GERMAN TRUCK ARTISTS AT IT AGAIN

From: Alfred Clayton
Date: Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:26 PM

 

THE GERMAN TRUCK ARTISTS ARE AT IT AGAIN.......

Here are 7 pictures of European trucks whose trailers are

decorated to look like the sides are missing and the products 

they are hauling are painted on the sides and back. The first 

one is of a bottle of beer and looks so real, like it is coming 

out the side of the trailer..

The second is of canvas tote bag.

The third is of Pepsi cases and they are all stacked on the 

ceiling, and the bottom of the trailer is empty.

The fourth is of another truck with the windshield facing the 

back and there has been a driver painted in the driver's seat 

looking back over his shoulder to appear like he is driving 

backwards. (Now this one is just plain scary, even when the 

German reads 'On the wrong way?')

The fifth one is of an aquarium with fish swimming in it.

The sixth one is of a bookshelf with books lined up in it and 

a post-it-note with an advertisement on it, probably for the 

company that sells the books.

The last one is for Pringles-Hot & Spicy. The 'inside' of the

 trailer has the appearance of having been through a fire.

Chinese Proverb:

'When someone shares something of value with you, and 

you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it 

with others

Shell Arctic oil spill sniffer dogs:

 is this a late April Fools joke?

May 15th, 2012

by John Donovan.

Trained sniffer dogs at work…

COMMENT BY A FORMER EMPLOYEE 

OF SHELL OIL COMPANY

John,
I read your latest blog regarding the proposed use of dogs by Shell to sniff-out oil spills in the Arctic.
Surely, someone has got to be acting in jest. Please tell me that Shell and DOI have more effective spill detection technology and a better plan than this. Please tell me that the fate of that very fragile Arctic marine ecosystem is not being abandoned by Federal regulatory agencies and is not being left to 'go to the dogs', so to speak. Please tell me that Shell has something better than this to offer. Please tell me that this is a late April Fools joke and not being seriously considered.
After all, Shell is going to be drilling offshore, as I recall, and that means these cute little furry guys must be housed on a drilling rig. A stinky old oil drilling rig that uses all sorts of various type of hydrocarbons – greases, lubricating oils, diesel fuels, etc. This is a place where most of the humans and their clothing reek of drilling fluids and hydrocarbon based lubricants, etc.
Pray tell, how will these cute little canines sniff out a 'small spill' leaking into the surrounding ocean with all of this ambient aromatic hydrocarbon based air pollution surrounding the drilling rig ???? Seems to me that they have the potential to suffer from 'sensory over-load'.
Maybe Shell will put the pooches in boats and they will motor around the rig sniffing the air upwind of the rig. But then, if they are upwind of the rig they won't be able to pick up odors from a 'small leak' either. Hmmm.
And anything more than a small leak should leave a slick on the surface around the rig that should be visible to the rig hands. So, who needs the dogs ????
If those cute canines are sensing methane and other light hydrocarbon gases, then the contractors probably need to quit feeding chili and beans to the rig hands, etc. Either that or hand out 'Beano' at every meal. They may run the risk of too many false alarms.
If the folks at DOI take this 'plan of action' by Shell seriously then they are either: 1) Grossly incompetent and delusional, or 2) Not taking their job seriously and 'rubber stamping' Shell's proposals, etc., or 3) Acting upon direct instructions from senior level DOI management because a 'political' decision has been made.
This oil field soap opera saga continues. It is becoming ludicrous.
Regards

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Environment, Gas, GoogleNews, Oil, Oil Spill, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Gas · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Shell sniffer dogs

← A Dachshund and Two Border Collies Play Role in Shell's Arctic Drilling Plans

Cove Reports New Indian Ocean Gas Discovery Off Mozambique →

Shell's outrage

Apr 29th, 2012

by John Donovan.

