Posts from ‘May, 2009’

Bloomberg.com

By Nadja Brandt

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA NA): An Amsterdam court is scheduled to rule whether a $353 million settlement with shareholders outside the U.S. following a restatement of proven oil and gas reserve estimates in January 2004 is binding. Shell was unchanged at 18.76 euros in Amsterdam.

SOURCE

Absent a settlement, a jury to be selected beginning Tuesday in lower Manhattan will be asked to reach a historic verdict that would make Royal Dutch/Shell the first foreign corporation found liable in a U.S. courtroom for aiding and abetting human rights violations by the forces of a foreign nation.

On 3 June former employees of the Shell Berre Petrochemical Refinery will mount a major protest at Shell’s Paris HQ – a photograph of a banner prepared for the protest is displayed.

The protest has been organised by a group of Shell unions. Background information about why 1600 French former Shell employees feel driven to protest against their treatment by Shell is contained in the letters which have been translated into English.  Because they contain extremely serious allegations against Shell, including fraudulent behaviour, we sent them to Royal Dutch Shell Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes on Monday. No reply has been received. Apparently this is one of the occasions when Shell feels it best to say nothing. 

A version of this article is published on Blogger News Net: 

1600 French former Shell employees declare war on the oil giant

The self-explanatory email and letters: - 

EMAIL TO MICHIEL BRANDJES, COMPANY SECRETARY AND GENERAL COUNSEL CORPORATE, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:37:50 +0100
To: “michiel.brandjes@shell.com” <michiel.brandjes@shell.com>
Cc: “Roger.HaddadParfait@lyondellbasell.com” <Roger.HaddadParfait@lyondellbasell.com>
Conversation: Sale of Berre Petrochemical Refinery to LyondellBasell Industry (PA)
Subject: Sale of Berre Petrochemical Refinery to LyondellBasell Industry (PA)

Dear Mr Brandjes
 
The letters below have been supplied in an English translation by a French trade union official, Mr Roger Haddad-Parfait.

His contact details are as follows:

HADDAD-PARFAIT Roger
SCAD INFINEUM
Compagnie Pétrochimique de Berre
BP 14, 13131  Berre l’étang, Cedex, France

If Shell does not take issue with the facts as stated, then there is no need to reply. If I receive no response by 3pm tomorrow UK time, I will assume that the information and allegations are unchallenged by Shell. If Shell is taking legal action in relation to the allegations, then please advise accordingly.

If you need more time to check matters out, then kindly let me know when we can expect a response and we will take no further action until then.

If you want to supply for publication with the letters any related comment by Shell, we will happily publish it on an unedited basis.

This is an important story which deserves publication in the English language.
 
Best Regards
John Donovan

THE LETTERS

CFDT, CFE/CGC, CFTC, CGT, FO

Site CPB/CDH de Lyondellbasell Berre (ex SHELL)

Shell must assume its social responsibilities

On 1st April 2008, Shell sold the Berre Petrochemical with 1600 employees attached, to LyondellBasell Industry (PA) despite the negative advices raised by the five unions and elected members, worried about the extreme fragility of the LBI group on debt.
 
Shell was committed by agreement to maintain the vested interests till end 2010 and the plan for employment protection till end 2009. However, LBI stating a bankruptcy situation has been brought after less than eight month of operation, to place the company under the protection of chapter 11 of US bankruptcy code, which was recorded by the competent courts on 6th Jan 2009.
 
The employees could state the fact that no provision was made between Shell and LBI to insure the effectiveness of social interests!
 
While the social liabilities represents 120 millions €, Shell has set aside a part of the environment risk for 350 millions. Shell never planned something for the employees. Swans and flamingos are more well treated than the workers!!!!
 
Shell Group announcing a profit of more than 31 billions of USD for 2008, the five unions of the Berre Site require the respect of the commitments!
 
All peoples are concerned about this emblematic case, the whole employees, political and economic makers of our country by asking a fundamental question:
 
Is an employer can take away the initiative to transfer its employees to a third party without ensuring that he is able to take the social commitments that they would enjoy?

Business ethics and the principles of loyalty, responsibility and good faith requires an unanimous answer: an employer who does not ensure the ability of the counterparty to assume the social commitments that he himself negotiated, must assume the consequences vis-à-vis its employees, without limitation or qualification.

