News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
US authorities have evacuated an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico near where another oil rig sank after an explosion last week. Workers on the Ocean Endeavour were evacuated as an oil slick from the wrecked platform was coming dangerously close, officials say
Click to continue reading “US evacuates oil rig after Gulf of Mexico leak”
In addition to cutting personnel costs, Shell has been investing heavily in new capacity to reverse a decade-long slide in production. Most analysts are upbeat about future prospects, but it may underperform peers until production comes on line. Shell has frozen its quarterly dividend at the 2009 level of $0.42 per share for 2010 to protect its balance sheet.
Click to continue reading “Earnings Preview: Shell to post strong Q1″
David Robertson, Business Correspondent
Tony Blair lobbied Colonel Muammar Gaddafi on behalf of Shell in a letter written for him in draft form by the oil company, documents obtained by The Times reveal.
The correspondence, written while Mr Blair was Prime Minister, bears a striking resemblance to a briefing note by Royal Dutch Shell weeks earlier promoting a $500 million (£325 million) deal it was trying to clinch in Libya.
While it is common for government ministers to champion British interests abroad, Shell’s draft reveals an unusual assurance in its ability to dictate Mr Blair’s conversation with the Libyan leader. It also raises questions about the motives behind Britain’s improved relations with Libya and the subsequent release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber. Lockerbie victims have claimed that the Government paved the way for al-Megrahi’s release as part of a deal with Libya to give British companies access to Libya’s lucrative oil and gas industry.
In the draft, Shell tells Mr Blair to discuss positive progress on weapons of mass destruction as well as the investigation into the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984.
According to the Shell draft, the letter’s objective was “to cause the Leader to instruct the Cabinet to approve/finalise quickly” the company’s deal. Shell tells the Prime Minister to congratulate the Libyan leader on Revolution Day and to comment on the “remarkable year of progress for Libya”. In relation to the Shell deal, the draft letter said: “Understand that all the terms of the agreement have now been negotiated and approved … now waiting for [Libyan] Cabinet approval.”
The Cabinet Office would release only a part of Mr Blair’s official letter but the section on Shell sounds very similar to the draft. “I understand that the necessary technical discussions with the relevant authorities in Libya have been completed satisfactorily,” it states. “All that is needed now are final decisions by the [Libyan] General People’s Committee to go ahead.” The Libyan Cabinet agreed the Shell deal shortly after this letter was written and the contract was signed in May 2005.
Both letters were released after a lengthy Freedom of Information process. The Times first asked for them after al-Megrahi was released last August on compassionate grounds by the Scottish Government, which said that he had only months to live.
Al-Megrahi, who killed 270 people on board Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, celebrated his 58th birthday in Tripoli last month. There was speculation that his release was part of a deal struck between Britain and Libya to improve diplomatic ties between the countries.
The Government denied this, although it emerged that Britain and Libya had signed a prisoner transfer deal in 2007 that included al-Megrahi. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary at the time, said that al-Megrahi had been included in the transfer deal “in view of the overwhelming interests of the UK”.
BP has signed a $900 million deal to explore offshore oilfields and BG Group, the former British Gas, is searching for resources in the Libyan Desert. Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil producer, secured a $500 million deal to build a liquid natural gas terminal on the Libyan coast. BAE Systems, Europe’s largest defence company, also struck a deal to upgrade the country’s air traffic control system.
Last September The Times requested all communication between the Department for Business and these companies. A limited number were released in December. One was an email from Shell to UK Trade & Investment dated September 2004 complaining of slow progress with its Libyan deal. Just months earlier Mr Blair and Colonel Gaddafi had met in a tent outside Tripoli to end Libya’s diplomatic isolation.
Shell declined to comment but sources familiar with the company’s lobbying operation said that it was not unusual for large businesses to discuss diplomatic support with the Government.
Rosemary Noval walks up her driveway on Panama Avenue in Carson. She and her husband, Rudy, are living in one of the 285 homes found to be sitting atop dangerous levels of toxic substances. (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)
This, they told themselves, was the perfect place to raise their three kids.
Six years later, they noticed workmen drilling holes and leaving cryptic white marks on the streets.
