The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Shell screwed up in 2012 says US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
Shell screwed up in 2012 says US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
"Shell screwed up in 2012, and we are not going to let them screw up after their pause is over," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told reporters today on a conference call.
Arctic-Specific Rules Required After Shell's 2012 Mishaps
By Mark Drajem – Mar 14, 2013 9:45 PM GMT
Royal Dutch Shell Plc will need to win approval of a full operating plan before it resumes drilling off the coast of Alaska, following a series of mishaps in its 2012 operations, the U.S. Interior Department said.
An Interior review of Shell's exploration in the Arctic found shortcomings in oversight of various contractors and said the company started work "not fully prepared." The company announced a pause in its plans last month.
"Shell screwed up in 2012, and we are not going to let them screw up after their pause is over," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told reporters today on a conference call. Salazar ordered a staff review of Shell's experience in January, and he released its findings today.
"Before Shell is allowed to move forward, they are going to have to demonstrate to us that they have a comprehensive management plan in place," he said.
Shell will "apply lessons learned" from the Interior report along with a separate Coast Guard investigation and its own assessment to bolster its offshore program, said Curtis Smith, a company spokesman in Alaska.
"Alaska remains a high potential area over the long-term, and we remain committed to drilling there safely, again," Smith said.
Arctic Weather
Two ships Shell was using in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas were being towed to Asia for repairs, meaning it will miss any chance to resume drilling in 2013, the company has said. The company never got a U.S. permit last year to tap an oil reservoir off Alaska's north coast because of issues with a spill-containment system. Shell also encountered weather delays and was cited for violating air-pollution standards.
Oil exploration and production companies have stepped up plans for drilling in the Arctic in the past five years, using technology that may let them reach oil reserves trapped in the sea floor beneath ice. The Chukchi and Beaufort seas may contain 25 billion barrels of oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Shell, the only company working off the Alaska coast, drilled two preparatory wells last year after spending about $4.9 billion over seven years preparing for Arctic exploration.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at mdrajem@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jon Morgan atjmorgan97@bloomberg.net
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
Shell Corruption in Nigeria
Shell Corruption in Nigeria
More evidence has emerged to show that global oil giants, Shell and ENI, were very much aware that they were paying over a billion dollars to an ex-con in a shady deal over a Nigerian oil bloc.; An email presented during the trial also mentioned that the Shell official who feted with Mr Etete would refer to someone in The Hague known as "Peter" over the terms of the deal. Curiously, Shell's CEO is named Peter Voser. Mr. Voser has not responded to questions sent by our partner, Global Witness, a U.K. based international organisation committed to transparency and accountability in the global extractive industry, on whether he is the "Peter" mentioned in the email.
Nigeria: Shell, ENI Dined With Etete Before Paying N155 Billion in Malabu Scandal, Court Documents Show
By Nicholas Ibekwe, 11 March 2013
More evidence has emerged to show that global oil giants, Shell and ENI, were very much aware that they were paying over a billion dollars to an ex-con in a shady deal over a Nigerian oil bloc.
Despite insisting that they had no previous knowledge that a huge chunk of the $1.1billion (N155 billion) they paid to the Nigerian government for oil block OPL-245 will be transferred to Malabu Oil, owned by convicted felon Dan Etete, proceedings from a recent U.K. High Court case shows that Shell, and Italian energy giant, ENI, were aware of the final destination of the money.
PREMIUM TIMES had previously reported how the two multi-nationals paid the huge sum to the Nigerian Government. The Jonathan administration, in shady circumstances, transferred the money into accounts controlled by Mr. Etete.
The transfers have become subject of probes and investigations by the National Assembly and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
Over 50 per cent of the payment was further transferred by Mr. Etete into accounts controlled by Abubakar Aliyu, a man described by Nigerian anti-graft officials as 'Mr. Corruption'; and who has continued to shun both the National Assembly and the EFCC investigators. Mr. Aliyu, a close ally of Attorney General, Mohammed Adoke, is also an associate to Diepreye Alamieyeisegha, former governor of Bayelsa State and close associate of President Goodluck Jonathan.
Shell wined and dined with criminal
Testimony presented in a High Court case brought by a Nigerian consultant, Energy Venture Partners, which claimed that it was owed money for helping to arrange the payment of the N155 billion to Malabu Oil, shows that in 2009 an official of Shell had a jovial face-to-face meeting with Mr. Etete, while they had lavish "lunch and lots of iced champagne," few months before the money was paid to the Nigerian government that subsequently transferred it into Malabu's account.
