Saturday, May 26, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
What Does Shell Have in Common With General Ratko Mladic?
What Does Shell Have
in Common With
General Ratko Mladic?
May 24th, 2012
by John Donovan.
by John Donovan.
That does Royal Dutch Shell have in common with General Ratko Mladic, former commander of the Bosnian Serb army? More than you'd think…
First off, they've both appeared in the Hague in the past week. Shell was there Tuesday for its Annual General Meeting with shareholders, and Mladic just days earlier for the opening of his trial before the International Criminal Court.
More importantly, Shell and Mladic are both facing court proceedings for allegations of "aiding and abetting" egregious human rights abuses. Shell is accused of complicity in torture and killings of Nigerian environmentalists in the Kiobel vs. Shell case, which the U.S. Supreme Court will re-hear in the fall, and Mladic is accused of 11 counts of crimes against humanity, including the massacre of more than 7,000 Muslims in Srebrenica.
And finally, they are both what's known as "Non-state actors." Shell, a multinational oil corporation; Mladic, an individual, unaffiliated with any recognized government army or authority.
You won't hear the UK or Dutch government arguing that Mladic should not be prosecuted because he's a non-state actor. Yet that's precisely what these so-called "Shell Governments" have argued already to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Shell, which is an Anglo-Dutch company. In an extraordinary interference in another country's court proceedings, the UK and Dutch governments submitted an amicus brief in the Kiobel vs. Shell lawsuit, arguing that Shell — because it is a corporation and not a state actor — is not subject to human rights law.
When UK human rights groups criticized the UK government in a Financial Times piece that ran Tuesday, representatives from the Foreign Office reiterated their position: "We believe that human rights obligations rest with states and not with non-state actors such as corporations. "
Really? It's hard to believe that the UK, Dutch, or any government living in the 21st century can say something like this with a straight face.
Have they not heard of Nuremberg, where corporate executives from IG Farben and other companies were prosecuted for their contributions to Nazi atrocities? We expect all actors — including corporations — to refrain from complicity in human rights abuses and to be held accountable if they fail to do so. That's why those companies were stripped of their assets and dissolved at the end of the war, and why Swiss banks are on the hook for the Nazi gold even today. It's precisely why Unocal could be sued in the U.S. for complicity in slavery, torture and crimes against humanity in Burma; and why Chiquita can be sued for financing paramilitary death squads in Colombia.
Non-state actors like these — and yes, like Shell and Mladic — have always been subject to fundamental human rights laws. The UK government should stop arguing otherwise.
Follow Katie Redford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KatieRedford86
SOURCE
Tagged: Huffington Post · Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum · Litigation · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Groups appeal air permit for Shell Arctic drilling
Groups appeal air permit
for Shell Arctic drilling
May 17th, 2012
by John Donovan.
by John Donovan.
by Dan Joling / Associated Press: May 16, 2012
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Environmental and Alaska Native groups on Wednesday appealed an air permit granted by the Environmental Protection Agency to a Shell Oil drilling ship that could be used this summer in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska's northern shore.
The groups claim the Kulluk and support vessels will put harmful pollutants into the skies, adding problems to a region already beset by climate warming, and that the EPA granted the permit without consideration of all national environmental laws and regulations.
"EPA did not analyze whether the Kulluk will comply with all standards, and they relied on modeling tricks to reduce the measured impact." Earthjustice attorney Colin O'Brien said.
The eight groups asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene and send the permit back to the EPA for reconsideration.
The appeal was expected. A similar appeal was filed for an air permit granted to a second Shell drilling ship, the Noble Discover er.
The EPA Appeals Board last month rejected review petitions for the Kulluk and earlier had done the same for the Noble Discoverer. Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith repeated that the company expects the permits to stand up to court review.
"The EPA finding of no significant impact to the Arctic air shed and the subsequent validation of that permit by the EAB gives us a great deal of confidence that the permit, like the others we have achieved, will be upheld by the court," Smith said.
Shell plans to use the Noble Discoverer to drill three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast. The company hopes to use the Kulluk to drill a pair of exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska's north coast.
The presence of two drill ships, according to the company, means that if there's a blowout, a backup vessel would be on hand to drill a relief well.
