The Squeeze: Oil, Money and Greed in the 21st Century. Tom Bower

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ the other British – met once a month for a day ‘in conference’. Each meeting was meticulously prepared, but serious discussions among the 30 people in the room – 20 directors and 10 officials – were rare. Each director could normally speak only once during these meetings which, remarkably, lacked any formal status. After the ‘conference’ the two national boards separated and made decisions based on the conference’s discussion. Aware that the company had become renowned during the 1970s as a vast colossus employing eccentric people enjoying a unique culture, van Wachem, a self-righteous, abrasive chairman, had imposed some reforms while acknowledging that Shell’s dismaying history had inflamed Greenpeace’s protest. Henry Deterding, infatuated with Hitler, had negotiated without consulting his directors to guarantee oil supplies to Nazi Germany, and in 1936 he retired to live in Germany. After the war, to remove the concentration of authority in one man, the company had created a committee of managing directors with limited powers to influence Shell’s directors. That barely affected the inscrutable aura of an aloof international group of interlinked but autonomous companies immersed in engineering, trade and diplomacy.

      As the friends of presidents and kings, Shell’s chairmen did not merely control oilfields, but sought influence over governments. Supported by a planning department to project the corporation’s power, Shell’s country chairmen in Brunei, Qatar, Nigeria and across the Middle East wielded authority akin to that of a sovereign. Yet beyond public view, Shell’s employees worked in a non-hierarchical, teamlike atmosphere, exalting technology and engineers who, in the interests of the industry and Shell’s reputation, occasionally donated their patents and expertise for the industry’s common good. That collaborative attitude was proudly contrasted with Exxon’s. Unlike the American directors, whose principal task was to earn profits for their shareholders, Shell had proudly enjoyed its status during the 1980s as a defensive stock – shares which remained a safe investment even in the worst economic recession. Shareholders were tolerated as a necessary evil, and modern management techniques were disdained, emphasising the company’s increasing dysfunctionality. ‘I’m not saying we enjoyed it,’ said van Wachem about the 1986 collapse in oil prices, ‘but there was no panic.’ With more than $9 billion in cash on the balance sheet, van Wachem’s strategic task appeared uncontroversial. Shell owned Europe’s biggest and most profitable refining and marketing operation, and Shell Oil was the most successful discoverer of new oil in the USA. Nevertheless, van Wachem’s poor investment decisions, combined with a fatal explosion at a refinery at Norco, Louisiana, in 1988, had hit Shell’s profits. In 1990 they fell by 48 per cent in the US, and net income in 1991 collapsed by 98 per cent, from $1.04 billion to $20 million, far worse than its rivals. Shell’s poor finances had compelled the sale of oilfields to Tullow and Cairn, two independent companies, and making 15 per cent of the American workforce redundant.

      Lo van Wachem’s ragged bequest was inherited in 1993 by Cor Herkströter. The very qualities of Herkströter which attracted praise in Holland led to criticism of him in London and New York as a socially inept, cumbersome introvert whose disdain for financial markets was matched by a conviction that he was God. Content that Shell produced more oil than Exxon and enjoyed a bigger turnover, Herkströter did not initially feel impelled to close a more important gap. By limiting the influence of accountants and advocates of commercial calculations, Shell earned less per barrel of oil than Exxon. Although Shell’s capitalisation was $30 billion more than Exxon’s, the world’s biggest oil company had earned lower profits than its rival since 1981. Complications and compromises had reduced the company’s competitiveness and increased costs. For nearly 20 years, to avoid making unpleasant business-related decisions, Shell had chosen to follow a path of consensus. Emollience was particularly favoured by the Dutch. Although Dutch shareholders owned only 10 per cent of the stock, and over 50 per cent was owned by shareholders in the US and Britain, the Dutch directors disproportionately dominated the company, encouraging its fragmentation between different cultures – Dutch, British and American – and also between the different departments – upstream, downstream and chemicals. To his credit, by May 1994 Herkströter, unlike his more conservative Dutch directors, recognised Shell’s sickness. Calling together 50 executives to review the company’s financial performance, Herkströter concluded that Shell had become ‘bureaucratic, inward-looking, complacent, self-satisfied, arrogant … technocentric and insufficiently entrepreneurial’, all of which was stifling efficiency and the search for new oil. The same sclerosis undermined his authority when Greenpeace boarded the Brent Spar.

