UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

PROXY STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 14(a) OF THE SECURITIES

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(Amendment No.     )

Filed by the Registrant  þx

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ¨

Check the appropriate box:

Schlumberger N.V. (Schlumberger Limited)

(Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

Schlumberger Limited

42, rue Saint-Dominique

75007 Paris, France

5599 San Felipe, 17th Floor

Houston, Texas 77056

Parkstraat 83

2514 JG The Hague

The NetherlandsFebruary 19, 2015

NOTICE OF 2015 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

To Be Held April 9, 2014

February 12, 2014

The 2014 Annual General Meeting of Stockholders of Schlumberger Limited (Schlumberger N.V.) will be held at the Avila Beach Hotel, Penstraat 130, Willemstad, Curaçao, on Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., Curaçao time, for the following purposes:

Action will also be taken on such other matters as may properly be brought before the meeting.

The close of business on February 19, 2014 has been fixed as the record date for the meeting. All holders of common stock of record at the close of business on that date are entitled to vote at the meeting.

By order of the Board of Directors,

ALEXANDER C. JUDEN

Secretary

Please sign, date and promptly return the enclosed proxy card in the enclosed envelope, or grant a proxy and give voting instructions by telephone or internet, so that you may be represented at the meeting. Instructions are on your proxy card or on the voting instruction card included by your broker. Brokers cannot vote for Items 1 or 2 without your instructions.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual General Meeting of Stockholders to Be Held on April 9, 2014:8, 2015:

This proxy statement, along with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 20132014 and the Company’s 20132014 Annual Report to Stockholders, are available free of charge on the Company’s website at http://investorcenter.slb.com.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

PROXY STATEMENT

February 12, 201419, 2015

General

This proxy statement is furnished in connection with the solicitation by the Board of Directors of Schlumberger Limited (Schlumberger N.V.) (“Schlumberger” or the “Company”) of proxies to be voted at its 20142015 annual general meeting of stockholders, which will be held at the Avila Beach Hotel, Penstraat 130, Willemstad, Curaçao, on Wednesday, April 9, 20148, 2015 beginning at 10:00 a.m., Curaçao time. To gain admittance to the meeting, stockholders of record and beneficial owners as of February 19, 201411, 2015 must present a passport or other government-issued identification bearing a photograph and, for beneficial owners, proof of ownership, such as the top half of the proxy card or voting instruction card that was sent to you with this proxy statement.

The approximate mailing date of this proxy statement is February 20, 2014.26, 2015. Business at the meeting is conducted in accordance with the procedures determined by the Chairman of the meeting and is generally limited to matters properly brought before the meeting by or at the direction of the Board of Directors or by a stockholder in accordance with specified requirements requiring advance notice and disclosure of relevant information.

The Schlumberger 20132014 Annual Report to Stockholders is provided concurrently with this proxy statement, and stockholders should refer to its contents in considering agenda Item 3.

Items to be Voted on at the Annual Meeting

The agenda for the 20142015 annual general meeting includes the following items:

Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials

This year, we are using an SEC rule that allows companies to furnish their proxy materials over the internet. As a result, we are mailing many of our stockholders a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials instead of a paper copy of the proxy materials. All stockholders receiving the Notice will have the ability to access the proxy materials over the internet and request to receive a paper copy of the proxy materials by mail. Instructions on how to access the proxy materials over the internet or to request a paper copy may be found in the Notice. In addition, the Notice contains instructions on how stockholders may request access to proxy materials in printed form by mail or electronically on an ongoing basis.

Record Date; Proxies

Each stockholder of record at the close of business on the record date, February 19, 2014,11, 2015, is entitled to one vote for each director nominee and one vote for each of the other proposals to be voted on with respect to each

share registered in the stockholder’s name. A stockholder of record is a person or entity who held shares on that dateregisteredin its name on the records of Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (“Computershare”), Schlumberger’s stock transfer agent. Persons who held shares on the record date through a broker, bank or other nominee are consideredbeneficialowners.

Shares cannot be voted at the meeting unless the owner of record is present in person or is represented by proxy. Schlumberger is incorporated in Curaçao and, as required by Curaçao law, meetings of stockholders are held in Curaçao. Because many stockholders cannot personally attend the meeting, it is necessary that a large number be represented by proxy.

Shares Outstanding

There are approximately 1,306,440,330On February 11, 2015, there were 1,277,906,415 shares of Schlumberger common stock outstanding and entitled to vote.

Quorum

Holders of at least one-half of the outstanding shares entitling the holders thereof to vote at the meeting must be present in person or by proxy to constitute a quorum for the taking of any action at the meeting.

Votes Required to Adopt Proposals

To be elected, director nominees must receive a majority of votes cast (the number of votes cast “for” a director nominee must exceed the number of votes cast “against” that nominee). Approval of each of the other matters on the agenda also requires the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast.

Effect of Abstentions and Broker Non-Votes

Abstentions and proxies submitted by brokers that do not indicate a vote because they do not have discretionary voting authority and have not received instructions from thebeneficialowner of the shares as to how to vote on a proposal (so-called “broker non-votes”) will be considered as present for quorum purposes. If a quorum is not present at the meeting, the Board may call a second general meeting of stockholders, at which the quorum requirement will not apply.

Brokers holding shares must vote according to specific instructions they receive from thebeneficialowners of those shares. If brokers do not receive specific instructions, brokers may in some cases vote the shares in their discretion. However, the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) precludes brokers from exercising voting discretion on certain proposals without specific instructions from the beneficial owner, as follows:

Discretionary Items. Under NYSE rules, brokers will have discretion to vote on Items 3 (financial statements)(approval of financial statements and dividends) and 4 (appointment of auditors)independent registered public accounting firm) without instructions from thebeneficialowners.

Nondiscretionary Items. Brokers cannot vote on Items 1 (election of directors) or 2 (advisory vote to approve executive compensation) without instructions from thebeneficialowners. Therefore, if your shares are held in “street name” by a broker and you do not instruct your broker how to vote on the election of directors or the advisory vote to approve executive compensation, your broker willnotbe able to vote for you on those matters.

Abstentions and broker non-votes will not be tabulated in determining the outcome of the vote on the election of directors or on any of the other proposals.

Voting Procedures

Stockholders with shares registered in their names with Computershare and participants who hold shares in the Schlumberger Discounted Stock Purchase Plan may authorize a proxy:

The internet and telephone voting facilities for stockholders of record will close at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, April 8, 2014.7, 2015. The internet and telephone voting procedures have been designed to authenticate stockholders and to allow you to vote your shares and to confirm that your instructions have been properly recorded.

A number of banks and brokerage firms participate in programs that also permit beneficial stockholders to direct their vote by the internet or telephone. If shares are held in an account at a bank or brokerage firm that participates in such a program, beneficial stockholders may direct the vote of these shares by the internet or telephone by following the instructions on the voting form.

By providing your voting instructions promptly, you may save the Company the expense of a second mailing.

All shares entitled to vote and represented by properly executed proxies received prior to the meeting and not revoked will be voted at the meeting in accordance with your instructions. If you are a stockholder with shares registered in your name with Computershare and you submit a properly executed proxy card but do not direct how to vote on each item, the persons named as proxies will vote as the Board recommends on each proposal.

Changing Your Vote or Revoking Your Proxy

If you are a stockholder of record, you can change your vote or revoke your proxy at any time before the polls close by timely delivery of a properly executed, later-dated proxy (including an internet or telephone vote) or by voting by ballot at the meeting. If you hold shares through a broker, bank or other nominee, you must follow the instructions of your broker, bank or other nominee to change or revoke your voting instructions.

ITEM 1. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

All of our directors are elected annually at our annual general meeting of stockholders. Our stockholders are requested to elect a Board of Directors of 11 members, each to hold office until the next annual general meeting of stockholders and until a director’s successor is elected and qualified or until a director’s death, resignation or removal. Each of the nominees is now a director and was previously elected by the stockholders at the 20132014 annual general meeting, except for Ms. Kempston Darkes,Nooyi, who is not currently a director. All of the nominees for election have consented to being named in this proxy statement and to serve if elected. If any nominee is unable or unwilling to serve, the Board of Directors may designate a substitute nominee or reduce the size of the Board of Directors. If the Board designates a substitute nominee, proxies may be voted for that substitute nominee. The Board knows of no reason why any nominee will be unable or unwilling to serve if elected.

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that non-executive directors are eligible to be nominated for re-election up to their 70th birthday, and executive directors are eligible to be nominated for re-election up to their 65th birthday. However, on the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee, the Board may make case-by-case exceptions if it deems such exception to be in the best interests of the Company. In July 2013, the Board of Directors, on the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee, agreed to nominate Tony Isaac, 72, our current non-executive Chairman of the Board, for re-election to the Board.

Having reachedexceeded the normal retirement age of 70 under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Adrian LajousTony Isaac will not be standing for re-election at our annual meeting. Our Board extends gratitude to Mr. LajousIsaac for 12 years of service.service, including service as our non-executive Chairman of the Board. As described below, it is expected that Mr. Kibsgaard, our Chief Executive Officer, will be appointed Chairman of the Board upon Mr. Isaac’s retirement. As a result of Mr. Lajous’Isaac’s retirement, and assuming the election of all director nominees, the size of the Board will remain at 11.

Shares represented by properly executed proxies will be voted, if authority to do so is not withheld, for the election of each of the 11 nominees named below.

Required Vote

Each director nominee must receive a majority of the votes cast to be elected.If you hold your shares in “street name,” please be aware that brokers do not have discretion to vote on this proposal without your instruction. If you do not instruct your broker how to vote on this proposal, your broker will deliver a non-vote on this proposal.

Recommendation of the Board

The Board of Directors Recommends a Vote FOR All Nominees.

Director Nominees

The Board believes that each director nominee possesses the qualities and experience that the Nominating and Governance Committee believes that nominees should possess, as described in detail below in the section entitled “Corporate Governance—Director Nominations.” The Board seeks out, and the Board is comprised of, individuals whose background and experience complement those of other Board members. The nominees for election to the Board, together with biographical information furnished by each of them and information regarding each nominee’s director qualifications, are set forth below. There are no family relationships among executive officers and directors of the Company.

New Director Nominee

MAUREEN KEMPSTON DARKES, 64, retired,INDRA K. NOOYI, 59, is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PepsiCo, a global food and beverage company. She was Groupnamed President and CEO in 2006, and assumed the additional role of Chairman of PepsiCo’s Board of Directors in 2007. She was elected to PepsiCo’s Board of Directors and became President and Chief Financial Officer in 2001, after serving as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since 2000. Mrs. Nooyi also served as PepsiCo’s Senior Vice President, Latin America, AfricaCorporate Strategy and Middle East, of General Motors Corporation, an automotive manufacturer,Development from January 20021996 until her retirement in December 2009,2000, and was a member of the General Motors Automotive Strategy Boardas PepsiCo’s Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning from

January 2002 to December 2009.¹ Ms. Kempston Darkes has been a director of Enbridge Inc., a leading energy transportation and distribution company, since November 2010, and is a member of its corporate social responsibility and its human resources and compensation committees. She also is a member of the board of directors of Brookfield Asset Management Inc., a global asset management company (since April 2008), where she chairs the risk management committee and is a member of its resources and compensation committee; Balfour Beatty plc, an infrastructure services company (since July 2012), where she chairs the business practices committee and is a member of the nomination committee; and Canadian National Railway Company (since 1995), where she chairs the environment, safety and security committee, and is a member of the audit, human resources/compensation and strategic planning committees. 1994 until 1996. The Board believes that it will benefit greatly from Ms. Kempston Darkes’ extensive automotive industry experience,Mrs. Nooyi’s proven leadership as the Company continues to focus on product reliabilityChairman and execution.CEO of a global public company. The Board furtheralso believes that sheher expertise in developing and directing corporate strategy and finance, mergers and acquisitions, and organizational and talent management will bring proven leadership abilities and experience in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, enablingenable her to make valuable contributions to the Board. The Board also believes that it will benefit greatly from Ms. Kempston Darkes’ audit committee experience and financial expertise.

Current Directors

PETER L.S. CURRIE, 57,58, has been a director of the Company since 2010. Since April 2004, Mr. Curriehe has been President of Currie Capital LLC, a private investment firm. Mr. Currie is the Lead Independent Directorlead independent director at Twitter, Inc., where he chairs both the audit committee and the nominating and governance committee, having served on its board since November 2010. From 2006 to 2010,He also serves on the board of directors of New Relic, Inc. (since March 2013), where he was a director of Sun Microsystems, a network computing infrastructure productchairs its audit committee and service company, andis a member of its auditcompensation committee. Mr. Currie also was a directorpreviously served on the boards of directors of Clearwire Corporation, a wireless internet service provider, from 2005 to June 2011. Mr. Currie alsoCNET Networks, Inc., Safeco Corporation, and Sun Microsystems, Inc., and is a director at several privateprivately-held companies. He is also President of the board of trustees of Phillips Academy. Mr. Currie brings to the Board strong financial and operational expertise as a result of his extensive board and committee experience at both public and privateprivately-held companies; experience as Chief Financial Officerchief financial officer of two public companies (McCaw Cellular Communications Inc. and Netscape Communications Corp.); and experience in senior operating positions in investment banking, venture capital and private equity.

