Russ Ford- UBS Global Oil & Gas Conference – May 24, 2011

1 Copyright of Royal Dutch Shell plc 24/05/2011

RUSS FORD EVP – ONSHORE GAS UPSTREAM AMERICAS UBS Global Oil & Gas Conference Austin, Texas May 24, 2011

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC


DEFINITIONS AND CAUTIONARY NOTE

Reserves: Our use of the term “reserves” in this presentation means SEC proved oil and gas reserves for all 2009 and 2010 data, and includes both SEC proved oil and gas reserves and SEC proven mining reserves for 2008 data. Resources: Our use of the term “resources” in this presentation includes quantities of oil and gas not yet classified as SEC proved oil and gas reserves or SEC proven mining reserves. Resources are consistent with the Society of Petroleum Engineers 2P and 2C definitions. Organic: Our use of the term Organic includes SEC proved oil and gas reserves and SEC proven mining reserves (for 2008) excluding changes resulting from acquisitions, divestments and year-average pricing impact. To facilitate a better understanding of underlying business performance, the financial results are also presented on an estimated current cost of supplies (CCS) basis as applied for the Oil Products and Chemicals segment earnings. Earnings on an estimated current cost of supplies basis provides useful information concerning the effect of changes in the cost of supplies on Royal Dutch Shell‟s results of operations and is a measure to manage the performance of the Oil Products and Chemicals segments but is not a measure of financial performance under IFRS. The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate entities. In this presentation “Shell”, “Shell group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or companies. „„Subsidiaries‟‟, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this presentation refer to companies in which Royal Dutch Shell either directly or indirectly has control, by having either a majority of the voting rights or the right to exercise a controlling influence. The companies in which Shell has significant influence but not control are referred to as “associated companies” or “associates” and companies in which Shell has joint control are referred to as “jointly controlled entities”. In this presentation, associates and jointly controlled entities are also referred to as “equity-accounted investments”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect (for example, through our 24% shareholding in Woodside Petroleum Ltd.) ownership interest held by Shell in a venture, partnership or company, after exclusion of all third-party interest. This presentation contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management‟s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management‟s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as „„anticipate‟‟, „„believe‟‟, „„could‟‟, „„estimate‟‟, „„expect‟‟, „„intend‟‟, „„may‟‟, „„plan‟‟, „„objectives‟‟, „„outlook‟‟, „„probably‟‟, „„project‟‟, „„will‟‟, „„seek‟‟, „„target‟‟, „„risks‟‟, „„goals‟‟, „„should‟‟ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for the Shell‟s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserve estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including potential litigation and regulatory measures as a result of climate changes; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell‟s 20-F for the year ended 31 December, 2010 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These factors also should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this presentation, 24 May 2011. Neither Royal Dutch Shell nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation. There can be no assurance that dividend payments will match or exceed those set out in this presentation in the future, or that they will be made at all. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) permits oil and gas companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only proved reserves that a company has demonstrated by actual production or conclusive formation tests to be economically and legally producible under existing economic and operating conditions. We use certain terms in this presentation, such as resources and oil in place, that SEC's guidelines strictly prohibit us from including in filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov. You can also obtain these forms from the SEC by calling 1-800-SEC-0330.

http://www.shell.com/investor

http://www.sec.gov/


0

100

200

300

400

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2050

Mln Boe/d

GLOBAL ENERGY MIX

SHELL ESTIMATES

ENERGY OUTLOOK

Industry outlook

Hydrocarbons dominate outlook

Growth required in all sectors of energy mix

Energy policy + sustained investment

Shell

Crude oil & oil products

Natural gas & LNG

Biofuels, wind, carbon capture + storage

Petrochemicals

OIL GAS

COAL BIOMASS WIND

SOLAR

OTHER RENEWABLES

NUCLEAR

SHELL ACTIVITIES


2,000

2,500

3,000

1990 2000 2010E

NATURAL GAS DEMAND

NATURAL GAS OUTLOOK

SHELL GAS CAPABILITIES

CCGT: COMBINED CYCLE GAS TURBINE

Abundant, Affordable, Acceptable Global gas resources ~250 years reserves at

current production

CCGT: gas-fired power compared to coal:

