Monday, October 15, 2012
Shell’s $4.5bn Alaskan adventure is a comedy caper
Shell's $4.5bn Alaskan adventure is a comedy caper
Six years in the making, the oil giant's farcical Alaskan exploration is not what you'd expect from a FTSE-100 company.
"What next? A polar bear attack? Maybe Shell chief executive Peter Voser and his intrepid Alaskan explorers have a secret plan to sell the film rights. You know, produce a rival to the Ice Age series, only funnier. And with a different sort of cast – a 36-year-old oil spill barge, the US Environmental Audit Committee and, unbelievably, blocks of ice turning up in the Arctic of all places."
What next? A polar bear attack?
Maybe Shell chief executive Peter Voser and his intrepid Alaskan explorers have a secret plan to sell the film rights. You know, produce a rival to the Ice Age series, only funnier. And with a different sort of cast – a 36-year-old oil spill barge, the US Environmental Audit Committee and, unbelievably, blocks of ice turning up in the Arctic of all places.
Whatever, Voser's $4.5bn Alaskan drilling blockbuster is turning out to be a right comedy caper. Everyone knows why Shell is there: Alaska's one of the last great exploration frontiers, home to around 6pc of the world's recoverable oil. But six years in the making, Shell's adventure in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas is not what you'd expect from one of the biggest companies on the planet.
Take this year alone. First, the ageing Noble Discoverer drill ship sets off late from New Zealand for a drilling season already cut short by the US Bureau of Ocean Management. Then, Peter Velez, Shell's head of Arctic emergency response, lists a bit in front of the US environment committee, admitting he has not costed a clean-up operation.
Arctic Challenger, the aforementioned barge that's a crucial part of Shell's oil spill response fleet, then fails to meet US Coast Guard safety standards. And next, Noble Discoverer runs aground in a mere 35mph wind in Dutch Harbour.
Skip on a bit and you find the Noble vessel finally back in operation for one whole day in the Chukchi sea – before being forced to stop last week by ice. Meanwhile, Shell's other drill ship, the Kulluk, finds itself unable to drill in the Beaufort due to the Eskimo whaling season.
Now yesterday's missive: that Shell has called it quits for the year in Alaska thanks to more issues on the barge front, namely damage to its "containment dome".
Yesterday, the company declared: "This exploration program remains critically important to America's energy needs, to the economy and jobs in Alaska, and to Shell." But clearly not that "critically important" – or Voser would get the sack.
RELATED ARTICLES
- Sea ice halts Shell oil drilling in Alaskan Arctic 11 Sep 2012
- Shell and Chevron swap Austalian assets 20 Aug 2012
- Shell 'pulling cash out of eurozone' 06 Aug 2012
- Shell eyes Russia as profits hit by energy prices 26 Jul 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Nigerian farmers sue Shell in Dutch court
Nigerian farmers sue Shell in Dutch court
The Associated Press
Saturday, Oct. 13, 2012 | 12:03 a.m.
Nigerian farmers began a landmark compensation case against Shell in a Dutch court Thursday, asking judges to order the oil multinational to clean up environmental damage they claim is caused by leaking pipes.
The case at The Hague Civil Court marks the first time a Dutch company has been sued for alleged environmental mismanagement caused by an overseas subsidiary and could pave the way for similar claims if it succeeds.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC long argued that the case, which was launched in 2008, should be heard in Nigeria and still maintains the Dutch court should not have jurisdiction.
Lawyers for the Nigerians argue that key policy decisions by Shell are made at its headquarters in The Hague and that means the Dutch court can rule in the case.
Four villagers and environmental group Friends of the Earth say Shell pipeline leaks fouled fish ponds, farmland and forests in three villages in the Niger Delta, Goi, Oruma and Ikot Ada Udo.
"What I expect today is justice. I expect that judges are going to proceed in this matter, have sympathy and look into our environment _ tell Shell to apply the international standards where they are operating in Nigeria," one of the farmers, Eric Dooh, told reporters outside court.
Villagers blame the leaks on corrosion of the pressurized underground pipe. Shell claims they were caused by sabotage and says its local subsidiary cleaned up the environmental damage.
An earlier Dutch court ruling accepted Shell's assertion that the leaks were caused by sabotage, but lawyers for the plaintiffs argue that the judges should revisit that decision, saying the pipe was seriously corroded.
They added that Shell did not clean up the spills quickly enough.
"Shell did not do enough to prevent the oil spreading and damaging the plaintiffs' land," the villagers' lawyer, Channa Samkalden, told the court. "Shell did not act as a careful oil company."
Shell's local subsidiary remains the top foreign oil producer in Nigeria's oil-rich Niger Delta, a region of mangroves and swamps about the size of Portugal. Its production forms the backbone of crude production in Nigeria, a top supplier to the gasoline-thirsty U.S.