TONY ISAAC, 72, retired, has been a director of the Company since 2003, and is the non-executive Chairman of the Board. He was the former Chief Executive of The BOC Group plc, an international group with three business segments consisting of Gases and Related Products, Vacuum Technology and Supply Chain Solutions, from September 1999 to October 2006, when he retired. Since 2006, Mr. Isaac has been the senior non-executive director of the Hogg Robinson Group, a corporate travel services company, where he serves on its remuneration and nomination committees, and is chairman of its audit committee. From October 2000 to July 2013, he served on the board of GDF SUEZ Energy International (formerly known as International Power plc), an independent power producer, and was chairman of its audit committee from February 2011 to August 2012. Mr. Isaac brings to the Board extensive experience serving on boards of large, multinational companies. As a former chief executive, Mr. Isaac also has valuable experience in the operation of a worldwide business faced with a myriad of international business and political issues. The Board believes that Mr. Isaac’s experience as senior non-executive director of all boards on which he has served makes him a highly effective non-executive Chairman of the Board, and for these reasons the Board decided to nominate Mr. Isaac for an additional term as a member of the Schlumberger Board.

K. VAMAN KAMATH, 66,67, has been a director of the Company since 2010. He has been the non-executive Chairman of the Board of ICICI Bank Limited, a banking institution, since May 2009, and was its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of ICICI Bank Limited from 2002 to May 2009. He chairsis chairman of its board governance, remunerationCredit and nomination committee, as well as its credit, risk and customer service committees,

Risk Committees, and is a member of its fraud monitoring, information technology strategy committee.Board Governance, Remuneration and Nomination Committee, as well as its Customer Service; Fraud Monitoring; and Information Technology Strategy Committees. Mr. Kamath washas served on the non-executive Chairmanboard of the Board at Infosys Limited, an information technology services company, since May 2009, and was its non-executive Chairman from August 2011 to May 2013, and has been its Lead Independent Director since then, havingwas re-appointed to that position in October 2014. From June 2013 to October 2014, he served onas Infosys’ board of directors since May 2009.lead independent director. Mr. Kamath also serves on Infosys’ audit committee, and its management developmentnominations and compensation committee, and chairs its corporate social responsibility committee. Mr. Kamath is also the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Indian Institute of Management Indore. Mr. Kamath brings to the Board a deep understanding of India, (aa large and critical market for Schlumberger)Schlumberger, and of Asia generally, both of which are of immense value to the Board. As a banker with more than 4045 years’ experience, Mr. Kamath has extensive CEO experience and expertise in corporate finance, international banking, financial reporting, and mergers and acquisitions. Mr. Kamath’s leadership abilities and experience in India and Asia enable him to make valuable contributions to the Board.

V. MAUREEN KEMPSTON DARKES, 66, retired, has been a director of the Company since 2014. She was Group Vice President and President Latin America, Africa and Middle East, of General Motors Corporation (“GM”), an automotive manufacturer, from January 2002 until her retirement in December 2009, and was a member of its Automotive Strategy Board until her retirement from GM.¹ Ms. Kempston Darkes has been a director of Enbridge Inc., a leading energy transportation and distribution company, since November 2010, and is a member of its corporate social responsibility committee, its safety and reliability committee and its human resources and compensation committee. She also is a member of the board of directors of Brookfield Asset Management Inc., a global asset management company (since April 2008), where she chairs the risk management committee; Balfour Beatty plc, an infrastructure services company (since July 2012), where she chairs the business practices committee and is a member of both the nomination and the remuneration committees; and Canadian National Railway Company (since 1995), where she chairs the environment, safety and security committee, and is a member of the human resources and compensation committee, as well as the corporate governance and nominating committee and the strategic planning committee. Ms. Kempston Darkes brings to the Board extensive automotive industry experience, as the Company continues to focus on product reliability and execution, as well as proven leadership abilities and experience in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. The Board also benefits greatly from Ms. Kempston Darkes’ audit committee experience and financial expertise.

¹ General Motors Corporation filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on June 1, 2009. None of the operations for which Ms. Kempston Darkes was directly responsible in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East were included in the bankruptcy filing. GM emerged from bankruptcy protection on July 10, 2009.

PAAL KIBSGAARD, 46,47, has been a director of the Company since 2011 and has served as Chief Executive Officer of the Company since August 2011. He was the Company’s Chief Operating Officer from February 2010 to July 2011, and President of the Reservoir Characterization Group from May 2009 to February 2010. Prior to that, Mr. Kibsgaard served as Vice President, Engineering, Manufacturing and Sustaining, from November 2007 to May 2009, and as Vice President of Personnel from April 2006 to November 2007. Mr. Kibsgaard brings to the Board a thorough knowledge of the Company’s operational activities worldwide as a result of his service in various global leadership positions in the Company. Mr. Kibsgaard has been with the Company since 1997, and began his career as a reservoir engineer. He has held numerous operational and administrative management positions within the Company in the Middle East, Europe and the U.S., and As a result of his service in various global leadership positions in the Company, he brings to the Board a valuableunique operational perspective toand thorough knowledge of the Board.Company’s operational activities worldwide. The Board believes that Mr. Kibsgaard’s service as Chief Executive Officer is an important link between management and the Board, enabling the Board to perform its oversight function with the benefit of his perspectives on the Company’s business.

NIKOLAY KUDRYAVTSEV, 63,64, has been a director of the Company since 2007. Since June 1997, he has been the Rector of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. In 2012, Mr. Kudryavtsev was electedhas been chairman of the Board of Rectors of the City of Moscow and Moscow Region.Region since 2012, and was elected Vice President of the Russian Rectors Union in 2014. Mr. Kudryavtsev brings to the Board valuable management and finance experience, as well as deep scientific and technological expertise. This provides the Board with valuable insight regarding the Company, its products and current technology, as well as the future technological needs of the Company and the industry. Mr. Kudryavtsev also provides the Board with a particularly valuable Russian vantage point, which is useful for both the development of the Company’s business and understanding of the needs of the Company’s growing population of Russian employees. The Board is aided immensely by Mr. Kudryavtsev’s sensitivity to Russian culture and risk at the field level.

MICHAEL E. MARKS, 63,64, has been a director of the Company since 2005. He has been a Managing Partner of Riverwood Capital, LLC, (formerly Bigwood Capital, LLC), a private equity firm, since March 2007. From 1994 to 2006, Mr. Marks served as the Chief Executive Officer of Flextronics, Inc., a leading producer of advanced electronic manufacturing services, and was a member of its board of directors from 1991 to 2008. He was appointed Chairman of the Board of Flextronics effective upon his retirement as Chief Executive Officer in 2006 and served in that role until 2008. Mr. Marks has been a director of SanDisk, a memory products company, since 2003 and became its Chairman of its board in January 2011. He also chairs its nominating and governance committee. Mr. Marks is alsothe lead independent director at GoPro, Inc., a consumer camera company, and is a member of its compensation committee and is chairman of its nominating and governance committee.and its compensation and leadership committees. From 20071991 to 2010, he was2008, Mr. Marks served as a director at Flextronics, Inc., a leading producer of advanced electronic manufacturing services, and was its Chief Executive Officer from January 1994 to January 2006. From 2006 to 2008, he was Chairman of the Board of Flextronics Mr. Marks previously served on the boards of directors of Sun Microsystems a network computing infrastructure product and service company,Calix, and was a member of its audit committee. Until December 2010, Mr. Marks wasis a director of Calix (since 2009), a provider of broadband communications access systems and software.at several privately-held companies. Mr. Marks brings to the Board his familiarity with world-class manufacturing from the field level to the boardroom based on his experience at Flextronics, a large, diversified global corporation with many of the same issues that Schlumberger faces. As a former chief executive and as a public company director at various other companies, Mr. Marks has been involved in succession planning, compensation, employee management and the evaluation of acquisition opportunities. Mr. Marks’ significant experience as a director at technologyvarious technology-driven companies, as well as his finance and mergers and acquisitions experience, are especially relevant to Schlumberger’s technology-oriented business and growth strategy.

LUBNA S. OLAYAN, 58,59, has been a director of the Company since 2011. Since 1986, she has beenShe is the deputy chairperson and Chief Executive Officer and deputy chairperson of Riyadh-based Olayan Financing Company, the holding entity for The Olayan Group’s operations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. Ms. Olayan is a Principal of The Olayan Group (since 2001),and a private multinational enterprise engaged in manufacturing, distribution and services. She is aBoard member of the Board of Directors of Olayan Investments Company Establishment, the parent company of The Olayan Group.Group, a private multinational enterprise engaged in manufacturing, distribution and services. Since December 2004, she has been a director of Saudi Hollandi Bank, becoming the first woman to join the board of a Saudi publicly-listed company,company. She was elected Vice Chair in January 2014 and is a member of its executive committee and its nomination and remuneration committee. Ms. Olayan serves asis a non-executive director and member of various corporate andnumerous international advisory boards, such as Rolls Royce Group plc, (since 2006), Akbank (since 2008) and the National Bank of Kuwait (since 2010).McKinsey & Co. Ms. Olayan also serves on the boards of various non-governmental organizations, as well as of various educational institutions, including Cornell University and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. Ms. Olayan served as a non-executive director of WPP plc, one of the largesta multinational communication services businesses in the world,company, from March 2005 to June 2012, and was a

member of its nomination committee. Ms. Olayan brings to the Board proven leadership abilities and experience in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, which enable her to make valuable contributions to the Board. Ms. Olayan also has extensive business experience in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East and a deep understanding of those areas, which are critical to the Company.Company and enable her to make valuable contributions to the Board. The Board benefits from her proven leadership abilities, extensive CEO experience and expertise in corporate finance, international banking, distribution and manufacturing. Ms. Olayan also brings a critical international perspective on business and global best practices. Ms. Olayan’s service on the Boardsboards of Trusteestrustees of Cornell University and of King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, and her connections to the scientific community and experience in university relations, also are also of great value to Schlumberger and its efforts in technology leadership and employee recruiting and retention.

LEO RAFAEL REIF, 63,64, has been a director of the Company since 2007. Since July 2012, Mr. Reif has been President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), having been MIT’s Provost, Chief Academic Officer and Chief Budget Officer from August 2005 to July 2012. Mr. Reif was head of the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department at MIT from September 2004 to July 2005, and an Associate Department Head for Electrical Engineering in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT from January 1999 to August 2004. Mr. Reif brings to the Board valuable management and finance expertise. As a scientist, he has deep scientific and technological expertise about the Company’s products and current technology, as well as about anticipated future technological needs of the Company and the industry. The Board values Mr. Reif’s connections to the U.S. scientific community, as well as his expertise in university relations and collaborations, which are of high importance to Schlumberger and its efforts in technology leadership and employee retention. Mr. Reif provides the Board with a critical U.S. scientific perspective, which is of immense value in the oversight of the Company’s strategy.

TORE I. SANDVOLD, 66,67, has been a director of the Company since 2004. He has been executive Chairman of Sandvold Energy AS, an advisory company in the oil and energy industry, since September 2002. Mr. Sandvold is a director of Rowan Companies plc (since 2013), a provider of international and domestic contract drilling services, where he serves on its audit committee and its health, safety and environment committee. He has also been a member, since 2003, of the board of directors of Teekay Corporation, since 2003, a leading provider of international crude oil and petroleum product transportation services, where he is a member ofserves on its nominating and governance committee. From 20011990 to 2002,2001, Mr. Sandvold served as Director General of the Norwegian Ministry of Oil & Energy, with overall responsibility for Norway’s national and international oil and gas policy. From 2001 to 2002, he was executive Chairman of Petoro AS, the Norwegian state-owned oil company. He also served as Chairman of Misen Energy AB, a Swedish upstream oil and gas company from December 2011 to November 2014, and was its acting chief executive officer from September 2012 to May 2014. Mr. Sandvold is also a member of the boards of directors of Lambert Energy Advisory Ltd; Njord Gas Infrastructure, and Energy Policy Foundation of Norway. Mr. Sandvold brings to the Board experience working in the area of energy policy for approximately 40 years, and he has broad experience in developing domestic and international energy policies for Norway as a career civil servant. He also has extensive experience dealing with global energy institutions such as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and the International Energy Agency, and in negotiating with global energy companies. Mr. Sandvold has finance experience and a solid understanding of business opportunities, both as concerns acquisition targets and the industry in general.

HENRI SEYDOUX, 53,54, has been a director of the Company since 2009. Since 1994, he has been Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Parrot S.A., a global wireless products manufacturer. Mr. Seydoux is an entrepreneur

with great initiative. He founded Parrot S.A. in 1994 as a private company and took it public in 2007. As the chief executive of a dynamic and innovative technology company, Mr. Seydoux brings to the Board entrepreneurial drive and management skills. He also has family ties to the founding Schlumberger brothers, and having grown up in the Schlumberger family culture, is well placed to see that the Company continues its historical commitment to Schlumberger’s core values. His service on the Board addresses the Company’s need to preserve the Company’s unique culture and history while fostering innovation.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Governance Framework—Highlights

The following are some highlights of our corporate governance practices and policies:

Board Independence; Committees Structure

Majority Voting; Stockholder Authority

Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines

Risk Oversight

Hedging and Pledging Policies

Political Contributions

Corporate Governance Guidelines

Schlumberger is committed to adhering to sound principles of corporate governance and has adopted corporate governance guidelines that the Board believes are consistent with Schlumberger’s values, and that promote the effective functioning of the Board, its committees and the Company. Our Board periodically, and at least annually, reviews and revises, as appropriate, our Corporate Governance Guidelines to ensure that they reflect the Board’s corporate governance objectives and commitments. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines are on our website at http://www.slb.com/about/guiding_principles/corpgovernance/corpgov_guidelines.aspx.

