Shell disappoints as profits fall

Jul 26th, 2012

by John Donovan.

26 July 2012

Falling energy prices have left its mark on Royal Dutch Shell after a weaker-than-expected profits performance drove a big fall in its share price.

While chief executive Peter Voser insisted the Anglo-Dutch company was “moving forward in volatile times”, Shell’s second quarter profits of 5.7 billion US dollars (£3.7 billion) were down 13% and below City hopes.

Shell increased upstream production by 4% to 3.1 million barrels a day in the quarter – driven by improved output of natural gas – but this was more than offset by the drop in global energy prices in the period.

Mr Voser said: “Our profits have fallen with energy prices, but our growth strategy is delivering to the bottom line.”

Shell has sold assets in recent years as it looks to improve financial headroom for projects with greater growth potential.

Capital investment in the second quarter was 8.1 billion US dollars (£5.2 billion) and the company remains on track to spend 32 billion US dollars (£20.6 billion) this year.

Mr Voser said more than 20 construction projects were underconstruction and that Shell wanted leadership positions in the areas where it chooses to invest.

Despite the comments, shares fell by 4% and dragged rival BP lower ahead of its own figures next week.

Keith Bowman, equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown Stockbrokers, said: “A drop in earnings had been expected, but not to this extent as evidenced by the share price fall.

“At a time when investors are looking towards blue-chip reliability, the disappointment contained in the headline figures is palpable. Nonetheless, on a longer term view, there still seems much to go for.”

Copyright © 2012 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

Posted in: BP, Oil, Oil Company Profits, Oil Prices, Peter Voser, Press Association,Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Tagged: Oil · Oil Prices · Peter Voser · Press Association · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Shell CEO: America can be energy independent in 20 years; company profit drops on lower prices

Romney Tax Plan: Many Happy Returns for Big Oil →

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

RECOMMENDATION FROM PORTIA

TYLER RECOMMENDS TONY

Fake Shell Websites: Truth Really Is Stranger Than Fiction

Jul 23rd, 2012

by John Donovan.

By John Donovan

The fake Shell website organizers currently running rings round Shell, apparently have its management and army of lawyers in a state of disarray. The Arctic campaigners said Shell had threatened legal proceedings. This turned out be be part of the carefully contrived hoax.Shell said in an official statementposted on a genuine Shell website that it had not taken legal action and claimed that instead, "Our focus is on safely executing our operations."

The "turning the other cheek" tactic was short-lived. According to an executive director of Greenpeace,Shell has now issued a notice warning about commencing proceedings.

We have a unique perspective on these events being the originators of what could be described as the first fake Shell website, which (according to Shell) is "deliberately misleading", directing the "unsuspecting internet user" to the Donovan "Shell" website, instead of the real Shell website. It is true that despite our disclaimers and numerous other indicators to the contrary, because of the domain name, some people do believe that it is the official Shell website.

Hence we receive business proposals, job applications and even terrorist threats meant for Shell. What is even odder, is that we have Shell's permission to sift the incoming emails meant for Shell and deal with them at our discretion on their behalf. This was agreed in writing.

The bizarre arrangement was set out again in a more recent communication attached to a letter we received from Shell International Limited dated 17 July 2012 (from Mr Gary Thomson). This provides further confirmation that "Shell's No. 1 Enemy" is officially dealing on Shell's behalf with such matters.

This is not a prank or a hoax, but a provable fact. Truth really is stranger than fiction.

How on earth could Royal Dutch Shell, the biggest company in the world, have got itself into such a humiliating situation?

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, GoogleNews, Greenpeace, John Donovan, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · John Donovan · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← COLLABORATING WITH THE DONOVANS

Shell Arctic Drilling: Blame game question

Jul 23rd, 2012

by John Donovan.

