teaming up

Houston company closes offshore JV deal to drive innovation, efficiency in subsea production

The new joint venture, OneSubsea, is based in Oslo, Norway, and Houston. Photo courtesy

A new joint venture with co-headquarters in Houston will explore opportunities in the market for subsea systems that tap into offshore energy reserves.

The business, called OneSubsea, is a joint venture of Houston-based energy technology company SLB (Schlumberger), Norwegian energy engineering company Aker Solutions, and Luxembourg-based energy engineering company Subsea7. SLB holds a 70 percent stake in OneSubsea, with Aker’s share at 20 percent and Subsea7’s share at 10 percent.

The financial foundation of the joint venture is a combination of $700.5 million in stock, cash, and a promissory note. In addition, SLB and Aker folded their subsea businesses into the joint venture, which was announced in 2022.

“As demand grows for cost-effective, efficient, and sustainable energy,” the joint venture says, “a large portion of the corresponding supply increase will come from offshore developments resulting in strong deepwater activity … and the need for innovative subsea solutions.”

OneSubsea is based in Oslo, Norway, and Houston.

As Aker explains, a subsea system “provides a way to produce hydrocarbons from areas not economically or easily developed by the use of an offshore platform.” The system’s ocean-floor components are connected to subsea pipelines, riser systems, and other equipment.

Hydrocarbons are the key components of oil and natural gas.

“The offshore market is demonstrating a sustained resurgence as operators across the world look to accelerate development cycle times and increase the productivity of their offshore assets,” says Olivier Le Peuch, CEO of SLB.

Mads Hjelmeland is the newly appointed CEO of OneSubsea, which employs about 11,000 people around the world.

“OneSubsea’s extensive technology portfolio and engineering expertise enable us to address future market trends and needs at a unique scale. In doing so, we aim to fulfil our purpose of expanding the frontiers of subsea to drive a sustainable energy future,” says Hjelmeland, who is based in Houston.

Hjelmeland’s tenure with the previous iteration of OneSubsea began in 2014. That’s a year after SLB and Cameron, a supplier of equipment, systems and services for the oil and gas industry, formed a joint venture known as OneSubsea to serve the subsea oil and gas market. SLB owned a 40 percent stake in OneSubsea, and Cameron owned a 60 percent stake.

To establish OneSubsea, Cameron contributed its subsea business, and SLB pitched in a $600 million payment to Cameron along with several business units.

In 2016, SLB acquired Cameron in a cash-and-stock deal initially valued at $14.8 billion. OneSubsea then became a subsidiary of SLB, and that subsidiary is now part of the newly reconfigured OneSubsea.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information. Photo via cdn.britannica.com

For a second time, a Delaware judge has nullified a pay package that Tesla had awarded its CEO, Elon Musk, that once was valued at $56 billion.

Last week, Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick turned aside a request from Musk's lawyers to reverse a ruling she announced in January that had thrown out the compensation plan. The judge ruled then that Musk effectively controlled Tesla's board and had engineered the outsize pay package during sham negotiations.

Lawyers for a Tesla shareholder who sued to block the pay package contended that shareholders who had voted for the 10-year plan in 2018 had been given misleading and incomplete information.

In their defense, Tesla's board members asserted that the shareholders who ratified the pay plan a second time in June had done so after receiving full disclosures, thereby curing all the problems the judge had cited in her January ruling. As a result, they argued, Musk deserved the pay package for having raised Tesla's market value by billions of dollars.

McCormick rejected that argument. In her 103-page opinion, she ruled that under Delaware law, Tesla's lawyers had no grounds to reverse her January ruling “based on evidence they created after trial.”

What will Musk and Tesla do now?

On Monday night, Tesla posted on X, the social media platform owned by Musk, that the company will appeal. The appeal would be filed with the Delaware Supreme Court, the only state appellate court Tesla can pursue. Experts say a ruling would likely come in less than a year.

“The ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs' lawyers run Delaware companies rather than their rightful owners — the shareholders,” Tesla argued.

Later, on X, Musk unleashed a blistering attack on the judge, asserting that McCormick is “a radical far left activist cosplaying as a judge.”

What do experts say about the case?

Legal authorities generally suggest that McCormick’s ruling was sound and followed the law. Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said that in his view, McCormick was right to rule that after Tesla lost its case in the original trial, it created improper new evidence by asking shareholders to ratify the pay package a second time.

Had she allowed such a claim, he said, it would cause a major shift in Delaware’s laws against conflicts of interest given the unusually close relationship between Musk and Tesla’s board.

“Delaware protects investors — that’s what she did,” said Elson, who has followed the court for more than three decades. “Just because you’re a ‘superstar CEO’ doesn’t put you in a separate category.”

Elson said he thinks investors would be reluctant to put money into Delaware companies if there were exceptions to the law for “special people.”

What will the Delaware Supreme Court do?

Elson said that in his opinion, the court is likely to uphold McCormick's ruling.

Can Tesla appeal to federal courts?

Experts say no. Rulings on state laws are normally left to state courts. Brian Dunn, program director for the Institute of Compensation Studies at Cornell University, said it's been his experience that Tesla has no choice but to stay in the Delaware courts for this compensation package.

Tesla has moved its legal headquarters to Texas. Does that matter?

The company could try to reconstitute the pay package and seek approval in Texas, where it may expect more friendlier judges. But Dunn, who has spent 40 years as an executive compensation consultant, said it's likely that some other shareholder would challenge the award in Texas because it's excessive compared with other CEOs' pay plans.

“If they just want to turn around and deliver him $56 billion, I can't believe somebody wouldn't want to litigate it,” Dunn said. “It's an unconscionable amount of money.”

Would a new pay package be even larger?

Almost certainly. Tesla stock is trading at 15 times the exercise price of stock options in the current package in Delaware, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas wrote in a note to investors. Tesla's share price has doubled in the past six months, Jonas wrote. At Monday’s closing stock price, the Musk package is now worth $101.4 billion, according to Equilar, an executive data firm.

And Musk has asked for a subsequent pay package that would give him 25 percent of Tesla's voting shares. Musk has said he is uncomfortable moving further into artificial intelligence with the company if he doesn't have 25 percent control. He currently holds about 13 percent of Tesla's outstanding shares.

Trending News