The world’s largest oil services company, SLB, formerly known as Schlumberger, does not plan to pull its operations from Russia despite growing pressure from Ukraine. Olivier Le Peuch, the firm’s chief executive, indicated in an interview that a decision would be announced publicly once it is made. This stance comes as investors and governments weigh the long-term risks and potential impacts of continued activity in Russia on global energy supply chains.
Data from the Kiev School of Economics shows that by 2022 there were 2,023 foreign firms operating in Russia. Of these, only about 372 were forecast to maintain a full, ongoing presence. SLB is not among the small group expected to stay in the market long term. Industry observers note that oil service providers were slow to depart Russia after the mass exodus began in early 2022, with Baker Hughes and Halliburton later announcing planned withdrawals in response to international sanctions from the United States and allied countries. This created a broader trend of re-evaluating Western participation in Russia’s energy sector.
Le Peuch stressed that a decision would be communicated openly when it occurs, underscoring a process that weighs strategic, financial, and geopolitical dimensions. In Russia, SLB has built a sizable operation since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Analysts estimate that the business contributed approximately 5 percent to the group’s revenue, which totaled around $33.1 billion last year, and it employed roughly 9,000 people on the ground. Regulatory filings in the United States place the company’s net assets in Russia at about $600 million at the end of 2023. This reflects a substantial footprint that has evolved with the country’s evolving energy landscape.
Company leadership has suggested that the Russian operations could function with a degree of autonomy, particularly in areas where technology procurement decisions are constrained by sanctions and export controls. Critics argue that the Russian oil industry would struggle to sustain activity without foreign oil services and technology. This viewpoint has been voiced by industry researchers who warn of significant disruptions if Western support wanes.
Nevertheless, some observers question the severity of those concerns. A Harvard economist and former banking executive has noted that Russia could maintain production levels without Western technology, albeit at a higher cost and with greater administrative and logistical challenges. Such assessments reflect a broader debate about how Russia might adapt its energy sector in a post-sanctions environment.
In parallel business circles, Mondelez International recently noted that no shareholders raised questions about exiting Russia, a sign that some multinational brands view the exposure as manageable within a broader global strategy. The dynamics of fashion and luxury brands in Russia have also evolved. For instance, Chanel had begun to adjust its retail footprint in the country, signaling a cautious recalibration of international brand presence amid ongoing geopolitical tensions.
As the conversation continues, industry watchers in both North America and Europe monitor how Western sanctions, energy markets, and company risk tolerance interact. The central question remains how long major oilfield services firms will maintain operations in Russia in the face of political pressure, sanctions regimes, and shifting global demand. The outcome is likely to influence not only Russian energy production but also the strategic choices of multinational service providers and the broader balance between energy security and international trade. Attribution notes this analysis draws on public filings and expert commentary from multiple sources concerned with global energy economics and sanctions policy.