The oil firm must be held to accountfor its failings in Bodo and elsewhere

29 April 2012

Nigeria's tortured relationship with international oil companies operating in the country attained new lows when it was announced recently that Shell Nigeria Plc had substantially underestimated the amount of oil that leaked from an oil spill in Bodo, Rivers State, in 2008.

According to Shell's official estimates, the equivalent of about 1,640 barrels of crude oil were released into creeks surrounding Bodo. However, estimates from Accufacts, an independent oil spill consultancy firm, put the actual figure at between 103,000 and 311,000 barrels of oil, at least 60 times greater than Shell's estimates.

In addition, Shell's assertion that the oil spill began on October 5, 2008 is contested by both the Bodo community and oil-industry regulators, who claim that it actually began on August 28, 2008. Clean-up operations began on November 7, 2008, but were apparently halted by the lack of the community's co-operation, according to Shell. The Bodo community has taken Shell to a London court, where it is seeking damages for the environmental devastation caused by the spill, as well as the company's funding of thorough clean-up.

Coming after decades of accusations that Shell and other oil companies have consistently failed to adopt international best practices in their operations in the Niger Delta, the Bodo case points to a stark failure on the part of the oil companies, oil-industry regulatory agencies and the Nigerian government.

The problems of poorly-executed and badly-regulated oil explorationin Nigeria are only too well-known: environmental devastation so profound that hitherto-flourishing agricultural and fishing communities are turned to virtual wastelands; long-term health problems for inhabitants of oil-producing communities; the rise of poverty, unemployment and despair which eventually combined to produce the militancy that virtually crippled the country's oil export capacity at its height.

It is surprising that, given this sad history, Shell Nigeria would seek to further taint its bad reputation by denying apparently undeniable facts. The company has become notorious for its steadfast refusal to admit wrongdoing, even when all evidence points to the contrary. Its main tactic has been to attribute almost all oil spills at its facilities to the breakage of oil pipes by oil thieves and militants. However, while rampant oil theft in the Niger Delta cannot be denied, it is difficult to believe that it is the only cause: many of Shell's facilities are relatively old and subject to frequent breakdowns.

The very fact that the oil company is such a consistent target of accusations like these clearly shows that it is not approaching its operations in the Niger Delta with the consideration that it displays in many other parts of the world. Part of the blame for this anomaly must go to the Federal Government which is supposed to ensure that its citizens are not victimised by commercial interests.

Through the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), the Federal Government is the majority shareholder in the joint venture operations executed by Shell. It rarely calls its partner to order when environmental crises like that of Bodo erupt. Instead, it provides the company with the security forces to subdue protesters and intimidate activists. The regulatory agencies which are supposed to ensure that relevant policies are fully implemented are allegedly dependent on the oil companies for many of the highly-specialised aspects of their operations, and therefore unable to carry out their duties with the necessary neutrality.

Even Nigeria's justice system is implicated in this lamentable state of affairs. Oil-producing communities have so little confidence that they will get justice in their own country that they are compelled to take offending oil companies to the United Kingdom and the United States. The vaunted amnesty programme does not seem to have achieved as much as its promoters hoped for. Although hundreds of militants have been brought out of the creeks and attacks on the country's oil industry have largely ceased, fundamental issues pertaining to the operations of oil companies are yet to be resolved. The Petroleum Industry Bill, which has long been touted as the panacea to much of the sector's problems, is yet to become law.

Shell and other oil companies operating in Nigeria are able to get away with outrageous acts of corporate malfeasance because of policy and regulatory lapses on the part of their hosts.

Any attempt to remedy this situation must ensure that Nigeria's oil industry is no longer a place where corporate irresponsibility will be tolerated. A new system of reporting must be developed which will compel oil firms to truthfully state the exact circumstances of oil spillages and similar environmental emergencies. The agencies in charge of monitoring and regulating the activities of oil companies must be fully equipped to enable them perform their duties independently of the businesses they are overseeing. Nigeria's crude oil must no longer be a curse to those in whose communities it is extracted.