LETTER FROM ALL OF THE RELEVANT UNIONS
TO THE DIRECTORS OF SHELL 

Gentlemen,
 
In 2008, the Shell group carried out a reorganisation of Shell Pétrochimie Méditerrannée and Société des Pétroles Shell, via the transfer of the activities of the Berre site to two companies that fit the finance industry’s definition of “shell companies” (no pun intended), “Compagnie des Hydrocarbures” (“CDH”) and “Compagnie Pétrochimique de Berre” (“CPB”) with a view to transferring these activities outside the group.
 
This structuring led to the transfer of more than 1,600 Shell employees to these entities.
 
As a result of this reorganisation, in April 2008, Shell sold CPB and CDH to “Lyondell Basell”, a newly established group controlled throughout various offshore companies by Mr Len Blavatnik, an elusive Russian oligarch.

As part of this transfer and given employee scepticism regarding the acquirer’s credibility, Shell strove to present this group as a flourishing, prosperous group capable of ensuring the employees of the Berre site the growth of their activities over the long-term. Accordingly, Shell committed itself contractually that the benefit of the company agreements and other plans covering the employees at Shell would continue to exist for them after the transfer, over and above what is required by law.
 
For the sake of completeness, it is important to bear in mind that the value of these rights exceeds EUR 500 million.
 
Less than eight months after this sale, the holding companies of the Lyondell Basell Group were forced to apply for bankruptcy under the American system (chapter 11) and 13 of this group’s 16 French entities, including CPB and CDH, were the subject of alert procedures implemented by their auditors and their works council. The information communicated at the time did not satisfy the company auditors, who are contemplating referring the matter to the courts having jurisdiction.
 
During the alert procedure of the works council, we noted a scandalous level of indebtedness (in excess of US$ 26.000.000.000!) and the extreme fragility of the financial structure set up   by Len Blavatnik at the time of the acquisition of the Berre site and above all, the total absence of any financial guarantee whatsoever intended to ensure the effective service of the transferred rights!

In view of the disastrous situation of the Lyondell Basell Group, the thousands of transferred Shell employees are now alone and physically deprived of the rights they  had acquired.
 
This situation is intolerable!

Less than a year ago, Shell sold us to an over-indebted group – truly a house of cards, driven solely by the appetite for profit of the person pulling all the strings – and totally incapable of performing the obligations committed to vis-à-vis the employees.

Shell, surrounded by many advisors, was at the time (and still is) fully aware of the real nature, the financial situation and the physical inability of Len Blavatnik to perform the obligations to which Shell had it commit. As part of a genuine hindrance to employees’ rights of representation, Shell knowingly lied with respect to the guaranties and the real prospects that this over-indebted group was able to offer, as well as to the risks incurred by the employees: risks that were confirmed the day of the transaction and that are now materialising, less than eight months after the transaction!
 
Shell’s behaviour has been fraudulent and unfair vis-à-vis both the representatives of the Group’s employees and the 1,600 employees concerned.

Shell and its directors bear both civil and criminal liability.

In view of this situation, we urge Shell’s directors to immediately begin a constructive dialogue with the employee representatives of CPB and CDH, in order to guarantee all of the employees concerned the due and complete fulfilment of the rights they hold under the “PSE” [job-saving plan] and the transferred agreement.
 
Should Shell and its directors fail to do so immediately, the trade unions, works councils and employees reserve the right to initiate any legal proceedings necessary to protect their rights and to denounce the criminal behaviour in this matter.

ENDS

The group has 102,000 people worldwide, and a spokeswoman said yesterday the new organisation would have a smaller workforce.

UNPO: Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization

Thursday, 28 May 2009

Supporters gathered around New York courthouse to rally for the Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell trial.

On what was supposed to mark the start of the Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell trial in New York City, over a hundred people showed up in front of the courthouse to bring attention to this historic case.  The trial opening has been postponed another week, but this did not damper the spirit of those present. 

The Turn The Heat Up On Shell rally, hosted by the Shell Guilty Coalition, drew supporters from far and wide and will reach an even further audience through the sizable press turnout.  In addition to speakers from Remember Saro-Wiwa, Oil Change International, Friends of the Earth, and Amnesty International, Ogoni natives who now reside across the U.S. joined the crowd of campaigners to deliver their personal messages of struggle and their hopes for this trial. 

Speaking with Ledee, an Ogoni who has been living in the U.S. for the past ten years, about the events of the day he stated, “The spirit of those who have died is here with us today—you can feel it.” 

There was a sense of enormity in the historical relevance of this trial and the precedent it is setting.  Speaking in front of the ‘Triumph of the Spirit’ sculpture, a monument honoring the African-American colonial experience, it was clear that the mere fact that the victims will see their day in court is a triumph.  

