Thread regarding Shell Oil layoffs

Is Shell a company of ethics, integrity and honesty? Really?

In the last 10-15 years Shell leadership started many oil and gas projects and after spending billions of dollars in giving away contracts to EPC companies, equipment vendors, etc., Shell cancelled these projects claiming delays, cost overruns, fall of the oil price and written off this money as losses. Though a few projects might have achieved completion, that was after lots of delays and consequent cost overruns. Typically a project that can be easily completed in 3-4 years, never gets completed by Shell even after 8 years. Who are the beneficiaries? Engineering contractors and equipment vendors, perhaps connected to higher-ups. These billions of dollars rightfully belonged to Shell shareholders, pension funds and should have been returned them in the form of dividends instead of being wasted in cancelled and delayed projects.
The question is why Shell leadership, right from Ben to JG-2 level, is not being held accountable for these cancellations, delays and consequent colossal wastage of money? Was it not leadership’s responsibility to oversee completion of these projects within budget and time? If it was not their responsibility, what are they getting paid for? Leadership abdicated from their responsibility in this regard. It is a total leadership failure in protecting shareholders’ money. But, the leadership, from Ben to JG-2 level, unabashedly distribute bonuses and performance shares among themselves year on year. For what? For this colossal waste of money and the stock price that has been languishing at USD 35 despite oil price increase? How much money could have exchanged hands in the form of kickbacks from contractors and vendors? It is like a third world country where the politicians start projects with public funds with the aim of receiving kickbacks. Now, Shell leadership is enacting the drama of reshape laying off thousands of staff and moving jobs to low cost countries to cover up this wastage, inefficiency, mismanagement and possible corruption.

Why don’t SEC or other USA government agency and equivalent government agencies in the UK and Netherlands investigate the abrupt cancellation of multi-billion projects, cost overruns and consequent wastage of shareholders’ money, on why the delays occurred in the first place, what was leadership doing in monitoring progress, in preventing delays, and where the money went? Even if there was no corruption, the leadership must be held accountable for criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.

Is it ok to raise money from stock markets, place orders on brother-in-law companies later cancel the projects and declare that the money is being written off the books? Is there no consequence to such wrongdoing of the leadership?

by
| 2021 views | | 4 replies (last March 29, 2021) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1a5GEXaW

4 replies (most recent on top)

That is a lot of half baked accusations. Large projects are challenging. Anyone that has actually been involved with a large project knows that money is spent to advance a project and it is always possible that a project can be cancelled or deferred if conditions that the project is based on change. That is the risk of doing projects.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1tfx+1a5GEXaW

There used to be commercials asking the public to see their Shell Answer Man. Ask him what happened.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @onl+1a5GEXaW

This is the way of the oil industry. Are you really in it? Every well has a breakeven point where oil has to be a certain price in order be profitable. Before seismic technology and such, only 1 well in 10 would be profitable, and that was when oil was $4/bbl. It used to be you stuck a straw in the ground and oil would gush up. You also have to get more energy out of a well than you put into it, or the endeavor was fruitless in the first place. The profitability requirement has been around since the invention of business itself, because otherwise everyone is bankrupt.

Now onshore we are drilling in excess of 12,000 ft, almost two miles, and offshore we're drilling ever deeper, where projects can take years or even in excess of a decade and billions in spending before you find out it was all for nothing or barely profitable. Every. Single. Well. drilled is a science experiment where you hope for success, and even then most won't be profitable. When the price of oil falls sufficiently, you might have to mothball producing wells, never mind projects.

Shell doesn't really issue new shares, so the company doesn't drill investor pocketbooks like most mid-majors and smaller, so that theory of yours is complete bollocks as well.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @vet+1a5GEXaW

This is the way of the oil industry. Are you really in it? Every well has a breakeven point where oil has to be a certain price in order be profitable. Before seismic technology and such, only 1 well in 10 would be profitable, and that was when oil was $4/bbl. It used to be you stuck a straw in the ground and oil would gush up. You also have to get more energy out of a well than you put into it, or the endeavor was fruitless in the first place. The profitability requirement has been around since the invention of business itself, because otherwise everyone is bankrupt.

Now onshore we are drilling in excess of 12,000 ft, almost two miles, and offshore we're drilling ever deeper, where projects can take years or even in excess of a decade and billions in spending before you find out it was all for nothing or barely profitable. Every. Single. Well. drilled is a science experiment where you hope for success, and even then most won't be profitable. When the price of oil falls sufficiently, you might have to mothball producing wells, never mind projects.

Shell doesn't really issue new shares, so the company doesn't drill investor pocketbooks like most mid-majors and smaller, so that theory of yours is complete bollocks as well.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @vth+1a5GEXaW

Post a reply

: