NASDAQ

By Fawn Johnson, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will begin distributing about $113.5 million to some 84,000 investors Friday stemming from a 2004 settlement with Royal Dutch/Shell Group after it was accused of overstating its oil reserves.

A federal court approved the distribution plan earlier this week. The “Fair Fund” made interim distributions of about $4.2 million last year.

The SEC has set up a Web site, a toll-free number, and an e-mail account to handle questions about payments from the settlement. Investors who bought Royal Dutch or Shell common stock between April 8, 1999, and March 17, 2004 are potentially eligible for payments, according to the SEC Web site.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) merged with Shell Transport and Trading Co. in 2005. The firm was accused of overstating reserves by 4.47 billion barrels – or 23%.

Information about the distribution, including toll-free numbers for 11 countries, can be found at www.ShellSECSettlement.com. Investors in the U.S. may contact the distribution agent by telephone at 1-866-446-3412 or by e-mail at info@ShellSECSettlement.com.

-By Fawn Johnson, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9263; fawn.johnson@dowjones.com -0-

  (MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires
  04-30-101225ET
  Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

The US administration has banned oil drilling in new areas of the US coast pending investigations into the cause of the oil spill off Louisiana.

“No additional drilling has been authorised and none will until we find out what happened,” White House adviser David Axelrod told ABC television.

Last month President Barack Obama eased a moratorium on new offshore drilling.

Up to 5,000 barrels of oil a day are thought to be spilling into the water after last week’s rig explosion.

The slick has begun to reach the Louisiana shore, and the US Navy has been sent to help avert an economic and environmental disaster.

State of emergency

Mr Axelrod announced the ban on drilling in new areas in an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America programme on Friday.

He also defended the administration’s response to the 20 April explosion that destroyed the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon rig, saying “we had the Coast Guard in almost immediately”.

The US government has designated the Gulf of Mexico oil spill as an “incident of national significance”. This allows it to draw on resources from across the country.

The wetlands off the coast of Louisiana sustain hundreds of wildlife species and a big seafood and fishing industry.

Governor Bobby Jindal has declared a state of emergency and asked for federal funds to deploy 6,000 National Guard soldiers to help with the clean-up.

The states of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida are also threatened, as oil continues to escape from the wreckage of the rig.

BBC ARTICLE

The Associated Press

Published: April 29th, 2010 11:39 AM
Last Modified: April 29th, 2010 11:40 AM

FAIRBANKS — A large oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has come at a tricky time for two companies seeking to increase Arctic exploration.

REUTERS

* Shell plans no expansions in oil sands

* Expects to boost output from existing ops (In U.S. dollars unless noted)

CALGARY, Alberta, April 29 (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSa.L) has no plans to quickly expand its oil sands operations, focusing instead on tweaking output from its existing investments, the head of Shell’s U.S. arm told a Canadian newspaper.

In an interview with the Globe and Mail’s editorial board, Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Co, said the company was unlikely to launch a major expansion of its 60 percent-owned Athabasca oil sands project because new projects in the region, which contains the largest crude reserves outside the Middle East, are too expensive.

Shell’s chief executive, Peter Voser, has also said the company has no near-term plans to expand its oil sands project.

Shell has nearly completed a 100,000 barrel per day expansion of the Athabasca project, which currently produces 155,000 bpd. The costs of the project was last pegged at $14.3 billion ($14.2 billion), well ahead of the original estimate of between C$10 billion and C$12.8 billion.

Rising costs and falling oil prices forced the delay or cancellation of about C$90 billion of oil sands projects during the recession. However the lower number of projects freed up skilled labor and improved productivity, lowering construction costs.

Over the past year, Shell’s rivals in the region, including Imperial Oil Ltd (IMO.TO), Total SA (TOTF.PA), Suncor Energy Inc (SU.TO) and others have said they will go ahead with their planned projects.

However Odum told the Globe that Shell would instead look to boost output from its existing operations, which could add another 30,000 to 80,000 bpd of production.