Shell, which discovered and started the country's oil well in the late 1950s, remains demonized by activists and local communities over oil spills and close ties to government security forces. Some Shell pipelines that crisscross the delta are decades old and can fail, causing massive pollution.
Shell, however, has begun an effort in the last decade to build clinics, roads and even natural gas power plants for the region. The company blames most spills now on thieves who tap into crude oil pipelines to steal oil.
A judgment in the case is expected late this year or early in 2013.
Posted in: Africa, Associated Press, Business Principles, Human Rights, Litigation,Nigeria, Oil, Oil Spill, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Toxic contamination.
Tagged: Litigation · Nigeria · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Tagged: Litigation · Nigeria · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Worlds leading source of information about Royal Dutch Shell
Free access to over 30,000 articles, comment, historical information and news archive relating to Royal Dutch Shell, theworlds largest company. A DW documentary feature about our co-founder John Donovan, has recently been broadcast on TV in many countries. Related presseurop article. This website,endorsed by Shell, is entirely non-commercial. 3,079,568 million hits and 1,691,102 million page views in September 2012.
Posted in: Shell, Tony Blair.
Selection of article links: 13 October 2012
Links to topical articles as provided by a regular contributor
Links to articles that may be of interest to your visitors…
Posted in: Canada, Nigeria, Oil Prices, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: BP · Canada · Nigeria · Oil · Oil Prices · Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Tagged: BP · Canada · Nigeria · Oil · Oil Prices · Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Friday, October 12, 2012
Shell to pay $10.75 million settlement for gas station violations
Shell to pay $10.75 million settlement for gas station violations
From our October 2005 Shell news archive
San Diego Union Tribune: Shell to pay $10.75 million settlement for gas station violations
"County and city officials announced Wednesday they had reached a $10.75 million settlement with Shell Oil Co. over environmental-health violations at its local gas stations dating back to 1999."
Wednesday 12 October 2005
By Karen Kucher
UNION-TRIBUNE BREAKING NEWS TEAM
SAN DIEGO – County and city officials announced Wednesday they had reached a $10.75 million settlement with Shell Oil Co. over environmental-health violations at its local gas stations dating back to 1999.
"Today the environment in San Diego just got safer," District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said at a news conference downtown that also included City Attorney Michael Aguirre, the head of the county's Environmental Health Department and other county and city lawyers.
It is the largest settlement ever in an environmental protection case in San Diego County.
The enforcement action came after more than 2,200 violations were found during routine county inspections at Shell and former Texaco stations in the county, officials said.
The problems discovered included leak-detection sensors that were tampered with, record-keeping problems and improper disposal of waste at some stations, officials said.
"Fortunately the violations didn't include gas leaking into the underground water," Dumanis said.
Shell has agreed to install new tamper-resistant underground sensors at its 62 Shell gas stations in the county, increase maintenance and improve employee training and create management systems to prevent future problems, according to the settlement. The company also agreed to install new sensors at 40 other stations in the state.
The company also will pay $4.75 million in costs, attorney's fees and civil penalties, which will be divided among the District Attorney's Office, County Counsel's Office, county Department of Environmental Health and City Attorney's Office.
The agreement technically is with Equilon Enterprises, an entity owned entirely by Shell. It was reached less than a week after the city and county filed a lawsuit against the company Oct. 6. The judgment was signed Wednesday by Superior Court Judge Richard E. L. Strauss.
In announcing the settlement, Dumanis warned that similar action against other gas stations in the region was possible.
"You cannot continue violating the environmental laws and endangering the health of people in San Diego without consequences," Dumanis said. "We are going to hold those accountable who would wish to pollute our environment and we are going to hit them where it hurts the most – in the pocket."
Aguirre said the case centered on leak-detection systems at gas stations that were supposed to ensure the integrity of underground storage tanks and make sure hazardous materials didn't leach into the ground.
"It is a real clear danger to the groundwater supply here in San Diego," Aguirre said.
Senior Deputy County Counsel Rodney Lorang said station owners and managers moved or tampered with sensors that were supposed to detect if water flowed underneath gas pumps or leaked into the secondary containment systems around underground storage tanks.
Lorang said new sensors will be installed that will automatically shut a station down if they are moved. "No gas will flow. That will force the operators to be more honest, that will force the owners to provide better systems," he said.
Violations were found at stations that were owned and operated by Shell as well as independently owned franchisees. Shell was held responsible because it owns the tanks, Lorang said.
Gary Erbeck, director of the county's Department of Environmental Health, said the company was "pretty non-responsive" to the violations found at its gas stations over the past six years.
"It took us a number of years to get their attention," Erbeck said.
This is the second major enforcement county and city agencies have taken against a gasoline company in recent years.
BP West Coast Products, which owns or franchises 83 ARCO stations inthe county, agreed in September 2003 to a $4 million settlement that arose from an environmental protection case filed jointly by the county and city.