Board Independence

Schlumberger’s Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that at least a majority of the Board will consist of independent directors. This standard reflects the NYSE corporate governance listing standards.

Our Board has adopted director independence standards, which can be found in Attachment A to our Corporate Governance Guidelines, and which meet or exceed the independence requirements in the NYSE listing standards. Based on the review and recommendation by the Nominating and Governance Committee, the Board of Directors has determined that each current director and director nominee listed above under “Election of Directors” is “independent” under the listing standards of the NYSE and our director independence standards, except Mr. Kibsgaard, who is our CEO and therefore does not qualify as independent. The Board also previously determined that Elizabeth Moler,Adrian Lajous, who served as director until the 20132014 annual general meeting and did not stand for re-election, was independent.

In addition to the Board-level standards for director independence, each member of the Audit Committee meets the heightened independence standards required for audit committee members under the NYSE’s listing standards, and each member of the Compensation Committee meets the heightened independence standards for compensation committee members under NYSE listing standards adopted last year,in 2013, which Schlumberger implemented in advance of the required compliance date.

Transactions Considered in Independence Determinations. The Board’s independence determinations included a review of transactions that occurred since the beginning of 20112012 with entities associated with the independent directors or members of their immediate family. In making its independence determinations, the Board considered that Ms. Kempston Darkes, Mr. Isaac, Mr. Kamath, Mr. Kudryavtsev, Mr. Lajous, Ms. Olayan and Mr. Sandvold each have served as directors, trustees, outside consultants or advisory board members at companies and universities that have had commercial business relationships with the Company, all of which were ordinary course commercial transactions involving significantly less than 1% of either entity’s annual revenues. The Board also considered that the Company made charitable contributions in 20132014 to The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, of which Mr. Reif is the President, of approximately $60,000 for thesis sponsorships and other$499,700, relating to educational grants and training fees,sponsored fellowships, for which Mr. Reif received no personal benefit. This amount was significantly less than the greater of $1 million or 2% of the university’s consolidated gross revenues for any of the past three years.

Director Nominations

The Nominating and Governance Committee believes that nominees should, in the judgment of the Board, be persons of integrity and honesty, be able to exercise sound, mature and independent business judgment in the best interests of our stockholders as a whole, be recognized leaders in business or professional activity, have

background and experience that will complement those of other Board members, be able to actively participate in Board and Committee meetings and related activities, be able to work professionally and effectively with other Board members and Schlumberger management, be available to remain on the Board long enough to make an effective contribution and have no material relationship with competitors, customers or other third parties that could present realistic possibilities of conflict of interest or legal issues.

The Nominating and Governance Committee also believes that the Board should include appropriate expertise and reflect gender, cultural and geographical diversity, in light of the entire Board’s current composition and range of diversity. Schlumberger has approximately 123,000120,000 employees worldwide, representing more than 140 nationalities, and values gender, cultural and geographical diversity in its directors as well. TwoThree of the Company’s 11 director nominees are women. Of the 11 director nominees, threefour are citizens of the United States of America; two are citizens of Norway; and one director nominee is a citizen of each of Canada, France, Great Britain, Russia, India and Saudi Arabia.

The Company’s very diverse Board also evidences the Board’s commitment to have directors who represent countries where Schlumberger operates. In addition, the exceptionally broad and diverse experience of Board members is in keeping with the goal of having directors whose background and experience complement those of other directors. The Nominating and Governance Committee’s evaluation of director nominees takes into account their ability to contribute to the Board’s diversity, and the Nominating and Governance Committee annually reviews its effectiveness in balancing these considerations in the context of its consideration of director nominees.

Applying the criteria above, the Nominating and Governance Committee recommends to the Board the number and names of persons to be proposed by the Board for election as directors at the annual general meeting of stockholders. In obtaining the names of possible nominees, the Nominating and Governance Committee makes its own inquiries and will receive suggestions from other directors, management, stockholders and other sources, and its process for evaluating nominees identified in unsolicited recommendations from security holders is the same as its process for unsolicited recommendations from other sources. From time to time, the Committee retains executive search and board advisory consulting firms to assist in identifying and evaluating potential nominees. During 2013,2014, the committeeCommittee retained London-based MWM Consulting, a third-party executive search firm, for this purpose. Consideration of new Board candidates typically involves a series of internal discussions, review of information concerning candidates, and interviews with selected candidates. Board members typically suggest candidates for nomination to the Board. MWM Consulting recommended Ms. Kempston DarkesNooyi as a prospective Board candidate.

The Nominating and Governance Committee must first consider all potential director nominees before they are contacted by other Company directors or officers as possible nominees and before they are formally considered by the full Board. The Nominating and Governance Committee will consider nominees recommended by stockholders who meet the eligibility requirements for submitting stockholder proposals for inclusion in the next proxy statement and submit their recommendations in writing to:

Chair, Nominating and Governance Committee

c/o Secretary, Schlumberger Limited

5599 San Felipe, 17th Floor

Houston, Texas 77056

by the deadline for such stockholder proposals referred to at the end of this proxy statement. Unsolicited recommendations must contain all of the information that would be required in a proxy statement soliciting proxies for the election of the candidate as a director, a description of all direct or indirect arrangements or understandings between the recommending security holder and the candidate, all other companies to which the candidate is being recommended as a nominee for director, and a signed consent of the candidate to cooperate with reasonable background checks and personal interviews, and to serve as a director of the Company, if elected.

Board Leadership Structure

The Board recognizes that one of its key responsibilities is to evaluate and determine an appropriate board leadership structure so as to ensure independent oversight of management. The Board believes that there is no single, generally accepted board leadership structure that is appropriate for all companies, and that the right structure may vary for a single company as circumstances change. As such, our independent directors consider the Board’s leadership structure at least annually.annually, and may modify this structure from time to time to best address the Company’s unique circumstances and advance the best interests of all stockholders, as and when appropriate.

In 2011, the independent members of the Board determined, based on its annual consideration of the Board’s leadership structure, that the separation of the roles of Chairman of the Board and CEO and appointment of an independent, non-executive Chairman of the Board was an appropriate board leadership structure at that time, and have determined that this leadership structure continues to be appropriate at this time, because it allows our CEO to focus on leadingtime. Accordingly, the Company’s complex international business operations while providing the Board experienced and independent leadership. The independent members of the Board appointed Tony Isaac as the independent, non-executive Chairman of the Board in April 2012.2012, and Mr. Isaac who previouslyhas served in this capacity since then. Mr. Isaac’s role as Chairman of the Board’s lead independent director, continues to fulfill the responsibilities he performed as lead independent director, includingBoard has been, among other things, setting the agendas for, and presiding over executive sessions of non-management directors, as well as serving as Chairman.

As discussed above, Mr. Isaac will not stand for-reelection at the 2015 annual general meeting. In light ofconnection with Mr. Isaac’s appointment asplanned retirement from the Board, the independent non-executive Chairmanmembers of the Board gave thoughtful consideration to the Board does not currently have a designated lead independent director. The Board may modify thisBoard’s leadership structure from time to time to best addressand determined that recombining the Company’s unique circumstances, to advanceChairman and CEO positions under the leadership of Mr. Kibsgaard upon Mr. Isaac’s retirement would be in the best interests of all stockholders, as and when appropriate. In the event that the Company modifiesand the stockholders at this time. This determination was based on the Board’s strong belief that, as the individual with primary responsibility for managing the Company’s day-to-day operations and with extensive knowledge and understanding of the Company, Mr. Kibsgaard will be best positioned to chair regular Board meetings as the directors discuss key business and strategic issues and to focus the Board’s attention on the issues of greatest importance to the Company and its stockholders. Furthermore, combining the roles of Chairman and CEO in Mr. Kibsgaard creates a clear line of authority that promotes decisive and effective leadership, both within and outside the Company. In making this judgment, the Board took into account its evaluation of Mr. Kibsgaard’s performance as CEO and as a current member of the Board, his positive relationships with the other directors, and the strategic perspective he would bring to the role of Chairman.

In connection with its decision to recombine the roles of Chairman and CEO under Mr. Kibsgaard, the Board recognized the importance of having a board structure inthat would continue to promote the future and appointsappropriate exercise of independent judgment by the Board. Thus, the Board committed to the appointment of a lead independent director, that director’s responsibilities would, as previously,to be expected to include settingselected by and from the agendaindependent directors, who will have the following leadership authority and responsibilities:

It is expected that Peter Currie will be appointed as lead independent director in connection with Mr. Kibsgaard’s succession to the role of Chairman of the Board.

In considering its leadership structure, the Board also took into account that Schlumberger’s current governance practices provide for strong independent leadership, active participation by independent directors and independent evaluation of, and communication with, many members of senior management. These governance practices are reflected in our Corporate Governance Guidelines and our various committee charters, which are available on our website. The Board believes that its risk oversight programs, discussed immediately below, would be effective under a variety of board leadership frameworks and therefore do not materially affect the Board’s choice of leadership structure.

The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

The role that the Board fulfills in risk oversight is set out in our Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Board assesses major risks facing the Company and options for their mitigation, in order to promote the Company’s stockholders’ and other stakeholders’ interests in the long-term health and the overall success of the Company and its financial strength.

The full Board is actively involved in overseeing risk management for the Company. It does so in part through its oversight of the Company’s Executive Risk Committee (the “ERC”) comprised of more than half a dozen top executives of the Company from various functions, each of whom supervises day-to-day risk management throughout the Company. The ERC is not a committee of the Board. The ERC ensures that the Company identifies all potential material risks facing the Company and implements appropriate mitigation measures. The Company’s risk identification is performed at two levels: the ERC performs a corporate-level risk mapping exercise, which involves the CEO and several other members of senior management, and while maintaining oversight, delegates operational (field-level) risk assessment and management to the Company’s various Areas, Technologies and Functions and to its Research, Engineering, Manufacturing and Sustaining organization. To the extent that the ERC identifies recurring themes from the operational risk mapping exercises,

they are acted on at the corporate level. Members of the ERC meet formally at least once a year, and more frequently on an ad hoc basis, to define and improve the risk mapping process, and to review and monitor the results of those exercises and those that have been delegated. The ERC reports directly to the CEO and to the full Board, and annually presents to the full Board a comprehensive report as to its risk mapping efforts for that year.

In addition, each of our Board committees considers the risks within its areas of responsibility. For example, the Finance Committee considers finance-related risks on a quarterly basis and recommends guidelines to control

cash, pension investments, banking relationships and currency exposures. The Compensation Committee reviews and assesses the Company’s overall compensation program and its effectiveness at linking executive pay to performance, aligning the interests of our executives and our stockholders and providing for appropriate incentives. The Nominating and Governance Committee oversees governance- and compliance-related risks and reviews and discusses the Company’s Ethics and Compliance Program’s quarterly statistical report and the various allegations, disciplinary actions and training statistics brought to its attention. The Audit Committee reviews and assesses risks related to financial reporting. The Audit Committee also discusses all significant finance-related violations of Company policies brought to its attention from time to time, and once per year reviews a summary of all finance-related violations. Additionally, the outcome of the Company’s Audit Risk assessment is presented to the Audit Committee annually; this assessment identifies internal controls risks and drives the internal audit plan for the coming year. All significant violations of the Company’s Code of Conduct and related corporate policies are reported to the Nominating and Governance Committee and (if finance-related) to the Audit Committee, and, when appropriate, are reported to the full Board. Once a year, the Deputy General Counsel, Compliance delivers to the full Board a comprehensive Annual Compliance Report. The risks identified within the Ethics and Compliance Program are incorporated into the ERC’s enterprise risk management program described above.

Meetings of the Board of Directors and its Committees

During 2013,2014, the Board of Directors held sixfour meetings. Schlumberger has an Audit, a Compensation, a Nominating and Governance, a Finance, and a Science and Technology Committee. During 2013,2014, the Audit Committee met five times; the Compensation Committee met four times; the Finance Committee met four times; the Nominating and Governance Committee met four times; and the Science and Technology Committee met two times.

Each of our current directors attended at least 85%100% of the meetings of the Board and the committees on which he or she served in 20132014 (held during the period he or she served), except for Mr. Marks, who attended 71% of such meetings..

From time to time between meetings, Board and committee members confer with each other and with management and independent consultants regarding relevant issues, and representatives of management may meet with such consultants on behalf of the relevant committee.