By last summer, they had discovered what the sudden activity meant: Preliminary tests under the direction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board had found dangerous levels of potentially explosive methane gas and benzene under the 285 homes of the Carousel tract. In some spots, tests found benzene at concentrations seldom seen, levels that could significantly increase cancer risks for residents.
The discovery has transformed a 50-acre neighborhood of palm trees and quiet streets into an environmental case study — a reminder of Southern California’s history as a center of the oil industry and the problems of ground pollution that continue to dot the region.
“How can you get a good night’s sleep?” Belinda Oglesby said. “I tell my husband, ‘Get me out of here,’ but where are we going? Who’d buy our house? It’s like a nightmare that never goes away.”
Things have only seemed to get worse. In March, the water quality board told residents not to eat fruit or vegetables grown in their backyards. Shell Oil Co., which once stored millions of gallons of crude oil in giant tanks where the houses now stand, sent letters to more than 20 homeowners recommending they minimize contact with “exposed soil in your yard.”
Many residents have begun anxiously wondering about their health. Oglesby worries about whether contamination caused her weak immune system, the chronic rashes her daughters have developed and the 10-year-old’s memory problems. A neighbor, Rosemary Noval, has the same questions about her husband’s previous bout with cancer.
Others ask about the tar-like substance that sometimes bubbles up into their lawns or through cracks in their patio.
Noval said she worries that her years of gardening have exposed her to dangerous chemicals, especially after she watched investigators pull dark, wet soil from her backyard that smelled like oil.
“The garden is where the soul feels at home,” she said. “That’s how I feel when I’m in the garden. Now I’m no longer happy in my garden because I know what’s underneath.”
“Our lives are full of uncertainty and heartache and disappointment,” she said. “That’s our lives now. It’s been ripped from us.”
The contamination in Carson was discovered by accident. Two years ago, the state Department of Toxic Substances Control was investigating the site of an old chemical plant west of the Carousel neighborhood when workers found benzene and other petroleum products in the soil and groundwater. Because the chemical plant had rarely used those products, investigators concluded they had migrated from elsewhere. The old Shell tank farm was the most likely suspect.
Starting in 1924, Shell had stored oil in what were essentially giant concrete bathtubs covered with wood. The tank farm operated in conjunction with a refinery 1 1/2 miles to the east until the mid-1960s, when the tanks were demolished and Shell sold the property. The first homes were built on the site around 1970, state records indicate.
Alison Abbott Chassin, Shell’s external affairs manager, said the oil company sold the 50 acres as is, and it was the responsibility of the developer to clean up the site.
Shell officials also have said there could be causes of contamination other than the oil tanks. Gene Freed, Shell’s project manager, said chemical residue at some homes could have been left behind by previous owners who enjoyed fiddling with cars, or been from pesticides or other household chemicals.
The company found no contamination in a house it tested near the spot on Neptune Avenue where benzene levels were highest, Freed said.
“It could be as simple as the gardener spilled gasoline there when filling up his lawn mower,” he said. “There are all kinds of things we’re finding that are not related to our operations.”
Tracy Egoscue, the water board’s executive officer, said no developer would be allowed to build on the Carousel tract today. Regardless of what the environmental laws were when Shell sold the land, the company now is legally responsible for cleaning it up, she added.
Shell was slow to cooperate with the investigation, Egoscue said. “Initially they were dragging their feet,” she added. The agency sent the company a notice of violation in April 2009.
Most residents have joined a lawsuit against Shell and others including developer Barclay Hollander Corp., which was bought by Dole Foods, according to attorneys involved in the case. Tom Girardi, the homeowners’ attorney, said Shell knew the area was polluted when it sold the property in 1966.
“It’s the most despicable situation I’ve seen in 40 years of doing this,” said Girardi, who represented plaintiffs in the in the case against Pacific Gas & Electric made famous by the movie “Erin Brockovich.” He said it was Brockovich who alerted him to the situation in the Carousel neighborhood.
Sam Unger, the water board’s assistant executive officer, said the Carousel tract “has the potential to be a very large cleanup, complicated by people living on it.” In several previous cases around the country, oil companies, chemical firms and developers have ended up paying tens of millions — sometimes hundreds of millions — of dollars to clean up polluted sites and buy homes that were built on top of polluted soil.
The homeowner lawsuit claims Shell found “significant levels of benzene” at 66 of 73 locations the company drilled, mostly streets and other public areas. In a letter to the water board, Girardi said the cancer risk exceeds the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s level of risk by a factor of 1,400. At the high level, the concentration of benzene in soil gas would be estimated to cause one additional cancer case for each 10 people who breathed it for 30 years of a 70-year lifetime.
Several experts interviewed by The Times said they were surprised at the benzene levels. David Siegel, chief of the Integrated Risk Assessment Branch of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, said if testing finds such levels inside homes, he would be worried not only about long-term affects, but short-term problems such as birth defects and neurological problems in children.
Martyn T. Smith, a professor of toxicology at UC Berkeley, said the key is how much benzene is entering people’s houses.
Even if the levels in homes turns out to be low, however, a child playing in the dirt or a dog digging with a child nearby could lead to considerable exposure, he said. “I would be highly concerned about such a site,” he said.
The level of benzene found so far “boggles my mind,” said Stephen Lester, science director for the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, an environmental advocacy group that focuses on communities at risk from toxic chemicals. “It poses serious risks for homes and anyplace where it could reach the public.”
Shell is now testing homes and digging for more samples under water board supervision. The company is splitting the samples with Girardi’s firm.
Early this month, Girardi’s investigators dug a 7-foot-deep trench in the frontyard of Adolfo Valdez’s beige ranch-style house. They hit oil mixed with the dirt at about a foot and a half, said Mark Zeko, principal hydrogeologist for Environmental Engineering and Contracting Inc. The air around the house smelled like a gas station.
Valdez, a longshoreman who has done extensive remodeling to the house himself, tells his four daughters they can’t kick the soccer ball around in the frontyard any more. “I wish I could leave,” he said. “I wish they could put me up in a rental house. What are we supposed to do?”
A house two doors down was in escrow when the buyers learned about the contamination and pulled out.
Carson Mayor Jim Dear said he hoped the attorney general will file a civil suit against Shell.
He thinks Shell and the water board are moving too slowly. “Put yourself in the shoes of someone living there,” he said. “Not knowing if it’s a dangerous environment is psychological torture.”
That’s how Matt Priest feels. Priest grew up on Marbella Avenue and bought a fixer-upper four doors down from his parents in 2003.
The longshoreman figures he’s spent $100,000 on copper plumbing, a new electrical system, granite counters and a stainless-steel double oven.
Lumber and drywall are stacked in the living room, and he wonders whether he should bother continuing with the renovation. The smell of gas permeates the house.
His mother has a rare liver disease, and his father has a disabling brain condition. At 42, Priest has an enlarged prostate, and he wonders if the contamination contributed to these medical problems.
“I’m hoping they’ll buy us out and knock down the houses,” he said. “I don’t want to live here anymore. Every day I live here is a bad day.”
jeff.gottlieb@latimes.com Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
By Ben Sharples
April 27 (Bloomberg) — Royal Dutch Shell Plc said it expects a “seamless transition” when a cleaning contract ends at its Geelong oil refinery in Australia’s Victoria State at the end of the month.
Shell anticipates no impact on production, spokesman Paul Zennaro said by phone in Melbourne today. Fuel supplies could run out by the end of the week if 20 specialist decontamination cleaners at the refinery strike, the Australian Associated Press reported, citing Jess Walsh, a Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union Victorian secretary.
To contact the reporter on this story: Ben Sharples in Melbourne at bsharples@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Viljoen at jviljoen@bloomberg.net
26 April 2010
BP plc ( BP ) is now leading the charge in containing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico following the explosion of one of its contracted offshore rigs. The company, together with Swiss drilling contractor Transocean Ltd. ( RIG ), is currently drilling a well to activate a blowout valve in order to stop oil spilling at a rate of 1,000 barrels a day. If that effort fails, the company will have to drill a second well and inject heavy fluid to stop oil from leaking out. BP said that the operation could take as long as three months
26 APRIL 2010
WASHINGTON—The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether the world’s biggest oil companies colluded to suppress managerial, professional and technical employees’ wages in ways that violated U.S. antitrust laws, according to people familiar with the matter.
