SHELL ETHICS BOSS WANTS DATA THEFT EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION

Shell ethics boss

wants evidence

of data theft to

be destroyed

Feb 10th, 2010

by John Donovan.

By John Donovan
Published below is more email correspondence with Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It concerns the Shell Global Address Book containing company and personal contact information for over 100,000 employees. I will leave to readers to decide whether Mr Wiseman is fit for purpose in his current role.

EMAIL FROM RICHARD WISEMAN TO JOHN DONOVAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 5 February 2010 16:59:36 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: Directory
Dear Mr. Donovan
I thought I ought to follow up on the issue of the disclosure of the Shell internal address book ("Shell Address Book") to you by certain Shell employees. As you are probably aware, the Shell Address Book contains personal data under UK data protection law.  As I previously indicated, although the vast majority of information in the Address Book is largely business related, there may be cases where the security of an individual may be impacted by release of such information.  You have already agreed not to publish the information.  May I now ask you to delete/destroy the information that you have received and confirm this deletion/destruction to me.
While of course I cannot give you legal advice, and I am happy to rely on the assurance you have given about publication, I should tell you that I have been advised that disclosure of such information by you could itself constitute a breach of data protection laws and could be a criminal offence.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office:  Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands
Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com/

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN: 5 FEBRUARY 2010

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 5 February 2010 17:51:21 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Subject: Re: Directory
Dear Mr Wiseman
Despite our offer…
Available FREE on application: Directory of 100,000 plus Shell employees
being a tease, we have in fact received applications, including from a former Royal Dutch Shell VP.
We realised from the outset that this is in fact a serious matter, which is why I contacted Shell.
We take particular note of the comments in your last paragraph and are grateful that you have shared the advice received.
I will reply on Monday and in the meantime, be assured that we will not disclose any of the data.
I assume that you have no such problem with the proposed publication of the information sent earlier today. We will not publish it all, but substantial extracts.
Regards
John Donovan

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN: 7 FEBRUARY 2010

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 7 February 2010 11:59:24 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com
Subject: Re: Directory
Dear Mr Wiseman
I promised to let you know whether we are prepared on a voluntary basis to delete/destroy the Shell Address Book that was supplied to us.
The is a classic example of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The situation is already out of Shell's control.
Eight NGO's, not known for being well disposed towards Shell, already have copies of the Directory. Greenpeace for example, has multiple copies. I know that at least one NGO has already engaged in a distribution of the Shell Address Book via the internet. We all know how fast information can spread on the net, particularly if it causes significant embarrassment, in this case to a multinational giant with a controversial track record of exploitation and pollution, particularly in Nigeria.
We understand from our insider sources that various (former) members of Shell's HR department have set themselves up as recruitment agencies using not just the Shell Address Book, but also Shell's personnel files of which they have taken copies. We are informed that Shell knows this very well and some of Shell's JV partners even work with the agencies concerned.
Since the information is in the public domain already (as it obviously is), we understand that the further dissemination by third party recipients such as Greenpeace, would not contravene the Data Protection Act. The Shell Address Book is already available to any Shell employee (even when seconded to another company) around the world using any internet connection.
Many of the jurisdictions in which the data could have been copied have no data protection laws. Most countries with data protection laws prohibit the dissemination of personal data to countries with lower standards of data protection than their own. Personal data held in EU countries apparently cannot even be transferred to the USA. Our information output is made from the USA while we are resident in the UK.
It might therefore be said that Shell, by allowing the information to be distributed globally, is itself in breach of the Data Protection Act. It is plain that Shell internal security has been totally inadequate. Shell has failed in its duty to protect information which you have said in your current and previous emails potentially puts the safely of Shell employees at risk. This includes, as you have pointed out, "personal" information (entrusted to Shell not only by its own employees but also people employed by third parties). The accurate up to date information, including personal details, exposes everyone identified in the Shell Address Book to the risk of becoming victims of identity theft/cyber crime.
Having considered the matter and taking into account some of the points set out above, we intend to keep the Shell Address Book for our personal use unless you inform us that Shell intends to institute legal proceedings, in which case we will reconsider the matter.
Regards
John Donovan

FURTHER EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-RDS-CCO
Cc: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LC; Voser, Peter SI-GLOBAL
Sent: Tue Feb 09 14:37:36 2010
Subject: Shell Global Address Book
Dear Mr Wiseman
Since our last exchange on this matter, I have received and published a leaked copy of your reassuring message to employees listed in the Shell Global Address Book. In fact your message does not downplay any risk to personal safety, as I suggested in a related published comment. It does not mention that aspect at all. Logic therefore suggests that on further reflection, Shell decided that the employee personal safety risk aspect is so minimal that no warning at all on that score was needed.
A change of view by your risk analysis advisors would explain why Shell has not threatened to issue proceedings against us requiring destruction of the Shell Global Address Book in our possession. (I feel sure that if you had done so, we would have complied).
Since I am aware that a copy of the Shell Global Address Book is already in the hands of anti-Shell activists, including Nigerian activists, I question any such change of view on the personal safety issue. I am not a personal security expert, but plain commonsense suggests that would be kidnappers in Nigeria could use the listed contact information to locate and lure potential victims into traps, if the database falls into their hands.
As you will have realized, the leak of the entire global database was made by people highly sympathetic to Nigerian activist causes. There is evidence supplied with the database that Shell has been infiltrated as part of a long-term plot by Nigerian activists committed to peaceful campaigning against Shell's conduct in Nigeria. It is that insider group, claiming to be over 100 strong, which circulated the database.
Leaving that to one side, if you want us to enter into a formal agreement regarding the Global Address Book we received, this is fine in principle with us provided Shell pays all legal costs.
On the other hand, if Shell is still content with our assurance that we will not provide access to the Shell Global Address Book on the Internet and will act in a responsible way in relation to the copy in our possession, that is also okay with us. Obviously with the substantial job cutting in progress, the current contact information will, in any event, soon be out of date.
If I receive no response from you today, I will take it that the matter is concluded on the basis set out in the paragraph immediately preceding this one.
Regards
John Donovan