“Shell is the driving force of our government,” Ledee says, “and they don’t care about us. We need to hold them accountable.”  

Other oil giants have come under similar fire for their abuse of the environment and those who depend on it for survival.  An Ecuadorian man who passed by the rally stopped to express his solidarity with the Ogoni persecuted under Shell’s operations.  Ecuador is similarly entrenched in decades long legal battles with Chevron who took over Texaco’s operations in the area.  The case did not hold up in U.S. courts under the same statute as the Wiwa trial, but Ecuadorians are optimistic about the upcoming trials taking place in Ecuadorian national courts.  

The cases against Chevron/Texaco, Royal Dutch Shell (Shell), and the Unocal case (settled out of court in 2004), are making the necessary headway towards corporate responsibility. For indigenous groups affected by corporate violators, the Wiwa case will set the bar for similar cases brought to trial in the U.S.

After several scheduling changes, the Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell case will begin with jury selection on Tuesday, 2 June 2009. 

To learn more about the Ogoni, please read Andrew Swan’s “Curse of the Black Gold” .

To stay updated on the trial schedule and to learn what you can do to spread the word, please visit the Wiwa v Shell Campaign official webpage. 

SOURCE ARTICLE

By Alfred and John Donovan

On Monday we will publish Shell internal documents and correspondence with Malcolm Brinded providing evidence of how this brainy man,  who remains at number 2 in the Shell hierarchy, sanctioned corrupt practices, deceit, theft and other illegal action involving a conspiracy of Shell managers. This dishonest activity was also condoned by Richard Wiseman, the former Shell Legal Director now laughingly given the job of Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer at Royal Dutch Shell Plc. The Shell UK legal team Wiseman controlled played a key role in a corrupted Shell tender process. 

Evidence assembled by Bill Campbell, the highly respected former HSE Group Auditor of Shell International confirms that Brinded, a ruthless operator, also has the blood of Shell offshore employees on his hands.  The evidence relating to Shell’s notorious and deadly “Touch F*** All” safety culture on the Brent Bravo North Sea Platform, includes tape recorded conversations with senior Shell officials.

Richard Wiseman accused us in an email last Friday of running a provocative hateful campaign against him. We do not hate him or anyone else. We do object to the hypocrisy of Shell management preaching honesty, integrity and transparency in speeches, with the same deceitful propaganda pledges in the Shell Business Principles, while building a shameful track record of doing the exact opposite.  It is deeds not words which count. 

We are prepared as always to defend our deeds and words in Court. 

We were amused to see that the Dow Jones article confirming incoming CEO Peter Voser’s plans for Shell, as first revealed to the world on this website, cited royaldutchshellplc.com as being the official Shell “Company Web site”.  Incidentally, according to our insider sources (famed globally for their reliability), Shell moved forward its media and public announcements of the Voser changes in response to the news being published on the unofficial company website.  The one which tells the truth. 

How did we end up with the dotcom domain name for Royal Dutch Shell Plc? Ask Richard Wiseman who has publicly boasted he was the conductor of the legal orchestra responsible for creating the new company out of the ashes of the Shell Transport/Royal Dutch structure destroyed by the reserves fraud. 

During its failed attempted to grab the domain name in proceedings via The World Intellectual Property Organisation, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited argued that we would use the domain name to embarrass and humiliate the company.  They at least got that one right.

Shellwaar benjijnu?:

There used to be a “Swiss Mafia” running exploration in Shell. It now appears there is a Swiss Mafia just running Shell – full stop. I would like to know how Bichsel is uniquely qualified for his new position. He has absolutely no track record in project delivery. However he does have one of non-delivery. As head of the now defunct Deep Water Projects entity based in Houston he missed milestone after milestone with the Bonga project whilst his staff produced endless powerpoint slide presentations on what an outstanding success the entity was. He would brook no challenge whatsoever and was protected from criticism by the leadership cabal (who of course knew Bichsel was a favored child destined to join their ranks). On taking over the EP Technology organisation in 2006 he made life hell for the then head of Upstream R&D – a genuine (real Shell as was) technical professional – but who had the temerity to disagree with his new all-knowing superior.It appears the ethnic cleansing of the Dutch at the top of the company is mission accomplished. Are we expected to believe that there are no Dutch nationals in the company with the magic Shell “X Factor” required to lead the organisation? I can think of at least one better qualified to lead the Projects and Technology organisation. However, I will be generous and believe Bichsel is merely keeping the position warm for him! Finally, attempting to mirror ExxonMobil will not work. That organisation only promotes individuals into leadership positions on the basis of proven track record of delivery and genuine expertise in the domain they have been asked to lead

A FORMER Army bomb disposal officer has warned of “horrific” consequences for civilians in and around Rossport if an onshore gas pipeline serving the Corrib gas project should rupture and explode.