Article by a Guest Author, a Regular Contributor
We all know that Shell cannot possibly deal with a significant release of oil from any of the well it will (may) be drilling in the Arctic this summer. That is now well known and a given, no matter what Shell claims. Even the Coast Guard admits it could not deal with such a situation.
In spite of this problem Shell has gotten virtually all the permits it needs to go ahead and drill this summer, i.e., the US government has approved Shell's woefully inadequate plan and means of dealing with any sort of significant oil spill, should one occur. The US Government knows a major 'event' cannot be dealt with, by either Shell or the Coast Guard.
But Shell has virtually been given the go-ahead to drill.
So, for the sake of argument, let's presume Shell does get their final permits and they high-tail it to their drill sites and begin to drill away like happy little beavers at work on a log dam.
For the sake of argument let's presume the unthinkable happens, a blowout of significance. Oil is now gushing into the environment at 10′s of thousands of bbls/day. A major spill now occurs and it could be the well won't be plugged until perhaps the following drilling season.
Shell cannot handle this type of blowout and neither can the US government.
Oh, my goodness !! What do we do !! Who gets the blame here?? Shell ? or the USG ? Who covers the cost of cleanup, whatever that means?
In this scenario Shell would have done everything it was required to do (Almost – they now admit they cannot cleanup 90% of a spill, they can only 'contact' 90% of the spilled material. But who is parsing words? ). USG agencies would clearly be facing a great deal of scrutiny for 'inadequate' review of permits, safetly processes, guidelines and regs., etc.
Who would be the bad guy here ?
Seems to me it is the USG first and foremost, and Shell second. It is up to USG regulatory agencies to competently execute their responsibilities, and not pander to the political expediencies of the day. In such a scenario that would not be the case.
So, who would hang? Clearly, the Sec. of Interior would be in the hot seat. Shell USA's boss would clearly have to go. But the Sec. of the Interior only does as he is told to do, like a good little soldier. And remember, Marvin Odum has a new buddy he has visited about 13 times this year, President Obama.
Wouldn't this be an interesting – What? Greek tragedy?. Unfortunately, for the pristine Arctic wilderness environment it would be a horrific tragedy, and the damage would be beyond repair.
Disclaimer: We encourage a diversity of opinion and comment. The opinions expressed herein are those of the guest contributor and are not necessarily endorsed or condoned by this website.

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Environment, Oil, Oil Spill, Outspoken Articles, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Fake Shell Websites: Truth Really Is Stranger Than Fiction

Nigerian National Assembly To Vote on Shell Fine in Sept – Spokesman →

Shell’s ship drifting incident should raise red flags for Alaskans

Jul 22nd, 2012 

by John Donovan.

Carey Restino | The Arctic Sounder | Jul 21, 2012

I am not a boat captain, not of a skiff or even a dingy. I've never dropped an anchor and I have no idea what it's like to be in charge of a vessel more than 500 feet long.

So when my uneducated eyes saw the image of Arctic-bound Shell Oil drillship Noble Discoverer snuggling up to the beach near Unalaska, I, like many, dropped jaw and asked, "How on earth could they have let that happen?"

But noting my ignorance, I asked the opinion of people who do dealwith big vessels on a daily basis. Their response? "How on earth could they have let that happen?"

There is debate now about the incident. Environmental groups have pounded on the Noble Discoverer's near-beaching with the glee of a pack of hyenas, pointing out other times (with completely different circumstances, I might add) when the ship has run into anchor trouble.

One Unalaska newsman is disputing the timeline as told by Shell, saying the ship drifted for much longer than 30 minutes. I don't envy the Coast Guard its duty in teasing this all out. While I'm hoping they do a good job, and I'm surprised at a few things so far.

Drug, alcohol tests?

First, I'm surprised the Coast Guard didn't ask all responsible parties to breath in a tube and pee in a cup. While the incident might not meet the typical standards of a "serious marine incident" it might well have had things gone any farther. And this is not just any vessel we are talking about here. The men and women running this boat are directlyresponsible for the health of our Arctic waters, assuming they fulfill their mission to drill this summer.

I, for one, would sleep better at night knowing that we don't have another Joseph Hazelwood – captain of the Exxon Valdez — on our hands.

Another question this incident raises is the one of who is really in charge. While the drill rigs and support vessels in question are typically thought of as Shell rigs, it's important to point out that they are not. Noble Drilling International, a contractor with offices and operations spanning the globe, owns and operates the Noble Discoverer. Not Shell.

Shell Oil spokesmen point out that it is up to Shell how the vessels are run, and that the issue of the anchor slipping is entirely their responsibility, but one wonders how far that goes. Does Shell, for example, have control over how many people were on watch?

Would they have that kind of control when drilling operations are under way?

The bottom line is, Shell and everyone else involved in this incident know that the world is watching them. If, under that kind of scrutiny, this kind of mishap can happen, it does not bode well for the future. Should the crew have noticed the ship's movement sooner?

Lingering fears

Should they have responded more quickly? I hope the Coast Guard investigation is thorough, but so far, I'm disappointed. If the guard doesn't have the authority to do drug and alcohol testing in such a situation, it should be given that leeway. If the agency does and it chose not to, that seems like an oversight to me.

The public, especially those who live there and are hoping with crossed fingers that Shell lives up to its promise to institute the very safest practices possible in the Arctic, are surely not encouraged by this incident. And I doubt those fears are going to be soothed by rhetoric.

It really doesn't matter if the ship touched bottom — but it does matter how long it drifted, and who should have noticed, and why it drifted at all. Most of all, we need to know the crew manning this ship is competent and capable of running such a delicate operation.

What is needed here are some candid explanations of how this happened, who or what slipped up, and how it is going to be fixed. Anything less will only add fuel to the fire of concern about drilling operations in the Arctic.

