Posts from ‘January, 2010’

By John Donovan

Shell and its lawyers have had advance sight of what you are about to read and therefore the opportunity to seek an injunction to prevent publication, but have not done so. Our most recent email to Shell on this matter is published at the foot of the article.

Royal Dutch Shell trickery over UK Data Protection Act (DPA)

As long term prominent critics of Shell management, my father (Alfred) and I have found some of the information supplied to us by Shell under the Data Protection Act law to be very revealing. Some would say astonishing.

For example, revelations about Shell:

• Setting up an aggressive counter-measures team directed against us and our website: royaldutchshellplc.com
• Returning to invisible investigations directed against us
• Mounting a global spying operation against Shell employees in connection with our website

Revelations will follow shortly about Shell’s behind the scenes machinations in relation to Wikipedia articles focused on Royal Dutch Shell.

In reaction to the damage done to Shell’s reputation from DPA information supplied to us in 2007, the oil giant has used every underhand trick imaginable to limit damage from new information supplied a few weeks ago. Some of the relevant evasive tactics adopted by Shell are covered in the correspondence links provided.

In order to locate/retrieve electronically stored information relating to us, Shell would logically run an automated search on our surname. This means that if Shell systematically used some formulation of code/abbreviation to identity us, instead of using our surname, such information would not be found.

On 23 August 2007, during correspondence regarding DPA issues relating to Shell internal emails and documents supplied to us at that time, I made the following request to David Sanger of Shell International Limited legal department:

“Please also supply any information which refers to either or both of us by any code name(s) now used by Shell.”

I raised this issue after receiving a tip off from a Shell insider that certain people at Shell were deliberately avoiding the use of our surname in documents and emails.

As can be seen in the detailed chain of events set out below, while the correspondence on this issue was still in progress, with denials on behalf of Shell that any such ploy was being used, Shell emails were sent in which the use of our surname was systematically and deliberately avoided.

This was achieved by the use of multiple abbreviations of our surname and the deliberate deletion of our surname from an extract of an article. By a lucky fluke, someone blundered by adding a separate file reference at the foot of the relevant stored emails (probably at a later date). The file reference, not the emails,  contained our surname. Otherwise we would know nothing about the existence of the relevant emails about us. This means that there may be a large volume of information produced on the same devious basis, which has not been disclosed to us by Shell.

Looking at what has recently been supplied, it would also explain a greatly reduced volume of salient Shell documents and emails after the time we received the tip off in 2007. Much of the latter information supplied seems to have been generated in the U.S. where Shell Oil lawyers and media folk had not been briefed on the ploy being used to avoid Shell complying with the DPA.

Although Shell might argue that the use of multiple abbreviations of our surname is not the same as using code names, this would be disingenuous. The basic tactic – the use of a form of identification signifying our surname, without actually using our surname, has the same result. As indicated, a search of electronically stored information using our surname would not retrieve documents prepared on that devious basis.

We believe that the relevant communications involve senior people at Shell. One of these individuals may have a self-serving motive in keeping secret a twisting of facts about our past history with Shell, evident in many Shell internal documents we have seen.

MORE DETAILED INFORMATION

When I raised the code names issue with Shell on 23 August 2007, I was surprised to receive a response from a law firm Simmons & Simmons suddenly retained by the company. While their response letter dated 5 September 2007 dealt with some DPA issues, it neglected to deal with the question of Shell’s use of code names.

Some related extracts from my email response to Simmons & Simmons dated 8 September 2007:

We will also inform the Commissioner that we have reason to believe Shell are using a codename strategy to try to evade its statutory duty of releasing more information; it is our understanding from the IC’s office that we are entitled to any information that refers to us or by which we can be identified, even if it is not by name. We further understand that it is an offence under that act to knowingly take steps to withhold information.

The codename issue is serious; we understand that if the Commissioner thinks your client has tried to evade the relevant provisions of the Act, he will write to Shell and require them to release all that information to the Information Commissioner and to us.

We raised the codename issue in our last communication to your client. Instead of an answer, we received your letter which completely ignores the question..