EMAIL REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

On 9 Feb 2010, at 14:15, richard.wiseman@shell.com wrote:
As always, do not take lack of legal action as acquiescence.
Your email suggests you are prepared to commit a criminal offence. I have already suggested you take legal advice for your own protection. That suggestion stands.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 9 February 2010 15:37:54 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com
Subject: Re: Shell Global Address Book
Dear Mr Wiseman
I have no idea on what basis you arrive at the conclusion that we are prepared to commit a criminal offence. We have no such intention.
Information and an attachment containing the database arrived by email on an unsolicited basis. If informed by any authority that the database should be deleted, we will do so immediately. Until such time, we retain the information and the attachment as evidence in what does appear to be a criminal matter. We have correspondence with other parties, as well as with Shell, which prove the responsible way we have handled this matter. I am surprised that you as a barrister and solicitor have suggested that we destroy evidence which may turn out to be vital in any prosecution.
I note there is no explanation for one statement being given to us highlighting the risk to employee safety and a different version spun to your employees, deleting that important aspect, despite the fact that their personal safety has been jeopardized.
Shell obviously did not want to come clean and admit its failure to safeguard data entrusted to you not only by your own employees, but employees of third parties.
Once again Shell has demonstrated its lack of integrity with a cover-up of the true situation caused by Shell negligence, intimidation designed to keep us quite and/or destroy evidence, coupled with the usual cavalier disregard for employee safety.
Regards
John Donovan

REPLY BY RICHARD WISEMAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 9 February 2010 16:27:35 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, Peter.P.Voser@shell.com
Subject: RE: Shell Global Address Book
I may reply more comprehensively in due course if I judge that there is any purpose in doing so.
At this stage I can confirm that all those on the directory have been informed of the situation.  We have also notified the appropriate regulators.  There is no "cover up" as you put it.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

RESPONSE FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: 09 February 2010 16:41
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-RDS-CCO
Subject: Re: Shell Global Address Book
Mr Wiseman you have put pressure on me to destroy the stolen database.
That act on my part might amount to a criminal offence as it is important evidence in a crime which could potentially cost the lives of Shell employees.
I am in the process of notifying Chief Superintendent Tim Newcomb of Essex Police. I had previously brought to his attention Shell's "invisible investigations" directed against us and your global spying against Shell employees visiting or posting comments on our humble website.
I can well understand why you might now be hopping around contemplating a more comprehensive reply.
Are you still suggesting that I destroy the database evidence?
Regards
John Donovan

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 9 February 2010 16:57:27 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: Shell Global Address Book
Yes I think you should destroy it.  As I have explained, we have already notified the relevant authorities, and all  relevant individuals.  The data has no evidential value in your hands.
You have already said that you intend to keep the Shell Address Book for your personal use, so the "evidence" excuse just doesn't hold water.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

RELY FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 9 February 2010 18:29:47 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Subject: Re: Shell Global Address Book
Although originally circulated to a number of parties by Shell insiders, and by them onwards, I know of only one copy of the attachment information which definitely still exists. That is the one in our possession and it will remain so until the Police or other relevant authority without an axe to grind advises if it should be deleted or supplied to them. I am not in as much of a rush to destroy potentially incriminating evidence as you self-evidently are for some reason. As for notifying all relevant individuals, unless there is a later notification than the one leaked to us, you failed to warn of a risk to personal safety.
Regards
John Donovan

Posted in: GoogleNews, John Donovan, Leaked Shell Emails, Michiel Brandjes, Outspoken Articles, Peter Voser, Richard Wiseman, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Shell Job Cuts.
Tagged: John Donovan · Peter Voser · Richard Wiseman Shell · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← SCOTTISH CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SHELL

Updated: Shell ethics boss wants evidence of data theft to be destroyed →

SHELL's SINISTER ACTIVITIES AGAINST OPPOSITIONS

The Pipe – Shell

 in Ireland

May 27th, 2010

by John Donovan.

by John Donovan

A new documentary on Shell's Corrib Pipeline Project in Ireland is claiming that the Irish Police and regulators colluded in covering up the connection between private security working on the Corrib Gas pipeline project and an apparent assassination attempt on the Bolivian President, Evo Morales.

Shell's interests in Bolivia have been threatened by Morales' policy of nationalising its natural resources. However, apparently for legal reasons, the film-maker has been forced to avoid naming the oil company.

Shell has a track record of involvement in sinister covert operations against perceived enemies, including Greenpeace, The Body Shop, Nigerian activists and the Donovans. In our case, the activity has continued into recent years and become a global activity involving Shell Corporate Affairs Security (CAS) headed by a former senior officer of the British Secret Service.

Under the circumstances, it should be no surprise that Shell has adopted similar sleazy tactics in Ireland. Indeed, several years ago, during an interview on Dublin Newstalk Radio 106fm -- "The Breakfast Show with Eamon Dunphy", I warned that Shell would engage in  sinister activities against the local population campaigning about the Corrib pipeline.

Official site and trailer: http://www.thepipethefilm.com/

Facebook site: ThePipeTheFilm

Posted in: Corrib Gas Project, Corruption, Environment, Gas, GoogleNews, Ireland, John Donovan, Litigation, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Shell Spying, Shell to Sea Campaign.
Tagged: Corrib Gas Project · Gas · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

BREACH OF EMPLOYEE DETAILS

Shell guilty of

 allowing worlds

biggest breach

of employee details

Feb 16th, 2010

by John Donovan.