The previously undisclosed probe has been open for several years and involves as many as a dozen oil companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC and Chevron Corp, these people said. The probe remains active, they added, but the five FTC commissioners have yet to vote on the matter, and it is possible a suit will never be brought.
![[FTC]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BC615_FTC_D_20100425193044.jpg)
Getty ImagesThe investigation is the latest evidence of concern among U.S. antitrust enforcers that the nation’s largest employers may be interfering with the labor market to hold down costs. The U.S. Department of Justice is carrying out a similar probe into whether companies in the technology sector have improperly agreed not to poach each other’s employees, according to people familiar with that matter. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment.
The oil companies and the FTC have discussed possible settlements over the course of the investigation but have failed to reach agreement, people familiar with the matter said. Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron declined to comment. A spokesman for the FTC wouldn’t confirm the existence of the investigation.
Agreements between companies to limit competition for workers could affect their compensation. Some recruitment experts also see a wider danger for the U.S. economy.
“Every day, companies have to go into the marketplace and compete for people,” says Charles Jones, chief executive officer of Peopleclick Authoria, a recruiting-management-software firm. “Once you start tinkering with that and creating these fiefdoms of stability, I think you’re interfering with the accumulated innovation in the economy. It’s not in the long-term interests of the country.”
The FTC’s investigation into oil-company hiring practices stems from a lawsuit brought in 1997 by a former Exxon employee, Roberta Todd, against her employer and 13 other oil companies. The suit alleged that the oil firms regularly shared information about salaries they paid managerial, professional and technical staff to set their wages at artificially low levels.
As a result, the suit alleged, Exxon alone was able to lower its salaries by $20 million a year.
The case, Todd vs. Exxon, was at first dismissed by a federal district court in New York, but the decision was overturned on appeal in 2001. The appellate ruling in favor of Ms. Todd, written by Sonia Sotomayor before she became a Supreme Court justice, was seen as putting employers on notice that exchanging salary information with their competitors could potentially violate antitrust law.
“That opinion by Sotomayor, I think now we can safely say it’s the law of the land on employer communications with regard to employees, especially if it’s a joint action,” says John Carney, a lawyer who represented Ms. Todd. However, the suit didn’t get class-action certification. Last year, the oil companies settled Ms. Todd’s suit and several others like it for an undisclosed sum, without admitting liability or wrongdoing.
About four years ago, the FTC began its inquiry into issues behind the case. Now, some FTC officials question whether the case is worth pursuing because the practices in question are likely to have ceased in the nine years since Justice Sotomayor’s appellate ruling, the people familiar with the matter said. Exxon, BP, Shell and Chevron declined to address the issue.
It isn’t necessarily illegal for companies to agree not to hire each others’ employees or even to exchange salary information, antitrust lawyers say, as long as it is narrowly focused and there is a legitimate reason for it. Companies engaged in a joint venture, for example, might reasonably agree not to hire away the employees involved.
Similarly, the Justice Department and FTC generally permit companies to conduct salary surveys, so long as the study is managed by third party and the data are more than three months old and sufficiently aggregated to make it impossible to tell which company is paying what.
But a general agreement by competitors not to hire each others’ employees—or meetings to discuss salaries—would probably violate the Sherman Act, which bans unreasonable agreements that limit competition.
Cases involving alleged collusion in hiring or compensation haven’t been a central focus of antitrust enforcement in recent times, but there are some precedents. The Justice Department has brought separate civil cases against hospitals in Utah and Arizona for allegedly conspiring to hold down nurses’ wages.
In the mid-1990s, the FTC accused clothes designers and fashion-show organizers of price fixing fees paid to runway models. All the cases were settled.
Write to Thomas Catan at thomas.catan@wsj.com
TEHRAN, April 26 (Reuters) – Iran has given Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and Repsol (REP.MC: Quote, Profile, Research) one week to decide on their involvement in the offshore South Pars natural gas field, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported on Monday.
Iran says both Anglo-Dutch Shell and Spain’s Repsol have procrastinated on finalising their involvement in the field, the world’s largest reservoir of gas. It has set similar deadlines in the past as a way of pressuring foreign investors.