The Athabasca project includes an oil sands mine near Fort McMurray, Alberta, and an upgrader to convert the mined bitumen into refinery-ready synthetic crude. Marathon Oil Corp (MRO.N) and Chevron Corp (CVX.N) each hold 20 percent stakes in the project.

($1=$1.01 Canadian) (Reporting by Scott Haggett; editing by Rob Wilson)

REUTERS ARTICLE

April 30 (Bloomberg) — Royal Dutch Shell Plc and PetroChina Co. received approval from Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board to acquire gas producer Arrow Energy Ltd. in a A$3.5 billion ($3.3 billion) transaction.

April 30 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Interior Department inspectors began boarding deep-water platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, and Louisiana asked for help from the National Guard as an oil sheen reportedly washed ashore in the worst rig spill in four decades.

The U.S. will “use every single available resource at our disposal,” in response to the spill, President Barack Obama said yesterday. BP Plc, which owns the leaking well, is “ultimately responsible” for paying for the cleanup, the president said. A faint sheen washed ashore on the Louisiana coastline last night, the Associated Press reported. Oil may hit Mississippi tomorrow, Alabama in two days and Florida in three, according to a government forecast.

Oil is escaping from the well at a rate of about 5,000 barrels a day, five times faster than previously estimated, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. At that rate, the volume of the leak will exceed Alaska’s 1989 Exxon Valdez accident by the third week of June, making it the worst U.S. oil spill.

“This has a danger of becoming an utter ecological disaster,” said Ken Medlock, a fellow in energy and resource economics at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston. “This is going to result in remediation costs, and is going to be burdensome, to say the least.”

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal declared a state of emergency and demanded extra oil barriers from BP and the U.S. Coast Guard to protect wildlife preserves that nurture a $1.8 billion seafood industry, the richest in the U.S. behind Alaska.

“As you surmise, we will not be commenting.  As always, you cannot take our silence to mean that we agree with any of your conclusions.”: Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc 29 April 2010

NANCY FULLER HEBBLE AND OTHERS vs SHELL OIL CO.

On 13 April 2010, Shell filed an “APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO SUSPEND EFFECTIVENESS OF MANDATE“. It relates to the 18 December, 2009 decision by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirming a judgment on a jury verdict in the Hebble v Shell royalties fraud case.

The jury awarded the Plaintiffs/Appellees $750,708 in principal, $12,455,208 in pre-judgment interest, and $53,625,000 in punitive damages.

The mandate is the instrument used by the Oklahoma Supreme Court to signal that they are finished with the case.  Shell asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to suspend the effectiveness of the mandate so that the plaintiffs would not collect on the judgment pending a ruling by the United States Supreme Court.

Shell states they are appealing constitutional issues.  The only US Constitutional issue is whether the award of punitive damages violates Shell’s 14th Amendment due process rights.

The US Supreme Court will not review the judgment for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, as Shell has exhausted their appeals on those issues.

The behavior of relevant Shell Oil Co. executives and lawyers could hardly have been more unethical. It is not just the misdeeds of those responsible for the fraud and deceit perpetrated against ordinary American families, but also the incredible decision to defend the misdeeds in long drawn out litigation through the courts, adding to the impact on the families in terms of stress and uncertainty. These are families, which the jury found, had been deliberately deceived and cheated by Shell.

The conclusion reached by the Appeal Court judges is damning:

“In the present case, the reprehensibility of Shell’s conduct is heightened by its intentional deceit of the interest owners whose oil proceeds it held for their benefit…”

Since such conduct is in blatant breach of Shell core business principles, pledging honesty, integrity and transparency in all of Shell’s dealings, it seems proper to ask what action is being taken by Shell against (1) those responsible for perpetrating the fraud and deceit and (2) those who authorised and implemented the litigation trying to defend the indefensible?

As can be seen from recent high level email correspondence with Shell printed below in its entirety, Shell has not been prepared to comment.

EMAIL TO RICHARD WISEMAN 27 APRIL 2010

From: Alfred Donovan <alfred@shellnews.net>
Date: 27 April 2010 23:59:25 BST
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: NANCY FULLER HEBBLE AND OTHERS vs SHELL OIL CO.