SOURCE

Posted in: Africa, Business Principles, Corporate Governance, Environment, Human Rights, Litigation, Nigeria, Oil, Oil Spill, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Tagged: Litigation · Niger Delta · Nigeria · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Alleged IP theft from employee of Shell Geelong Refinery

Evidence File →

WORSETHANBAD.ORG

May 8th, 2012

by John Donovan.

Hi John,
We love the terrific work you do with your site royaldutchshellplc.com. With its vast amount of articles it is a terrific news archive on anything regarding Shell. I especially read one of your latest posts, titled Shell's Outrage, with great interest. Also heard about the strategy you used to have, paying or asking homeless people to hand out flyers in front of Shell's head office when you guys couldn't. That last one made me smile, very smart.
On May 1 we started the campaign http://worsethanbad.org with Milieudefensie (Dutch non-profit organisation fighting for the environment). A campaign to put more pressure on Shell, so it will take its responsibility for the environmental disaster in Nigeria serious. One of the ideas to draw more attention to our campaign, is this video we made featuring Shell´s CEO Peter Voser (http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=mYjjlKgQRLQ). We´re working hard to have this campaign being picked up by lots of people via traditional and social media.
As we´re fighting for the same cause, I want to ask you if you could help us in any way. For example by mentioning this campaign in one your posts, newsletter or anywhere else you think it would work best. Tips are always welcome.
Hope to hear from you and success with all your endeavors.
Greetings from Amsterdam, Jorg
Worsethanbad.org
jorg@worsethanbad.org

Posted in: Africa, Business Principles, Environment, GoogleNews, John Donovan, Nigeria, Oil, Oil Spill, Outspoken Articles, Peter Voser, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Tagged: Niger Delta · Nigeria · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

Gripe Sites

May 8th, 2012

by John Donovan.

By John Donovan
The article printed below is from our archives. It is about gripe web sites such as this one and contains a warning by Guy Martin, of the law firm Carter-Ruck concerning "potentially disastrous legal consequences for making untrue allegations which are defamatory of companies or individuals…"
It is therefore a testimony to our caution and good judgement that after nearly two decades of operating websites focused on Royal Dutch Shell, the evil oil giant and its in-house army of 600 litigators have self-evidently never had grounds to sue us for defamation.
This is despite the fact that we have categorically stated that the company is responsible for a multitude of corporate sins, including corruption, IT theft, horrendous pollution, industrial espionage, bullying of suppliers and employees, putting profits before employee safety and committing massive securities fraud against its own shareholders.
We have also drawn attention to Shell's close relationship and financial support for Hitler and the Nazi Party, which arguably cost tens of millions of lives.
Plainly all of these allegations are well-founded, or otherwise Shell would have taken legal action against us long ago.

FROM OUR ARCHIVES…

The Independent: Power to the people in the fight against corporations.