On 10 September 2007, my father sent an email to RDS Plc Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes, containing a draft of an email being sent to over 600 UK MP’s. The draft email contained the following passage:

Following a tip-off, we also asked if Shell has attempted to evade its DPA obligations by subsequently using codenames instead of our surnames: another serious matter if true.

An email from my father to Shell EP General Counsel Keith Ruddock contained the following comments relating to the use of code names:

Like Mr Sanger, Mr Allen and Mr Brandjes, you have chosen not to provide an answer to the codenames issue. Three lawyers have all ducked a simple question. That makes us more than suspicious.

Any of you could have simply stated

Your information about the use of codenames is incorrect. No codenames have been used in relation to you or your father.

but were self-evidently unable or unwilling to do so.

Under the circumstances I believe it is reasonable for us to conclude that the insider information on the subject of code names is correct.

Nonetheless, I will ask one last time for a straight-forward answer to a straight-forward question.

Has Shell ever substituted a codename(s) for the Donovan surname for either my son or I, or for both of us?

We are delaying the email to MP’s while we give Shell this last opportunity to answer this question.

We received a response letter from Simmons & Simmons dated 12 September 2007 from which the following salient extracts are taken:

You also intend to write to the Information Commissioner stating your belief that our client is employing code names in order to avoid its obligations under the Act. As stated in our letter of 05 September 2007, our client has complied fully and in good faith with its obligations under the Act. For the avoidance of doubt, we are instructed that our client has not used code names for the purposes you allege or at all in relation to you or Mr Alfred Donovan.

We confirm that our client has not relied on the exemption of self-incrimination in responding to your SAR. We request that you inform any third parties with whom you have communicated, or intend to communicate, on this issue of this fact and of those set out above in relation to code names and the identity of third persons.

On 13 September 2007 my father confirmed to Mr Ruddock that in the light of the letter from Simmons & Simmons, the reference to Shell using code names to avoid its obligations under the Data Protection Act would be removed from the email to MP’s and that the issue would not be raised with the Information Commissioner.

However, as a result of documents Shell supplied in response to my 2009 SAR application, it has become apparent that the denials by Shell were disingenuous.

Shell internal emails sent on 31 August 2007 just a few days after we first raised the matter, provide evidence that Shell lawyers were indeed deliberately following a strategy to avoid the use of our surname.  The code names were less than sophisticated, amounting to various abbreviations of our surname, but with the same objective. This was done systemically over twenty times in the relevant emails, including the use of “D’S”, “D’s”, “Alfred D”, “Ds”, “John D” and “Mr D”.

The clincher that it was a deliberate strategy to avoid DPA law was the removal of the Donovan name from an extract from an article quoted in the email sent at 15.13 on 31 August.

“A 90 year old war veteran, Alfred D——-, created a gripe website focused on Shell which, in an extraordinary alliance with the so-called “Kremlin attack dog” Oleg Mitvol, has cost the oil giant billions of dollars and as a by-product, changed the course of history.

We would never have known about these Shell emails except for the fact that some one blundered by adding a file reference code, probably at a later date, at the foot of the page:

« File: 2006 – 01 – Alfred Donovan.doc» «File: 2007 – 02 – Donovan Campaign Against Shell.doc »

Consequentially, there may well be a large volume of emails and documents on which the same strategy was used, on which a file reference was not added.

I note that a number of “Focal Point” documents produced by Shell contain an assurance to Shell management in relation to these matters, as as per the example dated 16 October 2007:

Did you avoid disclosing certain information to the Donovans in response to their Data Protection Act requests?

We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where it is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties. We also informed the RDSplc website that we do not use codewords in internal documents relating to their activities.

The Shell internal emails on 31 August 2007 prove otherwise.

Under the circumstances, we have asked Shell to carry out a search using all of the multiple code/abbreviations which we now know for certain have been used instead of our surname.

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO SHELL 24 JANUARY 2010

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 24 January 2010 20:31:24 GMT
To: Gavin.white@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com, robert.allen@simmons-simmons.com
Subject: Royal Dutch Shell trickery over UK Data Protection Act (DPA)

Dear Mr White

Printed below is a revised draft article we plan to publish on Tuesday morning, 26 January 2010.

The text will be amended in the light of any development before then.

If you wish to supply comment for unedited publication as part of the article, please let us have your comments by Tuesday am.

