Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency
presentation “Shell”, “Shell Group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g)
to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and
Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These terms are also used where no useful targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries
purpose is served by identifying the particular entity or entities. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory
used in this presentation refer to entities over which Royal Dutch Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. Entities and measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions in various countries and regions; (l)
unincorporated arrangements over which Shell has joint control are generally referred to as “joint ventures” and “joint political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays
operations”, respectively. Entities over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control are referred to or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared costs; and (m) changes in trading
as “associates”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held conditions. No assurance is provided that future dividend payments will match or exceed previous dividend payments. All
by Shell in an entity or unincorporated joint arrangement, after exclusion of all third-party interest. 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 risk
This presentation contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell’s Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2018
1995) concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward-looking
statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements contained in this presentation and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks
statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known only as of the date of this presentation, February 20, 2020. Neither Royal Dutch Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake
and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other
expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking
potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, statements contained in this presentation.
estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and
phrases such as “aim”, “ambition”, ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this presentation that the United States Securities and Exchange
‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’, ‘‘plan’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘risks’’, “schedule”, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘should’’, ‘‘target’’, ‘‘will’’ and similar Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. U.S. investors are urged to consider closely
terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov.
those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation, including
Gas continues to provide more and 2019 was a year of record LNG Record supply investment
cleaner energy solutions supply growth due to confidence in long-term
LNG demand growth
The last decade has seen rapid growth in energy 2019 saw record LNG supply growth as the recent 2019 was also a year of record final investment
demand and corresponding greenhouse gas wave of new LNG liquefaction projects nears decisions (FIDs), with 71 million tonnes of new capacity
emissions which have created the need for more and completion. Most of this growth was absorbed by being sanctioned, indicating belief in long-term LNG
cleaner energy options. A combination of new Europe. Year-on-year growth in Asian imports slowed demand. Increasing uncontracted and flexible supply is
policy, favourable economics and partnership with from highs of 2017 and 2018, but Asia still remains a set to offer more options for customers in the future.
renewables is driving the momentum for coal-to-gas growth region. Increased liquidity, new spot trading
switching. mechanisms and a wider variety of indices being used
for long-term contracts point towards LNG becoming
an increasingly flexible commodity.
Overview
Royal Dutch Shell February 2020 3
01 Queensland Curtis LNG
90 7.7 18 40
CO2
20 10
6.7 4
10
2 5
0 6.5
0 0
85% 700
600
65% 400
55% 300
200
45% 100
35% 0
25%
Source: Shell’s interpretation of Wood Mackenzie H1, World Bank, The World Air Quality Index 2019 data
Global energy demand growth by fuel type Gas and coal share in the energy mix 2019-2040