By John Donovan
Shell media spin machine went into overdrive last week trying to downplay the worlds biggest ever leak of employee details, including personal information, which Shell Ethics boss Richard Wiseman, has twice admitted puts the safety of some employees at risk.
A copy of a related email from Mr Wendel Broere, Group spokesman, Global media relations, Shell International B.V, desperately engaged on a damage limitation exercise with the news media, was leaked to me on the day it was sent. My role is discussed in the email, no doubt because I am the person who broke the story which turned into a global PR disaster for Shell, with all kinds of unwelcome repercussions, including an investigation by the Information Commissioners Office and the prospect of a fine for being reckless with confidential employee data.
The information sent by Broere on the record says that Shell is investigating the matter and will comply with all legal requirements. The issue of personal security is only mentioned "Off the record" in his email, down-played to being no greater risk to Shell employee personal safety than merely handing out a business card.
Shell now says there was no private address information. That was not the case in the leaked employee data I received which Shell pressured me into destroying before Shell media started pumping out smoke. In fact, many post-codes were included in the data: Far more than could be only Shell addresses. Also personal mobile phone numbers, along with an array of other contact information.
The line now being taken by Shell is totally incompatible with the unambiguous statement on the personal security aspect made by Shell Ethics Richard Wiseman that he subsequently reconfirmed to me by email. This was after I published a leaked email Wiseman had sent to all employees, which failed to mention any risk to personal safety.
And it was not just Shell employee information that was leaked, but four other data files, all forming part of an carefully contrived plan – formulated with almost military precision – for a claimed corporate revolution at Shell by a subversive group that appears to have successfully infiltrated the oil giant. The whole thrust of the plan directed at Shell is motivated by its alleged crimes in Nigeria, which are listed in the extraordinary document.
Following contact with the Information Commissioners Office, we have also destroyed the other related files supplied within the attachment containing the Shell Global Address Book. However, we understand that now that the information has escaped into cyber-space, it will always be potentially retrievable.
Although Shell Corporate Affairs Security (CAS) is mounting a major investigation, how much confidence can employees have in a department headed by retired spooks, when CAS was presumably ultimately responsible for safeguarding security in the first place? At least it might divert CAS from carrying out "invisible" investigations against the Donovans.
Clearly the global spying by CAS against Shell employees to try to stop information from reaching us has not been entirely successful. The flood of leaked Shell information continues unabated.
According to a posting on our Shell Blog by a Shell IT insider (a regular contributor of articles to this website) a breach of the employee Directory could have happened at anytime in the last decade:

SHELL'S CLOAK AGAINST PROSECUTION

Shell warns of fuel shortage, job losses if its imports are seized

ABS-CBN News

Posted at Jan 15 2010 05:11 PM | Updated as of Jan 18 2010 12:05 AM

http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/01/15/10/shell-warns-fuel-shortage-job-losses-if-its-imports-are-seized

MANILA, Philippines - Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation on Friday warned that the threatened seizure of P43 billion worth of its raw materials and product imports by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) would force it to shut down its Batangas refinery, resulting in fuel shortage.

Shell said the closure will result in job losses and massive disruption in power supply, land, sea and air transportation and other critical industries.

"The domestic storage facilities of Shell's competitors are limited and in the event that Shell is unable to service its 27.7% market share, this void cannot be filled by its competitors who do not have enough supply to fill this massive shortage," Shell supply planning and scheduling manager Garry Galvez said in a statement.

Galvez said that the planned seizure of Shell's imported raw materials and products will prevent it from producing and selling petroleum products like jet or aviation fuel, kerosene, liquefied petroleum gas, diesel, variants of unleaded gasoline, variants of fuel oil used for marine vessels, power plants and other general industries.

He added that this will force Shell to close its Batangas refinery, leaving 823 workers jobless and resulting in P11 billion monthly losses for the company.

"With no products to sell, the seizure can also eventually close down Shell's 959 retail dealer stations. Shell's retail stations service road transport vehicles and account for about 34% of the market as of June 2009. These stations employ nearly 17,000 daily wage earners who also stand to lose their jobs as a result of the seizure."

The BOC vowed to seize, under Section 1508 of the Tariff and Customs Code, all future shipments of Shell amounting to $923 million arriving from February to May 2010, to answer for alleged deficiency tax assessments covering its importations of Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (CCG) and Light Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (LCCG) from 2004 to 2009.

Shell is disputing the tax assessments before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), saying its CCG and LCCG imports are merely raw materials for the production of unleaded gasoline. It said BOC's tax assessments have no basis since excise taxes are supposed to be levied only on finished products for consumption and sale in the domestic market.

Shell legal counsel and former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo complained that the BOC's demand constitutes double taxation since Shell already paid billions of pesos on Shell's finished products withdrawn from its refinery that were produced using the imported CCG and LCCG.

"The threatened seizure is unjust, premature and oppressive. BOC is threatening to seize Shell's shipments even if the supposed liability has yet to be determined with finality. There is still a pending case before the CTA on this issue. What makes this worse is that the BOC threatens to seize all of Shell's shipments, even those that are not CCG or LCCG," said Marcelo.

Marcelo added that Shell is asking the CTA to bar the BOC from implementing the seizure as this will result in grave injury, not only to the company, but, more importantly, to its stakeholders and the general public.

Apart from having a 27.7% market share on average in the retail fuels market, Shell said it also supplies 33% of the demand of power plants, including those of the National Power Corporation; around 17.2% of the fuel requirement of the aviation industry; 24.6% of the marine transport market; and 70.2% of the demand for bitumen by contractors engaged in road works.

DOE chief fears shortage if Shell oil imports are seized

ABS-CBN News

Posted at Jan 17 2010 04:00 PM | Updated as of Jan 18 2010 12:02 AM

http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/01/17/10/doe-chief-fears-shortage-if-shell-oil-imports-are-seized

MANILA, Philippines - Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes fears there could be shortage in supply of fuel if the Bureau of Customs (BOC) seizes P43 billion worth of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.'s importations.

"Shell can't operate as usual, BOC may have to go the process of bidding for the sale of the cargoes. But the buyer may not have the capacity to store the cargo," noted Reyes in a message to reporters.

He explained that "Shell has a share of over 30% of the market—second only to Petron Corp.”

The BOC earlier vowed to seize $923 million worth of Shell's imports arriving in February to May 2010 as payment for alleged back taxes. The agency said Shell failed to pay excise taxes covering its importations of Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (CCG) and Light Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (LCCG) from 2004 to 2009.

Shell is disputing BOC's tax assessments before the Court of Tax Appeals. The company contends that excise taxes are not applicable to its CCG and LCCG imports because these are merely raw materials and not finished products.

Reyes said the Department of Energy shares the same position.

"Final tax is levied as gasoline leaves the refinery for sale to the market," he said, pointing out that "BOC insists to collect tax on the intermediate product."

Shell said the planned seizure of its imports would force it to shut down its Batangas refinery, resulting in fuel shortage, job losses and massive disruption of critical industries such as power, and sea and air transportation.

Apart from having a 27.7% average share in the retail market, Shell said it also supplies 33% of the demand of power companies including the National Power Corp.; around 17.2% of the fuel requirement of the aviation industry; 24.6% of the marine transport market; and 70.2% of the local demand for bitumen which is used in road works.

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/547963/boc-seize-shell-imports

MANILA, Philippines - Customs Commissioner Napoleon Morales announced yesterday that the Bureau of Customs (BOC) will seize imports of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. starting today to pay for the company’s alleged import tax arrears worth P7.3 billion.