Fed up with a product, service or company? Then share it with millions online

By Rob Griffin
Published: 07 May 2005
They are the new breed of consumer champions. Passionate, computer-literate professionals who are hitting back at companies by providing forums for angry shoppers to share their nightmare experiences.
These high-street superheroes have set up hundreds of websites during the past couple of years. Each one highlights what are perceived to be poor-quality products, potential scams or dismal customer service.
It's a very effective approach. Every month, the most successful websites receive millions of hits from consumers eager to take revenge on corporations by airing their grievances.
Lisa Jones, editor of .net magazine, believes a sharp rise in the number of homes with high-speed internet connections has helped fuel the enthusiasm for these so-called gripe sites.
"The appeal of the internet to consumers is that they find it cheap and easy to post information, and they know it's probably going to be read by a lot of people," she says. "In the past, they had to write to the editor of their local paper, where it would have to be selected and edited before appearing. The community aspect of forums means that they can find out if others have had similar experiences. It's all about people power."
But even in this relatively new hi-tech world, the sites' approaches vary. Some focus on a single issue, while others encourage dissatisfied customers to exchange information on a variety of topics.
In addition to www.grumbletext.co.uk (see below), there are now plenty of specialist message boards and chat rooms where such problems are discussed. They include www.blagger.com, which encourages visitors to leave comments – good and bad – about companies they have used, and www.letsfixbritain.com which features consumer issues among a diverse range of topics.
Some sites take a particularly hard line on individual firms. Often they begin life as the result of a particularly bad experience, but end up getting support from people who claim to have had similar problems.
Richard Dobbie, a graphic designer, started a site – www.shellpluspoints.co.uk – last year to protest about the problems he claimed to have endured with the pluspoints loyalty scheme operated by petrol station giant Shell.
The 29-year-old discovered serious discrepancies between the number of points he had earned and those that had been credited to his card. He contacted customer services, but, after running out of patience, he decided on a more drastic course of action.
"I noticed the website was shellpluspoints.com and then found the .co.uk version was available, so I bought it for a few pounds," he recalls. "I posted an account of what had happened to me and put an e-mail address asking anyone who had similar problems to get in contact. It snowballed from then."
Dobbie, who claims to have received more than 600 e-mails since the site went live, is now in talks with Shell about selling the domain name. While reluctant to be drawn on the actual amount sought, he says he wants a five-figure sum.
But Shell defends the scheme, which it insists is "valued by customers" and offers competitive rewards. The company also says the dispute had now been amicably resolved – a claim which is denied by Dobbie.
"Shell takes the views of its customers very seriously," its statement says. "In response to a small number of concerns, we changed the customer service response, so that pluspoints can be awarded over the telephone. When errors do occur, we are more than happy to recompense customers."
No industry is free of complaints. A five-minute trawl on the internet provides access to numerous sites targeting particular companies and industries. There are sites focused on a string of companies and services, such as BT Openworld, BMW, Ford, Volkswagen and American Express. Some sites look highly professional and have a serious message; while other sites are clearly just mad rants.
For example, typing "natwest bank" into one search engine not only gives you links to sites affiliated with the bank itself, but also to a site named www.natwestfraud.com, set up by a disgruntled former customer.
The bank is very much aware of this site's presence. "NatWest takes the issue of sites such as this one very seriously," says a spokeswoman. "We regularly monitor the use of our brand names on third party sites, and we will not hesitate to take action as and where appropriate."
Microsoft, the software giant, has also come under attack from online opponents. Dheeraj Vasishta, 30, a self-employed IT consultant from New Jersey in the US, is behind the website www.microsuck.com.
The site, which looks very similar to the design of official Microsoft pages, criticises the way the company goes about its business, while visitors suggest buying software packages produced by rival companies instead.
"The site is better known among technical people, where it has almost household name status," he explains. "People can discuss their own experiences of Microsoft products or talk about better alternatives they have found elsewhere."
Unsurprisingly, the site hasn't gone unnoticed by Microsoft itself. "Our main concern is that customers know how to get hold of legitimate information about Microsoft, rather than being phased by these sites," says a spokesman. "We have seen it, and it's quite obvious from the content that it's not an official Microsoft site."
Some consumer websites are now shunning the confrontational response in favour of building bridges with the companies they criticise.
One such example is www.howtocomplain.com. As well as providing a chat forum to share experiences, it also has detailed information on consumer rights, complaints procedures and even links to the firms themselves.
Stuart McCandlish, the 36-year-old founder, whose day job is banking, says the site has proved popular. As well as receiving more than a million hits each month, it also handles up to 50 complaints every day.
"Our aim is to bring consumers and companies together," McCandlish explains. "People can complain about pretty much everything, but can also get access to help and advice."
The trend for this consumer approach is likely to continue. Last month, BT signed up its five millionth broadband customer – a year ahead of schedule. By this summer, it is predicted that 99.6 per cent of the UK's households and businesses will be connected to broadband-enabled telephone exchanges.
Setting up a website is also increasingly easy. Many service-providers offer free space as part of the monthly connection package, while a domain name will only set you back a few pounds every year.
You don't even need design skills to produce your pages, as specialist web companies can provide a variety of templates. You just add the content.
However, anyone considering starting up their own such site must be aware that there are potentially disastrous legal consequences for making untrue allegations which are defamatory of companies or individuals, warns Guy Martin, of law firm Carter-Ruck.
"If what they have written is defamatory, they will need to be able to provide evidence admissible in a court proving that what they are alleging is substantially true," he explains. "If they are sued – and lose – it could cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds."
As is often the case with legal issues, nothing is straightforward. The general definition of defamation is something said which lowers a person or company in the estimation of others. Also, if the material is defamatory, the claimant hasn't got to prove they have suffered any particular loss – the court will automatically assume that damage has been done to their reputation.
"If someone is criticising goods produced by a company, that may not be defamatory of the company itself – it all depends on the context and language used," adds Martin.
"However, they would need to be very careful before making an allegation that a company was fraudulent or had acted without good faith."
Finally, don't forget that as well as taking action through the internet, there are ways to resolve most consumers' complaints before everything gets out of hand and both sides lose their tempers.
For example, if you have a dispute with a financial services company, City regulators run a free and independent ombudsman service that will adjudicate on your case. It also has the power to order companies to pay you compensation.