Ali Vakili, managing director of the Pars Oil and Gas Company (POGC), was also quoted as saying a deadline for Turkey to clarify its involvement in developing three phases of South Pars had passed.
“We will not delay the development of South Pars phases waiting for foreign companies,” Vakili told Mehr.
Many foreign countries are investing in the field, which Iran shares with Qatar, but U.S. and U.N. sanctions have caused Western companies to treat Iran with caution, sometimes to the benefit of operators from other parts of the world.
China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) clinched a $4.7 billion deal to develop part of South Pars, supplanting Total (TOTF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) as lead partner in the project after the French firm delayed its investment decision under political pressure.
Vakili told the Iranian Oil Ministry website SHANA that POGC planned to issue bonds worth 3 billion euros and rial-denominated bonds worth around $3 billion to help finance development at South Pars [ID:nDAH630892].
Iran has the world’s second largest gas reserves but has no major net exports, partly because sanctions have deterred investment by Western firms.
Repsol and Shell signed a service contract for the Persian LNG project in January 2007, setting out the conditions for exploration and development operations in Phases 13 and 14 of South Pars. The project covers development of production and exports of liquefied natural gas from a part of the field.
In 2008, Shell delayed decisions on multi-billion dollar investments in Iranian LNG plans due to political tension.
In April last year, Iran gave Shell and Repsol until the following month to clarify their involvement in South Pars. In June, Iran said the two firms had offered a new proposal for initial production at South Pars phases 13 and 14.
LNG is gas cooled to liquid under pressure for transportation in special tankers.
(Reporting by Hashem Kalantari and Hossein Jaseb; Writing by Robin Pomeroy; editing by Amanda Cooper)
“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…” NANCY FULLER HEBBLE AND OTHERS vs SHELL OIL CO.
In May 2008, an Oklahoma jury ordered Shell Oil Co. to pay a whopping $66 million to five royalty owners for their share of the proceeds from a highly lucrative oil well dug in the early-1970s. The payments were awarded to two families who owned the land where Shell drilled for oil, but were never informed when Shell struck a huge reserve and built a well on the land in 1973.
Shell had threatened to drag the case out and in line with this policy, appealed against the jury verdict on various grounds. As Richard Wiseman, the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell plc is aware, the same threat to make litigation “drawn out and difficult” was once made to us in writing by Nigel Rowley of Mackrell Turner Garrett, the London law firm representing Shell, where Mr Wiseman begun his career as a lawyer. Shell had not realised that we too can also be difficult.
The following are extraordinary verbatim extracts from a recent decision by three Oklahoma appeal court judges who confirmed the verdict that Shell had deliberately defrauded the families:
OPINION BY CAROL M. HANSEN, Presiding Judge:
Defendant/Appellants, Shell Western E & P, Inc. and Shell Oil Company (collectively Shell), seek review of the trial court’s judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff/Appellees (Owners) for $13,205,916.00 in actual damages and $53,625,000.00 in punitive damages in Owners’ action for underpayment of oil and gas proceeds.
We find no error of law in the conduct of trial and affirm.
In 1985, Shell sold its interest in the Crews Lease to Maynard Oil Company (Maynard). Shell admits it failed to pay Owners $750,708.00 in net profits from 1973 through 1985.
In 1995, Owners filed the suit below against Shell and Maynard, seeking actual and punitive damages under theories of fraud and breach of statutory and quasi-fiduciary duties. Maynard settled with Owners and was dismissed. Shell filed multiple motions for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, among others.
The parties tried the matter to a jury in May 2008. The trial court bifurcated the issues of liability and actual damages from the issue of punitive damages. The jury found for Owners on their claims for (1) false representation, nondisclosure or concealment, deceit, or constructive fraud, and (2) breach of fiduciary duty. It awarded actual damages in the amount of$13,205,916.00. The jury then awarded $53,625,000.00 in punitive damages. The trial court entered judgment for Owners in the amount of $66,830,916.00.