“Shell owes the government so we have to hold their shipment,” he said.

The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) yesterday denied Shell’s petition to stop the BOC from seizing the goods.

Morales said that as soon as the agency receives a copy of the court order, the bureau could start holding the imports of Shell.

In a meeting with officials of the Department of Finance, Shell maintained its position that it should not be paying the amount.

Shell officials said there would be supply problems if the BOC seizes the shipments. The company warned the bureau that a seizure may prompt it to shut down its refinery, one of only two oil refineries in the Philippines.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: Morales dismissed this as “blackmail” and maintained that the BOC is determined to seize the goods.

He said that if Shell agrees to pay the amount, even at a later date, the BOC would not seize the goods.

“But they are not even talking to us,” Morales said.

The issue stemmed from Shell’s refusal to pay import taxes on catalytic cracked gasoline (CCG) and light catalytic cracked gasoline (LCCG) it imported between 2004 and 2009.

Shell cited a previous legal opinion issued in 2004 by then Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Jose Mario Buñag, which said that the importation of the two products is exempted from excise tax.

BIR Commissioner Joel Tan-Torres has already reversed the Buñag ruling and agreed with the BOC that the products are subject to tax.

Morales said the BOC is exerting all efforts, including going after Shell’s tax liabilities, in order to meet its revenue goal for 2010 amounting to P278 billion.

In January, the BOC collected P17.602 billion, above its revenue goal for the month of P14.091 billion, latest data from the Treasury showed. In the same month last year, the BOC collected P14.4 billion.

The Department of Finance (DOF), for its part, gave its full backing to the BOC, saying that its mandate is to collect taxes.

“Our mandate is to collect taxes so we are in consonance with the positions of the BOC and the BIR,” said Finance Undersecretary Estela Sales.

Shell warns consumers

Shell spokesman Roberto Kanapi warned consumers of a possible fuel shortage after the CTA denied the firm’s petition for injunction, thus allowing the BOC to seize Shell’s importations starting today.

Kanapi, on the other hand, said the company would exhaust all legal means to prevent the BOC from implementing the seizure order.

“The severe consequence of the oppressive act compels us to exhaust all legal measures,” Kanapi said.

Kanapi said “Shell cannot pay back taxes claimed by BIR and BOC since these are under dispute. This is because Shell has adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) as part of its corporate governance principles. This prohibits the payment of assessments that are in dispute, meant to have retroactive effect, or subject of a rewards system to private individuals.”

Shell country chairman Edgar Chua said they are not keen on paying such in any form since they are not amenable to “double taxation.”

Shell, a member of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, also did not discount the possibility of stopping its importations if the CTA decides in favor of the BOC.

“We have been advised that if we do not get the suspension order the BOC is mandated to seize all our imports, and when a seizure happens then we will be forced to stop importations as even if we import, we will not be able to use it until the P76.3-billion liability is extinguished,” Chua said.

Ria Campos, president of the Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers Inc., expressed dismay over the decision of the CTA, saying that this would greatly affect their business and their employees. PSDI currently has over 960 retail stations nationwide.

“We are saddened by the outcome of the decision of the CTA not to grant the extension of the TRO. Now, we are not assured of what will happen to our businesses and our 17,000 employees nationwide. Most of our employees belong to the lower income bracket,” Campos said.

Campos also doubts if other players would be able to absorb the market of Shell.

“I do not know if other oil players can absorb what Shell is serving right now. I doubt if they have the capability to supply the 30 percent share of Shell in the market,” she said.

“What will happen to our business if Shell refinery will stop importing,” she said, noting that each station normally has 2-4 days of oil supply on inventory.

But Campos is optimistic that the government would be enlightened on the impact of this tax issue on the business community.

In a resolution released yesterday, the CTA was split on whether to issue the suspension order sought by Pilipinas Shell to bar the seizure of its importations by the BOC.

Shell is disputing before the special tax court a P7.34-billion tax assessment slapped by the BOC on Shell importations of CCG and LCCG from 2004 to 2009.

In a four-page resolution, Justices Erlinda Uy and Esperanza Fabon-Victorino said that “the damage in (PSPC’s) property rights must, in the meantime, take a backseat to the paramount need of the State for funds to sustain governmental functions. Compared to the damage to the State, which may be caused by reduced financial resources, the damage to (PSPC) is negligible.”

Presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta, the most senior member of the division hearing the case, rendered a 13-page dissenting opinion stating that “(PSPC) has a right to be protected during the pendency of the case.”

He added that “the threatened action of (the BOC) are damaging not only to (Shell’s) interests but also to the whole community considering the undesirable effects of rising prices of basic consumer needs, possible unemployment of a large number of people and extinguishment of opportunities for businesses dependent on (Shell’s) operations.”

The dissent concluded by saying that “to deprive (Shell) of the Suspension Order will in effect render naught and useless the statement of Justice Holmes that ‘the power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.’ For this Court failed this time.”

Before Justices Fabon and Uy joined the division hearing the case, the CTA previously issued a 60-day temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the BOC from enforcing the seizures. The TRO lapsed yesterday. Shell previously warned of a looming fuel shortage, job losses and severe economic disruption should the seizures push through.

Energy Secretary Reyes called a stakeholders meeting Monday attended by representatives of Shell, other petroleum players, BIR and BOC. Reyes expressed concerns about the security of the country’s energy supply in the event of such seizures. Reyes is also set to meet today with Finance Secretary Gary Teves on the issue.

“It is unfortunate that this split in the CTA clearly results to unlawful double taxation. Apart from the economic disruption that will be caused by the seizures, the long term consequence of the ruling is that manufacturing in the country will be discouraged and the security of our energy supply will be placed at great risk due to the eventual closure of the Batangas refinery,” said Shell legal counsel John Balisnomo.

Last week, the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives released a report based on hearings it has conducted since last year.

The report found the reversal by the BIR Commissioner Tan-Torres of a series of prior rulings of the BIR relied upon by Shell in its importations as “a naked, arbitrary, and whimsical abuse of administrative power by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and a usurpation of the power to tax solely vested in Congress by the Constitution.”

