April 23, 2024

Shell’s Earnings Fall in 2nd Quarter

LONDON — Royal Dutch Shell, the oil and natural gas giant, followed other oil producers in announcing earnings below analysts’ forecasts for the second quarter. Shell’s income, adjusted for one-time items, was $4.6 billion, compared with $5.7 billion in the same period a year earlier. Analysts expected the company to earn $5.8 billion.

“These results were undermined by a number of factors, but they were clearly disappointing for Shell, ” the company’s chief executive, Peter R. Voser, said in a statement Thursday.

Mr. Voser blamed the sharp decline on higher costs, foreign-exchange issues and production lost as a result of sabotage in Nigeria, an important area for Shell. Shell said the problems in Nigeria had lowered production by an average of 100,000 barrels a day during the quarter. Shell said it was reviewing its troubled Nigerian onshore operations and might sell leases producing up to 100,000 barrels per day. The company said the deteriorating security situation in Nigeria as well as a blockade of its Nigerian liquefied natural gas joint venture cost at least $250 million in the quarter.

Shell, based in London, also took net write-offs of $1.85 billion, including a write-down of about $2 billion on natural gas acreage in the United States, where a decline in fuel prices has led the company to re-evaluate its holdings.

Shell also said it was reviewing its North American exploration and production portfolio, where it has been losing money. This exercise, the company said, will lead to divestments and a sharper focus on fewer projects.

Mr. Voser said this year that he would step down as chief executive at the start of 2014. Shell announced last month that he would be succeeded by Ben van Beurden, a relatively unknown executive who has headed Shell’s large marketing and refining business since January.

Other companies have also posted lackluster results, including BP, which reported earnings Tuesday, and ENI of Italy, which is releasing results Thursday. BP, which made substantial divestments after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, blamed lower oil prices and higher tax rates, especially in Russia, while ENI was hurt by continuing problems, including an investigation into alleged corruption in Algeria at its Saipem engineering and oil services subsidiary.

Shell’s results were also hurt by big bets on natural gas. The company’s production of oil, which tends to be substantially more profitable than gas at current prices, declined 7 percent, compared with the same period a year earlier, while gas output increased 5 percent. Shell’s overall production was down 1 percent to just over three million barrels per day. Its output for the quarter was slightly less than that of its rival BP if the company’s share of almost 20 percent of output from Rosneft, the Russian state-controlled oil company, is included.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/business/global/shell-reports-disappointing-earnings-in-second-quarter.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Alaska Grants a Tax Break to Oil Companies

HOUSTON – Hoping to reverse two decades of declining oil production in Alaska, the State Legislature in Juneau has granted oil companies an estimated $750 million in annual tax relief to increase investment in the giant North Slope oil field.

The tax change, approved on Sunday, was a major victory for Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and BP, which had lobbied hard for years to repeal a tax system put in place by former Gov. Sarah Palin in 2007 that made state oil taxes among the highest in the nation. The companies have long claimed that high operating costs and taxes in Alaska encouraged them to move their investment dollars to other states with lower tax rates, like Texas and North Dakota, where oil and gas exploration and production have been booming in new shale fields.

The Alaskan economy runs on crude; about a third of employment is dedicated to the oil industry. The state receives so much royalty money that there is no need for a state sales tax or income tax, and residents receive checks from the Alaska Permanent Fund, a corporation largely financed by oil revenue, that roughly totals $5,000 a year for a family of four.

But that largess is at risk. Since Alaska’s oil production peaked in 1988 at 2.02 million barrels a day, the state’s output has steadily dropped. Over the last two years, production has declined to 526,000 barrels a day, from 600,000, even as national production has risen by more than a million barrels a day.

The old tax system imposed a 25 percent per barrel tax when oil prices were at $30 a barrel, and a 0.4 percent increase for every $1 per barrel above that price. Since oil prices have hovered at between $90 and $100 a barrel in recent years, the effective tax rate has been about 50 percent per barrel.

The new tax will impose a flat 35 percent rate on the oil companies’ net profits, but whether that will increase investment and production remains challenging as long as there remain regulatory hurdles for drilling offshore and engineering limits to reviving aging fields on the North Slope.

“We are signaling to the world that Alaska is back,” Gov. Sean Parnell said in a statement, “ready to compete and ready to supply more energy once again.”

The Alaskan Department of Revenue has projected that the legislation will lower oil taxes by at least $3.5 billion over the next five years, although changes in oil prices and production rates could push that figure up or down.

Most Democrats in the Legislature voted against the tax change, arguing that it would force the government to cut more than $860 million to balance the budget in 2014, when the tax change will take effect. The tax rate had produced a windfall for the state in recent years, because oil prices were high. While other states were struggling with tax shortfalls, Alaska was able to put away $17 billion in a rainy-day fund.

But oil companies argued that the system was not sustainable. In recent testimony before the Alaska Senate Finance Committee, Dan Seckers, Exxon Mobil’s Anchorage-based tax counsel, said that the current tax structure “creates a major disincentive to invest in the high-risk, high-cost opportunities available in Alaska.”

