Waitrose urged to freeze links with Shell's Arctic drilling
Greenpeace launches campaign condemning supermarket's new partnership with Shell, but Waitrose insists the deal is 'tiny'
Waitrose is the latest company to come under fire from Greenpeace, which has alleged its ties to an oil company planning to drill in the Arctic undermines its ethical commitments.The group has launched a new campaign yesterday urging the retailer to drop plans for a new partnership with Royal Dutch Shell that would see Waitrose supermarkets open in Shell petrol stations.
In a spoof advert, Greenpeace accuses Waitrose of misleading the public by promoting its charitable giving over the holiday period and hiding its links with Shell.
Shell has a contract with the US government to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea, 70 miles off Alaska's north-west coast.
Greenpeace is concerned that an accident in icy waters would be "disastrous" and be near impossible for Shell to respond to quickly.
Shell operates 13 petrol stations next to Waitrose branches and is selling Waitrose goods in some of its forecourts. Waitrose also offers fuel promotions with Shell.
"Waitrose can clean up a spill in aisle four with a mop and bucket, but an oil spill in the Arctic cannot be cleaned up so easily," said Greenpeace campaigner Sara Ayech. "It would be a disaster. And it would also have huge consequences for all those companies linked to it, such as Waitrose and Shell.
"Waitrose trades on its caring, green image. It's going to lose that carefully nurtured look very soon, unless they drop Shell."
However, Waitrose responded to the accusations, by insisting its links with Shell were "tiny".
"We put as much thought and careful consideration into our relationships with other businesses as into everything we do," it said in a statement.
"In the context of Shell UK or worldwide, the arrangement we have with them is tiny. Unlike our supermarket competitors, who have substantial petrol operations, Waitrose has chosen to get out of the fuel business."
The company also said it had been reassured that Shell would comply with US legislation and protect the environment when drilling in the Arctic.
SOURCE
Toxic flaring at Shell/Motiva continues after equipment failure
The $500,000 settlement is an accumulated penalty for violations that occurred during the years 2003-2010. During that time there were 265 violations at the Norco facility (and more than 140 violations at the Motiva refinery in Convent)
3 December 2012
An equipment failure at the Shell/Motiva manufacturing complex in Norco caused the release of unknown amounts of butadiene, hydrogen sulfide and benzene, according to a report submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center.
The elevated flaring, which began Sunday and caused a smoky backdrop to Norco's annual Christmas Parade, has continued throughout Monday. The company says they are working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
"We also continue to conduct extensive monitoring around the site and in the community," the statement said. "No injuries have been reported associated with this situation, and air monitoring results indicate no environmental impact at this time."
In October, the Motiva refineries in Norco and Convent agreed to a tentative settlement with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality for hundreds of violations of the Clean Air Act.
The $500,000 settlement is an accumulated penalty for violations that occurred during the years 2003-2010. During that time there were 265 violations at the Norco facility (and more than 140 violations at the Motiva refinery in Convent) including the failure by Motiva to file the appropriate application for changes made to its Catalytic Cracking Unit (CCU) that resulted in more pollution being emitted into the local environment.
Motiva is accused of not going through a required review despite knowing that changes to the CCU would result in increased emissions.
In 2008 Motiva was found by the Environmental Protection Agency to be a chronically non-complying facility and put on an internal watch list for that organization.
Related News Article:
• Motiva slapped with $500,000 fine Royal Dutch Shell and Racism
Shell has admitted past discrimination against Jewish employees, which cost at least 20 of them their lives. It supported racist regimes in Nazi Germany and more recently, Apartheid South Africa.
By John Donovan
Shell employees who have accused Shell of being a racist company will be interested in a comparison set out in "A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL, Volume 3″ between Shell's much trumpeted business principles and those of its main competitor, ExxonMobil, in regard to equal employment opportunity.
Shell has admitted past discrimination against Jewish employees, which cost at least 20 of them their lives. It supported racist regimes in Nazi Germany and more recently, Apartheid South Africa.
EXTRACTS FROM PAGE 309/310
Other oil companies came out with comparable policy statements. For instance Exxon gave a booklet to its employees dealing with ethics and responsible behaviour. Interestingly, the Exxon document focused more on the individual employee rather than the operating companies. Starting with the policy on business ethics, the office of the chairman wrote: 'The policy of this Corporation, as stated by the Board of Directors years ago and reaffirmed by the Board at its September 1975 meeting, is one of strict observance of all laws applicable to its business.' Staff were addressed personally in the following manner: 'An overly-ambitious employee might have the mistaken idea that we do not care how results are obtained, as long as he gets results. He might think it best not to tell higher management all that he is doing, not to record all transactions accurately in his books and records, and to deceive the Corporation's internal and external auditors. He would be wrong on all counts. We do care how we get results.' Despite using the male form of address in this document, the company advocated a policy on equal opportunity for individuals, 'regardless of their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap, and veteran's status'. Incidentally, this clause was absent in the Shell statement. Instead, the Shell statement mentioned the responsibility of the Group 'to promote the development and best use of human talent and potential and to encourage employee involvement in the planning and direction of their work'.
The most recent edition of the STANDARDS OF BUSINESS CONDUCT (published November 2011) by ExxonMobil still includes specific provision on equal employment opportunity policy.
As can be seen from the above information published in 2007, after being vetted and approved by senior Shell management, the company is much more reticent than ExxonMobil in providing such assurance.
Astonishingly, the current Shell Business Principles signed by Royal Dutch Shell Plc Chief Executive, Peter Voser, still does not give a comparable specific pledge making it absolutely clear there will be no racial, or other discrimination.
ExxonMobil clearly takes the view that this is such an important issue that no room should be left for doubt. In view of its past track record, you would have thought Shell would wish to do the same.
CLICK ON EACH IMAGE TO ENLARGE
