Judging by the $23 billion it earned last year, these should be the best of times for Shell, the Anglo-Dutch energy giant that ranks third among the top five Western oil companies. But Wall Street isn"t celebrating. Instead, analysts are worried that buried beneath the record profit figures are worrying signs of a business in decline. That"s because Shell hasn"t been able to find nearly as much oil and gas as it"s now pumping out of the ground. In fact, it hasn"t even come close—replacing only 60% to 70% of what it produced in 2005 and only 19% in 2004. Shell has had reserve problems for years—a controversy over improperly booked assets forced it to reduce estimated reserves by roughly 30% and led to the resignation of its CEO, Phil Watts, in 2004. But what"s troubling now is that Shell is falling way behind rivals like Exxon and BP despite spending billions more each year on exploring and drilling new wells. Last year Exxon replaced 112% of production; BP came up with 95%. "I have never seen anything like this," says Fadel Gheit, a veteran energy analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. "Shell used to represent the gold standard in this industry, but lately they can"t get their act together." To be sure, Shell still has huge assets—nearly 12 billion barrels. But in the oil and gas industry, reserve replacement is the best guide to whether a company will be able to maintain-or grow-production in the future. So not replacing what you pump, says longtime industry observer Matthew Simmons, "is like eating your seed corn. If you"re not finding new oil, you"re just liquidating what you"ve got." Indeed, Shell"s daily production figures have been weak lately, falling 6.7 % in 2005, to 3.52 million barrels a day. Privately, Shell execs say the company"s decision to cut spending for exploration when oil prices bottomed out in the late 1990s is partly to blame for the anemic numbers now. Shell CEO Jeroen Vander Veer insists that projects like those on Sakhalin Island off Siberia and in Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico will enable the company to start catching up with peers in the years ahead. It won"t be easy. "If you"re not adding to reserves, you have a problem," says Sanford Bernstein analyst Oswald Clint. "Shell will have to run twice as hard just to stay in place."
单选题
According to the passage, the decline of Shell
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】解析：推理判断题。根据题干中的Shell定位至首段。开篇指出Shell公司的辉煌成绩：去年赚了230亿美元。第二句话锋一转：华尔街却不为此欣喜。末句对此说明：分析家们担心在这项破纪录的利润数字后面隐藏着生意下滑的不妙前景。由此可知壳牌公司生意滑坡是华尔街分析家们做出的预测。"a hidden process"是对末句中buried beneath的解释，但这里说的只是一种推断而已，并非已经确定的过程，hidden process的含义是虽然看不见，但确实存在，这与原意不符。第二段首句提到Shell生意可能下滑的原因：没有找到足够多的石油和天然气，排除"caused by the profit last year"。第二段第三句提到壳牌CEO Phil Watts于2004年辞职，这是由于前面提到的壳牌多年来存在的问题，这与首段分析家们对该公司生意下滑的预测无关，排除"the fault of the CEO"。
单选题
Shell "can"t get their act together"(Paragraph 2) because
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】解析：语义理解题。由题干中的can"t get their act together定位至第二段末句。通过其上下文寻找解题线索。由于考查的语言点出现在引用处，因此可能是支持前面提到的观点的细节内容。第二段第三句和第四句是概括性陈述：但问题是尽管壳牌每年花几十亿探测，开发新油井，现在还是被Exxon和BP这样的对手超越了。接着作者给出具体数字进行说明。段尾通过引用对此情况做进一步说明：壳牌过去是石油业的黄金标准，但是最近can"t get their act together。可见这是对壳牌被对手超过的情况进行的说明。
单选题
To which of the following statements would Matthew Simmons most likely agree?
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】解析：推理判断题。由题干中的Matthew Simmons定位至第三段第三句。该句指出Matthew Simmons的看法：如果没有新的储备，这就像吃粮食种子一样。如果你不能找到新油井，你就会用光手里已经有的。因为本段都是对Shell公司的评论，可以推断Matthew认为壳牌正在耗尽公司的资源。Shell still has huge assets是该段首句内容。从第二句的But可以看出，实际情况不容乐观。显然Matthew的观点是对这种黯淡前景的说明；Shell"s daily production figures have been weak lately：这里是文中明确给出的细节内容，非Matthew观点；本段第二句中提到reserve replacement，从第二段首句可知Shell并不是不想这样做，而是找不到足够的石油和天然气。作为资深观察家，Matthew不可能不了解这一点。
单选题
According to Oswald Clint, Shell"s chance of catching up is
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】解析：观点态度题。根据题干中的Oswald Clint定位至末段最后引用处。Oswald指出：如果你不能够增加储备，就会遇到问题。壳牌如果想保持住自己的地位必须要加倍努力才行。可见他认为壳牌公司想要赶超对手需要付出艰辛的努力，故"艰辛发奋的"为答案。scarce和sparse均意为"少的"，Oswald只是提到run twice as hard，这里hard"辛苦的"不是说没有机会，排除这两项。同时，hard与simple意思截然相反，排除simple。