Shell’s directors congratulated themselves on scoring a hit against those disrupting the Brent oil trade. There was a shared pride among the company’s long-time employees about their company’s probity and purpose. Built by Dutch engineers and Scottish accountants, nothing was decided in haste. Decisions were taken only after all the circumstances and consequences had been considered and the benefit to the value chain was irrefutable. Although BP might produce more oil, Shell earned higher profits.
Reared on that tradition, Chris Fay was bullish. With 23 years’ experience in Nigeria, Malaysia and Scandinavia, Fay had become the chairman of Shell’s operations in Britain. Shell’s ten oil-producing fields in the North Sea and others under development were his responsibility. Among the problems he inherited in 1993 was the fate of Brent Spar, a platform in the North Sea used to load crude onto tankers. Erected in 1976, the 65,000-ton, 462-foot-high structure had been decommissioned in 1991, and by 1994 was no longer safe. Dismantling it was a problem. There was no suitable British inshore site, while dismantling at sea would cost $69 million. Shell’s engineers had considered 13 options offered by different organisations, and Fay had discussed the alternatives with Tim Eggar, the Conservative minister for energy. With the government’s public approval, Fay confirmed on 27 February 1995 that the platform would be towed 150 miles into the Atlantic and, using explosives to detonate the ballast tanks, would be sunk in 6,600 feet of water. The cost would be $18 million. The only downside of the apparently uncomplicated process was that the metal, alongside innumerable shipwrecks on the sea bed, would take 4,000 years to disintegrate. Neither Fay nor Eggar was concerned. Over a hundred similar structures had been dumped by American oil companies in the sea without protest, creating artificial reefs off Texas and Louisiana. ‘This is a good example of deep-sea disposal,’ claimed Eggar, anticipating that the Brent Spar’s disposal would be followed by that of 400 other North Sea structures.
Two months later, at lunchtime on 30 April 1995, four Greenpeace activists jumped from the Greenpeace ship Moby Dick and occupied the derelict Brent Spar. The rig, announced Greenpeace, was filled with 5,500 tons of toxic oil which would escape and contaminate the sea and kill marine life if it was sunk. Media organisations around the world were offered film of the occupation, with close-ups of Shell’s staff aiming high-pressure water hoses at the protestors. Any viewer who doubted that Shell was the aggressor was reminded by Greenpeace about the company’s poor environmental record. In March 1978 the Amoco Cadiz, a tanker carrying a cargo of 220,000 tons of oil, broke up in the English Channel, contaminating the French coastline. Shell owned the oil and was blamed for the disaster, a tenuous link motivated by anger at Shell’s refusal to boycott South Africa during the apartheid era and by its supply of oil to Rhodesia’s rebellious white settlers despite international sanctions after they declared independence in 1965. The accumulated anger against Shell took Fay and his co-directors in London and The Hague by surprise, especially the accusation that Shell was untrustworthy. Taking the lead from Lo van Wachem, the former chairman of Shell’s committee of managing directors, who remained on the board of directors, Shell had already declared its ambition to lead the industry in the protection of the environment. In advertisements and meetings, directors mentioned the possibility of withdrawing from some activities to avoid gambling with the company’s reputation. This commitment had been disparaged by Greenpeace. To gain sympathisers, the environmental movement was intent on entrenching its disagreements with the oil companies.
Fay and his executives knew that Greenpeace’s allegations were untrue: the platform contained no more than 50 tons of harmless sludge and sand. Greenpeace, they were convinced, had invented the toxic danger as part of its long campaign that mankind should stop using fossil fuels. The battle lines had been drawn after Shell’s spokesmen, in common with Exxon’s and BP’s, had dismissed any link between fossil fuel and damage to the environment. Convinced that the truth would neutralise the Brent Spar protest, Fay appeared on television. But, unprepared for Greenpeace’s counter-allegation that Shell was deliberately concealing internal reports describing the toxic inventory, he visibly reeled, fatally damaging Shell’s image. His personal misfortune reflected Shell’s inherent weaknesses, especially its governance.
The historic division of the Anglo-Dutch company had never been resolved. In 1907 Henry Deterding, a mercurial Dutchman who had gambled with oilfields, investing in Russia, Mexico, Venezuela and California, had negotiated the merger between his own company, Royal Dutch, and Shell Transport, a British company, on advantageous terms giving the Dutch 60 per cent of Royal Dutch Shell. The company’s management, however, had remained divided. Two boards of directors – one Dutch and 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,