Prior to the recent reversal, the BIR has consistently ruled since 2004 that Shell’s CCG and LCCG imports are not subject to excise tax upon importation since they are intermediate or raw materials as found by the DOE. Shell has paid billions of pesos in excise taxes after the imported CCG and LCCG are blended in its refinery to produce unleaded premium gasoline fit for domestic consumption.

The Ways and Means Committee also found that the BIR ruling “is arbitrary as it lacks factual and legal basis.”

The Joint Foreign Chambers has expressed concern over the “heavy handed” approach of the government in its tax collection effort against Shell.

The European Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines (ECCP) and the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) also expressed concern over the flip-flopping of government agencies on the matter.With Donnabelle Gatdula, Evelyn Macairan

POTENTIAL LITIGANTS now may SUE SHELL

Do you have

 grounds

 for a lawsuit

 against

 Shell?

Have you,

your firm or

family been

cheated or

 injured

by Shell?

Feb 9th, 2007

by admin.

If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, then you may find this article by John Donovan to be of interest…
The first difficulty faced by potential litigants considering suing Shell, is finding a law firm with the required resources which does not have a conflict of interest and is willing to confront an opponent quite literally prepared to stop at nothing.
In this connection we may be able to assist by providing introductions at law firms with a track record of winning cases against Shell, who may in some cases, be willing to work on a contingency fee basis.
The owners of this website have been participants in countless proceedings with Shell stretching back to 1993. We are currently involved in proceedings brought by EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group. A High Court hearing took place on 8 February 2007. The next is scheduled for 7 August.
Consequently, we know most Shell litigation moves including the use of:

* unscrupulous solicitors e.g. Kendall Freeman
* undercover activity
* witness intimidation
* threats
* jurisdiction ploys
* burying evidence
* tampering with evidence
* holding back discovery documents
* manipulating the news media
* hiding information about the litigation from Shell shareholders
* dragging out litigation to drain the resources of a weaker opponent

Basically nothing is too low for Shell.
Knowing that other parties have had the same problems dealing with Shell can help psychologically and also possibly strengthen a case by providing what is known as "similar fact evidence". This perhaps explains why one of Shell's first actions in responding to a case is to ask that the case be sealed, preventing the court documents and documents relating to discovery from reaching the public domain. Even where a case has been sealed, the initial petition is by definition in the public domain, since it was lodged with the court before the case was sealed. Shell does not want news of litigation to circulate in case it reaches the ears of another potential or actual litigant who might be able to supply or benefit from acquiring similar fact evidence.
It has therefore been suggested that we act as a repository of threatened or actual legal proceedings against Shell. This would enable us to compare cases to check for relevance to litigation already in our files and notify relevant parties accordingly, putting them into direct contact if both sides agree. In the event of a pattern of Shell conduct being revealed, perhaps even involving the same Shell individuals, it might enable the cases to proceed more expeditiously and potentially even persuade Shell to settle out of court rather than allowing predatory conduct to be exposed in open court.
Consequently, if you have a legal grievance against Shell you are invited to report it to us. If legal documents are already in the public domain we will, with your permission, publish them. If the information is confidential we will only share it with another party with a similar grievance if you give us clearance to do so.
There are a number of options available to convey information depending on the degree of confidentiality involved.
It can be sent directly to me at: john@shellnews.net
Or you can use a more secure form of transmission e.g. http://www.anonymousspeech.com/
The information will then be relayed to me at my email address.
Alternatively check out http://wikileaks.org/
You will shortly be able to post information and documents on this new facility designed to protect anonymity of documents. It is expected to become operational within a matter of weeks.  If this service is used, you would need to tip me off to check the wikileaks.org website by perhaps posting a message on our Live Chat box e.g. It might be worth a visit to wikileaks.org?
For information about the wikileaks.org service check out the Time Magazine link below.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581189,00.html
Our own experiences with Shell: At the beginning of our legal battles with Shell we knew nothing about such shady tactics but were well aware of the daunting challenge of taking on a multinational Goliath which has an army of in-house lawyers supported by unlimited financial resources and a ruthless unscrupulous management. We thought we were on our own in having to threaten ligation after a Shell manager stole our intellectual property. Then in a meeting I had with a Shell Chairman, he let it slip that other firms were also threatening to launch legal proceedings on the same basis about the same Shell national manager. In other words, the Shell manager in question had been accused of stealing ideas from other parties who, like us, had disclosed information on a confidential basis believing they could trust Shell. The then Shell Chairman, Dr Chris Fay, claimed that he could not agree to settle our claim because it would set a precedent. This was a major concern in view of the fact that other potential litigants were pressing Shell. Royal Dutch Shell did later did settle for £200,000 approximately $400,000.

Posted in: Shell.

MORE OF SHELL'S MISDEMEANORS

Royal Dutch Shell plc .com

News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Skip to Content ↓

• Home
• Contact Us
• Contributors
• Mission
• Shell Blog
• Shell Library

Shell Criticized

for Manipulating

Environmental

Audit Report

Sep 3rd, 2008

by John Donovan.

SEPTEMBER 2, 2008

Shell Criticized

for Manipulating

Environmental

 Audit Report

Shell is accused of manipulating an independent environmental audit by AEA Technology to determine whether an oil and gas project would receive bank funding, Guardian reports.
Dozens of e-mails secured through the Freedom of Information Act show how Shell officials in London attempted to downplay and edit environmental criticism of the $22 billion Sakhalin II energy scheme. Officials persuaded AEA to disperse its findings throughout the report, rather than leaving them in one appendix. Also downplayed were experts' concerns over the impacts of continuous noise on endangered whales, and questions about whether permits were sought before or after drilling began.
In addition, the AEA report lists Sakhalin Energy as its client, even though the audit was supposed to be independent.
In August, Shell was reprimanded by UK's Advertising Standards Authority for violating advertising rules when it claimed that two oil projects in Canada and the U.S. involved sustainable forms energy.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/09/02/shell-criticized-for-manipulating-environmental-audit-report/

Posted in: Environment, Oil, Wikipedia.

SHELL DISGRACE ONCE MORE

Shell Earns Top Rating in Human Rights Survey (another deception)

Sep 3rd, 2008

by John Donovan.