• 40% more energy efficient

• 50-70% less CO2 • Better complements with wind power

BCM

SOURCE: IEA

ATTRACTIVE ECONOMICS FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCERS

SOURCE: SHELL ANALYSIS BASED ON EU DATA

GALLINA LNG SHIP - SINGAPORE

CAPITAL COST

NATURAL GAS ADVANTAGE: EXAMPLE CCGT Inaugural cargo QatarGas 4 arriving at Hazira terminal

$/MW hour

LONG-RUN MARGINAL COST

0 50 100 150 200

CCGT

Coal

Nuclear

Wind

Solar Thermal


Upstream Profitable growth; price upside

>80% of total capital spending

Sustained exploration investment

Downstream Stable capital employed

Fewer refineries; upgrade chemicals assets

More concentrated marketing positions

Financial outlook Generating surplus cashflow through cycle

Investing for growth; competitive payout

Substantial cashflow growth

STRATEGY CAPITAL INVESTMENT

STRATEGY & CAPITAL ALLOCATION

$ Bln

GROWTH INVESTMENT – THROUGH CYCLE RETURNS

0

50

100

150

2007-10 2011-14

UP- STREAM

DOWN- STREAM

0%

50%

100%

2007-10 2011-14

EXPLORATION

HEAVY OIL & EOR

TIGHT GAS

INTEGRATED GAS

DEEPWATER

TRADITIONAL

MARKETING

REFINING

CHEMICALS

SOUR

Down- stream


ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PROJECT UPDATE


Pearl GtL plant under construction

PEARL GTL (QATAR) QATARGAS 4 (QATAR)

GROWTH DELIVERY INTEGRATED GAS

Inaugural Qatargas 4 cargo arriving at Shell Hazira Regasification Terminal

GORGON (AUSTRALIA)

Barrow Island

Part of Shell’s new integrated gas potential of ~500 kboe/d 2015

Commissioning underway; ~12 months start-up

1.6 bcf/d wet gas:

• 120 kboe/d NGL/ethane

• 140 kboe/d GTL

100% Shell in partnership with QP

7.8 mtpa LNG + 70 kboe/d condensates

First gas into plant – Jan 2011

First LNG export – Feb 2011

At capacity – Apr 2011

Shell 30%

3 LNG trains; 15 mtpa

Carbon capture & storage

Exploration upside

Shell 25%


Development concept

MARS-B (GULF OF MEXICO) BC-10 PHASE 2 (CAMPOS, BRAZIL)

GROWTH DELIVERY DEEPWATER

GUMUSUT-KAKAP (MALAYSIA)

TLP capacity ~100 kboe/d

New resources at Mars field

West Boreas + South Deimos

Water depth 950 meters

Shell 72% (operator)

Peak production ~30 kboe/d

Argonauta O-North field

Tie-back to Phase 1 FPSO

Water depth 1,600 meters


Peak production ~135 kboe/d

Semi submersible Floating Platform System

Water depth 1,200 meters


Phase 1 FPSO

Part of Shell’s new deepwater potential of ~200 kboe/d 2015

Construction yard at Johor Bahru


AOSP-1 (CANADA) SCHOONEBEEK (NETHERLANDS)

GROWTH DELIVERY HEAVY OIL & EOR

PDO (OMAN)

Qarn Alam steam development

New heavy oil potential of ~90 kboe/d 2013-14

AOSP Exp. mine & upgrader onstream ~100 kboe/d

255 kboe/d capacity built in ~10 years

Next focus: optimization + debottlenecking


Started up Jan 2011

Steam injection for 20 kboe/d

~120 mln bbls potential over 25 years


Qarn Alam steam injection Harweel miscible gas flood Amal Steam Increased recovery factors:

<10% to >30% ~90 kboe/d 100% peak

production potential Shell 34%

Schoonebeek EOR development AOSP Jackpine mine


ROYAL DUTCH SHELL NA ONSHORE GAS FOCUS


Conventional

Tight

Shale

CBM

GLOBAL GAS RESOURCES

~12,000 TCF

GRAND ANIVA SHALE GAS TIGHT GAS

CBM

Key Shell positions

Marcellus

Haynesville Eagle Ford

Foothills Groundbirch

Deep Basin Germany Ukraine

Arrow - CBM

Changbei

Fushun (JAA) study Jinqui

South Africa (JAA) Study

Sao Francisco

North Shilou Pinedale

GROWTH OPPORTUNITY SHELL GLOBAL GAS OPPORTUNITY


2001 - Pinedale

1951 - Foothills Panther Well

2007 – Haynesville 2004 - Deep Basin

2010 – Marcellus/Eagle Ford

~40 tcfe of resource potential Acreage positions in low marginal cost plays

Pinedale Deep Basin Haynesville Groundbirch Marcellus Foothills

2008 - Groundbirch

Eagle Ford 0 1,000 2,000

Acres (thousands)

