Nigeria Doesn't Have As Much Oil Reserves

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=media-en&FC3=/investor-

Message to staff from Sir Philip Watts on the recategorisation of proved hydrocarbon reserves

16/01/2004

Dear colleagues,

I know that there is significant concern and, in some quarters, outrage following our announcement last Friday of a recategorisation of certain of our proved hydrocarbon reserves. The purpose of my note today is to you assure you that I am committed to the full resolution of this issue as soon as possible, and to advise you of the process that is underway.

The scope and timing of our announcement were determined by compliance with regulatory requirements on disclosure. We released the information at the earliest possible time after the recategorised reserves had been quantified with some certainty. A great number of people worked extremely hard over a period of time - including right through the holiday period - in order to make this announcement. I would like to thank them most sincerely for this effort.

However, although we had the required certainty on key aspects of the announcement such as the total number of barrels by 9 January, we did not have answers to all of the questions. The analysis continues therefore so that we will, in time, be able to give a fuller picture to all interested parties.

In addition, this announcement was made during the closed period prior to the release of fourth quarter 2003 financial results on 5 February 2004. As is always the case in such periods, our communications must be limited. Since the announcement involved a technical recategorisation, and we could not add any further market sensitive information, I did not participate in the 9 January teleconference. Given subsequent reactions, to some this might not seem to have been the correct decision but we did achieve the objective of giving the facts unclouded by personality issues in the first instance. I will of course be at the forefront when we next meet with investors and the media on 5 February. That said, I have great confidence in those who conducted the teleconference, and I thought the team did a great job.

With respect to the recategorisation itself, I would just re-iterate earlier comments that during the fourth quarter of last year in-depth reserves studies were completed that triggered a broad review of our previously booked proved reserves. These studies and reviews indicated that the proved reserves disclosed did not in all cases properly reflect the maturity of the development projects concerned, accounting for a significant proportion of the recategorisation. Hence the need for immediate action.

It is important to bear in mind that this recategorisation was the result of our own internal processes. Based on those reviews, I believe that individuals concerned worked in good faith to the interpretations in use when the bookings were made, following proper processes, and that there is no evidence of any misconduct. The reviews, however, did identify some potential improvements in the reserves approval and audit processes, which we have begun to implement. Overall, it is my intention that we learn as much as possible from everything relating to this recategorisation.

Despite our desire and best efforts to be as open and transparent as possible, there are constraints on the content and timing of our disclosures. Before the announcement, we initiated contact with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on the recategorisation which is ongoing, as you would expect. I hope that you will be patient and understanding as we seek to balance the interests of our many stakeholders against the legal and regulatory requirements to which we must adhere.

The closed period will end with the financial results announcement on 5 February, when details of the fourth quarter/full-year 2003 financial performance of the Group will be available, along with additional information about the reserves recategorisation. Sessions with investors and the media will be webcast at www.shell.com/investor, and there will be an extensive programme of internal communications thereafter.

I wish to thank all those who have worked tirelessly on this issue. Their commitment and dedication, along with your support, will help see us through these challenges.

Sir Philip Watts
Chairman of the Committee of Managing Directors

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business - Dow Jones Business News

Shell Chairman Criticized on Overbooking of Oil Reserves

LONDON -- As the Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites) looks poised to delve into a huge overbooking of reserves by Royal Dutch/Shell (NYSE:RD - News) Group , the company's chairman, Philip Watts, has come under increasing fire for his stewardship of one of the world's largest oil producers, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal reported.