Posted in: Adolf Hitler, Bribery, Business Principles, Corruption, GoogleNews, John Donovan, Litigation, Oil, Outspoken Articles, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell Nazi Secrets, Shell Oil Reserves Scandal, Shell Spying.
Tagged: Corruption · Gripe Sites · Gripe Websites · John Donovan · Litigation · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Shell Wants Greens to Butt Out of Arctic

WORSETHANBAD.ORG →

Shell propaganda guys?

May 5th, 2012

by John Donovan.

FROM "OUTSPOKEN" – A FORMER SHELL OIL EMPLOYEE

John,
I see you now have two mindless friends, 'USCitizen' and 'LondonLad' staunchly defending Royal Dutch Shell. Hmmm. It would appear to me that the propaganda guys on both sides of the pond appear to have gotten into the act. I seriously doubt these people really exist. I wonder if they coordinate their responses ?
I remember a line from a movie, 'A Few Good Men', I believe, that went something like : 'You want the truth?! You really want the truth?!!…… Well, you can't handle the truth.!!' In the movie the truth turned out to be rather 'dirty and ugly'.
Well, I would say those good old loyal Shell boys/girls on both sides of the pond probably can't or won't 'Handle the truth.' They have bought into the system. But objective and unbiased people know that Shell runs its business in a very dirty and ugly fashion, and behind a pretense of being a 'good corporate citizen'.
Shell makes great effort to let the world know how good they are. But self -praise is no praise, and the only praise RDS seems to be able to generate comes out of their own propaganda machine.
So what is new?
Regards

Posted in: Oil, Outspoken Articles, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell Blog.

← Shell admits funding Niger Delta 'warlords'

Shell reputation reserves close to empty →

Shell Environmental Crimes in Brazil

Shell Environmental 

Crimes in Brazil

Apr 28th, 2012

by John Donovan.

By John Donovan
We were recently contacted by an association representing former workers at a Shell/Basf Chemicals factory in Brazil.
The factory was built in 1977 by Shell. Dozens of former employees of the plant have been diagnosed with prostate, thyroid and other types of cancer, circulatory, liver and intestinal illnesses, as well as infertility and sexual impotence.
In August 2010, the two companies were ordered to pay a total of 490 million euros in fines and damages for the workers exposure to toxic substances. The defendant companies have appealed to successively higher courts, initially trying to get the verdict overturned and after that failed, are seeking to have the awarded sum reduced. This process is dragging on with no end in sight. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants have influence in high places.
The workers cannot afford to travel to the Shell AGM to make their case and would like to know if any sympathetic, articulate Shell shareholder of high principle, would kindly offer to raise the matter on their behalf. One person in particular comes to mind as a candidate.
We have now received a PowerPoint presentation for which a non-professional translation of several pages has been kindly provided:








COMPLETE PRESENTATION AVAILABLE ON REQUEST
www.quimicosunificados.com.br

Posted in: Environment, GoogleNews, John Donovan, Litigation, Oil, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Tagged: Basf · Brazil · John Donovan · Litigation · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Irish Times Corrib Gas articles: 25 April 2012

NIGERIA: Power Play and Game of Chess between NECONDE, SHELL and NPDC →

TRUSTING SHELL TO DRILL IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN

TRUSTING SHELL TO DRILL IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN

Apr 25th, 2012

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

Copy of an email sent by John Donovan to every UK MP: 25 APRIL 2012

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL SENIOR MANAGEMENT HAS HAD ADVANCE SIGHT OF THIS EMAIL AND THEREFORE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK AN INJUNCTION IF ANYTHING STATED IS UNTRUE

This issue transcends all geographical (and constituency) boundaries.

In September 2011, The Independent published an article under the headline: "Oil exploration under Arctic ice could cause 'uncontrollable' natural disaster.  One of the world's leading polar scientists has warned: "If there is serious oil spill under ice in the Arctic it will be very hard, if not impossible to stop it becoming an environmental catastrophe…"

What should be given the greatest weight in deciding if Shell can be trusted to drill in the Arctic Ocean – Shell's promises about being able to react quickly and effectively to any incident/disaster arising from its pioneer Arctic drilling commencing in July, or its horrendous track record ofenvironmental pollution on an epic scale and deceiving host governments?

Shell won the rights to drilling rights in the USA after spending millions of dollars lobbying the Federal government.

I operate the entirely non-commercial websiteroyaldutchshellplc.com, the worlds leading online resource for information about Royal Dutch Shell, with free access to over 30,000 articles, documents and commentary relating to Shell. The website and my network of "moles" inside Shell, was the subject of a recent major article by the German broadsheet newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, translated and published in multiple languages by presseurop, an EU funded news source.

I am therefore in a unique position to provide examples of Shell misdeeds.

SAKHALIN ENERGY, SAKHALIN II PROJECT IN RUSSIA (IN WHICH SHELL WAS THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER)

In October 2006, Oleg Mitvol, the then Russian Deputy Minister of the Environment, confirmed he intended to take Sakhalin Energy to court claiming $10 billion in damages for alleged environmental violations based on evidence I provided to him, including high level Shell internal emails. He said: "I have email correspondence between executives in Sakhalin Energy management from 2002. I received these letters from John Donovan, owner of the anti-Shell website www.royaldutchshellplc.com. I received them on 19 October and forwarded them to Sakhalin Energy with a request for an official reply. But I have not received any reply so far. I presume that they are in shock."

During a television documentary feature about me broadcast by ARD on Germany TV on Saturday, Mr Mitvol confirmed again that he got the above evidence from me. He said: "Yes, Mr. Donovan's documents really helped us."  "His evidence proved without a doubt that documents had been forged and that problems had deliberately been kept secret." Faced with the overwhelming evidence of blunder and cover-up, Shell surrendered its majority stake in the project at a cost of tens of billions of dollars. Shell had deliberately hidden from the Russian government high level internal warnings of a potential environmental catastrophe.

SHELL'S APPALLING TRACK RECORD IN NIGERIA

In 2004, I published a 93 page leaked confidential Shell internal report admitting that the companies activities had fuelled corruption, violence and poverty in Nigeria. Shell has been promising for decades to end gas flaring in Nigeria, but has not done so. Oil spills have destroyed the environment in the Niger Delta. Shell partly blames the oil spills on attacks made on its pipelines. However, based on insider information, I revealed in 2009 Shell's financial dealings with the leaders of militant groups attacking the pipelines. In October last year, The Guardian published a related article: "Shell accused of fuelling violence in Nigeria by paying rival gangs." In December 2010, WikiLeaks revealed that Shell had embedded spies throughout the Nigerian government. In 2009, Shell settled for $15.5 million a case accusing it of complicity in human rights abuses in Nigeria. As you probably know, a jurisdiction issue concerning a related case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2010, Shell paid a $48 million Nigerian fine for corruption.