GROWTH OPPORTUNITY HISTORY OF SHELL IN NORTH AMERICA GAS

Haynesville

Pinedale

Groundbirch

Eagle Ford

Marcellus

Deep Basin Foothills

http://www.eastresources.com/


COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE COMPETITVE POSITIONING

SOURCE: 2009 PUBLIC REGULATORY PUBLICATIONS

0

1

2

Petrohawk Ultra Shell EnCana EOG XTO Chesapeake Talisman

Other Direct Operating Cost

LEARNING CURVE ACCELERATION

Indexed Well Delivery Time per year since first production

SHELL ASSET BREAK EVEN PRICE

Years

Built significant, contiguous positions in resource plays across North America

Acreage growth (+ 1.3 million net acres in 2010)

Resource growth: East Resources Inc. + Eagle Ford acquisition 2010

High value positions: exploration running room, low break even prices

Lifting costs $/mcfe

COMPETITIVE LIFTING COSTS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Pinedale - 2002 Early Deep Basin - 2006

Deep Basin - 2008 Haynesville - 2008

Groundbirch - 2008

0

2

4

6

8

Mature plays Emerging plays Total

BREAKEVEN PRICE ENTRY COST

$/mcfe – End 2010


COMPETITIVE DRILLING COSTS

* Shell Share production

MULTIPLE WELLS FROM SINGLE PAD

COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE HAYNESVILLE

Well Drilling Cost ($millions) Drilling costs lowered by ~50%

Underbalanced and Hard Rock Drilling

Pad drilling (2011)

Drill days reduced from 98 days to 35 days

Completion costs lowered by ~30%:

Consistent HF design yields improved efficiency

Cycle time reduced ~50%

DRILLING COST REDUCTIONS

Production up by 40% since 2010

Q1 2011 production ~300 mmcfe/d*

93% acreage retention by year end

Strong cashflow

Haynesville drilling environment

0

6

12

2008 2009 2010 Q1 2011

Magnolia Drilling Performance Improvement


SHELL APPALACHIA – DRILLING RIG

COMPETITIVE PERFORMANCE MARCELLUS

Advantages

Contiguous acreage

Liquids potential in SW Pennsylvania

Market proximity

Challenges

Regulatory Environment

Gas Infrastructure

Purchased in mid-2010

650,000 contiguous acres

10 Shell rigs

Several wells drilling in <10 days

Q1 2011 production ~50 mmcfe/d

Appalachia drilling environment

TYPICAL WELL SCHEMATIC


~2015 PRODUCTION SCENARIOS INVESTMENT FLEXIBILITY

2011-2015 Investment

0

1

2

3

4

~$15 Bln ~$25 Bln ~$20 Bln

Bcf/d

Flexibility in capital allocation

Gas price, Affordability, Lease expiry

Creates a range of production growth outcomes

Budget for a rolling 6-12 month program

Operational continuity

Performance vs. Plan

GROWTH DELIVERY NORTH AMERICAN GAS GROWTH POTENTIAL

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

0

100

200

300

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

PRODUCTION GROWTH

Mmscf/d Kboe/d

2011 investment: ~$3 billion; >400 wells

Deep Basin

Foothills

Groundbirch

Pinedale

Haynesville

Marcellus

Eagle Ford

Canada

USA


PINEDALE: SHELL OPERATED JONAH: NON-OPERATED

Adjacent gas fields, different development impacts Shell setting new standards for surface footprint reduction

SQUARE MILE OVERVIEW SQUARE MILE OVERVIEW

Up to 4 pads each pad having up to 32 wells Up to 64 pads with each pad having a single well

SUSTAINABLE GROWTH PAD DRILLING: REDUCING SURFACE FOOTPRINT


Robust Portfolio

Competitive Performance

Strong Cash Generation

SUMMARY


ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

Q&A

Russ Ford- UBS Global Oil & Gas Conference – May 24, 2011

Investor Relations

Transcript of Russ Ford- UBS Global Oil & Gas Conference – May 24, 2011