Last week, Shell said it erroneously overbooked reserves by 20%. Reserves are a crucial indicator of an oil company's value. Shares in the group's two holding companies -- Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. of the Netherlands, and Shell Transport & Trading Co. of London -- have fallen sharply since the disclosure Friday. The unprecedented size of the overstatement makes an SEC investigation likely. "The Shell matter seems significant," said SEC Commissioner Roel Campos. "I am sure our enforcement staff will look into it. It is hard to see how (Shell) could miss so badly." SEC commissioners authorize requests by the agency's enforcement division to undertake formal investigations. An SEC spokesman in Washington declined to comment on the likelihood of an investigation. Sir Philip, 58 years old, led Shell's exploration-and-production business between 1997 and 2001, the period in which much of the overbookings were recorded. A Shell spokesman said Sir Philip wasn't available to comment, citing a quiet period ahead of the release of the company's year-end results, set for early next month. The spokesman also declined to comment on the prospect of further regulatory action. Shell officials have said executives and employees acted in good faith in recording reserves, which require judgment calls by individual companies under SEC guidelines. The overbooking erroneously boosted the company's widely followed reserve-replacement rate and other important measures that shareholders look at before making decisions about whether to buy the stock. Sir Philip is set to retire in about 18 months, and there aren't any signs of open revolt among Shell directors. Wall Street Journal Staff Reporters Chip Cummins in London and Michael Schroeder in Washington contributed to this report. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business - Dow Jones Business News

Royal Dutch/Shell Trims Proved Oil, Gas Reserves

Fri Jan 9, 8:26 AM ET

By Mark Long LONDON -- Royal Dutch/Shell (NYSE:RD - News) Group (RD, SC) stunned markets Friday by saying it has significantly overestimated its proved global oil and natural gas reserves. Reserves are the lifeblood of an oil company and fuel future growth of its production. Any downgrade is looked upon negatively, and shares in United Kingdom component Shell Transport & Trading Co. PLC sank 7.5% in early trading, all but wiping out strong gains made during December. In a statement, the world's third biggest oil company in terms of production said it would trim its proved oil and gas reserves to 15.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent from 19.5 billion estimated at December 2002. Based on current production, Shell's move cuts its reserve life to 10.6 years from 13.4 years, according to J.P Morgan. Shell's production in the third quarter averaged 3.9 million barrels of oil equivalent a day. The bulk of the downward reserves adjustment stems from overestimates on fields in Nigeria and Australia. The pair form part of Shell's so-called heartland regions, in addition to Brunei, Malaysia, Oman and the Gulf of Mexico. The downgrade comes after a comprehensive internal review of the company's reserve base, the company said. A spokesman for Shell said these reviews are conducted on a rolling basis roughly every four years. Shell stressed the review wasn't prompted by any external factors or third parties, such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites), which sets the booking guidelines to which oil companies adhere. The Anglo-Dutch oil company attempted to soften the blow by saying the adjustment would have no impact in the short-term on production and no effect on profit for 2003 or previous years. It also said that that it "anticipated that most of these reserves will be rebooked in the proved category over time as field developments mature." For the time being, Shell has shifted 20% of its proved reserves into a more nebulous unproved category. But, Shell's more conservative treatment of its reserves failed to impress the market. Analysts said the adjustment implies Shell was far too aggressive in booking proved reserves. "They realized they could not get the same level of reserves that they originally anticipated," said analyst Angus McPhail of ING Financial Markets, who has a "sell" rating on Shell's shares. Analysts said the bombshell has renewed concerns about management credibility, including that of Chief Executive Philip Watts, and raised the possibility that the company would buy its way out of its reserves problem by launching a fresh round of acquisitions. In its statement, Shell also warned that it will replace only 70% to 90% of its 2003 oil and gas with new finds, below market expectations of 100%. The disclosure will mean the company has failed to replace all of its production for the third year running, raising concerns about its ability to grow in the future, analysts said. "This is a classic case of an oil company not finding oil," Mr. McPhail said. "A company that cannot find oil will not be respected by the market." At 1256 Greenwich Mean Time, Shell's shares were trading down 7.2% at 372.25 pence. The deep fall rippled into other oil shares and helped drag the FTSE-100 lower.

Merrill Lynch downgraded Royal Dutch's and Shell's shares to "neutral" from " buy" following the disclosure.

It said the reserves reclassification will leave the impression that the oil company is not growing next to its peers.

Analysts said they were particularly concerned that Shell appears to have not been following its own standard in booking reserves, namely by not booking reserves before a final investment decision on a project is made.