BCM
20,000 16% 5% -10% 9%
37%
43%
India India 2030 gas target
16,000
North America
4,000
Global
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Share in the energy mix
Gas Coal 2019 2040
Source: Shell interpretation of Wood Mackenzie H1 2019 data CAGR - Compound annual growth rate
1
-300
CO2
0 EMISSIONS
-400
-1
-2 -500
-57%
-3
-600
-4
-5 -700
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: Shell interpretation of Wood Mackenzie, IEA World Energy Outlook, IEA Carbon Report 2019 data **Power sector coal-to-gas switching in Advanced economies only
*Advanced economies include United States, European Union, Australia, Canada, Chile, Iceland, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland & Turkey
Net change in global coal Global coal phase-out capacity Power capacity by fuel
generation announcements by date GW
TWh GW
80 1,200
600
400 60 900
200
40 600
0
20 300
-200
0 -
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 India China Europe North Rest of
-400
America world
2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019
2020s 2030s 2040s Coal Gas Coal 2040 Gas 2040
Source: Shell interpretation of national government policy announcements, Carbon Brief, Global Energy Monitor, GlobalData plc and Wood Mackenzie 2019 data
Coal and solid fuel use in the Coal and solid fuel use in res & Air quality index 2018
industrial sector comm* sector
BCMe BCMe
China China
India India
Brazil Indonesia
Indonesia Pakistan
Thailand Vietnam
Kazakhstan Poland
Vietnam Brazil
Source: Maplecroft 2018 and Shell interpretation of Wood Mackenzie data H1 2019 Extreme High Medium Low
*Res & comm: residential and commercial sector and also includes use in cooking and heating BCMe – Billion Cubic Metres equivalent
Average thermal load factors South Australia electricity supply December 2019
Thermal load factors MW
90% 4000
3500
80%
3000
<1%
70% 2500
<1%
60% 2000
7%
2% 1500
50%
1000
40% 1%
500
10%
0
30% 28%
-500
20% 11%
-1000
2013
2019
2010
2011
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2001
2003
2008
2009
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
Source: Shell interpretation of Wood Mackenzie H1, national data and OpenNEM 2019 data
Source: Shell interpretation of IPCC Emissions factors and IEA World Energy Outlook data 2019
Global gas demand growth by sector Share of gas demand growth by sector 2019-2040
BCM Gas demand sectors
9%
5,000 23%
28% Power
40%
4,000
Industry
3,000
1,000
Transport
0
2019 Power Industry Res & comm Transport 2040 -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Global gas supply by source LNG imports by region LNG imports into Asia
BCM BCM BCM
40% 9%
5,000 1,000 8% 750 48%
15% 9%
45% 74%
1,000 Gas demand 2% CAGR 200 LNG demand 4% CAGR Asia LNG demand 4% CAGR
150
0 0 0
2019 Domestic Pipeline LNG 2040 2019 Asia Europe Americas Mid-East 2040 2019 China JKT South Rest of 2040
production imports imports & Africa Asia Asia
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
LNG supply growth range by country LNG demand growth range by region
MTPA MTPA
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 -10
Australia USA Russia Rest of world Asia Europe Americas Middle East & Africa
Source: Shell interpretation of IHS Markit, Wood Mackenzie, Poten & Partners Q4 2018 and 2019 data
-2
-4
-6
-8
Source: Shell interpretation of IHS Markit, Wood Mackenzie and Poten & Partners 2018 and 2019 data
Note: Sweden, Canada, Colombia, Norway, Finland, Malta, Israel, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Kuwait, Brazil, Panama, Poland and Dominican Republic are not included in the above chart as change is minimal
China gas demand vs domestic production China LNG and pipeline gas imports
BCMA BCMA
400 100
12% 34%
300 75
200 50
16% 18%
7%
100 25
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Gas balance Domestic gas production Algerian and Russian pipeline sales
BCMA BCMA BCMA
550 250 250
200 200
500
150 150
100 100
450
50 50
400 0 0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: Shell interpretation of Wood Mackenzie, S&P Global Platts and Gazprom Export LLC 2019 data
Russian sales volumes adjusted to reflect standard calorific value (40MJ/m 3 at 15°C)
Coal-to-gas switching range Coal generation vs gas generation Year-end gas inventory
$/MMBtu €/tonne CO2 TWh BCM
12 35 100 100
30
9 75 75
25
20
6 50 50
15
10
3 25 25
5
0 0 0 0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Jan-16