Shell Earns Top Rating in Human Rights Survey 
HOUSTON — Shell Oil Co. received top marks from the Corporate Equality Index (CEI) for its treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) employees and consumers.
CEI's annual survey, administered by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, awarded Shell a 100 percent rating. The oil company joins the ranks of 259 other major U.S. businesses also recognized for related practices and procedures.
"At Shell, we believe creating an inclusive workplace that brings out the very best from our employees is fundamental to our success," said Francene Young, vice president of diversity, inclusion and talent at Shell Oil Co.
Young noted Shell established a formal framework of principles and expectations for every Shell-controlled company. To this end, Shell companies are required to value the broad range of cultural and personal differences that exists in each. This initiative is supported by the company's pledge to attract develop, retain and promote diverse talent.
"It is extremely gratifying to have our commitment to diversity and inclusion recognized by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, in such a meaningful way," Young said in a statement.
http://www.csnews.com/csn/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003845140

Comment by John Donovan

This fabricated news story is being promoted by Shell Media without any declaration that the "award" comes from an organisation – the so called "Human Rights Campaign Foundation" – which receives funding from Shell. The lack of candour is a disgrace. The public, the media and Shell employees are once again being conned by the bunch of overpaid confidence tricksters at the top of Shell. 

Posted in: Shell.

SO YOU MAY KNOW

SEX, DRUGS & CORRUPTION

 SPONSORED BY SHELL

Oct 23rd, 2009

by John Donovan.

LEAFLET BEING DISTRIBUTED AT SHELL CENTRE, LONDON, WEEK COMMENCING 26 OCTOBER 2009.

SEX, DRUGS & CORRUPTION

SPONSORED BY SHELL

By John Donovan of royaldutchshellplc.com: October 2009

Shell senior management pretends that it stands resolutely behind the anti-corruption pledges in the Shell General Business Principles.

I have already revealed that the hypocrites at the top of Shell, including executive director Malcolm "TFA" Brinded and the rule bending Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, Richard Wiseman, encourage and support corrupt practices. Wiseman's behind the scenes support is directly at odds with an anti-corruption speech he delivered in June 2008 at the Asia Anti-Corruption Conference.

The stink of corruption associated with Shell is pervasive and impossible to contain. In the hard commercial world, Shell senior management is prepared to do whatever it takes to meet its objectives, whether it is turning a blind eye to corrupt practices in the UK, bribery and corruption in Russia (the Sakhalin2 project) or in Nigeria, where Shell has also paid militants carrying out attacks on Shell employees and property. It is unclear whether the murky payments, reported in the FT, were to stop or promote the attacks, which have driven up the price of oil.

We mentioned in a recent leaflet the criminal investigation currently in progress in Scotland involving Shell, Malcolm Brinded, the HSE and alleged corruption.

We now have the criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department into former U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton and the award of potentially highly lucrative oil shale leases to Shell Oil, which subsequently became her employer.

One moment Norton was the head of a U.S. government department negotiating multibillion-dollar agreements with Shell, the next (just months later) she was working for Shell Oil as General Counsel in the division dealing with oil shale. This was blatantly improper, undoubtedly against the public interest and probably illegal. It smells to high heaven.

In this connection, we are aware of speculation that we have supplied Shell internal documents and correspondence to the U.S. investigators. The speculation is understandable bearing in mind our international reputation as a purveyor of Shell confidential internal information. One example was our key role in the Sakhalin2 project resulting in Shell's loss of its ownership stake and the forced resignation, in embarrassing circumstances, of the project director, General David Greer.

I have been writing about Gale Norton for over a year. Not just out of concern over her joining Shell in highly dubious circumstances, but also because of a corruption scandal involving her staff. This scandal had it all; bribes, drugs, sex and oil. Shell was a prime sponsor of the immoral and illegal activities, which also breached Shell's claimed ethical code.

Further proof that Shell General Business Principles are a complete fraud.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of The Interior and the Office of Inspector General initiated an investigation in 2006 after receiving allegations from a confidential source that improprieties were occurring within the Royalty in Kind Program (RIK). The following extracts in italics, not necessarily in original order, are taken directly from the official report.

In e-mails we retrieved from computer hard drives and network servers, we found numerous indications that many of the events that RIK employees attended with industry officials were purely social. For instance, e-mail from Shell Pipeline Company representative to RIK employee Crystel Edler, regarding attending "tailgating festivities" at a Houston Texans game, stated, "You're invited have you and the girls meet at my place at 6am for bubble baths and final prep. Just kidding…"

The Shell Pipeline Company representative's previous e-mail inviting people to the event was laden with sexual innuendo such as, "We've always provided the patrons with beer on demand, but the ever-depleting supplies have dwindled beer storage to dangerously low volumes on occasion…. Although it's a given that the horsemen will indeed 'bring the meat to the table.'

In 2004, Shell provided Leyshon with lodging and paid for her ski costs in Keystone, CO. She also admitted to having a "one-night stand" with a Shell employee. She stated that this employee did not prepare Shell's RIK bids. Leyshon told investigators that she "had a hit every once in a while in reference to her use of marijuana but noted that this never occurred at the MMS office.

When interviewed, Michael Faulise, Director of Marketing for Shell Exploration and Production Company (Shell E&P), stated that he had worked for Shell since 2000… When asked, Faulise stated that he was unable to recall Leyshon ever paying for any lodging or meals provided by Shell.

We interviewed a senior crude oil trader for Shell Oil Trading Company regarding his relationship with Stacy Leyshon pursuant to a DOJ proffer agreement. The senior trader said he had heard Leyshon and Edler referred to by other Shell employees as the "MMS Chicks" who often drank too much and conducted themselves in an unprofessional manner.

In addition, our investigation disclosed that in 2004, Greg Smith became concerned that an RIK employee might have released confidential pipeline transportation rates to Shell. Apparently, a company official from Poseidon Oil had called Smith to complain that Shell had learned of the confidential transportation rate that Poseidon had negotiated with RIK. We also discovered emails sent among RIK Staff where Edler admitted to talking to "Mike" (Faulise) about the Poseidon deal. On May 6, 2004, Smith sent an e-mail to several RIK marketers including Edler that stated, "I have heard the details of our agreement with Poseidon … including the actual rate we agreed to … was communicated to Shell. If true, this ran counter to our promise to Poseidon to keep this information confidential."

Edler admitted that she had used cocaine "in the past," most recently in 2005. However, she claimed that she never used cocaine during business hours and that she never used cocaine with any MMS employees or industry representatives.