An email presented during the trial also mentioned that the Shell official who feted with Mr Etete would refer to someone in The Hague known as "Peter" over the terms of the deal. Curiously, Shell's CEO is named Peter Voser.
Mr. Voser has not responded to questions sent by our partner, Global Witness, a U.K. based international organisation committed to transparency and accountability in the global extractive industry, on whether he is the "Peter" mentioned in the email.
The email further shows that Mr. Etete had asked Shell to provide some initial figures of how much it was willing to pay for the oil block and the official responded that "Peter has to talk to The Hague and we will come back with a figure."
Shell did not directly answer questions by Global Witness to explain whether the "Peter" cited in the email was its CEO Peter Voser.
"We can confirm that neither [Shell's Nigerian subsidiary] SNEPCo nor any other Shell company is party to those proceedings and, as a consequence, we cannot comment on any statements or allegations made in the course of those proceedings," said Shell to the allegations made during the court proceedings.
Global Witness explained that a Shell 2010 annual report shows no other "Peter" in the company's top management staff. This is an indication that Shell's most senior executive is aware that the company negotiated with a convicted criminal.
Eni meets Etete
Similarly, documents presented during the High Court case also show that ENI officials including its Chief Operating Officer, Claudio Descalzi, had several meetings with Mr. Etete in Lagos as well as at the luxury Acanto Restaurant in the Principe di Savoia Hotel, Milan, in February 2010.
Other meetings between Mr. Etete and ENI officials were held in April and November 2010, the document alleges.
When contacted by Global Witness, ENI avoided questions about its meetings with Mr. Etete. It however said: "the transaction concerning the acquisition of the 245 Block has been conducted by Eni and Shell in full compliance with the laws."
It said Eni acquired the OPL-245 Block "directly from the Government of Nigeria."
"We believe that the Government of a sovereign country should not be mistrusted and that dealing with the Government directly and without the use of intermediaries ensures full transparency in that transaction," Eni added.
Phony claims
Global Witness has rubbished Shell and Eni's claims describing them as insufficient.
"Shell and Eni's claim that they did not do a deal with Malabu fails to address the question of their knowledge of where the payment was ultimately going. They also fail to explain their apparent extensive direct dealings with Etete," said Global Witness Director, Simon Taylor.
"Both companies appeared to enjoy rather lavish meals with Etete, and ended up taking part in an arrangement that, in the absence of a better explanation, looks like an attempt to conceal their US$1.1 billion deal with Abacha's money laundering convicted oil minister."
Details from the court proceedings also show that Shell ceased direct negotiation with Mr. Etete when it found out that Mohammed Abacha, the son of Sani Abacha, Nigeria's late military dictator, was claiming to own a percentage of Malabu oil.
However, it commenced negotiations with the Nigerian government and in April 2011 paid $1.1 billion to the Jonathan's administration for onward transfer to Malabu's account in an intricate fraudulent scheme.
Mr. Etete was the Petroleum Minister under Sani Abacha. PREMIUM TIMES previous investigations had detailed how he fraudulently awarded the oil block to himself and friends, including Mohammed Abacha, in contravention of Nigerian laws.
In 2007, Mr Etete was found guilty of money laundering in France. The conviction was upheld by a higher court in 2009 after he had challenged the earlier conviction; but his sentence was commuted from a three years prison sentence to a fine of over N16.4 billion.
Lobbying against transparency legislation
Meanwhile, Shell has continued relentlessly to lobby against legislations in the EU intended to bring transparency into the payment between governments and oil companies. The proposed EU Transparency Directive requires a project-by-project reporting of payment between governments and oil companies.
As a member of the American Petroleum Institute (API), it is also in the forefront of a U.S. lawsuit aimed at striking out Provision 1504 of the Dodd-frank Act that was signed into law by President Barack Obama last July. The law requires payment disclosure by U.S.-listed extractive companies.
"This scandal demonstrates precisely why we need the new transparency laws being finalized in Europe that require companies to disclose their payments right down to the project level – with no exemption for any country," said Mr Taylor.
"In light of Shell's behaviour in Nigeria, it is difficult not to conclude that it wishes to keep its deals in the dark."
Mr Taylor, therefore, called on "all EU countries, including Italy, should support exemption-free transparency laws that would bring these kinds of payments into the open."
Sunday, March 10, 2013
TITLE 23 WATERS SECTION 3700 (e) Deficient applications
(7) the application fee and examination fee as prescribed by Article 8.