Please also let me know if you will be carrying out a search using the various Shell code/abbreviations used as a substitute for our surname, which has confirmed the tip off we received from a Shell insider.

If you need more time to consider this matter, you only have to say so.

If I receive nothing from you by Tuesday am, the article will be published and a formal complaint filed with The Information Commissioners Office covering this and all other DPA related issues previously raised with Shell.

Best Regards

John Donovan

NO RESPONSE THUS FAR FROM SHELL

Jonathan Fahey, 01.21.10, 06:00 PM EST

Shell is working to detect hydrocarbons in the air and track them to oil deposits under the earth’s surface.

Here’s a curious place to look for an oil field buried under thousands of feet of rock: the sky.

But that’s where Royal Dutch Shell ( RDSA – news – people ) is heading in an attempt to survey huge tracts of rugged and remote terrain that might be hiding oil.

The trick is an instrument Shell is perfecting that can sniff molecular signatures of trapped hydrocarbons floating in the air at concentrations of just 10 parts per trillion. Shell puts the instrument on board an aircraft that flies low (about 1,000 feet) over potential oil territory, sniffing the air and comparing that information with other data collected onboard about the chemistry and structure of the terrain below and the local weather conditions.

Put all that information together, Shell thinks, and it can find interesting places to do more traditional, surface-based early exploration like reflection seismology and drilling test wells. This way is relatively cheap, it can cover lots of ground, and it has the potential to find fields in places it would otherwise be hard to get to.

“You can stuff a plane full of these sensors and fly over the desert to get a picture of the subsurface geology. From there you can look for interesting structures,” says Dirk Smit, Shell’s vice president for exploration technology. “And you can do this over large areas in a short amount of time.”

The big, easy-to-find oil deposits under land have likely all been found, but Shell believes that there are deposits two to three miles underground, hidden under thick layers of salt or basalt that are hard to see through. Looking for oil with traditional seismic technology on dry land is even harder than looking for it under the ocean floor, because the ocean floor is more homogeneous than land.

Still, because of small cracks in the rock and subtle seismic activity, some of the lighter hydrocarbons, like methane and ethane, escape their tombs and percolate to the surface, rising into the atmosphere.

If the underground fields leak too much, Shell is not interested–a leaky field likely means a field that has been emptying for tens of thousands of years. But tiny leaks could be worth looking into.

The trouble is sensing these leaks on board a moving aircraft, bouncing around in the turbulence, and then tracking the molecules, blown about by the wind, back to the place they arose from.

First, a laser system probes columns of air streaming through the airplane to determine the air’s composition and whether there are hydrocarbons. At the same time, instruments on the same plane are recording information about wind speed, altitude and temperature. When put together, the information can show where the hydrocarbons may have come from.

But the plane also carries instruments that can do something called “airborne hyperspectral surveying.” They can look at the chemistry of the ground below while flying over it. Hydrocarbon leaks, even slow ones, will slightly change the chemistry of the rocks below over tens of thousands of years.

The plane carries more traditional equipment as well, things that can measure magnetic and gravitational signatures of the earth that can signal underground formations that could trap oil. All this data together is potentially more valuable than any of it alone, though Shell hasn’t found anything with the technique so far.

Shell has done several test flights over Algerian deserts with a sniffer that can detect methane, trying to perfect its technique. But methane can be produced by human and agricultural activity, so Shell is working to be able to also detect ethane, a heavier hydrocarbon that is not produced by human activity. “Over Holland, you’d just find how many cows there are,” Smit says. “You’d really like to be able to detect ethane, too.”

Because ethane is heavier, less of it percolates, so it’s harder to find. Still, Shell researchers think they can have the ethane detector working by the end of this year, ready to start searching for oil fields in the sky.

To read more of Jonathan Fahey’s stories, click here. Contact the writer at jfahey@forbes.com.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Christopher Helman, 01.21.10, 12:00 PM EST

Chances are your energy needs are going to flow from one of these 10 fields in the future.

HOUSTON — This month Iraq will finalize contracts with the likes of ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and BP to develop some of its biggest oil fields. These giants are among the world’s last remaining pockets of so-called “easy oil.” They don’t require ultradeep drilling or innovative production techniques, just the application of Big Oil know-how. No wonder the oil companies agreed to develop Iraq’s fields without even getting an ownership stake in the fields and collecting as little as $1.15 per barrel recovered.