      ‘People realise this is wrong,’ explained Peter Melchett, Greenpeace’s executive director. ‘It is immoral. It is treating the sea as a dustbin.’ Greenpeace’s accusation had aroused public antagonism against Big Oil. All the oil majors were linked with Shell as untrustworthy, environmental spoilers. Across Germany, Shell’s petrol stations were boycotted. In Holland, managers reported that a similar boycott was crippling their operation. The decentralised company had never anticipated that a decision in one country could trigger violent protests in another. Even though the directors knew that Melchett lacked any evidence to undermine Fay’s honest explanation that the platform’s tanks had been cleaned in 1991, the oil executive’s humiliation on BBC television had echoed across Europe. Like his fellow directors, Herkströter was destabilised by accusations of Shell’s dishonesty and by angry disagreements between the company’s managers. In particular, Herkströter was stunned when Shell staff in Germany leaked material to the media to embarrass the company’s senior executives in Holland.

      In the House of Commons, British prime minister John Major, unaware of Shell’s internal warfare, solidly defended the corporation. As he spoke, Herkströter and his fellow directors, shaken by the boycott and the demand by European politicians, especially Helmut Kohl, Germany’s chancellor, that Shell abandon its plans, collapsed. Just after Major’s public justification of the disposal of Brent Spar, Shell’s board in The Hague capitulated. ‘They caved in under pressure,’ complained Michael Heseltine, the secretary of state for trade and industry, outraged after Fay telephoned and ordered the British government to cease interfering in his company’s business.

      The platform was towed to Erfjord, near Stavanger, and dismantling started in July 1995. Melchett was invited to inspect the contents of the tanks, and was shown to have been mistaken. ‘I apologise to you and your colleagues over this,’ he said publicly after negotiations. ‘It was an honest mistake,’ said Paul Horsman, the leader of Greenpeace’s campaign. Although Shell was vindicated, Herkströter did not recover from the stumble. Shell’s directors were exposed as weak – one even said, ‘Greenpeace did a wonderful job’ – while Greenpeace, refusing to concede the high ground, invented a more serious campaign to recover its credibility.

      In 1995, the jewel in Shell’s crown was Nigeria. Signed in 1958, Shell’s original deal with the country was hugely profitable. The corporation paid the Nigerian government $2 for each barrel, regardless of the world price, until it reached $100. Thereafter, the royalty was $2.50. Beyond that minimal amount, Shell pocketed the remainder. War and corruption had eroded that windfall over the years. Historically there was no reason why 240 ethnic groups, Christian and Muslim, could exist within a single nation of 140 million people. Oil underpinned the artificial unity that had been constructed by the British colonial government, and keeping that fragile coalition together was the central government’s priority. Any threat of succession was unacceptable, especially that declared in 1967 by General Ojukwu, the leader of the oil-rich eastern region of Biafra. Knowing that the country would disintegrate without oil, the government in Lagos launched a war to crush the rebels. Over three years, Biafra and Shell’s operation were devastated. The recovery after 1970 had been sporadic. The new income created a mirage of universal wealth. If oil sold at $25 a barrel, each Nigerian citizen would benefit, although by only 50 cents per week at most. But even those profits were wasted by the government on white-elephant projects, including an outdated steel mill purchased from Russia. Simultaneously, the new wealth sucked in imports and destroyed local jobs. To alleviate the social upheaval, Shell built hospitals, schools and social centres. Contrary to advice, Shell’s local country chairmen refused to consult the aid agencies and non-governmental organisations СКАЧАТЬ