THE CONTROVERSIAL CORRIB GAS PROJECT IN IRELAND

I have regularly published Shell internal documents and internal emails relating to the controversial Corrib Gas Project in Ireland.  In 2007, I published the confidential minutes of a 2002 meeting of Shell group managing directors recording the intent to seek out and influence "well placed" contacts in the Irish government and regulators in relation to planning consent. A police investigation of alleged death threats against my Corrib whistleblower sources(who disclosed that internal warnings about safety issues have been suppressed), has been underway for over a year. I found out from Shell internal documents obtained in response to a SAR application, that Shell has initiated a global spying operation trying to trace my insider sources. See Reuters article.

SHELL'S NOTORIOUS "TOUCH F*** ALL" APPROACH TO SAFETY ISSUES ON NORTH SEA PLATFORMS

In 1999, Bill Campbell, a senior Shell official, led a safety audit on the Brent Bravo platform. His team discovered to their horror, a "Touch F*** All" safety culture was in place. Worse still, safety records were routinely falsified and repairs bodged. Shell management failed to honour pledges about taking remedial action and in 2003 an explosion took place on Brent Bravo in which platform workers lost their lives. Shell received a recording breaking fine for an avoidable accident. After Mr Campbell retired as Group HSE Auditor, he mounted a campaign for improved safety for offshore workers and in July 2007, sent this letter to every MP. Amazingly, despite his continuing campaign and Shell's pledges, its North Sea safety record has got worse, not better. In 2008, even the lifeboats on Shell platforms were found to be unseaworthy. 

SHELL'S DISREPUTABLE CONDUCT IN THE USA

Bearing in mind Shell's involvement in major scandals involving U.S. oversight authorities, I am surprised that the U.S. government has been prepared to place its faith in Shell. In 2004, news broke of a reserves scandal. Shell had filed FORM 20F Returns to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission containing false information about the volume of its proven oil and gas reserves. Shell bolstered confidence in the inflated figures by including references to Shell's Business Principles, pledging honesty, integrity and openness in all of Shell's dealings. Three Shell executive directors, including the Group Chairman, were forced to resign. I supplied evidence from Shell insiders to the lead plaintiff lawyers in the subsequent class action. In 2008, Shell was found to have plied U.S. Department of the Interior officials with improper gifts in a sex and drugs corruption scandal.

Shell has for many decades put profits before mere ethical considerations, whether it be resorting to subterfuge to disguise its shipments of Iranian crude, or dealing with despots such asGeneral Sani Abacha in Nigeria, or Gaddafi in Libya. There is alsoirrefutable evidence that Shell conspired directly with Hitler, heavily financed the Nazi Party, was anti-Semitic and sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis.

Moving back to current events, in August 2011, Shell attracted adverse publicity for hiding information about an oil spill in the North Sea.

Don't hide facts about oil leak: The Herald

Leader: Onus is on Shell to come clean on North Sea oil spill: The Scotsman

Shell accused of secrecy over North Sea platform oil leak: Aberdeen Press and Journal

Shell needs to come fully clean: The Independent

Shell's reputation is tarnished by North Sea oil spill: TheNewsTribune.com

In view of the above track record, do you feel at ease trusting Royal Dutch Shell to drill in the Arctic?

This email is also being sent to every U.S. Senator.