Board Committees

Members of the Committees of the Board of Directors as of February 1, 2015

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee consists of four directors, each of whom meets the independence and other requirements of the NYSE’s listing standards. The Audit Committee assists the Board in its oversight of the integrity of the Company’s financial statements, legal and regulatory compliance, the independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications, independence, performance and related matters, and the performance of Schlumberger’s internal audit function. The authority and responsibilities of the Audit Committee include the following:

The Company’s independent registered public accounting firm is accountable to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee pre-approves all engagements, including the fees and terms for the integrated audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The Board of Directors has determined that each Committee member has sufficient knowledge in financial and auditing matters to serve on the Committee. In addition, the Board of Directors has determined that Messrs. Currie Kamath and LajousKamath each qualify as an “audit committee financial expert” under applicable SEC rules. The Audit Committee operates pursuant to a written charter, which is available on the Company’s website at http://www.slb.com/about/guiding_principles/corpgovernance/audit_committee.aspx.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee consists of four directors, each of whom meets the independence requirements of the NYSE’s listing standards. The purposes of the Compensation Committee are to assist Schlumberger’s Board of Directors in discharging its responsibilities with regard to executive compensation; periodically review non-executive directors’ compensation; oversee Schlumberger’s general compensation philosophy; serve as the administrative committee under Schlumberger’s stock plans; and prepare the annual Compensation Committee Report required by the rules of the SEC. The authority and responsibilities of the Compensation Committee include the following:

The Compensation Committee may delegate specific responsibilities to one or more individual committee members to the extent permitted by law, regulation, NYSE listing standards and Schlumberger’s governing documents. The design and day-to-day administration of all compensation and benefits plans and related policies, as applicable to executive officers and other salaried employees, are handled by teams of the Company’s human resources, finance and legal department employees.

Role of the Independent Consultant. The Compensation Committee has retained Pay Governance LLC (“Pay Governance”) as its independent consultant with respect to executive compensation matters. Pay Governance reports only to, and acts solely at the direction of, the Compensation Committee. Schlumberger’s management does not direct or oversee the activities of Pay Governance with respect to the Company’s executive compensation program. Pay Governance prepares compensation surveys for review by the Compensation Committee at its October meeting. One of the purposes of the October meeting is to assess compensation decisions made in January of that year in light of comparative data to date; another purpose of the October meeting is to prepare for the annual executive officer compensation review the following January. Pay Governance works with the Company’s executive compensation department to compare compensation paid to the Company’s executive officers with compensation paid for comparable positions at companies included in the compensation surveys conducted by Pay Governance at the direction of the Compensation Committee. Pay Governance and the Company’s executive compensation department also compile annual compensation data for each executive officer. The Compensation Committee has also instructed Pay Governance to prepare an analysis of each named executive officer’s compensation. The Compensation Committee has also retained Pay Governance as an independent consulting firm with respect to non-employee director compensation matters. Pay Governance prepares an analysis of competitive non-employee director compensation levels and market trends using the same peer groups as those used in the executive compensation review.

The Compensation Committee has assessed the independence of Pay Governance pursuant to SEC rules and has concluded that its work did not raise any conflict of interest that would prevent Pay Governance from independently representing the Compensation Committee.

Procedure for Determining Executive Compensation; Role of Management. The Compensation Committee evaluates all elements of executive officer compensation each January, after a review of achievement of financial and personal objectives with respect to the prior year’s results. The purpose is to determine whether any changes in the officer’s compensation are appropriate. The CEO does not participate in the Compensation Committee’s

deliberations with regard to his own compensation. At the Compensation Committee’s request, the CEO reviews with the Compensation Committee the performance of the other executive officers, but no other executive officer has any input in executive compensation decisions. The Compensation Committee gives substantial weight to the CEO’s evaluations and recommendations because he is particularly able to assess the other executive officers’ performance and contributions to the Company. The Compensation Committee independently determines each executive officer’s mix of total direct compensation based on the factors described in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Framework for Setting Executive Compensation in 2013—2014—Relative Size of Direct Compensation Elements.” Early in the calendar year, financial and personal objectives for each executive officer are determined for that year. The Compensation Committee may, however, review and adjust compensation at other times as the result of new appointments or promotions during the year.

The following table summarizes the approximate timing of significant compensation events:

The Compensation Committee operates pursuant to a written charter, which is available on the Company’s website at http://www.slb.com/about/guiding_principles/corpgovernance/compensation_committee.aspx.

Nominating and Governance Committee

The Nominating and Governance Committee consists of fivefour directors, each of whom meets the independence requirements of the NYSE’s listing standards. The authority and responsibilities of the Nominating and Governance Committee include the following:

The Nominating and Governance Committee operates pursuant to a written charter, which is available on the Company’s website at http://www.slb.com/about/guiding_principles/corpgovernance/nomgov_committee.aspx.

Finance Committee

The Finance Committee advises the Board and management on various matters, including dividends, financial policies and the investment of funds. The authority and responsibilities of the Finance Committee include the following:

The Finance Committee operates pursuant to a written charter, which is available on the Company’s website at http://www.slb.com/about/guiding_principles/corpgovernance/finance_committee.aspx.

Science and Technology Committee

The Science and Technology Committee advises the Board and management on matters involving the Company’s research and development programs. The authority and responsibilities of the Science and Technology Committee include the following:

The Science and Technology Committee operates pursuant to a written charter, which is available on the Company’s website at http://www.slb.com/about/guiding_principles/corpgovernance/tech_committee.aspx.

Communication with the Board

The Board has established a process for all interested parties, including stockholders and other security holders, to send communications, other than sales-related communications, to one or more of its members, including to the independent or non-management directors as a group. Interested parties may contact the Board or any Schlumberger director (including the Chairman of the Board) by writing to them at the following address:

Schlumberger Limited

c/o the Secretary

5599 San Felipe, 17th Floor

Houston, Texas 77056

All such communications will be forwarded to the Board member or members specified.

Director Attendance at Annual General Meeting

The Board’s policy regarding director attendance at the annual general meeting of stockholders is that directors are welcome, but not required, to attend, and that the Company will make all appropriate arrangements for directors who choose to attend. Tony Isaac, our non-executive Chairman of the Board,Peter Currie attended the annual general meeting of stockholders in 2013,2014, which was held in Curaçao as required by Curaçao law.

Policies and Procedures for Approval of Related Person Transactions

In January 2007, the Board formally adopted a written policy with respect to “related person transactions” to document procedures pursuant to which such transactions are reviewed, approved or ratified. Under SEC rules, “related persons” include any director, executive officer, director nominee, or 5% stockholder of the Company since the beginning of the previous fiscal year, and their immediate family members. The policy applies to any transaction in which:

The Nominating and Governance Committee, with assistance from the Company’s Secretary and General Counsel, is responsible for reviewing and, where appropriate, approving or ratifying any related person transaction involving Schlumberger or its subsidiaries and related persons. The Nominating and Governance Committee approves only those related person transactions that are in, or are not inconsistent with, the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

Since the beginning of 2013,2014, there were no related person transactions under the relevant standards.

Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Conduct

Copies of Schlumberger’s Corporate Governance Guidelines are available at: http://www.slb.com/about/guiding_principles/corpgovernance/corpgov_guidelines.aspx.

Schlumberger has adopted a Code of Conduct that applies to all of its directors, officers (including its chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief accounting officer, controller and any person performing similar functions) and employees. Our Code of Conduct is located at http://www.slb.com/about/codeofconduct.aspx.

ITEM 2. ADVISORY RESOLUTION TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

We are asking stockholders to approve, on an advisory basis, the Company’s executive compensation as reported in this proxy statement. As described below in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this proxy statement, the Compensation Committee has structured our executive compensation program to achieve the following key objectives:

We urge stockholders to read the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” beginning on page 22 of this proxy statement, which describes in more detail how our executive compensation policies and procedures operate and are designed to achieve our compensation objectives, as well as the Summary Compensation Table and other related compensation tables and narrative, appearing on pages 48 through 69,62, which provide detailed information on the compensation of our named executive officers. The Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors believe that the policies and procedures articulated in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” are effective in achieving our goals and that the compensation of our named executive officers reported in this proxy statement has contributed to the Company’s recent and long-term success.

In accordance with Section 14A of the Exchange Act, and as a matter of good corporate governance, we are asking stockholders to approve the following advisory resolution at the 20142015 annual general meeting of stockholders:

RESOLVED, that the stockholders of Schlumberger Limited (the “Company”) approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Summary Compensation Table and the related compensation tables, notes and narrative in the Proxy Statement for the Company’s 20142015 annual general meeting of stockholders.

This advisory resolution, commonly referred to as a “say-on-pay” resolution, is non-binding on the Board of Directors. Although non-binding, the Board and the Compensation Committee will review and consider the voting results when making future decisions regarding our executive compensation program.

The Board of Directors has adopted a policy providing for an annual “say-on-pay” advisory vote. Unless the Board of Directors modifies its policy on the frequency of holding “say-on-pay” advisory votes, the next “say-on-pay” advisory vote will occur in 2015.2016.

Required Vote

A majority of the votes cast is required to approve this Item 2.Brokers do not have discretion to vote on this proposal without your instruction. If you do not instruct your broker how to vote on this proposal, your broker will deliver a non-vote on this proposal.

Recommendation of the Board

The Board of Directors Recommends a Vote FOR Item 2.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The following Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) describes Schlumberger’s compensation policies and practices as they relate to our executive officers identified in the Summary Compensation Table below (the “named executive officers” or the “NEOs”). The purpose of the CD&A is to explain what the elements of compensation are; why our Compensation Committee selects these elements; and how the Compensation Committee determines the relative size of each element of compensation. Included in this CD&A are decisions made in 20132014 affecting 20132014 base salaries and long-term equity incentives (“LTIs”), as well as annual cash incentive awards earned in 20132014 but paid in February 2014.early 2015.

20132014 Executive Summary

2013 Overview

Schlumberger delivered strong financial results in 2013, with all three2014. Highlights of our Product Groups recording strong growth. Highlights of our2014 performance include:

Schlumberger management also took several other key operational, strategic and economic measures in 20132014 to continue to better position the Company for the long-term. Schlumberger achieved the following goals, among others, many of which were aligned with our executives’ individual objectives:

Executive Compensation Program Overview

Schlumberger is the world’s largest oilfield services company and the only such company included in the S&P 100 Index. The Company’s success in delivering strong long-term stockholder returns and financial/financial and operational results is a result of attracting, developing and retaining the best talent globally. A highly competitive

² Diluted earnings per share from continuing operations, including charges and credits, was $4.31 in 2014 and $5.10 in 2013. See Appendix A for a reconciliation of diluted earnings per share from continuing operations, excluding charges and credits, a non-GAAP financial measure.

compensation package is critical to this objective and, to this end, the Compensation Committee determined in January 2013 to seekseeks to target total direct compensation (i.e., base salary plus annual cash incentives plus LTI awards) for our NEOs and other executive officers at or very close to the 75th percentile of the Company’s two executive compensation comparator groups. In the view of the Compensation Committee, the 75th percentile is the proper level to target because of Schlumberger’s leading position in the oilfield services industry; because the market for executive talent in the oil and gas industry is exceptionally competitive; and because our executives are very highly sought after, not only by our direct oilfield service competitors but also by other leading companies. The Compensation Committee retains the flexibility to set elements of target compensation at higher percentiles in exceptional cases for strong business performance, for retention, for key skills in critical demand, and for positions that are of high internal value. The Committee also may pay above the 75th percentile for performance that significantly exceeds the Company’s and an individual’s goals, or for purposes of retention, motivation or reward. Elements of our executives’ total direct compensation and actual payments may also be below median as a result of our pay-for-performance philosophy, as discussed below.

Executive Compensation Best Practices

The following is a summary of some of our compensation practices and policies that demonstrate important aspects of our culture and values.

Furthermore, our directors and executive officers are prohibited from pledging, or using as collateral, their Schlumberger stock in order to secure personal loans or other obligations, which includes holding shares of our common stock in a margin account.

Overview of Compensation Decisions for 20132014

The Compensation Committee continued to focus on achieving the right mix and level of compensation to retain and motivate our top executives through a year that was marked by uncertain business conditions. In 2013,2014, the Compensation Committee continued to focus on, among other things, strengthening the link between pay and performance. As a result, and as more fully discussed elsewhere in this CD&A, the Compensation Committee took the following actions in 2013:2014:

Executive Compensation Philosophy

In keeping with the Company’s pay-for-performance culture, Schlumberger’s long-standing compensation philosophy is to pay senior executives and other professional-level employees for performance that is evaluated against personal and Company financial goals that are established at the beginning of the calendar year and

reviewed at the end of the year against actual performance. Schlumberger’s compensation program is driven by the need to recruit, develop, motivate and retain top talent both in the short-term and long-term by establishing compensation at levels that are competitive and to promote the Company’s values of people, technology and profitability. Promotion from within the Company is a key principle at Schlumberger, and all executive officers, including the named executive officers, have reached their current positions through career development with the Company. Schlumberger sees diversity of its workforce as both a very important part of its cultural philosophy and a business imperative, as it enables the Company to serve clients anywhere in the world. Schlumberger

believes its use of a consistent approach to compensation at all levels irrespective of nationality is a strong factor in achieving a diverse workforce comprising top global talent.

Schlumberger’s compensation program is designed so that the higher an executive’s position in the Company, the larger the proportion of compensation that is contingent on positive stock price performance, the Company’s financial performance and/or individual performance, described as “at-risk” compensation. The Company believes that having a significant portion of executive compensation at-risk more closely aligns the interests of its executives with the long-term interests of Schlumberger and its stockholders. Accordingly, our named executive officers receive a greater percentage of their compensation through at-risk pay tied to Company performance than our other executives.

Schlumberger’s executive compensation program consists of three primary elements, comprising our executives’ total direct compensation:

These elements allow the Company to remain competitive and attract, retain and motivate top executive talent with current and potential future financial rewards. At the same time, this relatively simple compensation program is applied and communicated consistently to our exempt employees of more than 140 nationalities operating in approximately 85 countries.