The trial court made the requisite finding on the record and out of the presence of the jury there was “clear and convincing evidence of fraud, non-disclosure, concealment, deceit,” and lifted the cap on punitive damages. It then submitted the question of punitive damages to the jury.
We review the trial court’s initial determination of the presence of clear and convincing evidence of fraud for error of law.
The testimony of Shell’s division order analyst provided clear and convincing evidence Shell knew in 1988 it held oil proceeds belonging to Owners. The testimony of Shell’s designated corporate representative is clear and convincing evidence (1) Shell knew Owners did not know about the proceeds, (2) Shell did not tell Owners about the proceeds, (3) Shell knew Owners relied on Shell’s operating statements, and (4) Shell intended to keep Owners’ proceeds based on its position the statute of limitations had run in 1987, two years after it sold the Crews Lease to Maynard. Based on this record, we hold the trial court did not err as a matter of law in its initial determination of the presence of clear and convincing evidence of fraud.
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 while it owed a fiduciary duty to those owners arising from its resort to the police powers of the state in unitizing oil and gas interests.
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
MITCHELL, C.J., and HETHERINGTON, J. (sitting by designation), concur.
18 DECEMBER 2009
RELATED ARTICLES
Oklahoma jury rules in favor of royalty owners, Shell ordered to pay: 16 May 2008
Plaintiffs win $66 million from Shell Oil after making the mistake of relying on Shell’s “honesty and integrity”: 17 May 2008
Shell Oil weighs appeal of $66M verdict: 17 May 2008
Duncan Banner Daily Newspaper: Foreman explains $66 million verdict: 30 May 2008
Verdicts & Settlements January 13, 2009: Shell Oil to pay $66M to royalty owners: 13 January 2009
“Maynard Oil Co. settled prior to trial for a confidential amount, leaving Shell Oil as the sole defendant at trial.”
: It appears that Voser finally got fed up with Mr Overpromise/Underdelivery. Despite all the nice words about him, he is clearly kicked out. Plenty of sycophants around him are now fearing for their jobs and positioning themselves whom to kow-tow now. This bearded fellow wasted his great brain on very small details and he was unable to delegate. I think his only real good project was the SLIM project. This was many moons ago and launched him to the top jobs. And there he failed as frequently and eloquently pointed out on the Donovan site. Big brain, a micromanager on par with the pointy haired boss in Dilbert, a vicious and vindictive attitude to those that were of no use to him or that might talk back. In summary: Good riddance and now the legal system of Scotland can go after him. But I doubt they will.
: What goes around comes around.... The announcement of Brinded has long been anticipated. We now wait for the next much smaller announcement.... Tom Purves to retire..... This will make our day when that moment happens. Shell never deals with the issue of bad leadership until it is too late and the havoc has been wreaked.... However, as we say in the US, Every dog has its day..... and today that was Malcolm.
: So early retirement then after all that ....... REPLY BY JOHN D. You are still playing a point scoring game. You seem to forget that the avoidable deaths of Shell offshore workers on Brent Bravo is at the heart of this matter. The deaths occurred after a safety audit led by Bill Campbell exposed a shambolic, illegal and shameful safety regime on Brent Bravo. They occurred after Shell senior Expro management had promised Bill that Shell would bring an end to the "Touch F*** All" culture and the falsification of safety records. The explosion and record breaking fine provide proof that the promises were not kept. There is NO commercial aspect to this matter as far as Mr Campbell is concerned. He is driven solely by a fear of an even worse event due to the same policy by Shell of putting production and profits before the safety of offshore workers. Please give Bill some credit for his integrity and for his long campaign, which has rightly received cross-party support from many MP's.