We interviewed Mike Faulise, Barbara Layer, and Alan Raymond of Shell, who all confirmed that Edler was an RIK employee they dealt with on both a professional and social basis. Both Faulise and Layer remembered her attending the annual Shell outings. During Faulise's interview, we showed him a February 2004 e-mail he wrote to Edler stating, "Nobody will say anything about you being here for the night. As far as I'm concerned, you were in a hotel." Edler responded, "Mikey:..you are sooo wonderful You know how much I totally adore you."

Shell managers used immoral tactics directed against employees of a U.S. government department to seek commercial advantage. This included obtaining confidential, commercially valuable information belonging to a third party. Déjà Vue All Over Again.
LEAFLET ENDS

Mission Statement by an International SHELL's Critiques

Dear Sen. Chiz,

Below is a mission statement by a group of critiques whose  experiences, beliefs, convictions and aspirations are exactly similar to mine.  They have searched and seen how SHELL conducts her business  in a worldwide perspective.  I  myself  in my own niche in TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY  witnessed , experienced and been a victim of the same coersive, corrupt, deceptive and inhumane  management  culture. The plague is not only confined in the fences of the refinery but also in the halls and hallways of  DOLE ,  the Judiciary and in a number of government offices and institutions.

I know that these revelations are not alien to you but maybe the venom that SHELL injected into our system

have paralyzed  our leaders' will to fight. I believe you are not among those who did not even resist and worse corraborated  with SHELL in the expense of the their own dying  people.

With pride Sen. Chiz,  I present to you their Mission Statement : xxx

         
Mission

royaldutchshellplc.com

is an entirely

non-commercial website
Our objectives are simple. We want Royal Dutch Shell executives to act at all times in accordance with Shell General Business Principles which include the claimed core principles of honesty, integrity, openness and respect for people in all of Shell's dealings.
This is surely not an unreasonable ambition given that the principles were devised by Shell, are promoted by Shell and are supposedly current and binding on all Shell operations everywhere. In other words, we are only asking Shell executives to do what they already claim to be doing.
The plain fact is that if Shell executives had abided with the SGBP, scandals such as the reserves fraud involving blatant deceit and cover-up, the preventable Brent Bravo deaths which flowed from the Shell "Touch F*** All" safety culture on North Sea Platforms, and the more recent PR humiliations arising from outrageous examples of greenwash advertising, could not have occurred.
We do not believe that it is morally acceptable that Shell executives are indemnified so that even if they cheat, deceive and cover-up serious misdeeds, treating shareholders and the public as gullible fools, they are still able to walk away as winners. In the case of Sir Philip Watts, with a severance package/pension pot reportedly worth $18.5 million USD. We think that this is disgraceful situation at odds with all ethical norms including the SGBP and will continue to say so on this website.
The SGBP is being been used as a PR tool to promote undeserved confidence in the scruples and honesty of Shell senior management. For example, the SGBP featured in the Form 20F Declarations filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission thereby generating confidence in the proven reserves volumes which had been inflated i.e. were false.
While Shell execs continue to make pledges of ethical trading which they flout, we will continue our humble efforts to expose their hypocrisy and we welcome the support of others who like us are not prepared to put up with such deception.
The gap between Shell rhetoric and reality is evidence from Shell's appalling track record including a leadership role in price fixing cartels, numerous Clean Air Act violations, repeated environmental infringements, multimillion dollar fines for groundwater contamination, more fines for unauthorised venting and flaring of gas. We also have to add to this litany, Shell's exploitation and reckless disregard of the safety of its employees: xxx

Regards,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

 

 

SHELL as SEEN by Others' EYES

Dear Sen. Chiz,

May I show you some salient points that it is not only my
co-workers in TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY and
myself  been victims of  SHELL's  ridiculous and anomalous
management philosopy.
Please see my research bounty today.

In the wake

of Shell

"lies corruption,

despoliation

and death":

Andrew Rowell

in his

remarkable article

"Unloveable Shell,

the

Goddess of Oil"

Jun 5th, 2008

by John Donovan.

Unloveable Shell,

the Goddess of Oil

By John Donovan
In view of the overnight news from Nigeria it seems an appropriate time to publish for the first time on the Internet the most dramatic masterpiece about Shell and its atrocious track record, especially in Nigeria, that we have ever seen. Authored by Andrew Rowell, it was published by The Guardian over 10 years ago on 15 November 1997 under the title: Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil
It is a large PDF file, so please be patient while it loads.
http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/Guardunlov15Nov1997-1.pdf
The following extract is from a stirring letter to the editor of The Guardian by Mark Moody-Stuart published in the Guardian newspaper in response to the article.
Moody-Stuart said:

"…the Statement provides, for our employees to follow and for the outside world to judge us by, an ethical framework which is mandatory, not optional… just having those principles is not enough. In the past… an oil company could say 'trust me' and expect that to be enough. Today, people say, 'tell me – listen to me – show me'. Trust has to be earned by transparency. That's one of the most important lesson's we've learned in Shell…"

It appears from the news that in fact Shell has not been listening.
Dr Huong, the Shell whistleblower being sued for defamation by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies, may wish to bring this article to the attention of the Trial Judge and ask why Shell did not sue Andrew Rowell or The Guardian for libel.
If anyone has a copy of the complete letter from Mark Moody-Stuart, we will happily publish it. The content was mentioned in correspondence I had with Moody-Stuart at the time.
Printed below is the text of the article (we do however recommend looking at the original article via the above link so that you can view the dramatic graphics)