In a conference call with analysts and reporters, Shell's head of investor relations, Simon Henry, confirmed this was the case in a number of projects, including the ChevronTexaco Corp. (NYSE:CVX - News)-led Gorgon project off Australia.

"They have a reputation as being conservative and prudent, but this raises not only the question of whether or not they are prudent, but whether or not they've been following the advice they've been touting to the market," said Canaccord Capital analyst Charlie Sharp, who rates Shell a "hold."

Around 50% of the adjusted reserves are in Nigeria and Australia, with no more than 10% of reserves from any other one country being downgraded, Shell's Mr. Henry said.

He insisted the people that had originally judged the downgraded reserves as proved made their decision with "reasonable certainty," based on the technical and commercial conditions of the time.

Of the downgraded reserves, more than 90% were undeveloped, proved reserves, meaning an estimate of the oil and gas in the ground at the various projects was made, but work had yet to begin. The remaining reserves reduction came from the proved developed category.

Of the reclassified reserves, two-thirds are of oil and natural gas liquids, and one third are natural gas, Shell said.

The company reports its fourth-quarter production and earnings results Feb. 5.

-By Mark Long; Dow Jones Newswires; +44 (0)20 7842 9356; mark.long@dowjones.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business - FT.com

Shell chief explains silence

1 hour, 45 minutes ago

By Carola Hoyos and Joanna Chung

Sir Philip Watts, the embattled chairman of Royal/Dutch Shell, on Friday broke his silence after failing to appear when the oil company announced that it was slashing its proved reserves by 20 per cent.

In a letter to employees, he acknowledged that the unprecedented move had caused "significant concern" and "in some quarters, outrage".

The chairman, whose future was put into doubt this week when some shareholders called for his resignation, assured his staff that he was "committed to the full resolution of this issue as soon as possible".

He also offered a reason for his absence during the announcement last week, hinting that his already strained relations with investors could have overshadowed the facts.

"Since the announcement involved a technical recategorisation, and we could not add any further market sensitive information, I did not participate in the 9 January teleconference," he wrote.

"Given subsequent reactions, to some this might not seem to have been the correct decision but we did achieve the objective of giving the facts unclouded by personality issues in the first instance."

In the past, shareholders had criticised Sir Philip for having poor communication skills, a "brusque" manner, and a defensive reaction to difficult questions.

He also admitted that process of reserves accounting, one of the most important things that an oil company does, had been flawed at Shell.

The reviews identified "some potential improvements in the reserves approval and audit processes", which he said the company had begun to implement.

Sir Philip also emphasised that the decision to recategorise the reserves was triggered by internal processes rather than the US Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites). But he had "initiated" contact with the SEC before the announcement.

Under the SEC rules, oil companies must book their reserves once they are reasonably certain the fields will be developed within the foreseeable future.

The company saw a need for "immediate action" when the reviews indicated that the disclosed proved reserves "did not in all cases properly reflect" the maturity of the development projects which accounted for a significant proportion of the recategorisation.

About half of the reclassified reserves were in Nigeria and Australia.

In Australia, Shell's misjudgment was amplified by the fact that the company's two partners on the Gorgon project, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco of the US, had been more cautious and had not booked the reserves. The SEC has not ruled out investigating Shell over the matter.

Sir Philip added that the individuals who worked on the bookings had done so "in good faith", had followed the "proper processes" and that there was "no evidence of any misconduct".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aluko Commentary

Possibly 1 billion barrels of oil equivalent proven reserve OVER-ESTIMATED for Nigeria by Shell? Na wa o!

One day, we might just wake up - and all our oil is gone, because of "over-estimation!"

Hmmmm...

Problem is: we don't have independent confirmation ourselves!

Hmmmm....who is telling the truth here? Who even knows really how much they are extracting EVERY DAY, not to talk of these unproven "proven" reserves?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Bolaji Aluko

Shaking his head

And scratching it too

At too many apparently crooked Western companies

Operating within and outside their own countries!

No wonder may of them "tolerate" Nigeria.