Framework for Setting Executive Compensation in 20132014

Executive Compensation Goals

In establishing executive compensation, Schlumberger believes that:

Management of Executive Compensation

The Compensation Committee reviews and recommends executive officer compensation. The specific duties and responsibilities of the Compensation Committee are described in the section of this proxy statement entitled “Corporate Governance—Board Committees—Compensation Committee” above.

Role of Compensation Consultant

The Compensation Committee has engaged the independent executive compensation consulting firm of Pay Governance LLC with respect to executive compensation matters. For more information on this engagement, see the section of this proxy statement entitled “Corporate Governance—Board Committees—Compensation Committee” above.

Relative Size of Direct Compensation Elements

The Compensation Committee reviews the elements of total direct compensation for the NEOs throughout the year, to evaluate whether each element of direct compensation remains at levels that are competitive with companies in Schlumberger’s two peer groups described below. The Compensation Committee relies on its own judgment in making these compensation decisions after its review of external market practices of companies comprising the two peer groups, including the size and mix of direct compensation for executives in those companies. The Compensation Committee seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between annual cash rewards that encourage achievement of annual financial and non-financial objectives, and LTI awards that encourage positive long-term stock price performance, with a greater emphasis on LTI awards for more senior executives. However, the Compensation Committee does not aim to achieve a specific target of cash versus equity-based compensation.

While the external market data provide important guidance in making decisions on executive compensation, the Compensation Committee does not set compensation based on market data alone. When determining the size and mix of each element of an NEO’s total direct compensation, the Compensation Committee also considers the following factors:

TheBased on findings from Pay Governance, the charts below show the average percentage of 20132014 base salary, target cash incentive and 20132014 LTI compensation established by the Compensation Committee in January 20132014 for the NEOs who served throughout 2013,2014, in comparison to the Company’s two external peer groups, based on findings from Pay Governance, andgroups. The charts demonstrate that Schlumberger’s pay mix is close toclosely align with that of both peer groups. This data is based on target opportunity levels and will differ from the total compensation figures shown in the Summary Compensation Table.

The Compensation Committee may, at its discretion, modify the mix of base pay, annual cash incentive and LTIs, or otherwise adjust an NEO’s total compensation to best fit his or her specific circumstances. For example, the Committee may award more cash and not award an LTI grant to an executive officer who is approaching retirement. This provides more flexibility to the Committee to compensate executive officers appropriately as they near retirement, when they may only be able to partially fulfill the five-year vesting required for stock options or retire prior to the end of a three-year performance period for PSUs. The Committee may also increase the size of stock option grants to an executive officer if the total number of career stock options granted does not adequately reflect the executive’s current position and level of responsibility within the Company, after a review of external market practice and the other factors described immediately above.

Pay-for-Performance Relative to Oil Industry Peer Group

As part of the Compensation Committee’s annual review of our executive compensation program, the Committee in July 2014 directed Pay Governance to prepare a comparative pay-for-performance assessment in July 2013 against companies in our oil industry peer group as identified in the “—Peer Group Companies and Benchmarking” section below. The comparative assessment examined the degree of alignment between our NEOs’ compensation and our performance relative to these companies as measured by total shareholder return (TSR)(“TSR”) and EPS, each on both a one-year (2012)(2013) and a three-year (2010-2012)(2011-2013) basis, and in both cases ending on December 31, 2012.2013. TSR reflects share price appreciation, adjusted for dividends and stock splits. EPS represents diluted earnings per share from continuing operations, excluding charges and credits.

InFor its one-year analysis, the Compensation Committee reviewed the 2010-2012actual cash incentive paid in 2013 to our CEO against actual cash incentive paid in 2013 to other CEOs in companies comprising the oil industry peer group. It then separately reviewed cash incentive paid to Schlumberger’s other named executive officers for 2013 against cash incentive paid over the same period to non-CEO named executive officers in companies comprising the oil industry peer group. The Committee deemed it appropriate to restrict its review to the cash incentive component of total direct compensation for purposes of the one-year analysis, given the relatively short period under review.

For its three-year analysis, the Compensation Committee reviewed the 2011-2013 total realizable compensation of Schlumberger’s CEO against other CEOs in companies comprising the oil industry peer group. It then separately reviewed Schlumberger’s other executive officers against other executive officers in companies comprising the oil industry peer group. Because Mr. Kibsgaard became CEO in 2011, his compensation was included in

“Total realizable compensation” for the assessment for 2011 and 2012, while that of Mr. Gould, our prior CEO, was included for 2010.

For purposes of the July 2013 assessment, “total realizable compensation”three-year period consisted of the following components for the one- and three-year periods, as applicable:following:

Because the one- and two-year PSUs that were granted in January 2013 were special (one-time) transition awards granted only in the year of transition to PSUs, the three-year analysis was conducted both with and without these one-time awards taken into account.

Pay Governance’s analysis demonstrated that, while Schlumberger’s TSR was at or slightly above the median for both the one- and three-year periods, total realizable compensation for our CEO and other NEOs was at or near the bottom of oil industry peer group companies. Specifically:following:

The lower pay-positioning of our NEOs versus oil industry peer group companies was largely the result of Schlumberger’s historical use of stock options as its sole long-term incentive vehicle for senior executives, and because for two of three years in the three-year analysis, our executives’ stock options had no intrinsic value. In light ofBased on the foregoing, the Compensation Committee concluded that pay and performance were appropriately aligned as follows:

Pay Mix and Internal Pay Equity Review

In January 2013,2014, the Compensation Committee carried out an analysis of pay mix and internal pay equity. In carrying out its analysis, the Committee considered the relative size of direct compensation elements of companies in Schlumberger’s two executive compensation peer groups, as well as internal factors. RegardingWith regard to pay mix, the Committee also reviewed the elements of compensation for the Company’s executive officers, including the NEOs, in relation to each other and in comparison with the average pay mix of the Company’s executive officers. Based on its review, the Committee concluded that the mix of base salary, incentive cash bonus and LTI was appropriate for each of Schlumberger’s executive officers, including the NEOs.

The Compensation Committee also reviewed internal pay equity in October 2013.2014. The Committee reviewed the CEO position in relation to the other executive officer positions, and the executive officer positions both in relation to one another and in comparison with the average of the other executive officer positions. The Committee noted that the ratio of total direct compensation between the CEO and the second-highest paid executive officer (Mr. Ayat) was similar to the two prior years. The Committee also noted that the levels of total direct compensation for the second- to the sixth-highestfifth-highest paid officers were very closely clustered together. As a result of the foregoing, the Committee concluded that internal pay equity was appropriate.

Peer Group Companies and Benchmarking

The Compensation Committee considers the formal executive compensation survey data prepared by Pay Governance when it reviews and determines executive compensation. The Committee also uses information on the executive compensation practices at peer groupvarious “peer group” companies when considering design changes to the Company’s executive compensation program. To prepare for its executive compensation analysis, the

Company’s executive compensation department works with Pay Governance to match Company positions and responsibilities against survey positions and responsibilities and to compile the annual compensation data for each executive officer.

In October 2013, the Compensation Committee approved the introduction, as described below, of two additional peer groups, effective for 2014 compensation decisions as to a very small number of executive officers, only one of which — our EVP Technology — is an NEO. In prior years, the Company had two executive compensation peer groups, the oil industry and general industry peer groups (which we sometimes refer to in this CD&A as our “main comparator groups”).

The surveys indicatesurvey data prepared by Pay Governance summarize the compensation levels and practices of our two main comparator groups of executive compensationand the two new peer companies:groups, which are made up of:

A smaller comparator peer group is used for the 20132014 relative performance index component of the annual cash incentive, and is described below in “Annual“—Annual Cash Incentive Decisions for 2013— Introduction of2014—2014 Relative Performance Incentive (RPI).”

The Compensation Committee’s selection criteria for companies comprising the twofour peer groups include:

The Committee, with the assistance of Pay Governance, twice annually reviews specific criteria and recommendations regarding companies to add to or remove from the two comparator groups. As a general matter, the Company selects suitable comparator companies such that companies in each of our two main comparator groups, at the median, approximate Schlumberger’s estimated revenue in the then-current year and its then-current market capitalization. The Compensation Committee modifies the peer group criteria as appropriate while seeking to ensure a satisfactory degree of stability, to provide a consistent basis for comparison. ChallengesA challenge facing the Company in determining the companies appropriate for inclusion in each peer groupour two main comparator groups for 20132014 executive compensation decisions includedwas the Company’s relatively high market capitalization, and revenue (renderingrendering it difficult to position the Company inSchlumberger at the median of each peer group with respect to both attributes), and the difficulties of obtaining sufficient compensation data for all benchmarked positions.group.

Oil Industry Peer Group

The higher-revenue oil industry peer group comprises companies in the oilfield services, explorationoil and production,gas E&P, refining and pipeline industries with annual revenues greater than $6 billion (in the case of oil and gas equipment and service companies) and revenue greater than $12 billion (in the case of oil and gas exploration and production (“E&P”) companies).$15 billion. Because of Schlumberger’s significant international operations, the Compensation Committee approved the inclusion ofthis peer group includes non-U.S. energy and energy-related companies that also metmeet the criteria set forth above.

The Compensation Committee includedincludes E&P companies in this peer group after consideration ofbased on a number of factors. First, because Schlumberger is significantly larger than all of its direct competitors in the oilfield services industry in terms of revenue and market capitalization, the Compensation Committee believedbelieves that the addition of E&P companies provides a more appropriate and complete comparator group. In addition, the Committee believedbelieves that the inclusion of E&P companies wasis appropriate because market consolidation hadover time has reduced the number of direct competitors in the oilfield services industry, thus increasing the prominence of E&P companies as competitors for talent.

In July 2012,2013, the Compensation Committee applyingreviewed the selection criteria set forthfor our two main comparator groups. At the time of its review, Schlumberger’s 2013 revenue was forecast to be approximately $45 billion. The Committee recognized that Schlumberger’s revenue growth over the prior several years would have placed it significantly above in “Peer Group Companies and Benchmarking,” and in the two paragraphs immediately above, approvedmedian of the following changes in thehigher-revenue oil industry peer group. In order to position Schlumberger nearer the revenue median of this peer group, effectivethe Compensation Committee approved an increase in the threshold revenue for 2013 compensation decisions:

As a result of the foregoing:

The following companies comprised the oil industry peer group effective for 2013relevant 2014 compensation decisions:

Higher-Revenue Oil Industry Peer Group

Oil services, E&P, refining and pipeline companies with revenue of more than $15B

General Industry Peer Group

The general industry peer group provides data from large companies with significant international operations, and supplements the compensation data from the oil industry peer group, whose companies are closer to Schlumberger in industry type but have widely varying revenue sizes. The general industry peer group:

Like the first comparator group, this second group also includes non-US companies. The Compensation Committee also considers data from the second peer group as it deems necessary or advisable to the extent that data from the first peer group may not exist, or may be insufficient, for some executive officer positions. The second group is also particularly relevant for non-operations positions, where the skills and experience may be easily transferable to other industries outside the oil and gas industry.

When considering potential changes to the general industry peer group, the Compensation Committee considered that the Company was then-currently in the 37th percentile of the general industry peer group in terms of revenue, and at the 87th percentile in terms of market capitalization. In July 2012,2013, the Compensation Committee, applying the selection criteria set forth, above in “Peer Group Companies and Benchmarking,” and in the paragraph immediately above, approved the following changes inremoval of eight companies — Best Buy, Kraft, Munich Re, AEGON, American Express, Bunge Limited, Walt Disney and Delta Airlines — from the general industry peer group, effective for 20132014 compensation decisions:

As a result of the foregoing:

In connection with the changes described above, the Compensation Committee selected the

The following companies forcomprised the general industry peer group effective for 2013relevant 2014 compensation decisions:

General Industry Peer Group

Revenue of $25B to $80B$90B with technical and global focus

Introduction of Two New Peer Groups for Select Positions

As stated above, in October 2013, the Compensation Committee approved the introduction of two additional peer groups, effective for certain 2014 compensation decisions. The addition of the new peer groups was to address select executive officer positions for which the Committee believed executive compensation data no longer existed, or was insufficient.

The two additional peer groups serve as an additional point of reference for the Committee, given the scope and level of responsibility of executive positions as to which the Committee required additional compensation data. Prior to the introduction of these two peer groups, the Committee had determined that select executives who currently hold very senior positions within the Company (including our EVP Technology) could, by virtue of their leadership experience and professional background, become chief executives of other, smaller, companies in the oil and gas industry. As a result, the Committee believed that it was appropriate, when reviewing and setting the compensation of our EVP Technology and such other select executives for 2014, to also compare their compensation levels against those provided to the chief executive officer positions at oil and gas companies with then-current annual revenues between $2.5 billion and $8.5 billion.

In addition, the Committee determined that it was appropriate to compare the compensation of our EVP Technology against that of the top R&D executives at other companies in the S&P 500 with R&D expenditures, at the median, very close to Schlumberger’s R&D expenditures. As a result, the 2014 compensation of our EVP Technology was not determined by reference to our two main comparator groups.