Dear Mr Wiseman

When you contacted me on 26 February, you were kind enough to enquire about my health. I know from the Shell internal documents supplied to us in response to a Data Protection Act application that Shell maintains a touching interest in my antiquity.

Consequently, I know you will be delighted that I have now reached the grand age of 93 thanks to the NHS and in particular, my local GP, Dr Tirunelveli L Ashok Kumar and his wonderful staff at the Highwoods Surgery.

I have printed below, the draft of an article we plan to publish which is a follow-up on the recent posting: “Oklahoma Appeals Court Rules Shell Guilty of Royalties Fraud“.

Please feel free to point out any error in what we state as fact. In particular, I draw your attention to the paragraph which says: “The US Supreme Court will not review the judgment for fraud and breach  of fiduciary duty, as Shell has exhausted their appeals on those issues.”

Please also feel free to supply any comment for publication on an unedited basis.

There is no panic for a reply, but please be kind enough to say if you do not intend to comment, in which case there would be no point in delaying publication.

Best Regards

Alfred Donovan

DRAFT ARTICLE

Headline: Shell appeal to U.S. Supreme Court on issues arising from oil royalties fraud verdict

NANCY FULLER HEBBLE AND OTHERS vs SHELL OIL CO.

On 13 April 2010, Shell filed an “APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO SUSPEND EFFECTIVENESS OF MANDATE” relating to the 18 December, 2009 decision by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirming a judgment on a jury verdict in the Hebble v Shell royalties fraud case.

The jury awarded the Plaintiffs/Appellees $750,708 in principal, $12,455,208 in pre-judgment interest, and $53,625,000 in punitive damages.

The mandate is the instrument used by the Oklahoma Supreme Court to signal that they are finished with the case.  Shell asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to suspend the effectiveness of the mandate so that the plaintiffs would not collect on the judgment pending the ruling by the United States Supreme Court.

Shell states they are appealing constitutional issues.  The only US Constitutional issue is whether the award of punitive damages violates Shell’s 14th Amendment due process rights.

The US Supreme Court will not review the judgment for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, as Shell has exhausted their appeals on those issues.

DRAFT ENDS

FOLLOW-UP  EMAIL TO RICHARD WISEMAN: 29 APRIL 2010

From: Alfred Donovan <alfred@shellnews.net>
Date: 29 April 2010 11:18:21 BST
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: NANCY FULLER HEBBLE AND OTHERS vs SHELL OIL CO.

Dear Mr Wiseman

Perhaps you are checking the facts with U.S. colleagues before responding to my email of 27 April?

The implications arising from the Appeal Courts decision must be of immense concern to you as Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell?

The behavior of relevant Shell Oil Co. executives and lawyers could hardly have been more unethical. It is not just the misdeeds of those responsible for the fraud and deceit perpetrated against ordinary American families, but also the incredible decision to defend the misdeeds in long drawn out litigation through the courts, adding to the impact on the families in terms of stress and uncertainty.

The conclusion reached by the Appeal Court judges is damning:

“In the present case, the reprehensibility of Shell’s conduct is heightened by its intentional deceit of the interest owners whose oil proceeds it held for their benefit…”

Since such conduct is in blatant breach of Shell core business principles, pledging honesty, integrity and transparency in all of Shell’s dealings, what action is being taken against (1) those responsible for perpetrating the fraud and deceit and (2) those who authorised and implemented the litigation trying to defend the indefensible?

If I hear nothing from you by 3pm UK time tomorrow, I will assume Shell has decided it best under the circumstances, not to comment on the debacle.

I will also assume that Shell does not challenge our statement of fact that the US Supreme Court will not review the judgment for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, as Shell has exhausted the appeals process on these issues.

Best Regards
Alfred Donovan

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN 29 APRIL 2010

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 29 April 2010 11:21:39 BST
To: alfred@shellnews.net
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: RE: NANCY FULLER HEBBLE AND OTHERS vs SHELL OIL CO.

Dear Mr Donovan

As you surmise, we will not be commenting.  As always, you cannot take our silence to mean that we agree with any of your conclusions.