Regards

John Donovan

Posted in: Africa, Alaska, Arctic, Bill Campbell, Bribery, Business Principles,Corporate Governance, Corrib Gas Project, Corruption, Environment, Gas, GoogleNews,Human Rights, John Donovan, Nigeria, Oil, Outspoken Articles, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Russia, Sakhalin II, Shell Nazi Secrets, Shell Spying, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Corruption · Gas · John Donovan · Militant Attacks · Nigeria · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Russia

Shell's toxic legacy in Brazil

Apr 24th, 2012

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

The plant was built in 1977 by Shell… Dozens of former employees of the plant have been diagnosed with prostate, thyroid and other types of cancer, circulatory, liver and intestinal illnesses, as well as infertility and sexual impotence, the statement added.

By John Donovan

We have received emails seeking our help and advice from ATESQ (*Exposed Chemical Substances Workers Association), all former workers at Shell/Basf Chemicals in Paulinia, Brasil, who won a court case against against both multinationals.

In August 2010 the two companies were ordered to pay a total of490 million euros in fines and damages for the workers exposureto toxic substances at a Sao Paulo factory.

Extracts from the emails:

We have gained a lawsuit that says Shell and Basf must pay for our medical treatments and pay for the damages they caused to us, but so far nothing has been done. Shell/Basf appealed to a second degree court. They lost at the second degree court and appealed to the upper-federal court, which they lost and right now they have appealed to request a reduction on their monetary penalty.

Judiciary and Politicians here in Brazil are highly influenced by the power Shell and BASF have on them, as well as on the media.

So, they know we have the rights, but nobody imposes them to carry out their obligation.

Truly yours,

Extracts End

Matters are complicated by the fact that reportedly BASF is putting all of the blame on Shell, claiming the contamination was"caused and acknowledged by Shell."

We have suggested that the workers send a representative to the Shell AGM in May to raise the matter during the Q&A Session. We have offered to supply an entry pass.

If anyone has any suggestions on how to assist these Brazilian workers on actually obtaining the monies they have already been awarded, please contact me.

*Associação dos Trabalhadores Expostos a Substâncias Quimicas

RELATED ARTICLES

Thousands exposed to Shell's toxic waste in Brazil: Radio Netherlands Worldwide 20 August 2010

Extracts

Former workers at a Brazilian chemical plant operated by Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell are relieved that a court has ordered the company to pay hundreds of millions of euros in compensation for their exposure to toxic substances.

In the early 1990s an international research agency found that the land and groundwater around the factory were contaminated with pesticides. The substances are known to be carcinogenic and affect the central nervous system.

Multi-million euro fine for Shell and BASF: By Radio Netherlands Worldwide: 20 August 2010

Extract

A Brazilian court has ordered Shell Brasil and international chemical giant BASF to pay a total of 490 million euros in fines and damages in connection with the exposure of workers at a Sao Paulo factory to toxic substances, Brazilian media report. Workers suffered health problems including high blood pressure and cancer. The factory, founded by Shell in 1977 and later taken over by BASF, was closed down in 2002.

Shell, Basf Ordered to Pay $354 Million in Brazil Plant Contamination Case: Bloomberg 20 August 2010

Extract

The Brazilian units of Basf SE and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. were fined a total of 622 million reais ($354 million) after former workers suffered health problems because of contamination at a plant in Paulinia, Sao Paulo state, from the 1970s to 2002.

Brazil Court Fines Shell, BASF $654M For Toxic Leaks- Report: The Wall Street Journal 21 August 2010

Extract

BASF said the ruling was "absurd," as the contamination was "caused and acknowledged by Shell," according to the report.

Brazil Court Fines Shell, Basf for Making Workers Sick: Herald Tribune 21 August 2010

Extract

The plant was built in 1977 by Shell… Dozens of former employees of the plant have been diagnosed with prostate, thyroid and other types of cancer, circulatory, liver and intestinal illnesses, as well as infertility and sexual impotence, the statement added.

Posted in: Business Principles, Corporate Governance, Environment, GoogleNews,Human Rights, John Donovan, Litigation, Outspoken Articles, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Shell Employee Safety.
Tagged: Basf · Brazil · John Donovan · Litigation · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Toxic Chemicals