- Shell’s Ben van Beurden bows to Putin: Good Friday, 18 April 2014
For ever a 100 years, Shell has been driven by unscrupulous greed as its sole motivator. Shell funded Hitler and the Nazis party and has subsequently done business with a string of evil regimes, including General Sani Abacha, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and the Mad Mullahs of Iran. Putin is but the latest power mad egomaniac to be treated like royalty by Shell. Bowed to and fawned over on Good Friday by the overpaid bootlicker, Ben van Beurden.
Sunday, 20 April 2014
By John Donovan
The New York Times newspaper published an article today under the headline: In Cold War Echo, Obama Strategy Writes Off Putin
Extract:
Just as the United States resolved in the aftermath of World War II to counter the Soviet Union and its global ambitions, Mr. Obama is focused on isolating President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the outside world, limiting its expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood and effectively making it a pariah state.
Extract ends
The article goes on to claim that Mr. Obama’s aides believe his actions “have sent a message to international businesses, and that just the threat of broader measures has produced a chilling effect.”
The actions of Royal Dutch Shell PLC – the biggest business on the planet in terms of revenue generated, provide proof that the message is being treated with contempt, just as the oil giant did with U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran.
Shell is not interested in morals, ethics, human rights, the safety of it employees, the public, or any other consideration, except money.
For over a 100 years, Shell has been driven by unscrupulous greed as its sole motivator.
Shell funded Hitler and the Nazi party, and has subsequently done business with a string of evil regimes, including General Sani Abacha, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and the Mad Mullahs of Iran.Putin is but the latest power mad egomaniac to be treated like royalty by Shell. Bowed to and fawned over on Good Friday by the overpaid bootlicker, Ben van Beurden.
In June 2001, the claim by President George W Bush that he had looked Putin in the eye and “was able to get a sense of his soul” was greeted with bemusement given the sinister pedigree of Putin as a KGB Colonel. To be fair, this was long before the polonium fueled assassination in London, the annexation of Crimea and the recent estimates that as a result of being the leader of perhaps the most corrupt regime in history, Putin has amassed a $40 billion dollar personal fortune.
None of this matters to Shell. Basically, the company is willing to deal with the devil if that is what it takes to generate multiple million dollar financial packages for its fat cat executive directors, irrespective of their performance, honesty and all moral considerations.
RELATED:
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler?: Forbes Magazine 16 April 2014
Royal Dutch Shell Fooling About With Numbers
So a 5 minute look inside the reported numbers paints a different picture, certainly a clearer picture and a picture that despite the hot air, from a risk analysis viewpoint clarifies that there has been no significant reduction in risk despite the credit being taken by the industry and the Regulator.
ARTICLE BY BILL CAMPBELL (RIGHT), RETIRED SHELL INTERNATIONAL HSE GROUP AUDITOR
Fooling about with numbers.
As a shareholder I received a letter from Shell UK Country Chairman recently. Under Health and Safety he takes credit for an important milestone achieved in April 2013 when he states our upstream business in the North Sea achieved an important milestone in a 50 per cent reduction in the number of hydrocarbon releases over the last three years in line with the industry commitment made in 2009. In 2008 there were 83 major and significant releases and this reduced to 72 in 2009. The Energy Minister and the HSE pronounced this at the time as a significant reduction but actually it only reduced mean time between releases from circa every 4 days to circa every 5 days, hardly a significant reduction. From formal risk analysis a significant risk reduction could only be claimed by an order of magnitude reduction that is from 83 to 8. However, the politics of any reduction is to blow your trumpet whether the reduction is actually reducing risk or not.
However back to the recent letter from the Chairman. What we are not made aware of is what Shell’s contribution to the 50 per cent reduction was. That aside, the 2012/13 figures listed 46 major and significant releases or mean time between releases circa every 8 days and as I have attempted to hammer home, over and over, that any one of these releases has the potential, are likely, to cause a major accident event. Also not covered in the numbers is that 9 releases of the 46 were defined as major up from three the previous year or the largest number of major releases recorded in the last 14 years.
So a 5 minute look inside the reported numbers paints a different picture, certainly a clearer picture and a picture that despite the hot air, from a risk analysis viewpoint clarifies that there has been no significant reduction in risk despite the credit being taken by the industry and the Regulator. Certainly a reduction is always better than an increase but we only need one of these releases to ignite, perhaps it will be the next one, so the North Sea has still got a long way to go.
When fooling around with numbers you can communicate to the man in the street a false sense of the realty of the situation when or if it is in your vested self interest so to do.
Bill Campbell
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
No comments:
Post a Comment