Given the size of Iraq’s undeveloped giants there are no technical reasons why within 10 years the country can’t supplant both Iran and Russia to become the world’s No. 2 oil producer after Saudi Arabia. No wonder Iraq holds three of the top 10 fields of the future.

The world gets its daily ration of 85 million barrels of oil from more than 4,000 fields. Most of these are small, less than 20,000 barrels per day. Giants, producing more than 100,000 bpd, account for just 3%. Then there’s the megafields that gush out 1 million bpd. These are the most important sources of energy in the world–fields worth fighting over. In figuring the top 10 fields of the future, we’re not interested in most of the giants of yesteryear, and not necessarily even the giants of today. Just the giants of tomorrow–those fields that might not even be producing yet, but will likely be doing better than 1 million bpd a decade from now.

The once and future king of the world’s oil fields, Ghawar, in Saudi Arabia, ranks first on our list. It is thought to have had more than 100 billion barrels of recoverable oil in place. At 160 miles long and 16 miles wide it confounds even the most experienced geologists. With something on the order of 60 billion produced over the past 60 years, you’d be excused for thinking that Ghawar was sliding into its twilight years. Yet the Saudis insist that Ghawar is still going strong, producing 4.5 million bpd from six main producing areas with the ability to do 5 million bpd if called upon.

The secret to Ghawar’s longevity is water injection. Starting in the 1960s Saudi Aramco began injecting water underneath the oil around the outer borders of the field. Today the water flood is up to millions of barrels a day, with the oil floating up to the top of the reservoir on sea of water. In conversations with Forbes in 2008 Aramco executives insisted that by continuing to treat Ghawar with kid gloves they’ll be able to coax 4 million bpd out of her for many years to come.

Coming in second is West Qurna, in Iraq, home to an expected 21 billion barrels of oil. This month a joint venture between ExxonMobil ( XOM – news – people ) and Royal Dutch Shell ( RDSA – news – people ) were awarded the contract to develop the 9 billion barrel first phase of the West Qurna oil field. They will aim to raise output from 300,000 bpd to 2.3 million bpd. It’s tough to make the case that the two biggest oil companies from the countries that invaded Iraq in 2003 are getting a sweetheart deal. The contract calls for the government of Iraq to retain ownership of the field and the oil. Exxon and Shell, as contractors, are to be paid just $1.90 for each a barrel they produce.

Third is Majnoon, also in Iraq. At 13 billion barrels, these massive reserves are in a relatively small area near the Euphrates River in southern Iraq. The field’s abundance was so mind-boggling that it was named Majnoon, Arabic for “crazy.” This easy oil hasn’t been developed in part because of its location so close to the Iranian border. In the 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war, managers reportedly buried the wells, concerned that they might be targeted by Iranian forces. The field produces just 50,000 bpd now, but has the potential to do 1.8 million bpd.

The Rumaila field in Iraq, with 17 billion barrels, is the forth-largest field. In November, British giant BP ( BP – news – people ) and China National Petroleum Corp. won the first oil contract of the post-Saddam era to redevelop Rumaila. Located on the border with Kuwait, the field is already producing 1 million bpd, half of Iraq’s total production. The partners intend to spend some $15 billion to treble that to 2.85 million bpd. That output would be enough to put Rumaila in second place worldwide after Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar.

So what won’t you see on this list? Mexico’s Cantarell is nowhere to be seen. It used to be the second-biggest producer in the world, giving more than 2 million bpd; it’s now in terminal decline, slipping below 400,000 bpd. Likewise Russia’s Samotlor. It was the monster field of the Soviet Union, with production peaking at 3.5 million bpd in the 1970s. Today it’s doing more like 350,000 bpd. No respect for China’s biggest field Daging either; it still produces roughly 800,000 bpd but is in serious decline.

As for Canada’s heralded oil sands region–sure it’s a massive resource, but easy oil it ain’t. Oil sands require monstrous amounts of water and natural gas to recover and process. A barrel of oil sands oil costs roughly 20 times more to produce than one from Iraq. And environmentalists think it’s dirty.