Shell’s CEO designate Peter Voser would have to have been terminally naïve to assume that his extraordinary internal Email to staff would not immediately be placed in the public domain – as indeed it was within minutes of its transmission. Assuming that Voser knew exactly what he is doing let’s analyse what this message means for Shell’s battered stakeholders.

The fact that Voser chose to send out the Email when there is a still a month to go before he takes over as CEO is remarkable – and crassly insensitive to the feelings of the current man in charge Jeroen van der Veer. Van der Veer will no doubt also be aggrieved that the tone of the Email is so fiercely critical of the Shell of today – a Shell that has been moulded over the past six years by his efforts. Outside stakeholders will also want to ask why, if things at Shell are quite so bad as Voser says, van der Veer has been remunerated to the extent of around 10million Euros a year, why he is to receive a pension of well over one million Euros a year and why his contract with Shell was extended well beyond the normal Shell retirement age of 60.

Voser’s criticisms of the Shell that he inherits (and the Shell, let us not forget, of which he has been a senior executive director for many years) are scathing. Shell is no longer “… a company of firsts”. Shell is “organisationally too complex”. Shell’s culture is “too consensus-oriented”.  Shell needs to “regain our leadership position”. Shell needs a “greater focus on how we interact with resource holders and how we run our projects”. Shell needs to “increase accountability”, “speed up getting upstream projects on-stream, and improve project execution”, “change our approach from internal to external, raise our game in stakeholder management and better address non-technical risks”, “reduce corporate weight”, … and so on (and on!).

The goal of the organisational and cultural changes that Voser’s “transformation” predicates is hard to elicit from the Email  – quite what “a company that accelerates its ongoing top quartile plans” means I’ll have to leave it to a Shell insider to explain. Indeed all the objectives in Voser’s Email are eerily reminiscent of previous “transformations” – weasel words that mean little in concrete terms – other than the inevitability of staff reductions. “Here we go again” Shell veterans and survivors will no doubt cry. Underlying Voser’s decision to wash what he seems to see as Shell’s very grimy linen in public is his clear determination further to centralise decision-making. He wants less not more consensus and simplicity not complexity – this is barely disguised code for pulling all key decision-making back to the centre. 

Voser’s Email is an internal document and it will no doubt be the first of many such communications that are designed to stamp his personal authority on a corporation which he clearly believes is grossly dysfunctional and under-performing. Many of us would agree about the dysfunctionality – but not for the reasons that Mr Voser describes. Over the past years – in the era of Watts and van der Veer – it is Shell’s impact upon its external stakeholders which has been most open to criticism not so much its internal machinations. The health, safety and environmental record of the corporation has been abysmal – but HSE doesn’t get a mention in Voser’s 924 word message.   Shell’s brand has been damaged perhaps almost beyond repair – but the brand doesn’t get a mention either. Shell’s reputation in the outside world has been undermined by its cataclysmic errors of judgement in such projects as Sakhalin and Corrib, and in Canada and in Nigeria but Voser’s references to the need to restore this reputation are passing at best. Shell’s external communications have been the most disingenuous of any of the greenwashing oil majors – but there is no apology for these lies and obfuscations of the recent past and no plan as to how the recognised need for “improved relationships” with key stakeholders will be achieved. Shell’s directors have recently been revealed to be the fattest of fat cats but Voser seems oblivious of the paradox that over years when he clearly believes that the corporation has been grossly mismanaged Shell’s directors have paid themselves more and more!

From shareholders to employees and from suppliers to pensioners – and in local communities from Ogoni-land to County Mayo Shell has almost contemptuously damaged its standing in recent times sometimes by neglect but more often by the errors of its decision-making. Many will feel that this damage has been done because of ever more centralised management and ever more cost control obsessiveness. The failure to stop flaring in Nigeria was not because it could not technically be done – it was because the money was not made available – just one example amongst many. But the causes of this damaged reputation  – centralisation and cost minimisation obsessions – are the very tools that Peter Voser now wants to use to “transform” the business under his hegemony.  The future looks very bleak for us all.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Royal Dutch Shell has unveiled the most the radical restructuring of its operations for decades in a move that will impact over 24,000 jobs.