Drilling in Arctic waters is bitterly opposed by environmental groups and some Ala ska Native groups, who contend oil skimmers and other mechanical cleanup devices will not work in waters that contain ice, from slush to icebergs.
They also fault the government for allowing drilling in a region with some of the harshest weather in the country and without basic infrastructure. Alaska's northern coastlines lack deep-water ports. The nearest permanent Coast Guard facility is in Kodiak, more than 1,000 miles away.
Shell in 2008 spent $2.1 billion on Chukchi leases in a sale that environmental groups contend was illegal because the federal government had not performed required environmental studies.
The appeal Wednesday was filed by Earthjustice on behalf of Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Pacific Environment, Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands, Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society.
The groups say the Kulluk and support vesse ls will spew carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and black carbon that will accelerate the loss of snow and sea ice., hurting both a fragile Arctic ecosystem that's home to endangered or threatened whales, polar bears and seals, and Alaska Native coastal communities that rely on the ocean for subsistence life.
"EPA did not analyze whether the Kulluk will comply with all standards, and they relied on modeling tricks to reduce the measured impact." Earthjustice attorney Colin O'Brien said.
The eight groups asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene and send the permit back to the EPA for reconsideration.
The appeal was expected. A similar appeal was filed for an air permit granted to a second Shell drilling ship, the Noble Discover er.
The EPA Appeals Board last month rejected review petitions for the Kulluk and earlier had done the same for the Noble Discoverer. Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith repeated that the company expects the permits to stand up to court review.
"The EPA finding of no significant impact to the Arctic air shed and the subsequent validation of that permit by the EAB gives us a great deal of confidence that the permit, like the others we have achieved, will be upheld by the court," Smith said.
Shell plans to use the Noble Discoverer to drill three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest coast. The company hopes to use the Kulluk to drill a pair of exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska's north coast.
The presence of two drill ships, according to the company, means that if there's a blowout, a backup vessel would be on hand to drill a relief well.
Drilling in Arctic waters is bitterly opposed by environmental groups and some Ala ska Native groups, who contend oil skimmers and other mechanical cleanup devices will not work in waters that contain ice, from slush to icebergs.
They also fault the government for allowing drilling in a region with some of the harshest weather in the country and without basic infrastructure. Alaska's northern coastlines lack deep-water ports. The nearest permanent Coast Guard facility is in Kodiak, more than 1,000 miles away.
Shell in 2008 spent $2.1 billion on Chukchi leases in a sale that environmental groups contend was illegal because the federal government had not performed required environmental studies.
The appeal Wednesday was filed by Earthjustice on behalf of Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Pacific Environment, Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands, Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society.
The groups say the Kulluk and support vesse ls will spew carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and black carbon that will accelerate the loss of snow and sea ice., hurting both a fragile Arctic ecosystem that's home to endangered or threatened whales, polar bears and seals, and Alaska Native coastal communities that rely on the ocean for subsistence life.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Climate Change · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Friday, May 18, 2012
GERMAN TRUCK ARTISTS AT IT AGAIN
From: Alfred Clayton
Date: Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:26 PM
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 aredecorated to look like the sides are missing and the productsthey are hauling are painted on the sides and back. The firstone is of a bottle of beer and looks so real, like it is comingout the side of the trailer..The second is of canvas tote bag.The third is of Pepsi cases and they are all stacked on theceiling, and the bottom of the trailer is empty.The fourth is of another truck with the windshield facing theback and there has been a driver painted in the driver's seatlooking back over his shoulder to appear like he is drivingbackwards. (Now this one is just plain scary, even when theGerman 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 anda post-it-note with an advertisement on it, probably for thecompany that sells the books.The last one is for Pringles-Hot & Spicy. The 'inside' of thetrailer has the appearance of having been through a fire.Chinese Proverb:'When someone shares something of value with you, andyou benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share itwith others
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Shell Arctic oil spill sniffer dogs
Shell Arctic oil spill sniffer dogs:
is this a late April Fools joke?
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
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Shell’s outrage
Shell's outrage
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.
WORSETHANBAD.ORG
WORSETHANBAD.ORG
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
Gripe Sites
Gripe Sites
By John DonovanThe 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 GriffinPublished: 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