Mr. Seckers noted that even as the industry invested more than $1 billion a year in Alaska’s fields, production had declined annually by more than 6 percent in recent years. He warned that “absent that continued investment, the annual production decline would likely be in the range of 12 to 15 percent annually.”

The decline in oil production poses a serious problem for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, by reducing the velocity that oil flows through the pipeline and allowing water to gather in the system. Oil executives have warned that the water could lead to more corrosion, ruptures and oil spills on the tundra.

Future exploration in Alaska faced a serious setback last week when ConocoPhillips announced that it was suspending plans to drill in Alaskan Arctic waters in 2014 because of uncertainties over federal regulatory and permitting standards. That decision followed Shell Oil’s decision to put off drilling this summer in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas after it was forced to remove its two drilling rigs from the area. The rigs were sent to Asia for repairs after a series of ship groundings, weather delays and environmental and safety violations during last summer’s drilling operations.

Oil company geologists say they believe the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas may become the country’s next great oil field, with billions of barrels of reserves, but exploration and production will be costly. Shell has already spent over $4.5 billion on its efforts, without completing a well.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/business/energy-environment/alaska-grants-a-tax-break-to-oil-companies.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Total Discloses Origins of North Sea Gas Leak

LONDON — Total, the French oil company, has disclosed the findings of its investigation into the causes of a natural gas leak at a well in the North Sea, which has shut down production on the company’s flagship Elgin-Franklin field for almost a year.

At the time of the leak, in March 2012, gas from the Elgin-Franklin complex accounted for about 7 percent of British production. The British Treasury has said the shutdown at the field lowered tax receipts and stunted economic growth.

Patrice de Viviès, the company’s senior vice president for exploration and production for Northern Europe, said Thursday that the leak was a result of corrosion caused by a reaction between grease on the threads of the well casing and bromine in the fluid used in the well, which produced stress cracks that led to a rupture.

In addition, a gas layer called Hod, which was about 1,000 meters, or 3,300 feet, above the Fulmar gas formation that was being tapped by the well, unexpectedly started producing gas, possibly because it was affected by the production from the lower layer. Mr. de Viviès called this set of circumstances unique.

“It is impossible to forecast this type of incident,” he said.

Mr. de Viviès said he did not expect penalties from the British authorities. A spokesman for the British Health and Safety Executive said the matter remained under investigation.

The comments were a reminder of how dangerous oil and gas production can be even when a company operates in a way that, by all appearances, should be safe. The well was originally installed in 2000, he said.

Total had to evacuate 238 workers from the Elgin platform — about 240 kilometers, or 150 miles, from Aberdeen, Scotland — when the leak was discovered. The platform serves a complex of fields, and there was a danger that the gas could catch fire, leading to a catastrophic incident. The well, known as G4, was plugged about two months later. The episode caused no injuries.

At the time of the shutdown, Elgin-Franklin was producing the equivalent of 140,000 barrels of oil a day in gas and liquids, making it a very large field.

Mr. de Viviès said that Total had submitted plans late last year for restarting the field and that it expected the British authorities to accept these within days. The company then plans to resume operations at the field gradually, starting with four wells, compared with 14 at the time of the leak. He said he expected production by year-end to be about 70,000 barrels a day, or half of what it was at the time of the leak.

By 2016, the company’s drilling program is expected to increase production above 140,000 barrels a day, he said.

He added that Total had learned lessons about working in fields where gas is subject to high pressure and high temperatures, and that it would operate more conservatively in the future. He also said that Total would share its findings with other companies to avoid a repeat of this type of incident.

He said the company did not blame the supplier of the well pipes, Vallourec, a company based in Boulogne-Billancourt, France.

Total is expanding its British production while other large oil companies have been selling assets to smaller companies. Its chief executive, Christophe de Margerie, has said that the company is considering becoming involved in shale gas development in Britain, “which we think has potential,” he said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/global/total-reveals-cause-of-north-sea-natural-gas-leak.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Total Reveals Cause of North Sea Natural Gas Leak

LONDON — Total, the French oil company, has revealed its version of the causes of the major North Sea natural gas leak, which has shut down production on the company’s flagship Elgin-Franklin North Sea field for almost a year.

At the time of the leak, in March 2012, gas from the Elgin-Franklin complex accounted for about 7 percent of British production, and the British Treasury has blamed the outage at the field for lowering tax receipts and economic growth.

Patrice de Vivies, the company’s senior vice president for exploration and production for northern Europe, told reporters on Thursday that the leak last March had been due to corrosion stress cracking caused by a reaction between grease on the threads of the well casing and bromine used in the fluid inside the well.

In addition, a gas layer called Hod, which was about 1,000 meters or about 3,300 feet above the Fulmar gas layer being tapped by the well, unexpectedly began producing oil and gas, possibly because it was affected by the production of the lower layer. He called this set of circumstances “unique.”

“It is impossible to forecast this type of incident,” Mr. de Vivies said.

The comments were a reminder of how dangerous oil and gas production can be even when a company operates in a way that by all appearances should be safe. The well was originally installed in 2000, he said.

