Greenland explores Arctic mineral riches amid fears for pristine region

Greenland explores Arctic mineral riches amid fears for pristine region

Jan 5th, 2014 

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

The move comes as BP and Shell join others exploring for oil and gas in the pristine waters off Greenland, as concerns grow that the wave of industrialisation in the region will damage the pristine environment.

London Mining’s £1.5bn iron ore mine and new oil drilling licences for BP and Shell spark concern for environment

• Terry Macalister
• The Guardian, Sunday 5 January 2014 17.09 GMT

Site of London Mining’s iron ore mine at Isua, Greenland. Photograph: London Mining

London Mining, a British mineral company, is trying to attract Chinese and other international investors to build a £1.5bn iron ore mine just outside the Arctic Circle in Greenland.

The move comes as BP and Shell join others exploring for oil and gas in the pristine waters off Greenland, as concerns grow that the wave of industrialisation in the region will damage the pristine environment.

Greenland and the wider Arctic is seen as one of the new frontiers for exploiting mineral wealth, but uncertain national boundaries have also opened up potential political, if not military, conflicts.

London Mining, whose board includes a former British foreign minister in Sir Nicholas Bonsor, has already opened talks with Chinese mining group Sichuan Xinye and others about helping finance a new mine at Isua.

London Mining chief executive Graeme Hossie said the company was looking at “all options, including Danish, other Nordic, Chinese and other global investors.” He said the competition for funding was challenging and it was hard to predict when it would be in place.

The project has received government approval and could result in an influx of more than 3,000 construction workers into the country, which has a population of 57,000, to build a port and pipeline to serve the mine.

At present there is no mining of any kind in Greenland, but the cash-strapped and semi-autonomous country is keen to break away from financial and political dependence on its historical owner, Denmark.

In October a new government in Nuuk led by prime minister Aleqa Hammond gave the go-ahead to the Isua scheme and another at Kvanefjeld, while lifting a decades-long ban on mining uranium and rare-earth minerals.

Map showing location of Isua mine. Graphic: Guardian

Parliament voted to end the ban by 15 votes to 14 amid concern about the environmental and social impact of large mining schemes – particularly those involving radioactive materials such as uranium.

Hossie said: “London Mining has carried out several years of comprehensive environmental studies, all showing that the project can be completed without damaging the environment.”

However, a social impact report prepared by London Mining, which is backed by some of Britain’s biggest pension schemes such as Standard Life and F&C Asset Management, accepted there would be some detrimental effects from its scheme: “The key risks and negative impacts are on a more social and health level such as social conflicts, vulnerable groups, risk for accidents and access to natural areas during the construction phase. Furthermore, there will be a pressure on the development plans and public service.”

Last March the government of Kuupik Kleist fell after an election campaign dominated by an acrimonious debate over whether industries such as mining and oil would damage the traditional Inuit trades of fishing and hunting.

In particular there was criticism that the Isua scheme could lead to thousands of Chinese arriving in Greenland with a wider agenda of controlling an area of vast potential mineral wealth to feed their own country’s industrialisation.

London Mining has been keen to dampen this speculation and the new government has insisted all staffing plans will be discussed with local trade unions.

The Kvanefjeld scheme has been proposed by Australian company Greenland Minerals and Energy to produce uranium for a new generation of nuclear power stations in China and elsewhere. It is also intends to mine rare-earth minerals used in hi-tech weaponry and mobile phones.

Meanwhile, oil firms including BP, Shell, Statoil and ConocoPhillips have been awarded licences to operate in the region to join those previously given to ExxonMobil and Cairn Energy. Offshore drilling by Cairn in summer 2011 put it into physical contact with environmental campaigners from Greenpeace who want drilling to stop.

The 30 protesters from Greenpeace who were jailed in Russia and released before Christmas had been arrested for trying to disrupt similar operations in the Barents Sea.

But wider concerns surround the uncertain national boundaries with Canada and Russia, which are among the countries pressing territorial claims through a process handled under the UN convention on the law of the sea.