: Agent provocateur indeed!! Never been called that before, and I am most certainly not in league with Shell in any way! I again reiterate my point : was Campbell fired or given early retirement from Shell and thereby lies his grudge or did he reach full retirement age in the company? An honest answer might convince many that his continuous aggressiveness against Shell is genuine or just an ongoing grudge. This is not a "slanging match" merely a point of clarification. REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN: Mr Campbell has made it clear that he does not wish to get into discussion with someone making insulting comments while hiding behind an alias. With regards to his comment that you may be an agent provocateur, perhaps he gained that impression from checking your history of postings. Just so there is no misunderstanding, we welcome contributors who provide a counter-balance to negative postings about Shell. I have provided some links to further information about the Brent Bravo scandal. Despite all of the promises by Shell senior management about safety, which including appointing a safety Czar, its track record remains atrocious. Years after the Brent Bravo debacle, it was revealed that the lifeboats for a Shell North Sea platform were not seaworthy. You could not make it up. “Lifeboats trouble at Brent field” published on 14 March 2008, UpstreamOnline revealed “SHELL’s safety record on its Brent Bravo platform in the UK Northern North Sea is once again under scrutiny after the discovery of technical problems with two lifeboats on the installation that resulted in both of them being removed from service.” Jake Molloy, general secretary of the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee was quoted in the article by Christopher Hopson as claiming “If they had loaded up this particular lifeboat, the chances are it could have been launched into the sea in an uncontrolled fashion which would have caused death or injury as it was held in place by corrosion and not by the designed system”. The article said that problems had been found with a second lifeboat on the Brent Bravo platform. It also reported that a lifeboat had launched itself into the sea from Shell’s Tern platform because the brakes and clutches were “dysfunctional” and had damaged the launch mechanism off the platform. Shell confirmed problems had been discovered with two lifeboats on Brent Bravo during “routine maintenance”. Shell was quoted as stating that it viewed the matter seriously and had “mobilised an investigation team on the platform”. BILL CAMPBELL EMAIL SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE UK HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL SAFETY CONCERNS
: LondonLad: In many cases "Reaching Retirement age" in Shell simply means being unable to find a position outside Shell -nowadays the most competent people generally move on long before reaching retirement age and pursue a second career elsewhere.
: To : an observer of Shell, you state "It is commonly known that a great many employees of Shell Expro are freemasons". Where did you get this "fact" from - smoking whacky backy?? I doubt very much that a great many are indeed freemasons. Even if they are (wich I seriously doubt), so what? Let's face it they are a society that provide one of the largest contributions to charities in the UK. I think you very clearly have an axe to grind against Shell. In that context why does Campbell have such a chip on his shoulder over Shell? Was he sacked for some reason? Did he actually reach his retirement age in Shell? Would be nice to know so that we can believe more that his rants are genuine problems he has with Shell rather than caused by some hidden grudge.
: GTW, I know you are right, TP and others will get their due. What is painful is that those whose lives have been changed and whose spirits have been destroyed because of his actions, will not be compensated. Tom is not the only one taking credit for this new cruel process of forced ranking, by claiming credit for what market demand has meant for profits. There are promotions taking place right now because credit is claimed by those executing Tom's plan for performance 'refirings'. I worked in manufacturing sites where management and performance was a joke, and profits were above forecast. It's always been market demand and the hard work of the folks on the ground that make manufacturing successful, Tom is not a pioneer in taking undue credit for local successes, but he has certainly been the cruelest!
: I have no proof nor will I ever find that proof, but this reprehensible conduct of the legal authorities smells to high heaven of masonic lodges. It is commonly known that a great many employees of Shell Expro are freemasons. The police forces all over the world are well presented in the various lodges. I would not be surprised if Brinded himself is a member. Bill Campbell is a very courageous man taking on these evil forces. We in Shell all knew him to be a completely honest and competent Maintenance manager and HSE auditor. But he loses against all the parasites and sycophants whose sole job is to protect the directors. And then live well on the spoils of their abhorrent activities. Top marks for the Donovans who keep this festering sore in the spotlight. To some it maybe a lot of repeating old stories, but those that want to hide and bury their bad actions know that time is on their side. And Shell has deep pockets and knows how to procrastinate.
: John, there is no issue with my post. This is the same GTW that has been providing updates for some time on the ill fated project CEP and the ill fated Tom Purves, both of which should be going fading into the background this year as old worn out news.
: I retract my previous statement. COMMENT BY JOHN DONOVAN: WE HAVE REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THIS POSTING IS NOT IN FACT FROM THE PARTY WHO USES THE ALIAS "GOLDENTRIANGLE WATCHMAN ON THIS BLOG, BUT IS FROM AN IMPOSTER.
Shell Blog RSS Feed