Jan-17
Jul-16
Jul-17
Jan-18
Jan-19
Jul-18
Jul-19
Sep-16
Feb-17
Jun-15
Dec-17
May-18
Apr-16
Aug-19
Jan-15
Jul-17
Nov-15
Oct-18
Mar-19
Range of coal-to-gas switching TTF gas
Gas generation Coal generation NW Europe Southern Europe
ARA coal European carbon price (RHS) CEE Storage capacity
Source: Shell interpretation of IHS Markit, Wood Mackenzie and Gas Infrastructure Europe (Aggregated Gas Storage Inventory) 2019 data
Gas demand growth by sector Gas supply growth by sector 2019 LNG imports by country
BCMA BCMA BCMA Growth
270 8% 5% 270 109% 40 > 100%
66%
230 230 0 0%
2018 Power Industry Res & Transport 2019 2018 Domestic LNG 2019
comm production
Source: Shell interpretation of Wood Mackenzie and IHS Markit 2019 data
9 75
8 50
7 25
6 0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Japan South Korea
Source: Shell interpretation of IHS Markit, Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Korea Energy Economics Institute 2019 data
Power generation mix includes January through October data. *Winter months are from October through March.2020 includes YTD data
5 2.50 35%
30%
4 2.00
25%
3 1.50
20%
15%
2 1.00
10%
1 0.50
5%
0 0.00 0%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2016 2017 2018 2019
Americas Asia Europe Africa China Japan South Korea Other Asia China %
25 25% 7
6
20 20%
5
15 15%
4 2018
10% 3
10
2
5 5%
1 2019
0 0% 0
2015
2010
2012
2014
2016
2017
2013
2018
2019
2011
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
-1
Dated Brent JKM TTF Henry Hub Range 2013-2018 2018 2019 TTF Netback
netback JKM Netback
netback
Source: Shell interpretation of ICE, CME, S&P Global Platts 2019 data *Excludes liquefaction fee; netback calculated as: JKM and TTF minus
regasification and transportation cost minus 115% Henry Hub
Spot LNG deliveries JKM eWindow/Market on Close ICE JKM LNG futures
Cargoes % of total market Cargoes Cargoes ‘000 Lots*
30% 1800 600
300
1500
0 0% 0 0 0
2011
2010
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
2013
2018
2019
2011
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
2013
2018
2019
2018 2019
Source: Shell interpretation of IHS Markit, S&P Global Platts and ICE 2019 data *About 300 lots is equal to 1 cargo
Average volume and length of new New LNG contract volumes Share of new LNG contract volumes
contracts (by seller type) (by price indexation)
Years MTPA MT Share of total volume
16 2 1000 100%
800 80%
12 1.5
600 60%
8 1
400 40%
4 0.5
200 20%
0 0 0 0%
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Average length Average volume (RHS) Portfolio Project Oil-linked EU Gas Hub HH Hybrid JKM JLC
Source: Shell interpretation of Wood Mackenzie and IHS Markit 2019 data
LNG supply growth range by country LNG demand growth range by region
MTPA MTPA
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
-5 -5
Australia USA Russia Rest of world Asia Europe Americas Middle East & Africa
Source: Shell interpretation of IHS Markit, Wood Mackenzie, Poten & Partners 2019 data
10
-5
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Investment in liquefaction capacity by contract type LNG equity offtake by buyer type
MT MT
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010-2017 2018 2019
800 800
Demand forecast LNG demand
central range from bunker fuel
Source: Shell interpretation of IHS Markit, Wood Mackenzie, FGE and Poten & Partners Q4 2019 data
385 LNG ships currently in Confirmed LNG demand LNG bunker demand projection
operation/on order* # of ships MTPA MTPA
2014
2010
2015
2016
2017
2012
2013
2018
2019
2011
2020
2022
2021
0 10 20 30 40 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Wood Mackenzie IHSMarkit
In operation On order In operation On order Consumption IEA (WEO 2019)
Source: Shell interpretation of DNV GL, Woodmac, IHS Markit & IEA 2018 and 2019 data
* Based on announcements with deliveries going out to 2027. Does not include 150 LNG-ready ships
300 300
200 200
2019 Power Industry Res & Transport 2040 2019 Domestic Pipeline LNG 2025 Domestic Pipeline LNG 2040
comm production imports imports production imports imports
Power of Siberia
South Asia gas supply South-east Asia gas supply LNG demand and regasification capacity
growth by source growth by source MT
BCM BCM Bangladesh Pakistan
India
250 250 50 50 50
200 200 0 0 0
2019 2040 Regas 2019 2040 Regas 2019 2040 Regas
150 150
Source: Shell interpretation of Wood Mackenzie and IHS Markit 2019 data
Summary
Royal Dutch Shell February 2020 35