SOURCE

RELATED:

BP wins first Greenland drilling concession despite chequered record

Posted in: BP, Cairn Energy, Conoco Phillips, Environment, Exxon Mobil, Gas,Greenpeace, Human Rights, Oil, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Russia, The Guardian.
Tagged: BP · ConocoPhillips · ExxonMobil · Gas · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Russia

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Shell Group marks 100th year in PH Jan 06, 2014 As early as 1897, the Royal Dutch Shell group already saw great potential in the Philippines. By Tina Arceo-Dumlao Philippine Daily Inquirer  9:58 pm - Sunday, January 5th, 2014 This thinking has not changed despite the turbulence following the Filipinos’ bitter struggle against colonial rule—first against the Spaniards and then the Americans and Japanese—the utter devastation caused by World War II and the costly political and economic upheavals that the Philippines has gone through since the bright red cans of kerosene bearing the Shell trademark first arrived in the Philippines.  And for the Royal Dutch Shell group, the best is yet to come for its operations in the Philippines, considered one of the most notable markets in Asia, where the billion-dollar multinational first established a major presence in the energy sector and where it is pinning its hopes for future growth.  According to Edgar O. Chua, country chair of Shell Companies in the Philippines, the country is becoming an even more important market due to its rapid economic growth and increasing young population, which augur well for its different businesses in the Philippines that include petroleum refining and distribution and natural gas production.  The 57-year-old Chua tells BusinessMonday that the Royal Dutch Shell Group has been consciously “rebalancing” its portfolio over the past five years, moving from West to East, because growth for the company will come from this large and developing continent, and Shell has every intention of taking part in that spectacular rise.  Shell thus is going full circle as the company was born in Asia, a result of a joint venture between a Dutch company that struck oil in Indonesia and a British company that was, among others, into the export of seashells from the East to the West.  The Philippines stands to benefit greatly from that rebalancing of the group’s billion-dollar portfolio with big-ticket projects coming out of the group’s pipeline.  Shell Companies in the Philippines, for example, is investing about P6 billion to put up its first import terminal facility in Northern Mindanao and is looking to upgrade its 110,000-barrel-per-day petroleum refinery in Batangas as it wants to be a “major participant in the country’s growth and development.”  Shell and its partners are also investing around $1 billion in the continued expansion of the Malampaya natural gas field off northwest Palawan. It is also studying the feasibility of building a terminal for liquefied natural gas and increasing the manpower complement of its Shared Service Center in Manila by at least another 1,500 employees to total 4,500. Indeed, the Shell Group in the Philippines has come a long way from its humble beginnings in the late 1890s when it attempted to muscle in on the territory of the former American oil giant Standard Oil and sell kerosene, which was then the main fuel for lighting and cooking.  “There was a lot of reconstruction at that time and Shell saw that as an opportunity. Those were interesting times,” says Chua.  Trading was so good that the group led by British trader Marcus Samuel, considered the father of the Royal Dutch/Shell group of companies, decided to establish a corporate presence in the Philippines on Jan. 10, 1914 through Asiatic Petroleum Co. (Philippine Islands) Ltd. From there, the Shell group has become a major player in the country’s growing energy sector, accounting for about 30 percent of the petroleum distribution industry. The natural gas from its landmark Malampaya field now also fuels 30 percent of the power supply in the Philippines.  Chua says the Shell group is committed to continue scanning the horizon for more opportunities in the Philippines, and that commitment to nation-building will not be shaken by setbacks and challenges that are par for the course for any growing economy.  “We will continue to be a major player in the next 100 years. We have always taken a long-term view. If you look at the challenges—more recent ones will be martial law, the Asian currency crisis and the global financial crisis—companies with less of a long-term view would have left. But we stayed because, while others saw reasons to consolidate and withdraw, we saw as temporary setbacks. We will continue to invest because Shell believes in the long-term growth of the country,” says Chua, named Management Man of the Year in 2013.  He adds that the Philippine team has also been able to consistently demonstrate its ability to rise to the occasion and to perform well under pressure.  Chua recalls the difficulties surrounding the development of the Malampaya natural gas field, which required the management of “a lot of moving parts.” Not only was it a challenge to extract the gas from deep water, but it was also equally daunting to develop the power plants that will convert the natural gas into electricity and contribute to reducing the country’s carbon footprint. Chua says the company also had to develop the multibillion-dollar field with a conscious effort to reduce its environmental impact, such that pipelines had to be lengthened at great cost to bypass vital marine flora and fauna. The company also engaged closely with local government units and indigenous peoples who will be affected by the development of the Malampaya natural gas field, which is now recognized globally as a model for sustainability. More importantly for the Philippines, the commissioning of the power plants in Batangas using natural gas marked the birth of the country’s natural gas industry and represented a major step in the country’s quest for energy self-sufficiency.  But of all of the projects in the Philippines, Chua says he gets the most personal fulfillment from the establishment of the Shared Services Center in the Philippines, which fills global requirements in such areas as human resources, finance and analysis.  “At the moment we have 3,000, with a little over 2,000 in finance and then 500 in the call center. We also have 200 doing procurement. We also have a group doing expatriation services, processing and handling the transfer of people. I am very proud of them. When I retire, I will consider this one of my most memorable projects,” says Chua, who joined Shell in 1979 as part of the sales team and then worked his way up to become chairman.  The quality of the local workforce is also seen in the operational performance of the refinery in Tabangao, Batangas, which always comes on top when measured in terms of reliability and safety. This contributed to the decision to keep the refinery alive in the Philippines while others in the region are being shut down or sold. An upgrade is also in the works to enable Shell to produce a new line of petroleum products that will conform with stricter environmental standards.  And as the group invests cold cash in infrastructure development, Shell is as committed to invest in the social development, as part of its vision to be an ideal corporate citizen in the communities where it operates.  Shell constantly aims to address social concerns and works to benefit local communities, in an attempt to uphold its positive reputation as it does business.  “The social commitment is there, especially in capacity building and education. We want to invest specifically in science and technology not only for our own needs but also for the country. We cannot just be a service-oriented economy. We need scientists and engineers to support infrastructure and new types of industries. Innovation will carry us into the future,” says Chua.  Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer

Shell’s Prelude LNG ‘ship’ is not really a ship

Voser wisely abandons an unstable ship

Dec 28th, 2013 

by John Donovan. 

1 comment

“Shell’s Prelude LNG ‘ship’ is not really a ship, per se, because it has no means of self propulsion. It will be towed to location and anchored, supposedly for the life of the gas field exploitation project. This vessel is nothing more than a giant production and processing barge masquerading as a ship.”

I have bad news for Shell. A whistleblower who has major safety concerns with the Prelude flagship vessel destined for Australia, has supplied me with potentially explosive information. I am in possession of a considerable amount of internal information and photographic material. The person in question has been intimately involved in the project at a high level and is deeply concerned that warnings issued to Shell (and other parties) have been ignored and financial considerations are taking priority over safety issues. The whistleblower is very concerned about mismanagement and the alleged use of totally unqualified personnel.   

By John Donovan

Peter Voser could not wait to ease Jeroen van der Veer out of the top job at Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

He was full of enthusiasm and itching to implement his plans, which included making hundreds of Shell executives reapply for their own jobs.

Mr. Voser now has only days left as Chief Executive, with Ben van Beurden about to receive what he may view as a poisoned chalice.

Voser’s sudden decision to jump ship for a “lifestyle change”, announced several months ago, took many by surprise.

There has been some speculation that he was pushed.

In any event, the announcement added to the growing queasiness about Shell’s situation and prospects.

Prelude FLNG project

Shell has been trying to capture investors imagination with the launch of the Prelude, the so-called biggest ship in the world.

One of our outspoken contributors has commented:

“Shell’s Prelude LNG ‘ship’ is not really a ship, per se, because it has no means of self propulsion. It will be towed to location and anchored, supposedly for the life of the gas field exploitation project. This vessel is nothing more than a giant production and processing barge masquerading as a ship.”