(b) Submittal - Applications for examination shall be postmarked by the final filing date as specified in this subsection. Applications postmarked after the final filing date shall be held over and processed for the next scheduled examination.
Date of Examination Final Filing Date
April 10, 1999 February 1, 1999
October 2, 1999 August 1, 1999
April 1, 2000 February 1, 2000
October 7, 2000 August 1, 2000
April 7, 2001 February 1, 2001
October 6, 2001 August 1, 2001
April 6, 2002 February 1, 2002
October 5, 2002 August 1, 2002
April 5, 2003 February 1, 2003
October 4, 2003 August 1, 2003
April 3, 2004 February 1, 2004
October 2, 2004 August 1, 2004
(c) Division review - The division shall review applications and supporting documents to determine eligibility for examination. Unless otherwise specified by this chapter, division evaluation of experience gained in California will be based on work performed while employed in a position which requires operator certification in California. Evaluation of experience gained outside California will be based on work performed while employed in a position comparable to one which requires operator certification in California. Division evaluation of experience will be based on the actual work performed by the applicant without respect to job titles assigned by the employing agencies.
(d) Notice - The division shall notify applicants in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of an application whether it is complete or deficient. If there is a deficiency, the division shall identify the deficiency and inform the applicant in writing of the specific information required.
(e) Deficient applications - Applications which do not contain proof of completion of education requirements and the correct application and examination fees shall be considered deficient applications. Deficient applications shall not be processed for the current examination. The applicant shall be required to reapply to take a subsequent examination.
(f) Processing times - the division’s median, minimum, and maximum processing times for applications for examination between September 1989 and September 1991 were:
Median - 30 days
Minimum - 3 days
Maximum - 112 days
§ 3701. Examinations.
(a) Written examinations for each wastewater treatment plant operator grade shall contain questions to
determine applicants’ knowledge of wastewater treatment plant operation. Mathematical problems related to process control and evaluation will be included. Each higher grade examination will require
progressively more detailed knowledge of the subject matter.
( 9 )
(b) Submittal - Applications for examination shall be postmarked by the final filing date as specified in this subsection. Applications postmarked after the final filing date shall be held over and processed for the next scheduled examination.
Date of Examination Final Filing Date
April 10, 1999 February 1, 1999
October 2, 1999 August 1, 1999
April 1, 2000 February 1, 2000
October 7, 2000 August 1, 2000
April 7, 2001 February 1, 2001
October 6, 2001 August 1, 2001
April 6, 2002 February 1, 2002
October 5, 2002 August 1, 2002
April 5, 2003 February 1, 2003
October 4, 2003 August 1, 2003
April 3, 2004 February 1, 2004
October 2, 2004 August 1, 2004
(c) Division review - The division shall review applications and supporting documents to determine eligibility for examination. Unless otherwise specified by this chapter, division evaluation of experience gained in California will be based on work performed while employed in a position which requires operator certification in California. Evaluation of experience gained outside California will be based on work performed while employed in a position comparable to one which requires operator certification in California. Division evaluation of experience will be based on the actual work performed by the applicant without respect to job titles assigned by the employing agencies.
(d) Notice - The division shall notify applicants in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of an application whether it is complete or deficient. If there is a deficiency, the division shall identify the deficiency and inform the applicant in writing of the specific information required.
(e) Deficient applications - Applications which do not contain proof of completion of education requirements and the correct application and examination fees shall be considered deficient applications. Deficient applications shall not be processed for the current examination. The applicant shall be required to reapply to take a subsequent examination.
(f) Processing times - the division’s median, minimum, and maximum processing times for applications for examination between September 1989 and September 1991 were:
Median - 30 days
Minimum - 3 days
Maximum - 112 days
§ 3701. Examinations.
(a) Written examinations for each wastewater treatment plant operator grade shall contain questions to
determine applicants’ knowledge of wastewater treatment plant operation. Mathematical problems related to process control and evaluation will be included. Each higher grade examination will require
progressively more detailed knowledge of the subject matter.
( 9 )
Saturday, March 9, 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21545162
From: Harry Roques Blog
Date: Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 12:42 AM
| |
Thursday, March 7, 2013
GUTTER FIXED
From: Alfred Clayton
Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:07 AM
My wife said
"Fix that
gutter TODAY"
So I invited the boys over. One brought his welder the others brought beer. mostly for the beer, but we got the downspout fixed. Wife is still speechless... I'm certain not for much longer tho'.  |
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
|
