Tony Hayward did it at BP in 2007 and Peter Voser, due to step up to the top job at Royal Dutch Shell Plc on July 1, did it on Wednesday.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUKLR94627920090527?sp=true

Perhaps fearing that restructurings, like jokes, don’t amuse as much on the retelling, Shell went one further than BP. While the London-based oil major said it would adopt Exxon’s approach of standardising procedures across its businesses, Shell said it would redraw its business units in the mould of Exxon’s.

Despite this, the Anglo-Dutch oil major’s announcement failed to attract the warm reaction investors gave BP’s aping of Exxon. Shell’s shares fell and analysts said Shell was coming late to the cost cutting and standardisation game.

Is this fair?

Shell may be behind BP but it has not just discovered cost cutting. At least since January, the company has been sending regular emails to staff demanding they slash overheads and the cost of contractors.

BP has indeed turned itself around in recent years, closing performance gaps against rivals, most notably in its U.S. downstream business. Some investors see this as Hayward’s restructuring paying dividends. Others say the downstream underperformance was due to problems at BP’s Texas City refinery which shut after an explosion and a hurricane, and that the recovery would have happened whoever was in charge.

Investors’ cool response to Shell’s restructuring may reflect scepticism about whether, in an industry where top management is usually made up of company lifers, any oil company can successfully adopt Exxon’s supremely profitable culture.

On the other hand, it could be that, at a time when the world's largest oil company by market value is proving no more successful than rivals at addressing the industry's biggest headache - falling oil and gas production -- investors don’t just don't get why everyone wants to be Exxon.

If Lithuania’s experience is anything to go by, Spain may regret its declaration that it would rather Russian oil company LUKOIL did not buy a major stake in its largest refiner, Repsol.

Russian oil company LUKOIL is in talks to buy around 30 percent of Repsol, one of Western Europe’s five largest non-government controlled oil companies by market value, sources close to the matter say. Analysts think the move could be a prelude to a full takeover, which would be the largest overseas acquisition by a Russian company.

Spain's Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba said on Tuesday he would prefer a different buyer. Rubalcaba didn’t say why LUKOIL was persona non grata in Madrid but analysts think the company’s nationality is the reason.

Europe relies on Russia for around a quarter of its gas and much of its oil. EU leaders fret about their reliance on Russia for energy supplies and recent moves by Russian companies, especially state-owned Gazprom, to buy up European energy infrastructure such as power stations and gas networks, have prompted Brussels to consider investment restrictions.

For LUKOIL, Madrid’s hostility is ominously familiar. In 2006, Lithuania opted to sell control of its Mazeikiu refinery to Poland's PKN Orlen, rather than LUKOIL. Analysts said LUKOIL, and TNK-BP, another Russian oil major, lost out because the Lithuanian government feared a Russian buyer would give the Kremlin too much influence over the Baltic state’s economy.

 Shortly after the deal, Russia shut an oil pipeline to Mazeikiu, saying it needed to be repaired to avoid a leak. The pipeline has not restarted and Russian technical watchdog Rostekhnadzor said in September at least another 18 months would be needed for repairs.

 Lithuania said the shutdown is a politically motivated action linked to its decision not to select a Russian buyer.

Spain is not currently a major buyer of Russian crude or gas but a deal signed by Spanish utility Gas Natural and Russian state-controlled export monopoly Gazprom earlier this year might change this in the future. Also, Repsol has upstream interests in Russia, which it hopes to expand.

How will Moscow react to this latest snubbing of one of its largest oil companies?

Even before Moscow invaded Georgia, the main non-Russian route for exporting Central Asian and Azeri crude and gas to Europe, the EU watched Russia's regular cuts in energy supplies to neighbours with concern.

But EU members have been reluctant to take the hard measures that would allow them to bypass Russia, so analysts think their reliance on Moscow will grow.

What should European countries to ensure it has sufficient oil and gas in the future? 

Should EU nations be prepared to put cash behind its energy diversification goals?

Is a common EU energy policy even possible when oil and gas is so important that no country seems prepared to risk its own energy security for that of the bloc?

While many have lined up to register to bid for Iraqi oil deals, actual bidders may be thinner on the ground and deals may take longer to conclude than the government plans.

John Mitchell, an energy specialist at the Royal Institute of International Affairs said recent rises in Iraqi production to around 2.3 million barrels per day were largely due to the improving security situation. If Iraq wants to make big jumps from here on, it will need to invest a lot of money in, and apply a lot of technology to, its oilfields.

A delay on the involvement of foreign oil companies could make it harder for Iraq to meet its ambitious output growth targets.

"If the invasion was about oil, let the record show it has been more botched than even its toughest critics claim. Iraqi oil production went into steep decline after the war, and has only recovered to Saddam-era levels on a consistent basis this year," Raad Alkadiri, Senior Director in the Markets and Country Strategies practice, at industry consultants PFC Energy said in a note to clients.

European industry is suffering under soaring energy costs. Profit warnings are becoming more common and industry leaders predict plant closures and job losses may follow.

Companies say they are doing all they can to improve their game but want government help.

Britain's Castle Cement, part of Germany's Heidelberg Cement, is a case in point. Its cement furnace in Stamford, England, is replacing much of its coal with  alternatives  -- tyres, bone meal, paper -- as $140 a barrel oil sends all fuel costs skyrocketing.   

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0l5b5NNBws[/youtube]

Industry says tax cuts and energy market reform is needed. Big energy users also want an easing in EU plans for tough CO2 emissions cuts, arguing the measures will simply put them out of business and shift production to places like China which have less efficient and more environmentally damaging production processes.

So, are governments doing enough to support the continent's core industrial base?

Should certain sectors of the economy be singled out for special support?

Will planned European CO2 cuts, which are not matched by the U.S. and China, wreck the continent's industrial core without helping the environment?