Lots of oil provinces didn’t quite make the cut. West Africa could see the biggest growth of all across Nigeria, Angola and Ghana–but so far no individual fields look big enough on their own. Same for Siberia, which has most of Russia’s production, but from mature fields.

Saudi Arabia could have been better represented. Its 750,000 bpd Shaybah field was a runner-up. Iraq too. The government didn’t receive any bids to redevelop the 8 billion barrel East Baghdad field because much of it lies under residential neighborhoods. And Kirkuk, in northern Iraq, has something like 8 billion barrels remaining, but it was damaged by overproduction in the latter years of Saddam’s rule and won’t likely regain its peak of 700,000 bpd. But it could.

FORBES ARTICLE

Shell declined comment.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Jan 20 (Reuters) – Environmental and Alaska Native groups have filed a legal challenge seeking to overturn U.S. approval of Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s (RDSa.L) plans to drill up to three wells this year off the shore of Alaska, representatives said on Wednesday.

Alaska Natives, environmental groups file legal challenge to Chukchi offshore drilling

By MARY PEMBERTON Associated Press Writer
ANCHORAGE, Alaska January 20, 2010 (AP)

The MMS has approved a Shell drilling plan for up to three exploratory wells in the Chukchi next summer.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Dear Alfred

International Medical Corps is a global, humanitarian, nonprofit organization, founded by volunteer doctors and nurses and dedicated to saving lives and relieving suffering through relief and development programs. Our emergency response team is in Haiti responding in force and I would like to ask for your help to get the word out to the readers of TellShell.net: The best of Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com. There are still thousands of patients seeking treatment of which approximately 80% are in need of surgery and are running out of time – especially with the tremendous aftershocks still devastating this country. The team is treating crush injuries, trauma, substantial wound care, shock and other critical cases with the few available supplies – And they’re in it for the long haul.  I would love your help spreading the word by blogging or tweeting about IMC’s rescue efforts. We’ve put up a blogger friendly widget here on our site:

http://www.imcworldwide.org/haiti

With the widget it’s really easy to let your readers know that donating $10 to help the people of Haiti is as simple as sending a text message of the word “haiti” to 85944. If you have any questions just let me know and I will do my best to help you out. If you are able to post the widget or tweet, I would appreciate it if you could send me the link.

Thanks so much,

Ellie

–
Ellie Brown
International Medical Corps
ellie@imc-haiti.org

TO MAKE A DONATION PLEASE VISIT….

http://www.imcworldwide.org/haiti

The New York Times

Big Oil Pursues Toreador Resources

Wednesday January 20, 2010

Several big energy conglomerates are in initial discussions to buy or partner with Toreador Resources Corporation, an independent oil and natural gas company that operates primarily in France, people briefed on the matter told DealBook.

Three big companies — Royal Dutch Shell plc, BP plc and Statoil ASA — have signed confidentiality agreements with Toreador and concluded technical due diligence on the firm’s oil properties, these people said. Toreador currently has a market value of roughly $200 million.

Representatives of Toreador and one of the three energy companies are in New York this week for meetings about how to structure a possible deal, these people said, but declined to provide the name of the company. Total S.A., the giant Spanish energy company, has also conducted initial due diligence on Toreador but has backed away for now, these people said.

In November, Toreador said it would explore strategic alternatives, including raising capital through equity or debt offerings, and a possible partnership in its primary asset, the Paris Basin oil shale. The company’s property on the Paris Basin is estimated to hold about 30 billion barrels of oil. Toreador hopes to begin drilling there by the third quarter this year.

Toreador said at the time that it had set up a special board panel and hired RBC Capital Markets as its financial advisor. The company has decided to shelve plans for a debt or equity offering and has leaned toward a joint-venture or a full merger, sources said.

Last year, Toreador took steps to strengthen its liquidity including, reducing debt, lowering costs, and selling its Turkish and Hungarian operations to focus on exploration of its French acreage. At the time, Toreador cautioned that there are no guarantees that the talks will result in any changes.

A spokesman for the company declined to comment.

– Zachery Kouwe

NYT ARTICLE

A trial against Shell Oil on these allegations is set for trial in May.