Contact Carey Restino at crestino(at)reportalaska.com. This commentary was originally published in The Arctic Sounder and is reprinted here with permission. Alaska Dispatch encourages a diversity of opinion and community perspectives. The opinions expressed herein are those of the contributor and are not necessarily endorsed or condoned by Alaska Dispatch.

SOURCE

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Environment, Exxon Mobil, Oil, Oil Spill, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Alaska Dispatch · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Nobel Discoverer · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Shell 'must look to Africa' after walking away from battle for Cove Energy

Shell wonder fuels: Shell Canada settles Quebec tainted gas class-action suit →

COMFREY MIRACLE CURE

THIS PLANT CURED MY BROTHER  FROM UNKNOWN DREADFUL AILMENT source of article acknowledgment

Greenpeace activists shut down 74 UK Shell petrol stations

Jul 16th, 2012

by John Donovan.

• Laurie Tuffrey and agencies
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 July 2012 17.35 BST

Greenpeace activists shut down Shell petrol station

Greenpeace activists shut down 74 Shell petrol stations in Edinburgh and London in a protest against the company's plans to drill for oil in the Arctic that saw 24 campaigners arrested on Monday.

The campaigners are attempting to shut off petrol to London's 105 Shell stations and Edinburgh's 14. Seventy-one have been closed in London and three in Edinburgh.

There have been 24 confirmed arrests, 18 in London and six in Edinburgh. The police in Edinburgh have reportedly parked cars outside all Shell stations across the capital.

Protesters have scaled the roof of the Shell station on Queenstown Road near Battersea Park in London and on Dalry Road in Edinburgh, with police and fire crews attending the scene in Edinburgh.

Activists arrived at the Battersea Park branch at 6.45am and used the station's barriers to close down the forecourt. They have since covered the Shell sign with a Save the Arctic banner and positioned a life-sized polar bear model on the station's roof.

The activists are shutting down the stations by using an emergency shut-off switch to stop petrol going to the pumps and then removing a fuse to delay it being switched on again. The organisation has sinceposted a picture of an activist posting one of the fuses to Shell's head of Arctic drilling, with the message: "We're being careful not to destroy property. Even the carefully removed components will go back to Shell."

The protest is part of Greenpeace's Save the Arctic campaign, which is aiming to prevent oil drilling and industrial fishing in the Arctic by having the region recognised as a world park. The organisation understands that Shell is going to begin drilling in the Alaskan Arctic in the coming weeks, with the Russian oil company Gazprom also due to work in the region.

The campaign group's website is running a TV talkshow-style livebroadcast covering the protest and showing interviews and videos about the Arctic campaign.

Sara Ayech, a campaigner at the Battersea Park station, said: "It's time to draw a line in the ice and tell Shell to stop. That's why today we're going to shut down all of Shell's petrol stations in the capital cities of London and Edinburgh. We've got dozens of people who will hit over 100 Shell garages throughout the day."

Graham Thompson is another campaigner who helped shut down the station: "The staff were very pleasant and very reasonable. Obviously they're not entirely happy about what's going on but they've responded in a very civilised way.

"Obviously, we need to ratchet up the pressure, we need to let Shell know that this isn't just a publicity campaign, we're going to put pressure on them until they agree to stop what they're doing," said Thompson, commenting on future plans.

Simon Bateson, a student, saw news of the event on Greenpeace's Facebook page and joined the demonstration at the Battersea petrol station. "There's no one else doing what Greenpeace are doing," he said.

A spokesman for Shell said: "Shell recognises that certain organisations are opposed to our exploration programme Offshore Alaska, and we respect the right of individuals and organisations to engage in a free and frank exchange of views about our operations.

"Recognising the right of individuals to express their point of view, we only ask that they do so with their safety and the safety of others, including the general public and Shell personnel, in mind.

"Shell has met with numerous organisations and individuals who oppose drilling offshore Alaska. We respect their views and value the dialogue. We have extended this same offer for productive dialogue to Greenpeace."

The Metropolitan and Lothian and Borders police were unavailable for comment.

Protests are also taking place across Europe, with activists targeting Shell stations in Denmark and Germany. On Twitter, @greenpeace_chhave posted a picture of a protester dressed as a polar bear picketing the home of Shell chief executive, Peter Voser.

Last Friday, 13 Greenpeace activists were detained by police in The Hague, Netherlands, after they blocked access to Shell's headquarters. According to the organisation, 70 activists took part in the demonstration, which involved hanging a Stop Shell, Save The Arctic banner across the building and occupying the office of Voser.

SOURCE ARTICLE WITH VIDEO AND AUDIO FEATURES

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Business Principles, Corporate Governance, Environment,Greenpeace, Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Spill Remedy Questioned by Coast Guard as Shell to Tap Arctic

Interesting links… →