Lower-Revenue Oil Industry Peer Group

The lower-revenue oil industry peer group, introduced in October 2013, comprises smaller companies in the oilfield services, oil and gas E&P, refining and pipeline industries, with annual revenues between $2.5 billion and $8.5 billion. Among our NEOs, this peer group is relevant only for the compensation of our EVP Technology.

The following 18 companies comprised the lower-revenue oil industry peer group effective for relevant 2014 compensation decisions:

Smaller Oil Industry Companies

Oil services, E&P, refining and pipeline companies with revenue between $2.5B and $8.5B

R&D Focused Peer Group — Similar R&D Expenditures

The R&D-focused peer group, also introduced in October 2013, comprises large companies with significant international operations, some of which also are in our general industry peer group. While the 2012 consolidated revenue of these companies ranged from $2.5 billion to approximately $82 billion, their R&D expenditures, at the median, approximated Schlumberger’s R&D expenditures in that year. As with the lower-revenue oil industry peer group, this peer group is relevant only for the compensation of our EVP Technology.

The following 40 companies comprised the R&D-focused peer group effective for relevant 2014 compensation decisions:

General Industry Peer Group Companies with R&D Focus

Median R&D expenses similar to Schlumberger’s R&D expenses

The table below summarizes the peer groups that are referred to when reviewing and establishing the compensation of our various NEOs for 2014.

Elements of Compensation

Base Salary

Base salary is the fixed portion of an executive’s annual cash compensation, which provides some stability of income since the other compensation elements are variable and not guaranteed. On appointment to an executive officer position, base salary is set at a level that is competitive with base salaries in the two applicable comparator groups for that position and takes into account other factors described below. Generally, the Compensation Committee targets base salaries for executive officers to at or near the 75th percentile of both peer groups.

Base salaries for each executive officer position are compared annually with similar positions in both peer groups. Base salary changes for executive officers, except the CEO, are recommended by the CEO and subject to approval by the Compensation Committee, taking into account:

The base salary of the CEO is reviewed by the Compensation Committee in executive session and recommended by the Compensation Committee to the independent members of the Board of Directors for approval, based on the same criteria as above. In addition to periodic reviews based on the factors described above, the Compensation Committee may adjust an executive officer’s base salary during the year if the executive officer is promoted or if there is a significant change in his or her responsibilities. In this situation, the CEO (in the case of executive officers other than himself) and the Compensation Committee carefully consider these new responsibilities, external pay practices, retention considerations and internal pay equity, as well as past performance and experience. Base salary may also be reduced, such as when an executive officer moves to a position of lesser responsibility in the Company. Alternatively, base salary can be frozen for a number of years until it falls in line with comparable positions in the two peer groups.

Base Salary Decisions in 20132014

The Compensation Committee carried out a review of the compensation of each of the executive officers in January 2013.2014. Upon review of comparative market data for both peer groups, and taking into consideration that base salary decisions for 2012 generally positioned our NEOs at or slightly above the 75th percentile of both peer groups,were positioned competitively from a market perspective, the Committee determined at that time not to increase the base salary of any NEO for 2013, other than that of Satish Pai, whose2014. The base salary of Aaron Gatt Floridia was increased EUR 100,000 effective February 1, 2013 based on increased job responsibilities and comparative market data.changed in July 2014 from Euros 543,900 to GBP 490,000 in connection with his relocation from Paris to London.

Annual Cash Incentive

The Company pays annual performance-based cash incentives to its executives to foster a results-driven, pay for performance culture and to align their interests with those of Schlumberger’s stockholders. The Compensation Committee selects performance-based measures that it believes will strike the balance between motivating an executive to increase operating results in the near-term and driving profitable long-term Company growth and value for stockholders. Incentive cash payments are made each February according to the achievement of both personal and Company financial objectives established in January of the previous fiscal year for performance during that fiscal year.

The target annual cash incentive ranges from 0% tofor 2014 was 150% of base salary for the CEO, and from 0% to75% or 100% of base salary for the other NEOs, depending on thetheir position. One half of Schlumberger’s potential cash incentive range is based on the achievement of personal objectives established at the beginning of the year, while the other half of the potential range is based on financial performance against criteria established at the achievementbeginning of one or more pre-established Company financial goals,the year, as described in the section below entitled “—Annual Cash Incentive Decisions for 2013.2014.” In some years, including 2013, theThe financial half of the incentive cash payment for NEOs has an incremental financial element, which means that the maximum incentive opportunity can be up to 300% of target with respect to the financial part, based on achievement of superior financial results. This enhanced incentive applies to the CEO and our other executive officers. The personal half of the incentive cash payment has no positive incremental element, meaning the maximum payout with respect to this half of the target annual cash incentive is 100% of target. Under this approach, the maximum incentive opportunity based on both financial and personal objectives combined cannot exceed 200% of target.

The Compensation Committee reviews and recommends to the full Board the financial objectives for both the CEO and the other executive officers. The Committee believes that, as regardswith regard to financial targets or financial performance goals, it is

important to set targetsestablish criteria that, while very difficult to achieve in an uncertain global economy, are realistic. When considering the Company’s operating results for purposes of the financial portion of the annual cash incentive, the Compensation Committee has the discretion to decide whether to take into account unusual or infrequent charges or gains, depending on the nature of the item. The Compensation Committee exercises its discretion when it believes that executives and other employees would be inappropriately penalized by, or would inappropriately benefit from, these items.

The Committee approves the personal objectives for the CEO and assesses his performance against those objectives in determining thehis annual cash incentive award, subject to final approval by the Board. The CEO approves the personal objectives for the other executive officers, including the other NEOs, and assesses each such officer’s performance against their pre-determined objectives, subject to final approval of the Committee.

Annual Cash Incentive Decisions for 20132014

Annual Cash Incentive RangesTargets

There were no changes in the target annual cash incentive ranges (expressed as a percentage of base salary) for any of the NEOs in 2013.2014.

Financial Objectives

In January 2013, as in previous years, the Compensation Committee determined that theThe financial half of the annual cash incentive opportunity for all executive officers inhad, prior to 2013, should bebeen based solely on diluted earnings per share from continuing operations (“EPS”).EPS. In July 2013, the Compensation Committee approved the inclusion of a relative performance incentive (“RPI”) component to the financial half of the annual cash incentive, effectiveand the Compensation Committee maintained this approach for 2013, as more fully discussed below under “—Introduction of Relative Performance Incentive (RPI).”2014. As a result, the financial half of the NEOs’ 20132014 annual cash incentive was based equally on (i) achievement of EPS targets and (ii) achievement of relative financial performance targets.criteria.

20132014 EPS Targets.Targets

The process used to set annual EPS targets starts with a review of plans and projections following bottom-up planning from the field, which considers factors such as:

The Compensation Committee approved the following EPS performance targets and corresponding payouts at its January 20132014 meeting, for purposes of the 20132014 annual cash incentive:

2014 EPS Performance Targets		% of EPS Portion of Financial Half (Payout %)		% Increase — Target over 2013 EPS
Less than or equal to $4.99		0%
$5.00		50%		5%
$5.40		100%		14%
$5.80		200%		22%
$6.20		300%		31%

For 20132014 EPS results between any two targets, the payout is prorated. As in prior years, noNo cash incentive is paid if the minimum 20132014 EPS target is not met.

The EPS targets above included projected six-month results of $0.04 from operations in Iran. During the second quarter of 2013, Schlumberger ceased operations in Iran and classified the results of this business as a discontinued operation. Therefore, the Compensation Committee decided that for purposes of calculating the cash incentive payment based on EPS, it would reduce each of the EPS targets above by $0.04.

The Compensation Committee selected EPS as an appropriate absolute measure upon which to base half of the financial portion of the annual cash incentive because it is the primary absolute basis on which we set our performance expectations for the year; weyear. We believe that consistent EPS growth leads to long-term stockholder value; and EPS is the metric most widely used by investors and analysts to evaluate the performance of Schlumberger.

Introduction of2014 Relative Performance Incentive (RPI). In July 2013, the Compensation Committee approved the introduction of a relative performance incentive (“RPI”)

The RPI component to the financial half of the annual cash incentive component for all executive officers, effective for full-year 2013. In prior years, EPS was the sole metric used in calculating the financial half of the annual cash incentive foris based on our executive officers. As a result, the financial half of annual cash incentive payouts for 2013 was based equally on:

The RPI payouts, if any, to our NEOs are based on averages of the relative one-year performance of each of our business units and geographic areas worldwide, comparing whether our year-over-year revenue growth and margin improvement ranked better in each business unit and geographic area thanCommittee believes that of our two RPI comparator companies.

The introduction of the RPI component did not result in an increase in the maximum incentive opportunity referred to above. The Committee adopted the RPI cash incentive component for the following reasons:component:

Prior to the Compensation Committee’s adoption of the new RPI component in July 2013, management had provided the Committee with EPS forecasts for the third and fourth quarters of 2013. Based on actual results for the first half of 2013 and these forecasts, the Compensation Committee estimated that, assuming that the financial half of the cash incentive was based solely on the EPS targets established in January 2013 and excluding the effects of charges and credits as described above in “Annual Cash Incentive Decisions for 2013—EPS Results,” the 2014 cash incentive payout would be approximately 140% of the financial half of the annual cash incentive. The Committee also estimated that, were the RPI component in effect for the full 2013 fiscal year, the 2014 cash incentive payout would be less than 140%.

Halliburton and Baker Hughes were selected as our RPI comparator companies for 20132014 because we believe they are the only oilfield service companies that resemble Schlumbergercome close to resembling us in scale, scope and nature of business operations, and because Schlumbergerwe and our investors believe theythese two companies constitute our main global business competitors. Additionally, theThe Compensation Committee decided to exclude WesternGeco results for purposes of the RPI component due to the unavailability of timely financial results from WesternGeco’s own direct competitors and

assessing our relative performance because Halliburton and Baker Hughes have no seismic operations.

The performance of each of our RPI comparator companies for purposes of calculating relative performance is derived from their reported company results for 2012 to those for 2013.results. To the extent that these companies had not released financial results for full-year 2013,the most recent completed fiscal year, the Compensation Committee based its evaluation, where necessary, on estimates and projections of the companies’ financial results for 2013.that year.

The table below summarizesRPI payout, if any, to our NEOs is based on the annual cash incentive programsum of our overall rankings achieved in each of our four geographic areas worldwide, comparing year-over-year revenue growth and margin improvement in each geographic area against that of our two RPI comparator companies. References to “geographic areas” are to our geographic areas as to which financial results are publicly reported (e.g., North America, Latin America, Middle East & Asia and Europe/CIS/Africa), and for our senior executive officersthe RPI comparator companies, the same or their nearest equivalent reported geographic area.

The best performance achievable by us in effect for 2013 annual cash incentive decisions,each geographic area is an overall ranking of “1,” meaning that we achieved the highest revenue and margin performance overall in a geographic area as compared toagainst our two comparator companies; conversely, the annual cash incentive planworst performance achievable by us in effect prior to 2013.a given geographic area is an overall ranking of “3.” Thus, our maximum overall possible achievement in all geographic areas combined for a given year is “4” — being the sum of overall “1” rankings in each geographic area — which would require that our performance equal or exceed that of our two RPI comparator companies in both financial performance criteria for all four geographic areas. Conversely, our worst overall possible achievement in all geographic areas would be “12,” which would require that our two RPI comparator companies outperform us in all four geographic areas as described above.

The following table illustrates how a hypothetical overall ranking would be determined for three companies in a geographic area, taking into account their year-over-year relative performance in both revenue and margin growth:

2013 RPI Performance Levels.In this example, Company B ranked highest in revenue in the area, and second-highest in margin growth, for a raw score of 3 (sum of “1” and “2” scores). Company C, meanwhile, ranked second-highest in revenue growth and highest in margin growth, for a raw score of 3 (sum of “2” and “1” scores). Company A, meanwhile, performed behind both Company B and C in both categories, for a raw score of 6 (sum of “3” scores in both categories). Thus, Company B and C tied for the best overall area rank — “1”— because each achieved the lowest total raw score of “3.”

The Compensation Committee approved the following performance payout schedule/matrix in July 2013:early 2014:

RPI Performance Payout Schedule/Matrix

As with

The Compensation Committee retains the EPS targets, fordiscretion to increase the total RPI payout to a maximum of 300% upon an RPI achievement between any two levels,of 4, being the highest achievement level attainable, as the Committee deems appropriate. The Committee also retains the discretion to increase or decrease the total RPI payout is prorated.

Under the standards approved byto take into account such factors as overall Company performance, extraordinary items affecting financial results or such other factors as the Committee achieving a RPI score of 60% or higher is extremely challenging. For example:

For more information on how RPI performance is determined, see footnote 2 to the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table beginning on page 53.deems appropriate.