The Guardian: Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil
November 15, 1997
For a century, Shell has explored the Earth to make our lives more comfortable. But in its wake, says Andrew Rowell, lies corruption, despoliation and death
The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh went to the Shell Centre on the Thames riverside near Waterloo last Tuesday, to crown the company's centenary celebrations. Critics claim the timing of the Queen's visit was slightly unfortunate: it came just one day after the second anniversary of Ken Saro-Wiwa's death in Nigeria: he was campaigning against Shell's oil exploitation in the region.
The Shell Transport and Trading Company (STTC) has risen from its humble roots in a cramped office in the East End to become one of the most successful corporations of the century. What we collectively know as "Shell" is in fact more than 2,000 companies. Last year, the Shell Group's profit was a record pounds 5.7 billion, the proceeds from sales of pounds 110 billion. "Were our founder, Marcus Samuel, to reappear today, I do not think he would be displeased with what has grown from his efforts," says Mark Moody-Stuart, STTC's chairman.
As part of the centenary celebrations, the cream of the City were invited to a reception at the Guildhall. There is also to be a commemorative book. Whilst it may mention the Shell Better Britain Campaign, and even the controversy over Brent Spar, not everyone will agree with the authorised biography's version of Shell's history. Here is a less authorised approach.
After it merged in 1907 with its rival Royal Dutch, the Royal Dutch Shell company was formed; its first chairman was the Dutchman Henri Deterding. By the 1930s, Deterding had become infatuated with Adolf Hitler, and began secret negotiations with the German military to provide a year's supply of oil on credit. In 1936, he was forced to resign over his Nazi sympathies.
During the early 1940s, as the world waged war, Peru and Ecuador had their own armed border-dispute – over oil. Legend in Latin America says that it was really a power struggle between Shell, based in Ecuador, and Standard Oil in Peru. The company left a lasting reminder of its presence in the country: a town called Shell. Activists in Ecuador are seeking to get the town renamed Saro-Wiwa.
In the post-war years, Shell manufactured pesticides and herbicides on a site previously used by the US military to make nerve gas at Rocky Mountain near Denver. By 1960 a game warden from the Colorado Department of Fish and Game had documented abnormal behaviour in the local wildlife, and took his concerns to Shell, who replied: "That's just the cost of doing business if we are killing a few birds out there. As far as we are concerned, this situation is all right."
But the truth was different. "By 1956 Shell knew it had a major problem on its hands," recalled Adam Raphael in the Observer in 1993. "It was the company's policy to collect all duck and animal carcasses in order to hide them before scheduled visits by inspectors from the Colorado Department of Fish and Game." After operations ceased in 1982, the site was among the most contaminated places on the planet, although Shell is now trying to make it into a nature reserve.
At Rocky Mountain, Shell produced three highly toxic and persistent pesticides called the "drins": aldrin, dieldrin and endrin. Despite four decades of warning over their use, starting in the 1950s, Shell only stopped production of endrin in 1982, of dieldrin in 1987 and aldrin in 1990, and only ceased sales of the three in 1991. Even after production was stopped, stocks of drins were shipped to the Third World.
Another chemical Shell began manufacturing in the 1950s was DBCP, or 1,2 -Dibromo-3-Chloropropane, which was used to spray bananas. This was banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1977 for causing sterility in workers. In 1990, Costa Rican workers who had become sterile from working with the chemical sued Shell and two other companies in the Texan Courts. Shell denied that it ever exported the chemical to Costa Rica and denied that it exported it to any other country after the ban in 1977. The case was settled out of court.
Just as people had begun to question Shell's products, so they began to challenge its practices. In the 1970s and 1980s, Shell was accused of breaking the UN oil boycott of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) by using its South African subsidiary and other companies in which it had interests. Shell, singled out by anti-apartheid campaigners for providing fuel to the notoriously brutal South African army and police, responded by hiring a PR firm to run an anti-boycott campaign.
By the 1980s criticism of Shell's operations was spreading. From Inuit in Canada and Alaska, to Aborigines in Australia and Indians in Brazil, indigenous communities were affected by Shell's operations.
In the Peruvian rainforest, where Shell conducted exploration activities, an estimated 100 hitherto uncontacted Nahua Indians died after catching diseases to which they had no immunity. Shell denies responsibility, and says that it was loggers who contacted the Nahua. By the end of the decade, the company's image was suffering in the US and UK, too.
In April 1988, 440,000 gallons of oil was discharged into San Francisco Bay from the company's Martinez refinery, killing hundreds of birds. The following year, Shell spilt 150 tons of thick crude into the River Mersey, and was fined a record pounds 1 million.
But by now, the company was responding to growing international environmental awareness. "The biggest challenge facing the energy industry is the global environment and global warming," said Sir John Collins, head of Shell UK, in 1990. "The possible consequences of man-made global warming are so worrying that concerted international action is clearly called for."
Shell joined the Global Climate Coalition, which has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to influence the UN climate negotiations that culminate in Kyoto next month. "There is no clear scientific consensus that man-induced climate change is happening now," the lobbyists maintain, two years after the world's leading scientists agreed that there was.
At the same time, the company has taken its own preventive action on climate change and possible sea-level rise by increasing the height of its Troll platform in the North Sea by one metre. By 1993, as Shell's spin-doctors were teaching budding executives that "ignorance gets corporations into trouble, arrogance keeps them there", 300,000 Ogoni peacefully protested against Shell's operations in Nigeria. Since then 2,000 have been butchered, and countless others raped and tortured by the Nigerian military.
In the summer of 1995 there was the outcry over the planned deep-sea sinking of the redundant oil platform Brent Spar, and in November Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed, having been framed by the Nigerian authorities. At the time Shell denied any financial relationship with the Nigerian military, but has since admitted paying them "field allowances" on occasion. This year in Nigeria, the three-million-strong Ijaw community started campaigning against Shell, leading to another military crackdown.
"The military governor says it is for the purpose of protecting the oil companies. The authorities can no longer afford to sit by and have the communities mobilise against the companies. It is Ogoni revisited," says Uche Onyeagucha, representing the opposition Democratic Alternative. In Peru, Shell has returned to the rainforest. It acknowledges "the need to consider environmental sustainability and responsibility to the people involved", but the move is still criticised by more than 60 international and local environmental, human-rights and indigenous groups.
"Shell has not learnt from its tragic mistakes," says Shannon Wright from the Rainforest Action Network, which believes there should be no new fossil-fuel exploration in the rainforest: "They continue to go into areas where there are indigenous people who are susceptible to outside diseases." Meanwhile, Shell publicly talks of engaging "stakeholders".
It hopes that we, as consumers, will continue to give it a licence to operate. However, for each barrel produced, the ecological and cultural price increases exponentially. Everyone knows we need to reduce our consumption of oil: but Shell's very existence depends on selling more of it. Senior executives are said to be "girding our loins for our second century" because "the importance of oil and gas is likely to increase rather than diminish as we enter the 21st century". Can we let that happen?
——————————————————————————–
THIS WEEK'S essayist, Andrew Rowell, is a freelance environmental consultant who has written extensively on the oil industry. He is author of Green Backlash – Global Subversion Of The Environmental Movement (Routledge, 1996)

I have more to show you ,  Sen. Chiz.
Regards,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.