__________________________________________________________________________

Wed Jan 14,12:25 AM ET

The unprecedented size of the overstatement makes an SEC investigation likely. "The Shell matter seems significant," said SEC Commissioner Roel Campos. "I am sure our enforcement staff will look into it. It is hard to see how (Shell) could miss so badly."

SEC commissioners authorize requests by the agency's enforcement division to undertake formal investigations. An SEC spokesman in Washington declined to comment on the likelihood of an investigation.

Sir Philip, 58 years old, led Shell's exploration-and-production business between 1997 and 2001, the period in which much of the overbookings were recorded.

A Shell spokesman said Sir Philip wasn't available to comment, citing a quiet period ahead of the release of the company's year-end results, set for early next month. The spokesman also declined to comment on the prospect of further regulatory action.

Shell officials have said executives and employees acted in good faith in recording reserves, which require judgment calls by individual companies under SEC guidelines. The overbooking erroneously boosted the company's widely followed reserve-replacement rate and other important measures that shareholders look at before making decisions about whether to buy the stock.

Sir Philip is set to retire in about 18 months, and there aren't any signs of open revolt among Shell directors.

Wall Street Journal Staff Reporters Chip Cummins in London and Michael Schroeder in Washington contributed to this report.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business - Dow Jones Business News

Royal Dutch/Shell Trims Proved Oil, Gas Reserves

Fri Jan 9, 8:26 AM ET

By Mark Long

LONDON -- Royal Dutch/Shell (NYSE:RD - News) Group (RD, SC) stunned markets Friday by saying it has significantly overestimated its proved global oil and natural gas reserves.

Reserves are the lifeblood of an oil company and fuel future growth of its production. Any downgrade is looked upon negatively, and shares in United Kingdom component Shell Transport & Trading Co. PLC sank 7.5% in early trading, all but wiping out strong gains made during December.

In a statement, the world's third biggest oil company in terms of production said it would trim its proved oil and gas reserves to 15.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent from 19.5 billion estimated at December 2002.

Based on current production, Shell's move cuts its reserve life to 10.6 years from 13.4 years, according to J.P Morgan. Shell's production in the third quarter averaged 3.9 million barrels of oil equivalent a day.

The bulk of the downward reserves adjustment stems from overestimates on fields in Nigeria and Australia. The pair form part of Shell's so-called heartland regions, in addition to Brunei, Malaysia, Oman and the Gulf of Mexico.

The downgrade comes after a comprehensive internal review of the company's reserve base, the company said. A spokesman for Shell said these reviews are conducted on a rolling basis roughly every four years.

Shell stressed the review wasn't prompted by any external factors or third parties, such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites), which sets the booking guidelines to which oil companies adhere.

The Anglo-Dutch oil company attempted to soften the blow by saying the adjustment would have no impact in the short-term on production and no effect on profit for 2003 or previous years. It also said that that it "anticipated that most of these reserves will be rebooked in the proved category over time as field developments mature."

For the time being, Shell has shifted 20% of its proved reserves into a more nebulous unproved category.

But, Shell's more conservative treatment of its reserves failed to impress the market.

Analysts said the adjustment implies Shell was far too aggressive in booking proved reserves.

"They realized they could not get the same level of reserves that they originally anticipated," said analyst Angus McPhail of ING Financial Markets, who has a "sell" rating on Shell's shares.

Analysts said the bombshell has renewed concerns about management credibility, including that of Chief Executive Philip Watts, and raised the possibility that the company would buy its way out of its reserves problem by launching a fresh round of acquisitions.

In its statement, Shell also warned that it will replace only 70% to 90% of its 2003 oil and gas with new finds, below market expectations of 100%.

The disclosure will mean the company has failed to replace all of its production for the third year running, raising concerns about its ability to grow in the future, analysts said.

"This is a classic case of an oil company not finding oil," Mr. McPhail said. "A company that cannot find oil will not be respected by the market."

At 1256 Greenwich Mean Time, Shell's shares were trading down 7.2% at 372.25 pence. The deep fall rippled into other oil shares and helped drag the FTSE-100 lower.