I have bad news for Shell. A whistleblower who has major safety concerns with the Prelude flagship vessel destined for Australia, has supplied me with potentially explosive information. I am in possession of a considerable amount of internal information and photographic material. The person in question has been intimately involved in the project at a high level and is deeply concerned that warnings issued to Shell (and other parties) have been ignored and financial considerations are taking priority over safety issues. The whistleblower is very concerned about mismanagement and the alleged use of totally unqualified personnel.

Bearing all of the above in mind, is it any wonder that Peter Voser decided to jump ship?

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

BUENSUCESO's REPLY TO MAUGHAN's DEC 30, 2013 E-MAIL

January 30, 2014

Mr. James Maughan

Assistant Deputy Director

Division of Financial Assistance

Phone: 916-341-5694

Email: jmaughan@waterboards.ca.gov

Mail address:  1001 I Street, 16th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

 SUBJECT :  Continuing demand for the return of  the original educational credentials                        as evaluated by ERES and comments why  a circle mark was wrap around                      the word  "PHILIPPINES" as shown in the returned exact copy (photocopy)                        of my original educational credentials.

Copy of the credential with discriminatory circular mark around the word "PHILIPPINES".

Dear Mr. James Maughan,



Good morning.


From your e-mail dated December 30, 2013 as an alibi for denying the minimum six (6) educational points for Grade 1 operator certification examination you wrote the following:

"Concerning the request for educational transcripts from you, this is a request that we make to all applicants and all comply with this request in order to take the exam.  It is the only way we can make a determination of educational credits that can be awarded to the applicant.

Section 3700(a)(3)- of the operator certification regulations states “ a copy of a high school diploma or equivalent; college transcripts; graduate school transcripts; report cards; certificates of completion for wastewater treatment and management courses; and chemical, civil, or mechanical engineering registrations issued by California or another state, a territory, or Indian tribe, to verify completion of educations requirements.” (This except is found on page 32 of the regulations).  Here is the link to the regulations:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/operator_certification/docs/ocr_clean.pdf "

Please be informed that these regulations are effective just last April 1, 2013  as shown by the information shown below.  For your appreciation,  click "Final Text of Regulations".

These regulations are not yet effective on September 6, 2012. There is no sense applying 

regulations promulgated on April 1, 2013 for applications filed on July 24, 2012.

FROM THE WATERBOARDS OPERATOR CERTIFICATION WEB PAGE

Announcements

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has revised its
regulations in chapter 26 of division 3 of title 23 of the California Code of Regulations,
regarding wastewater treatment plant classification, operator certification, and
contractor registration for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Certification
Program. The regulations are effective April 1, 2013.

Please see:

• Final Text of Regulations
• Underline/Strikeout Version of Regulations
• Operator Certification Rulemaking Package
• Fact Sheet/New Regulations (posted 4/23/13)

May I reiterate in unequivocal terms that I  have sent the "original" copy of my

educational credentials covering the Bachelor of Science in Management

Engineering as evaluated by ERES, Sacramento, CA, together with my

application for operator certification and the check payment of $95. This set

of application documents was prepared by me  then received by Ms. Debbie Zuccala. 

Hence, may I most respectfully remind you that your statement on your e-mail below, 

to wit:

" If this document was not the "original" then the only thing I can conclude is

 that you never  sent the "original" to us but a copy." ,  is outrageous, baseless 

and irresponsible.  As a matter of fact,  Ms Debbie Zuccala had not denied the 

existence of the "original" ERES  educational credentials since 

September 6, 2012 up to the present times.  Ms Christine Gordon,  

Mr. Wes Wilkinson and Ms Anna Hernandez,  all did not deny the existence 

of  the "original" copy of my educational credentials as evaluated by ERES. 

Therefore,  you can not belatedly claim otherwise,  during these times, after you

have been caught  cheating and lying about it.