Mr. de Vivies said that he did not expect sanctions from the British authorities. A spokesman for the British Health and Safety Executive said that the matter remained under investigation.

Total was forced to evacuate 238 workers from the Elgin platform, about 240 kilometers or about 150 miles from Aberdeen in Scotland, when the leak was discovered. The platform serves a complex of fields. There was a danger that the gas could catch fire, leading to a catastrophic incident. The well, known as G4, was plugged about two months later. The incident caused no injuries.

At the time of the shutdown, Elgin-Franklin was producing the equivalent of 140,000 barrels of oil per day in gas and liquids, making it a very large field.

Mr. de Vivies said that the company had submitted plans late last year for restarting the field and it expected these to be accepted by the British authorities within days. The company then plans to bring the field back online gradually, starting with four wells compared to 14 at the time of the incident. He said that he expected production by year-end to be about 70,000 barrels per day, or half of what it was at the time of the leak. By 2016 , the company’s drilling program should take production levels above 140,000 barrels per day, he said.

Mr. de Vivies said that Total had learned lessons from the leak in a field in which the gas is under high pressure and high temperature, and that the company would be more conservative about how it operated in the future. He also said that Total would share its findings with other companies to avoid a repeat of this type of incident.

Total is expanding its British production at a time when other oil majors have been selling assets to smaller companies. Christophe de Margerie, Total’s chief executive, has said that Total is considering becoming involved in shale gas development in Britain, “which we think has potential,” he said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/global/total-reveals-cause-of-north-sea-natural-gas-leak.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Blackstone Enters $1.2 Billion Energy Partnership

LONDON – The Blackstone Group announced a partnership on Tuesday with the oil producer LLOG Exploration to invest a combined $1.2 billion in offshore energy assets in the Gulf of Mexico.

The deal is the latest in a flurry of announcements by private equity firms, which are looking to capitalize on the booming energy sector in the United States.

Under the terms of the deal, Blackstone will form a strategic partnership with LLOG Exploration, an energy company based in Covington, La., with assets across the Gulf of Mexico.

The two companies will initially invest $1.2 billion in the partnership to develop LLOG Exploration’s existing energy assets in the region, including a number of recent deepwater discoveries. The amount of each company’s investment was not disclosed.

Blackstone and LLOG Exploration said the money may also be used to expand the energy company’s resources in the Gulf of Mexico, including through acquisitions.

“We are very excited to form this long-term partnership with LLOG to accelerate the growth and development of LLOG’s attractive and extensive portfolio of discoveries and prospects,” Angelo Acconcia, managing director of Blackstone Energy Partners’ oil and natural gas unit, said in a statement.

The privately owned LLOG Exploration is one of the largest oil and natural gas companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico.

In recent years, several private equity firms have invested in the American energy sector as new drilling technologies like hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, have opened up new areas for exploration.

Earlier this year, a consortium led by Apollo Global Management bought the exploration and production business of the El Paso Corporation for about $7.2 billion. The deal was part of concessions that Kinder Morgan agreed to as part of its $21.1 billion deal to buy the El Paso Corporation.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/blackstone-enters-1-2-billion-energy-partnership/?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Exxon Mobil to Sell Its Japanese Arm for $3.9 Billion

Exxon Mobil said on Sunday that it had agreed to sell its Japanese subsidiary to TonenGeneral Sekiyu, a major refinery operator in Japan, for about $3.9 billion, as part of a revamping of the oil giant’s operations in that country.

Under the terms of the deal, Exxon will sell a 99 percent stake in the subsidiary, ExxonMobil Yugen Kaisha, to TonenGeneral. Exxon will in turn shed most of its controlling stake in TonenGeneral, keeping a 22 percent interest in the Japanese refiner.

The deal represents the latest move by Exxon and other major oil companies to shift their focus from refining operations to higher-margin businesses like exploration and development of new sources of oil and natural gas.

There is surplus refinery capacity in many parts of the world in large part because of the economic downturn, which has sliced into demand for gasoline and other petroleum products.

Meanwhile, high oil prices and relatively low gasoline prices have squeezed refinery profits. Royal Dutch Shell and BP are selling refineries in Western Europe and the United States. Several refiners have closed a handful of refineries on the East Coast in recent years, and a few are up for sale. ConocoPhillips plans to separate its refinery operations from oil and gas exploration and production.

TonenGeneral will also streamline its operations in light of what it says is declining demand for oil in Japan, which has put pressure on the company’s profit margins.

“The company will be able to more effectively execute locally driven investments and other business decisions that will help the company adapt to the challenging operating environment,” TonenGeneral said in a statement.

TonenGeneral will continue to have exclusive use of Exxon brands like Esso, Mobil and General in Japan. Exxon will also provide technology and supply services to TonenGeneral.

The Japanese refiner plans to finance the transaction with some of its 100 billion yen ($1.3 billion) in cash on hand and with bank debt. The deal is expected to close by June 1.

TonenGeneral was advised by Nomura Securities and the law firm Nishimura Asahi.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=ba8efbe0da161b3154dbcb7039e98ea7