Best Wishes
Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office:  Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

April 29 (Bloomberg) — Royal Dutch Shell Plc has put plans to expand operations in Alberta’s oil sands on hold for at least five years, the Globe and Mail reported, citing Marvin Odum, the company’s Americas head.

Costs to build in the oil sands have increased, prompting the company to delay any decisions to expand its Athabasca Oil Sands project until at least the second half of the decade, the newspaper said.

Royal Dutch will instead focus on increasing production at existing facilities, planning to produce a further 30,000 to 80,000 barrels a day, Odum told the Globe.

To contact the reporter on this story: Sean B. Pasternak in Toronto at spasternak@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: April 29, 2010 07:10 EDT

Bloomberg.com Article

ft.com

By Andrwe Hill Published: April 28 2010 22:54

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.

FULL FT ARTICLE

“Royal Dutch Shell is the only major oil company objecting to the plan by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to limit speculative positions in U.S. oil and gas futures. In view of its track record of market manipulation, including false reporting, fictitious sales, fictitious trades and manipulation of natural gas prices, the attempt to block regulation is predicable by the predatory oil giant which has no shame.”

REUTERS

Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:43pm ED

(Reuters) – The biggest Wall Street energy traders and top producers filed fierce last-minute objections to a proposed plan to limit speculative positions in U.S. oil and gas futures, hoping to halt a crackdown that has been lauded by consumers but decried by market participants.

In letters to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission released on Wednesday, Morgan Stanley, Barclays Capital and BlackRock Inc joined others in saying the proposal to set a hard cap on the number of contracts any single party can hold would hurt hedgers and lead to a loss of liquidity.

“We are concerned that the current proposal is premature, unnecessarily complex and operationally unworkable,” wrote Joseph Gold, managing director with Barclays Capital, warning it could force many large, diverse traders to downsize significantly or divest portions of their businesses.

Morgan Stanley, which along with Goldman Sachs has long been the biggest energy trader on Wall Street, urged the agency not to take action until broad financial regulatory reform pending in the U.S. Senate is complete.

Five Democratic lawmakers countered these claims from financial firms, arguing in a letter that the CFTC should not wait for Congressional action before instituting position limits.

The Representatives, including Bart Stupak of Michigan, urged the CFTC to implement aggregate position limits across all markets, taking into account market participants’ full positions in over-the-counter and foreign markets.

The House passed financial reform last year.

Royal Dutch Shell, the only major oil company to weigh in on the plan, said the limits would add costs without yielding benefits. The American Petroleum Institute, the leading trade group for oil and natural gas industry, warned that the limits could severely limit hedging activity of energy companies that engage in swap trading.

CFTC Commissioner Gary Gensler told Reuters on Monday that he was still wading through the thousands of comment letters and there is no timetable for making a decision on the energy position limit proposal.

The firms’ letters released Wednesday were familiar, as a host of analysts have questioned the connection between speculative trading or passive investment and the run-up in oil prices to a record $147 a barrel in 2008, the painful period that provoked a political impetus to take action to tame energy prices.

Energy producers have by and large lined up in opposition to the plan, fearing it could limit their ability to hedge their vast global positions. Analysts say it could also force them to curtail profitable speculative trade.

Energy market end users, such as the airlines industry, have called for more regulation of the excessive speculation that they say is responsible for volatile commodity prices.

Delta Air Lines, the world’s largest airline, said CFTC’s proposed position limits are too high.

Delta said the rapid rise and decline in energy prices in 2007 and 2008 cost it about $8 billion, including $1.7 billion in hedging losses and premiums.

“Without an overall cap on speculative interest, these limits will be ineffective in controlling excessive speculation,” wrote Richard Hirst, general counsel for Delta.

(Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

REUTERS ARTICLE

COMMENT BY JOHN DONOVAN

Royal Dutch Shell is the only major oil company objecting to the plan by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to limit speculative positions in U.S. oil and gas futures. In view of its track record of market manipulation, including false reporting, fictitious sales, fictitious trades and manipulation of natural gas prices, the attempt to block regulation is predicable by the predatory oil giant which has no shame.