Since,  September 6, 2012,  on my letter, last paragraph  I have requested and 

demanded that the original copy of my educational credentials covering the 

Bachelor of Science in Management Engineering as evaluated by

ERES (Educational Records Evaluation Service, Sacramento, Ca)  be returned 

to me with signature of Ms Anna Hernandez initially,  which later, since 

Mr  Wes Wilkinson and you have checked it as well,  I requested that 

Mr Wes Wilkinson and you signed it  just the same.  I wanted to categorically 

state that you have not send me  yet the original copy of my educational 

credentials.  With regard to this issue,  it is worthwhile to inform you that 

Ms Debbie Zuccala willfully refused to reply,  Ms  Anna Hernandez  failed to 

respond, Mr Wes Wilkinson ignored to reply, the Office of Operator
Certification ignored to reply, then Mr Andrew Cooper withheld the
information about this ERES educational credentials, then ran away and
hide,  then now you are telling me that you have sent all the original copy
and you have nothing else to return. With all due respect,  you are cheating.

Since,  September 6, 2012,  I have drawn the line. I did not and will not send in 

any  additional educational records.  I do not intend to seek the complete or 

over all  educational  points that the Bachelor of Science in Management 

Engineering could make.  I just needed the minimum six(6) educational points for
Grade 1 operator certification examination. I repeat just six(6) educational points.

It does not make sense that you still needed to analyze transcript of records from 

schools and universities from the Philippines to come up to conclusion that 

I have met the required minimum six(6) educational point for  Grade 1 WWTP
operator certification examination. The evaluation of the transcript of records for
this  mentioned educational credentials have been well taken cared of by 

ERES for you.  Besides, as my record and experience with your staff is to be 

considered, with all due respect, they are incompetent and irresponsible and 

cunning.  At most, as I saw it, they would not know  how to evaluate transcript 

of records from foreign countries as evidenced by their deeds,  as exemplified 

on the next paragraphs and therefore letting your staff and you, analyze transcript 

of records  from the Philippines is deemed to be  a useless and futile  exercise 
being already been professionally taken cared of  for you by ERES.

See for yourself, again with all due respect,  Ms Debbie Zuccala

, 

considered my WWTP Operator Certification application for an application 

for WWTP  Operator-in-Training Certification. These application forms are 

distinctly different from each other and when asked  why,  she refused to reply. 

The code of regulation said, that  applications not in the correct forms shall be 

considered deficient and deficient applications shall not be processed but 

Ms Debbie Zuccala still processed my application and charged me S95 though it 

is not in the correct form and therefore, deficient, and should not been processed, 

and I should have saved my $95.

This proves Ms Debbie Zuccala's incompetence. 

That same application, though has already been found as an application for 

WWTP operator certification and not correct application for WWTP 

certification examination,  but  still Ms Anna Hernandez process it,

and charged me $40 though it was deficient. A violation of your own regulation
done not once,  but twice with express approval of Mr. Wes Wilkinson.

This showed Mr. Wes Wilkinson and Ms Anna Hernandez collective

incompetence.

Second, Mr Wes Wilkinson and Ms Christine Gordon in conspiracy, both send me 

an e-mail on September 24, 2012 claiming each one of them is Ms Debbie 

Zuccala's manager with covert intention to confuse me and drive away culpability 

from Ms. Debbie Zuccala. Though they might be both managers for Ms Debbie 

Zuccala, prudence and courtesy and good judgment dictate that it would 

be very confusing for me to talk to two managers for the same person at the same 

time, especially so, when these two managers are avoiding accountability 

for Ms Debbie Zuccala deeds and/or omissions. Consequently, they have 

completely confused me. This proves that Ms Christine Gordon and

Mr Wes Wilkinson are cunning.

Third, Mr. Andrew Cooper, declared himself as the Freedom of Information Officer, 

then, withheld the information about the now controversial "ERES educational

credentials" and when informed that he was replying to a letter not addressed to 

him and told that his act consisted "usurpation of authority," now,  he is gone into 

hiding. This shows Mr Andrew Cooper gross misrepresentation and dishonesty.

