responsibility for the dangerous practices being followed. In response to my team ringing alarm bells, management pledged to rectify the serious problems which had been uncovered.

When I later complained that the pledges were not being kept, I was removed from my oversight function.

Four years later, a massive gas leak occurred on the platform. Two workers lost their lives. I have no doubt at all that the inaction of the relevant Asset Manager, the General Manager, the Oil Director and Malcolm Brinded, contributed in some part to the unlawful killing of two persons on Brent Bravo in September 2003.

Shell subsequently pleaded guilty to breaches of the HSE regulations and a record-breaking £900,000 fine was imposed. I thought this would bring about a real change in policy to put the emphasis on safety.

Unfortunately I was wrong. Although I supplied the evidence related to 1999, and the fact that there had been a collapse in controls of integrity from 1999 to 2003 on all 16 of Shell's North Sea offshore installations covered in a post fatality integrity review to the HSE for review by the Procurator Fiscal, none of this evidence was presented before the Sheriff at the subsequent Inquiry. The situation is explained in a letter to the Procurator Fiscal and the Sheriff (on 24th February 2007).

Shell management has engaged in spin to try to pretend that it is getting to grips with its safety problem. However, its atrocious safety record - the worst in the North Sea in terms of accidental deaths and absolute number of enforcement actions – tells a different story. This fact has resulted in a number of newspaper articles.

I have had meetings with senior Shell people including its CEO Mr. Jeroen van der Veer. I regret to say that I have found him to be economical with the truth. He prefers to support cover-up and deceit rather than confronting the underlying problems. Brinded is now Executive Director of Shell Exploration & Production. He believes in burying evidence.

My family and friends would probably prefer me to give up on this matter and enjoy my retirement after so many years working for Shell.

However, by writing to every MP in the UK, no one can ever say that I did not do my best to avert an inevitable further major accident event in the North Sea. When it happens (I pray that I am wrong) I will make this warning communication available to the media together with the vast amount of evidence in my possession.

At least my conscience is clear. I have done everything possible to ring the alarm bells about Shell management and its unscrupulous attitude to the safety of its employees.

Yours sincerely
Bill Campbell

ENDS

(Malcolm Brinded and Jeroen van der Veer are no longer with Shell. The Oil Director referred to in the email is Chris Finlayson, who left Shell to become Chief Executive of British Gas before being fired - his photo immediately below)

THE BRENT BRAVO SCANDAL
BRENT BRAVO: THE EVIDENCE ASSEMBLED BY BILL CAMPBELL

BILL CAMPBELL EVIDENCE BUNDLES A to F - June 2012

BILL CAMPBELL EVIDENCE BUNDLES A to F CONTINUED - June 2012

by John Donovan

Displayed below are some of the spectacular promotional campaigns my company Don Marketing created for Shell in the 1980s and 1990s. This was before the series of SIX high court actions we brought against Shell for stealing ideas (4) and for defamation (2) - all settled by Shell. This website is a permanent response by me to the malicious underhand tactics, including treachery, espionage and intimidation, used by Shell during and after the bouts of litigation. More information is printed at the foot of this column.

MORE DETAILS: After a solicitor acting for Shell threatened to make the litigation "drawn out and difficult" with the intention of draining the resources of a financially weaker opponent, my late father (Alfred Donovan) and I decided to mount a wide-ranging campaign as a counter-measure. We jointly founded the Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group, which nearly 15% of Shell UK retailers joined. We regularly conducted ethical surveys involving up to 1500 Shell petrol stations. All responses were opened and authenticated by an independent solicitor who supplied Affidavits confirming the results. In whole page announcements in trade magazines (examples above) we challenged Shell to commission and publish the resuits of independent research asking the same questions and offering respondents GUARANTEED anonymity. Shell never took up the invitation. Instead it asked the UK Advertising Standards Authority to investigate our Shell surveys. No problems were found. The head-cut image of Alfred Donovan appears courtesy of The Wall Street Journal.

SHELL CONTROVERSIES

selection of memorable warnings/articles/images associated with the controversial track record of Royal Dutch Shell.

WARNING: DO NOT DISCLOSE YOUR IDEAS TO SHELL GameChanger OR SHELL Ideas360 WITHOUT TAKING EVERY POSSIBLE PRECAUTION. Shell management has ample funds to pay for intellectual property but prefers to steal it from small businesses and in our experience, gives its full backing to dishonest managers willing to do its bidding. We have sued Shell repeatedly in the High Court for the theft of our Intellectual Property. It is doubtful if anyone can match our dire experience in dealing with this ruthless unscrupulous serial poacher of other parties ideas. Expect threats, legal machinations and sinister action from Shell and its spooks if you object to having your ideas stolen.

LINKS TO SOME RELATED ARTICLES:

ARTICLE: Shell in the US courts again for alleged theft of trade secrets: 20 June 2014

ARTICLE: Shell GameChanger - Scam, or Genuine Game Changer?: 10 June 2014

ARTICLE: Is it safe to disclose ideas to Shell GameChanger?: 7 June 2014

ARTICLE: Royal Dutch Shell plc Brings Crowdsourcing to the Energy Markets: 20 April 2014

ARTICLE: High Court papers unveil ‘secret’ Shell writ losses: 23 April 1998

ARTICLE: Another warning to inventors of the alleged dangers when dealing with Shell : 12 March 2008

ARTICLE: Shell in deepwater, accused of more IP theft: 13 August 2008

ARTICLE: ENERTAG PATENTS: MORE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL IP CHICANERY?: 4 November 2009

ARTICLE: Shell investigates alleged IP theft at Geelong Refinery: 21 April 2012

ARTICLE: Another alleged case of IP theft hits Royal Dutch Shell: 20 May 2012

ARTICLE: Shell Oil Must Pay $153.6 Mln Award to Union Carbide: 17 June 2012

Some years ago extensive documentary evidence was brought to the attention of Malcolm Brinded above, when he was Chairman of Shell UK, proving beyond any doubt that Shell executives had conspired to rig a tender for a major contract. A number of innocent firms were deliberately lured into signing confidentiality agreements and disclosing Intellectual Property to Shell under false pretences, in a carefully contrived plot. The firm which was awarded the contract never took part in the tender. One objective of the Machiavellian plan was to stop/delay IP trade secrets owned by the participants in the tender from being disclosed to Shell's rivals. This was achieved by outright deception, without paying a cent to the firms involved, who wrongly believed they were participating in an honest tender. Instead of sacking the ring leader, AJL - who had a personal relationship with the firm which miraculously won the race in which it never ran - Shell senior directors, including Brinded, gave AJL their full backing. Some of the Shell executives involved, including for example, Tim Hannagan, still hold high positions inside Shell - in his case, Global Brand and Visual Identity Manager. If Shell does not accept that this is a true, provable account of what happened, then it should sue for libel. How on earth is such predatory conduct compatible with Shell's claimed business principles?

FOR MORE INFORMATION, READ THIS ARTICLE:

ARTICLE: Irregularities in a Royal Dutch Shell tender process: 31 October 2011