EPS Results.Schlumberger’s 20132014 EPS was $5.10,$5.57, while reported EPS was $4.31, which included a $0.77 credit from the gain relating$1.26 of charges attributable to the formation of the OneSubsea joint venture,WesternGeco restructuring, currency devaluation loss in Venezuela, workforce reduction and $0.42 of charges related to thean impairment of equity method investments,an SPM project. As in prior years, the reserve for certain receivables and a currency devaluation loss. The Compensation Committee decided thatto exclude the effect of charges and credits for purposes of calculating the EPS component of the cash incentive payment, it would exclude all of thesepayment. In reaching this decision, the Committee considered the fact that the Company presents EPS excluding charges and credits which represented a net credit of $0.35. The Committee decided to exclude these unusual charges, consistent with the Company’s 2013in its earnings announcementannouncements and presentation to investors, because they did not relate to Schlumberger’s ongoing operations and becauseinvestors. Furthermore, the Committee believed that including themthe $1.26 of charges in 2014 resulted in reported EPS that did not reflect Schlumberger’s operating trends. Similarly,trends and arose largely from actions that management took at the Committee believed that it would not be appropriateend of 2014 in order to includeproactively and aggressively address the $1.03 billion gain arising from the OneSubsea joint venture, as it was one-time in nature and also not related to Schlumberger’s ongoing operations. Schlumberger’s 2013 EPS, excluding these charges and credits, was $4.75.industry downturn. As a result, the Compensation Committee approved a payout of 147.5%142.5% of the EPS component of the annual cash incentive.

RPI Results. WeAccording to the RPI Performance Payout Matrix above, we achieved an RPI result in 20132014 of 54.2%, resulting in7, corresponding to a total RPI payout of 142%100%, out of a possible 250% total RPI payout. The Compensation Committee determined that an adjustment to the RPI payout was appropriate, however, in light of strong performance by our executives throughout the year, including the Company’s quick response to a number of geopolitical and security situations, the strong underlying progress on the Company’s multi-year transformation efforts, and the Company’s proactive preparations to the changing market conditions at the end of the year. Accordingly, the Committee decided to use its discretion and approved a total RPI payout of 135%, out of a possible 250%.

Personal Objectives

Fifty percent of an executive’s annual cash incentive opportunity is tied to achievement of personal objectives that are specific to each executive officer position and may relate to:

The award for the personal half of the annual cash incentive opportunity was based on the specific results each named executive officer achieved, as approved by the Compensation Committee. Personal objectives are set at the start of the fiscal year. At the end of the fiscal year, the CEO uses his judgment to evaluate the performance of the other NEOs against their personal objectives, taking into account performance for the just-completed fiscal

year versus predefined commitments for the fiscal year; unforeseen financial, operational and strategic issues of the Company; and any other information deemed relevant by the CEO. The Compensation Committee evaluates the performance of the CEO in a similar way, subject to approval by the full Board.

Mr. Kibsgaard hadKibsgaard’s 2014 objectives relatingrelated to quality(a) personnel, recruiting and to health, safetytraining; the 2014 Investor Conference; operation team performance, and environmental (HSE),asset material management, all of which he achieved, and (b) non-productive time rate reduction; key business strategies and introduction of new technology, each of which he mainly achieved.

Mr. Kibsgaard hadAyat’s 2014 objectives relatingrelated to mergers(a) field costs, asset material management and acquisitions and to research and product development, bothcost management, all of which he achieved.

Mr. Juden had objectives relating to compliance,achieved, and (b) working capital, which he mainly achieved.

Mr. Ayat hadBelani’s 2014 objectives relatingrelated to cost management(a) new technology revenue; health, safety and to compliance,environmental (HSE); asset material management; performance systems; and the IT transformation, each of which he achieved, and (b) field costs and non-productive time rate reduction, both of which he mainly achieved.

Mr. Poupeau hadSchorn’s 2014 objectives relatingrelated to establishing the Project Management Office, mergers(a) HSE; non-productive time rate reduction, and acquisitionscost management, each of which he achieved, and collaboration projects in China,(b) new technology revenue and growth and field costs and working capital, both of which he mainly achieved.

Messrs. Kibsgaard, BelaniMr. Gatt Floridia’s 2014 objectives related to (a) new technology revenue and Ayatgrowth; operation team performance; and performance systems, each had objectives relating to the OneSubsea joint venture, all of which theyhe achieved; (b) field costs and working capital, which he mostly achieved, and (c) non-productive time rate reduction and HSE, both of which he partly achieved.

Messrs. Ayat and Belani each had objectives relating to information technology global design, all of which they achieved.

20132014 Annual Cash Incentive as a Percentage of Base Salary

Long-Term Equity Compensation

Long-term equity incentives continue to make up the largest portion of the compensation of our NEOs. They are designed to give NEOs and other high-value employees a longer-term stake in the Company, provide incentives for the creation of sustained stockholder value, act as long-term retention and motivation tools, and directly tie employee and stockholder interests over the longer term.

Introduction of Performance Share Units. Historically, our NEOs have received 100% of their LTI compensationCommencing in the form of stock options. In January 2013, the Compensation Committee approved a significant change to our LTI award mix, introducing grants of three-year PSUs to our NEOs and other senior executives, consistent with

market practices at companies in the Comparator Groups. As a result,our main comparator groups. Accordingly, in January 2014 our NEOs and other senior executive officers in 2013 received 50% of their target LTI compensation in the form of three-year PSUs and 50% in the form of stock options. For the 20132014 PSU grants, the Committee established performance goals using consolidated Return on Capital Employed (“ROCE”) as its performance measure to determine payouts, as more fully discussed below under “— 20132014 PSU Performance Criteria.Measure and Goals.”

We introduced PSUs for the following reasons:

Awards of PSUs are currently limited to our NEOs and other senior executive officers. The 2014 PSUs will become earnedvest and vestedconvert to shares of our common stock at the end of the three-year performance period ending December 31, 2015,2016, contingent on continued employment and achievement of a pre-determined performance targets, and will convert to shares of our common stock after the expiration of the performance period.target. No shares will be issued under the PSUs if we do not achieve a pre- established threshold performance level. No dividends will accrue or be paid on any PSUs during the performance period.

In approvingWe believe that the introductionaddition of PSUs to the Company’sour LTI compensation program:

While PSUs further align our executives’ compensation with the stock price returns experienced by our stockholders while also incentivizingand encourage our executives to achieve strategic and financial goals that support our long-term performance. Theperformance, the Compensation Committee however, reaffirmed its beliefbelieves that stock options are also a form of performance-based compensation, concluding thatcompensation. Because of this, stock options should remain a significant component of our senior executive’s LTI compensation. This decision reflects the Compensation Committee’s strong belief that our senior executives’ long-term equity incentive compensation should remain directly linked to the performance of our stock, since the value of stock options is solely tied to the Company’s stock price, and any decline in the Company’s stock price should also have a negative impact on our executives’ pay.

The table below summarizes the mix, the performance measurements and general terms for the three-year PSUs and stock options awarded to the NEOs in 2013.

To aid in the transition to PSUs, the Compensation Committee in January 2013 also approved PSUs with one-year and two-year performance periods, solely for the 2013 grants. The mix of one-, two- and three-year PSUs provides a transition from an LTI program that was comprised wholly of stock options with annual ratable vesting over a five-year period, to a hybrid program under which 50% of the long-term incentive does not pay out, if at all, until the end of a three-year performance period. Beginning in 2014, all PSUs granted will vest over a three-year performance period with over-lapping three-year cycles, with any payout determined at the end of each cycle based on predetermined performance targets.

Value of Long-Term Equity Awards

The Compensation Committee determines the value of LTI awards to executive officers at its first meeting at the beginning of the fiscal year. The value of an LTI grant increases with the level of an executive’s responsibility at the Company, and for the CEO and our other NEOs is the largest element of their total direct compensation package. In determining the value of LTI awards granted to executive officers, the Compensation Committee (in the case of the CEO’s grant) and the CEO (in the case of recommendations for grants for the other NEOs), first considers market data on the LTI value for the most comparable positions in the Company’s two peer groups, as well as several other factors, which may include:

Once the Compensation Committee has determined, based on the relevant factors above in its discretion, the target dollar value of LTI awards for an NEO, the Committee grants 50% of this value in PSUs and 50% in stock

options. The Committee believes that this mix of PSUs and stock options strikes an appropriate balance between rewarding increases in the market value of our common stock (stock options) and tying long-term compensation to achievement of specific performance goals that are not based solely on the stock market (PSUs). The target number of PSUs awarded to an executive is determined by dividing 50% of the total target LTI value by the estimated grant date fair value of a PSU; the number of options awarded is determined by dividing 50% of the total target LTI value by the estimated grant date fair value using the Black-Scholes formula.

The actual grant date fair value of each grant, computed in accordance with applicable accounting standards, is disclosed in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Forfor Fiscal Year 20132014 table below. The tables below detail the approximateestimated grant date fair value and number of PSUs and stock options granted in 20132014 to the NEOs. Because of differences in how the grant date fair values of PSU and option awards must be calculated for accounting purposes, the amounts reported in the Summary Compensation Table may not reflect the same proportion of PSUs and stock options. TheThese grant date values given to equity compensation awards by the Compensation Committee are approximate grant date accounting values only, and the actual value that an NEO may realize depends on factors such as the NEO’s continued service, Schlumberger’s future stock price performance and the achievement of certain pre-established performance goals.

Annual Long-Term Equity Grants for 20132014

The Compensation Committee approved (and in the case of Mr. Kibsgaard, our CEO, the independent members of the Board of Directors ratified) the following awards for the NEOs in January 2013,2014. The Compensation Committee, based on its review of comparative peer group data presented to the Committee, determined to hold LTI grant values flat for all of our NEOs except for Mr. Kibsgaard, whose LTI grant value increased 4% year-over-year, and for Messrs. Schorn and Gatt Floridia, whose LTI grant value increased by approximately 28% year over year in order to position them at approximately the highly competitive demand for talent in our industry,75th percentile of the Company’s strong operating performance and other factors as described above.two main comparator groups, based on total direct compensation. For ease of comparison, the following table also shows the grant values of the NEOs’ 20122013 annual long-term incentive compensation awards (which does not include the transitional two-year PSUs issued in January 2013) and the year-over-year percentage change between the two amounts.

Special 2013 Transition PSU Awards

In January 2013, the Compensation Committee also approved special grants to the NEOs of one-year and two-year PSUs to aid in the transition to PSUs, and are equal to the value of the three-year PSU awards described above. The target dollar values set forth below are split equally between the one-year and two-year PSUs, and the total target number of PSUs listed below reflects the total of the one-year and two-year PSUs. The Committee, based on market practice data from Pay Governance, approved the one-time one- and two-year performance grants because, in the initial year of transition to PSUs, the NEOs would be receiving only half of their LTI value (options), while the other half (PSUs) would not pay out, if at all, until the end of a three-year performance period. The Compensation Committee approved these special transition awards for 2013 only and intends to award only three-year PSUs in the future.

20132014 PSU Performance Measure and Goals

The Compensation Committee set goals for the 20132014 PSUs based on absolute consolidated Return on Capital Employed (“ROCE”) goals for the Company over the applicable performance period. ROCE is a measure of the efficiency of our capital employed. We calculate ROCE as a ratio, the numerator of which is (a) income from continuing operations, excluding charges and creditsplus (b) after-tax net interest expense, and the denominator of which is (x) stockholders’ equity, including non-controlling interests (average of beginning and end of each quarter in the year),plus (y) net debt (average of beginning and end of each quarter in the year). The Compensation Committee has the discretion to adjust the Company’s income from continuing operations to take into account the effect of externally disclosed, significant impacts or activities that are not representative of underlying business operations, such as divestitures, asset impairments and restructurings. Furthermore, the Committee evaluates, and may adjust for, the effect of acquisitions or divestments on a case-by-case basis for purposes of the ROCE calculation.

We selected ROCE because we believe that it is a comprehensive indicator of long-term Company and management performance, as it measures both profitability as well as the efficiency with which we deploy and utilize our capital. Our selection of ROCE as the performance measure for the 20132014 PSUs is also consistent with our strategic direction and transformation initiatives. Furthermore, ROCE measures performance in a way that is tracked and understood by investors. The Compensation Committee believes that tying a part of our senior executives’ LTI pay to achievement of challenging ROCE targets will help to increase revenue and improve margins through pricing and continued focus on cost control. We chose an absolute measure rather than a relative one such as total shareholder return and EPS growth due to greater ability of our executives and key employees to directly impact our performance results. Furthermore, the Committee considered the difficulty of finding suitable comparators, insofar as oil and gas E&P companies have a different business model than we do, and because we are much larger than all of our direct oilfield service competitors.

Vesting ofThe performance period for the 2014 PSUs began on January 1, 2014 and ends on December 31, 2016. Vesting is conditioned upon the Company’s achievement of annual pre-determined threshold ROCE of at least 12.5% for the applicable performance period, subject to continued employment. See “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control for Fiscal Year 2013— Termination of Employment—PSUs”

and “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control for Fiscal Year 2013— Change of Control—PSUs,” beginning on page 63 for more information. The performance periods for the one-year, two-year and three-year PSUs began on January 1, 2013 and end on December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively. For the two-year and the three-year PSUs,In calculating such achievement, the Company’s average annual ROCE will be used, calculated as the average ROCE for each calendar year contained in the measurement period. See “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control for Fiscal Year 2014—Termination of Employment—PSUs” and “—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control for Fiscal Year 2014—Change of Control—PSUs,” beginning on page 61 for more information.

The Compensation Committee approved the PSU goals at the beginning of 2014 after consideration of the Company’s historical ROCE. The Committee also considered our internal forecasts at the time of grant, which indicated that achieving the target level of performance would be difficult but attainable. Our ROCE for 2011, 2012 and 2013 was 14.4%, 15.1% and 16.3%, respectively.