Fourth, as to the person who opened the the letter addressed to the Agency 

Administrator of the California Water Resources Control Board

as my records showed the suspects might be  from Mr. Andrew Cooper, then, 

Mr. Wes Wilkinson and then you, Mr. James Maughan.  As you already knew, 

that letter was addressed  to  Mr. Tim Howard,  being the Agency Administrator 

and not to you. With all due  respect, with your deeds and/or omissions, which 

plunged me into deeper pain and misery, you became  (pardon me for this word) a  

shame  to the office of  Mr. Tim Howard which you are trying to represent. 

This is gross misrepresentation,  cheating and dishonesty.

Fifth, with your continuing reluctance to return to me original copy of my 

educational credentials  as evaluated by ERES (Educational Records Evaluation 

Service, Sacramento, Ca) together with your signature and rest of signatures of

Ms Anna Hernandez and Mr. Wes Wilkinson,  you have effectively deny me of the 

chance to show that pieces of original document to a neutral third party and to 

seek their corresponding opinion or advice about this matter, and consequently
if warranted,  file appropriate administrative or civil or criminal charges against
Ms Anna Hernandez,  Mr Wes Wilkinson and you,  Mr  James Maughan.

This is suppression of evidential documents, deceit and dishonesty.

Again,  I wanted to reiterate that if Ms Anna Hernandez,  and  Mr. Wes Wilkinson 

and you, most respectfully,  Mr. Maughan strongly believe that you are right on 

denying the minimum six(6) educational point requirement on my educational 

credentials that is with you right now,  (no transcript of records)  for a Grade 1 

WWTP operator certification examination,  then,  please do not hide it,  and put 

your signatures on it with pride and great honor to show the public that you

have  done the right thing.  Otherwise,  you have done something ridiculous
and shameful.

Please send me back the original educational records covering the Bachelor of 

Science in Management Engineering as evaluated by ERES with your signatures
as soon as you can. 

Thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,

Antonio L. Buensuceso

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

MAUGHAN's REPLY TO BUENSUCESO's DEC 30, 2013 E-MAIL

Dec 30 (2 days ago) Maughan, James@Waterboards
to me, Liz.Haven, Jonathan.Bishop, shellresearchw.

Mr. Antonio Buensuceso Jr.,

I want to be clear to you, because I do recognize that this exchange of emails from you has gone on for a very long time.

First we did not receive any other documents from you other than the ones that we have sent back to you already per your request.  We have not kept the “Original” ERES document, so the only conclusion is that you sent us a copy.  You will notice that the ERES document that we sent back to you has our original stamp of receipt by our office.  The stamp has the date and time we received that document from you.  This confirms that was the document we received from you and have returned to you.

Concerning the request for educational transcripts from you, this is a request that we make to all applicants and all comply with this request in order to take the exam.  It is the only way we can make a determination of educational credits that can be awarded to the applicant.

Section 3700(a)(3)- of the operator certification regulations states “ a copy of a high school diploma or equivalent; college transcripts; graduate school transcripts; report cards; certificates of completion for wastewater treatment and management courses; and chemical, civil, or mechanical engineering registrations issued by California or another state, a territory, or Indian tribe, to verify completion of educations requirements.” (This except is found on page 32 of the regulations).  Here is the link to the regulations:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/operator_certification/docs/ocr_clean.pdf

We do not have the reviewers sign a copy of your documents and return them to the applicants.  The country of origin was circled to make highlight that the education was received in a foreign country.  I again sincerely apologize if that caused you any distress.  We do not discriminate against anyone wishing to take the exam.  We have many applicants who apply from other countries and all are welcome.

Mr. Buensuceso, I honestly do not know what else I can do for you if you are unwilling to submit your transcripts to us.  I wish you the best in your pursuits.

Sincerely

James Maughan

Acting Deputy Director,  Division of Financial Assistance

916-341-5694

jmaughan@waterboards.ca.gov

The TRUTH will set you FREE.