As part of that settlement, the company agreed it would install sensors in all of its underground tanks by January 2004. But in March 2005, it was ordered to pay $1.3 million because it had failed to update sensors on 21 of its tanks.
During Wednesday's news conference, Aguirre asked one of his deputies for the city's portion of the settlement. After putting the checks in his pocket, he joked that he would hurry them up the street to City Hall. The city is enmeshed in a fiscal crisis with a pension system deficit of at least $1.4 billion.
"Let me tell you, at the city of San Diego, we really appreciate any money we can get," Aguirre quipped. "Believe me, we will be depositing this immediately into the pension fund to try to cover that shortfall."
Karen Kucher: ; karen.kucher@uniontrib.com
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
INAY( Teresa ) BIRTHDAY.....Visit
Sa Ugoy Ng Duyan – Aiza Seguerra Song Lyrics
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Website censorship by Shell
Website censorship by Shell
There is nothing new about Shell taking steps to prevent its employees visiting so-called anti-Shell websites from Shell premises. A Shell internal email dated 31 August 2007 provides proof that Shell issued instructions that its employees must not visit this website. In fact, Shell has a history of censoring information critical of the oil giant that has been published on the Internet.
By John Donovan
Last week it was alleged that Shell blocked employee access to a fake Shell website set up by activists.
Under the circumstances, Shell was entitled to do so. Whether it was wise is another matter, as it drew attention to the website and its a safe bet that far more employees checked out the website later at home than would otherwise have been the case.
There is nothing new about Shell taking steps to prevent its employees visiting so-called anti-Shell websites from Shell premises. A Shell internal email dated 31 August 2007 provides proof that Shell issued instructions that its employees must not visit this website.
In fact, Shell has a history of censoring information critical of the oil giant that has been published on the Internet.
I am in possession of Shell internal emails expressing concern about Wikipedia articles containing information critical of the company. They contain internal potting/discussion about the possibility of being caught if Shell staff surreptitiously edited offending information. Shell was later caught doing exactly that by Wikiscanner technology.
Perhaps the best example of Shell's censorship of negative information posted online, is what happened with an online facility it set up.
In 1998 Shell launched the "Tell Shell Forum," a feedback facility on the Internet for its stakeholders and the public to engage in open debate about its activities.
This is a description of the facility by Clare Harris of Shell International:
Date: November 16, 1999 02:07 PM
Author: Clare.E.Harris (Clare.E.Harris@SI.shell.com)
Subject: Our experiences with the internet dialogue
Author: Clare.E.Harris (Clare.E.Harris@SI.shell.com)
Subject: Our experiences with the internet dialogue
This forum is an uncensored space in which we want to hear your views about a variety of issues and about our approach to them. We created this forum so that people all over the world could have a conversation about these things and so that we could gain a better understanding of what your views are. If you see a couple of the early postings in the 'engagement and open communication' thread you'll see that a choice needs to be made about censorship – yes or no? And if yes, how much? We opted for the completely uncensored option. Our senior management have been very supportive of this forum and the openness of the debate. I believe people want to have open honest conversations with real employees and not with an anonymous helpdesk that dispenses a standard form letter.
Here is another description, this time by Shell lawyers in a Complaint about this website submitted to the World Intellectual Property Organisation in May 2005:
"Tell Shell Forum" is a facility set up in November 1998 to promote feedback from customers, shareholders or any other interested parties on topics and issues relating to Shell, and to enable the Complainant to respond to public concerns and criticism in an open and transparent way."
And here is a posting on Tell Shell from Jon Hofmeister:
Date: June 07, 1999 03:49 PM
Author: John Hofmeister, Director of Human Resources
Subject: Communications within Shell
Author: John Hofmeister, Director of Human Resources
Subject: Communications within Shell
However, let me say that I strongly believe the people in Shell have an enormously valuable contribution to make to the key debates, and that the Group's leadership is working very hard to promote open and honest communication within Shell, as well as with our external stakeholders. We genuinely do welcome all comments, positive and negative. We also believe that employees must be able to speak out without fear of rebuke or retribution. This website is in itself evidence that we are interested in seeking your views and willing to listen and respond.
These lofty ideals did not last very long.
Despite all of the above PR hogwash, Shell engaged in censorship of postings made on the forum (including surreptitious censorship) of comments made by individuals in their own names that contained no abuse or profanity. Shell could not take the criticism and first suspended Tell Shell indefinitely, then closed it down altogether.
Shell promised to make the Tell Shell archive available online, but predictably failed to honour that promise also.
AS ALWAYS, WE HAVE PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE WHAT WE SAY.
Related article
Posted in: Business Principles, GoogleNews, John Donovan, Litigation, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Wikipedia.
Tagged: Censorship · Internet Censorship · John Donovan · Litigation · Royal Dutch Shell Plc
Tagged: Censorship · Internet Censorship · John Donovan · Litigation · Royal Dutch Shell Plc
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
|