The number of PSUs that will vest and convert to shares as of the vesting date can range from 0% to 250% of the number of PSUs awarded, depending on our performance during the performance period as illustrated in the following table. At the end of eachthe measurement period, the Compensation Committee will certify the ROCE

achieved and will determine the percentage of target shares earned based on the table below. In no event will payout exceed 250%. If the ROCE achieved is less than or equal to 12.5%, no shares will be issued.

The Compensation Committee approved the2013 Two-Year Transitional PSU goals at the beginning of 2013 after consideration of the Company’s historical return on capital employed. The Committee also considered our internal forecasts at the time of grant, which indicated that achieving the target level of performance would be difficult but attainable. Our ROCE for 2011 and 2012 were 14.4% and 15.1%, respectively.Achievement

In January 2014,2015, the Compensation Committee determined the results of the one-yeartwo-year performance period for the transitional one-yeartwo-year PSUs issued in January 2013, relative to the performance criteria established at the beginning of thethat year. For purposes of calculating our ROCE for 2013, theThe Compensation Committee determined that it was appropriate to exclude the one-time gain and other effects from the OneSubsea transaction, as well as the charges described above in “Annual Cash Incentive Decisions for 2013—EPS Results,” as none of these reflected our ongoing operations. The exclusions of these charges and credits, as well as all effects of the OneSubsea transaction, resulted in a 2013certified 2014 ROCE achievement of 16.3%at 16.8%, so that our NEOs earned 126%131% of the target shares under the transitional one-yeartwo-year PSUs.

Long-Term Equity Awards — Granting Process

The Compensation Committee is responsible for granting long-term equity-based compensation under our stock option and omnibus incentive plans. The Committee approves a preliminary budget for equity-based grants for the following year at each October Compensation Committee meeting. Management determines the allocation for groups within the Company and individual recommendations are made by the heads of the Groups and approved by the CEO. The Compensation Committee approves and grants all equity-based awards, including executive officer awards, which are recommended by the CEO, except for his own. Awards for executive officers other than the CEO are granted by the Compensation Committee and discussed with the Board of Directors. Awards for the CEO are granted by the Committee following approval by the full Board.

The regular Board of Directors and Compensation Committee meeting schedule is set at least a year in advance with Board meetings held quarterly, generally on the third Thursday of January, April, July and October, and the committee meetings held the day before each Board meeting. The timing of these committee meetings is not determined by any of the Company’s executive officers and is usually two days in advance of the Company’s announcement of earnings. The Compensation Committee sets the equity award grant date as the day of the

Board meeting. The Company does not time the release of material non-public information for the purpose of affecting the values of executive compensation. At the time equity grant decisions are made, the Compensation Committee is aware of the earnings results and takes them into account, but it does not adjust the size or the mix of grants to reflect possible market reaction.

Typically, annual grants of equity-based awards to the NEOs and other senior executive officers are made at the January meeting of the Compensation Committee, while such annual grants for the rest of the Company’s eligible employees are made at the April meeting of the Committee. However, specific grants may be made at other regular meetings, to recognize the promotion of an employee, a change in responsibility or a specific achievement. The exercise price for all stock options granted to executive officers and other employees is the average of the high and low trading price of the Schlumberger common stock on the NYSE on the date of grant, which has been Schlumberger’s practice for many years.

Beginning in 2014, all PSU grants will vest over a three-year performance period. Currently, ourPrior to April 2013, stock options vestvested ratably over five years, except for (a) stock options granted to eligible employees in France and (b) capped stock options granted from July 2003 to January 2006, as theseall such options havehad four-year cliff vesting (meaning

(meaning that all optionsthey vest at a single point in time). Beginning with stock option grants in April 2014,2013, all our stock options will vestbegan vesting ratably in equal installments over five years. The Board and the Compensation Committee have the discretion to grant equity awards with different vesting schedules as they deem necessary.

Important Factors in Understanding Schlumberger’s Use of Stock Options

The Company’s equity incentive plans do not permit the following:

Executive Stock Ownership Guidelines

The Compensation Committee and management believe strongly in linking executive long-term rewards to stockholder value. The Board of Directors, upon recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee, adopted revised executive stock ownership guidelines in 2011 applicable to executive officers and other key position holders. Senior executives are required to hold the numbers of shares equal to the multiple of base salary set forth below.

All executives subject to the revised guidelines must retain 50% of net shares acquired upon the exercise of stock options and the vesting of PSUs and restricted stock units (“RSUs”), after payment of applicable taxes, until they achieve the required ownership level. The guidelines provide that executives have five years to comply with the ownership requirements. After the five-year period, executives who have not met their minimum stock ownership requirement must retain 100% of the net shares acquired upon stock option exercises and any PSU and RSU vesting until they achieve their required ownership level.

Stock ownership for the purpose of these guidelines does not include shares underlying vested or unvested stock options, unvested RSUs or unvested PSUs. As of January 7, 2015, each of our NEOs was in compliance with these stock ownership guidelines.

Prohibition on Speculation in Schlumberger Stock

Schlumberger’s insider trading policy prohibits executives from speculating in the Company’s stock, which includes, but is not limited to, short selling; buying or selling publicly-traded options, including writing covered calls; pledging; and hedging or any other type of derivative arrangement that has a similar economic effect.

Benefits

Retirement Benefits

In line with Schlumberger’s aim to encourage long-term careers with the Company and to promote retention, retirement plans are provided, where possible, for all employees, including named executive officers, according to local market practice. Schlumberger considers longer-term benefit plans to be an important element

of the total compensation package. The pension plans provide for lifetime benefits upon retirement after a specified number of years of service and take into account local practice with respect to retirement ages. They are designed to complement but not be a substitute for local government plans, which may vary considerably in terms of the replacement income they provide, and other Company sponsored savings plans. Employees may participate in multiple retirement plans in the course of their career with the Company or its subsidiaries, in which case they become entitled to a benefit from each plan based upon the benefits earned during the years of service related to each plan. The qualified plans are funded through cash contributions made by the Company and its subsidiaries based on actuarial valuations and/or regulatory requirements.

Some of the Schlumberger U.S. retirement plans are non-qualified plans that provide an eligible employee with additional retirement savings opportunities that cannot be achieved with tax-qualified plans due to limits on annual compensation that can be taken into account or annual benefits that can be provided under qualified plans.

Officers and other employees in the United States whose compensation exceeds the qualified plan limits are eligible to participate in non-qualified excess benefit programs for 401(k), profit-sharing and pension, whereby they receive correspondingly higher benefits. Employees and executive officers assigned outside the United States are entitled to participate in the applicable plans of the country where they are assigned, including supplemental plans where available.

Retirement Practices

The Company has a practice of phased retirement which, at the discretion of the Company, may be offered to executive officers (other than the CEO) who are approaching retirement. This practice involves a transition into retirement whereby the individual ceases being an executive officer and relinquishes primary responsibilities. He or she remains an employee and generally receives lesser salary over time for reduced responsibilities and reduced working time. The arrangements are typically in place for an average of two to three years, as agreed at the start of the term. The purpose is to allow the outgoing executive officer to support the incoming executive officer for a period of time to provide for a smooth succession and to provide resources to the Company in particular areas of expertise. In these circumstances, the Company maintains pension contributions and other benefits such as medical and insurance, and the executive officer continues to vest in previously granted stock options. The executive officer, however, is no longer eligible for additional equity incentive compensation or, once his or her work time is reduced, for an annual cash incentive.

Other Benefits

Schlumberger seeks to provide benefit plans, such as medical coverage and life and disability insurance, on a country-by-country basis in line with market conditions. Where the local practice is considered to be less than

the Schlumberger minimum standard, the Company generally offers this Schlumberger standard. Executive officers are eligible for the same benefit plans provided to other employees, including medical coverage and life and disability insurance as well as supplemental plans chosen and paid for by employees who wish additional coverage. There are no special insurance plans for executive officers.

Limited Perquisites

Schlumberger provides only minimum perquisites to its executive officers, which (as to the NEOs) have been identified in the narrative notes to the Summary Compensation Table. The same perquisites are generally available to all professional-level employees. For example, relocation assistance is provided to all employees on a Company-wide basis.

No Employment Agreements

Our executive officers do not have employment, severance or change-in-control agreements, except for those in connection with phased retirement as described above. The Company’s executive officers serve at the

will of the Board of Directors, which enables the Company to terminate their employment using judgment as to the terms of any severance arrangement and based on specific circumstances at the time they cease being executive officers.

Recoupment of Performance-Based Cash Awards

On the recommendation of the Compensation Committee in July 2006, the Board of Directors adopted a policy on recouping performance-based cash awards in the event of specified restatements of financial results. Under the policy, if financial results are significantly restated due to fraud or intentional misconduct, the Board will review any performance-based cash awards paid to executive officers who are found to be personally responsible for the fraud or intentional misconduct that caused the need for the restatement and will, to the extent permitted by applicable law, require recoupment of any amounts paid in excess of the amounts that would have been paid based on the restated financial results.

20132014 “Say-on-Pay” Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation

Schlumberger provided stockholders a “say-on-pay” advisory vote to approve its executive compensation in April 2013.2014. At Schlumberger’s 20132014 annual general meeting of stockholders, stockholders expressed substantial support for the compensation of its NEOs, with approximately 96%97% of the votes cast for approval of the “say-on-pay” advisory vote. The Compensation Committee carefully evaluated the results of the 20132014 annual advisory “say-on-pay” vote at its April meeting. The Compensation Committee also considers numerous other factors in evaluating Schlumberger’s executive compensation program as discussed in this CD&A. While each of these factors informed the Committee’s decisions regarding the NEOs’ compensation, the Compensation Committee did not implement changes to our executive compensation program as a result of the stockholder advisory vote.

Impact of Tax Treatment

Schlumberger grants both incentive stock options and non-qualified stock options according to U.S. tax regulations. The Company has a qualified French sub plan for stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units to comply with French regulatory requirements. Stock options granted under the French sub plan prior to April 2013 have four-year cliff vesting rather than the usual five-year ratable vesting, and restricted stock and restricted stock units granted under the French sub plan have two-year cliff vesting and a two-year holding period rather than the usual three-year cliff vesting schedule. Stock options granted under the French sub plan from and after April 2013 have a usual five-year ratable vesting, and restricted stock and restricted stock units granted under the French sub plan have a three-year cliff vesting and a one-year holding period subsequent to vesting.

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code limits the deductibility of certain compensation expenses in excess of $1,000,000 per individual covered employee. The Company’s equity incentive plans are intended to

provide stock options that qualify as performance-based compensation for purposes of Section 162(m) so that stock options are not expected to be subject to the $1 million limitation. PSUs are also designedintended to meet the requirements for qualified performance-based compensation exempt from the deduction limitations of Section 162(m). The Compensation Committee believes that the lost deduction on cash compensation payable in excess of the $1 million limitation for the named executive officers is not material relative to the benefit of being able to adjust incentives as determined appropriate under a plan that is not subject to the conditions of Section 162(m). Accordingly, the Compensation Committee retains the discretion to pay compensation that is subject to the $1,000,000 deductibility limit. Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code requires that “deferred compensation” either comply with certain deferral election and payment rules or be subject to a 20% additional tax. The Company’s compensation programs and awards are designed to make them exempt from or compliant with Section 409A; however, there can be no guarantee that the programs and awards are so exempt or compliant.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed with the Company’s management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in this proxy statement. Based on that review and discussion, the Compensation Committee has recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement.

SUBMITTED BY THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE SCHLUMBERGER BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES AND ACCOMPANYING NARRATIVE

20132014 Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth the compensation paid by the Company and its subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended December 31, 20132014 to the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the next three most highly compensated executive officers who were serving as executive officers as of December 31, 2013, and two additional individuals for whom disclosure would have been provided but for the fact that the individual was not serving as an executive officer as of December 31, 20132014 (each an “NEO” or a “named executive officer”).

(3)	Mr. Belani was paid in Euros for part of 2011. For purposes of this Summary Compensation Table, such compensation has been determined using the 2011 full-year average exchange rate of 1 U.S. Dollar = 0.715 Euros.

The value of the 20132014 PSUs at the grant date, assuming achievement of the maximum performance level of 250%, would be: Mr. Kibsgaard — $28,499,048;$14,999,355; Mr. Ayat — $9,898,928; Mr. Pai — $11,906,895;$4,999,785; Mr. Belani — $8,912,558;$4,495,605; Mr. OestdahlSchorn — $8,912,558; Mr. Poupeau — $7,926,188;$3,991,425; and Mr. JudenGatt Floridia — $6,693,225.$3,991,425.

The NEOs may never realize any value from the PSUs and, to the extent that they do, the amounts realized may have no correlation to the amounts reported above.

The amount reflected in the “Options Award” column is the aggregate grant date fair value for option grants in 2013, computed in accordance with ASC Topic 718. This amount reflects an accounting expense and does not correspond to actual value that may be realized by the NEOs in the future. The number of options granted in 2013 to each NEO is provided in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal Year 2013 table on page 53. The fair value of each grant is established on the date of grant using the Black-Scholesoption-pricing model with the following assumptions for the grant date indicated.

not correspond to actual value that may be realized by the NEOs in the future. The number of options granted in 2014 to each NEO is provided in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal Year 2014 table on page 51. The fair value of each grant is established on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following assumptions for the grant date indicated.