Plave thinks from a legal standpoint that trying to remove online postings or prevent bloggers from posting content is a fruitless activity for an offended firm. “There is no point in a business trying to stop comment,” he says, alluding to first amendment rights that protect the free speech of American citizens. “This is why firms do not pursue pulling content off demeaning websites.”

Posting by “schnitzer” 16 August 2010

We have a 2003 Facelift Freelander TD4 HSE, it has run normally and as expected until we filled the vehicle with the new Shell Fuel Save Diesel on Saturday 24th July, 2010, since then the revs are all over the place, the vehicle hesitant when start/stopping at places like roundabouts, struggling at higher speeds on the motorway, really feels bad. The car was checked on Saturday last, no faults were highlighted on the computer, but you could hear that the vehicle was not happy.

Then a BMW X3 diesel came in ! same engine, same Shell fuel, same problem, also nothing reporting on the computer system.

Hopefully, a tank of the Sainsburys taste the difference will clear the Shell. Fingers crossed.

RELATED ARTICLES

Shell in court over misleading ad claims

Shell FuelSave reminiscent of Formula Shell debacle

Shell gasoline debacles

Updated 7:04 PM Monday Aug 16, 2010

Ads for oil giant Shell misled consumers by giving them the impression they could travel “appreciably further” by using the company’s petrol, a marketing expert testified today.

Shell New Zealand is defending 22 charges laid by the Commerce Commission under the Fair Trading Act.

They relate to an advertising campaign from April 2006 to May 2007 in which Shell claimed a fuel economy formula added to its petrol was “designed to take you further”.

Commerce Commission lawyer John Dixon told Wellington District Court today that the advertising made false or misleading claims, and the company had engaged in conduct that was liable to mislead the public.

A peer-reviewed study by Shell found the additive increased fuel efficiency by an average of only 0.98 percent over petrol with no additives.

That amounted to an extra 6km for every 650km travelled, or yearly savings of only about $20 if a driver spent an average of $2000 on petrol a year.

Mr Dixon said only 5 percent of petrol sold in New Zealand did not contain additives of a similar nature to Shell’s.

Otago University marketing researching Sarah Todd, a consumer behaviour specialist, said the ads gave the strong impression drivers could travel “appreciably further” using Shell’s petrol.

The court was shown a television ad featuring a skier jumping over a village, with the words “designed to take you further”.

The ad gave the impression of a huge leap forward, Prof Todd said.

A print ad suggested drivers using Shell’s petrol would have to stop for coffee breaks because they would have to stop less often for fuel.

The campaign gave “the impression of a significant benefit” to consumers but did not provide numerical evidence, Prof Todd said.

“At no stage are they given information as to what it means to them as an average driver.”

Consumers might have been given a different impression had the ads contained the figures, she said.

Shell lawyer Les Taylor said Prof Todd had “no evidence whatsoever” that the average driver would not consider the 0.98 percent efficiency increase appreciable.

Figures were not used in the ads because Shell could not guarantee how much further the average driver was able to travel, he said.

Mr Taylor questioned Prof Todd’s suitability as an expert witness, saying she was making “vague assertions” and expressing a unique opinion not based on research.

Judge Michael Behrens allowed her evidence to continue.

“An expert witness is entitled to an opinion based on their own knowledge.”

The trial is set down to continue until Thursday.

- NZPA

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES

Shell FuelSave reminiscent of Formula Shell debacle

Its like a walk down memory lane for those of us who remember the launch of another wonder fuel by Shell in 1986, Formula Shell, based on new technology and with a scientific image deliberately conjured up by Shell.

There was only one small problem. The new wonder fuel ruined many car engines and it did so on an international basis.

Shell gasoline debacles

By a former employee of Shell Oil USA

Reuters Article: Shell critic says oil major targeting his website

John

I must say that I have been very surprised (and  disturbed) to learn of the extent of Shell’s activities in the monitoring of their employees, their outside critics, etc. I find the creation of an internal ‘thought police’ organ very disturbing. Even more disturbing is the employment of former high level British and American governmental ‘spooks and cops’ to run these organizations. Shell’s relationship with the FBI is also very disturbing. Furthermore, Shell’s actions toward you and your blog have been almost ‘neo-facist’ in nature. (Henri Deterding would be proud of them, I am sure. Traditions die hard, I guess.)

Who hires these guys? Fear does nothing for staff performance or loyalty, and it breeds loathing, contempt, and rebellion. It is very bad for business and the bottom line because it drives away the best and the brightest.

All this nonsense brings to mind a number of books I read as a youth. One was George Orwell’s ’1984′. There are some lessons to be learned from that book, good and bad I suppose. (As I  recall the ‘pigs’ were the ruling caste. No. That was Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’. The ‘Party’ and ‘Big Brother’ ruled in ’1984′.) I wonder if these two books are recommended reading for Shell management? (They might try reading John Locke’s comments on tolerance and the various forms of tyranny as well. However, you might have to remind these folks who John Locke was.) There has to be a good editorial comment lurking in this observation somewhere. I will have to ponder it and see what I can come up with.

When I worked for Shell USA in the 1980′s the HR gang (Human Resources) was referred to as the ‘thought police’. The term ‘Resources’ was snickered at as well. Staff was a ‘resource’ to be ‘exploited’, just like natural resources. Why Shell USA management chose the term ‘Resources’ is a mystery to me. Very bad form. Most companies would use the term Human Relations or Employee Relations. Not Shell. But the term accurately reflected the attitude of management towards their staff.

Times have changed but management culture and their attitude toward their staff clearly has not. Shell would be served far better if the time and resources involved in policing and repressing staff attitudes and discontent were directed toward the process of selecting competent managers of both talent and character. This would do more for staff moral, attitude, loyalty and performance than any degree of bullying and repression.

Just a thought or two from a former Shell USA employee.

“…sold for a song by accident-prone Royal Dutch Shell yielded Cairn one of the country’s largest-ever finds and catapulted it into the FTSE 100.”

SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

Cairn shareholders set for £1bn windfall when Indian oil fields are sold to Vedanta

Shareholders in Cairn Energy are in line for a windfall of at least £1bn, with the oil explorer close to completing a £5bn deal to sell its giant Indian oil fields to Vedanta Resources.

By Rowena Mason
Published: 10:58PM BST 14 Aug 2010

By Joe Blow

It was with some elation that I heard of Mr. Purves’ fall from grace with his superiors. In fact I popped the cork on a fine bottle of wine that I have been saving for just such an occasion.  As I sipped my wine and imagined what must have happened, many theories ran through my mind, “Did Botts suddenly grow a brain”, “Did Williams realize what an idiot Purves was”, “Did Voser finally listen to the people”.  Unfortunately for so many, this is a measure of justice, not the absolute Justice we deserve.

It is no secret to people who have read past comments posted on this blog, Tom Purves is rotten to the core. The destruction he has wreaked on the gulf coast is unimaginable.  It has been mentioned that Tom will see this move as a reward, that is a clear sign of the delusion that he lives in.  The remaining world can clearly see that Tom is being brushed aside so that he may be promptly blamed for the albatross known as “CEP”.  I find it quite comical myself. When Forrest managed CEP it was failing from lack of management, Tom will cause a complete 180 and bring his signature style of micromanagement to the project which should accelerate the projects failure.

The important message in these moves is clear.  Steve Rathweg is being sent in to restore some integrity in the VP role.  The key for Steve is to understand the damage Tom has done in his time, to recognize the remaining threat that Tom’s minions pose, and to figure a way to neutralize and re-engage the people of the gulf coast sites that have been so severely de-moralized.  Steve is a good guy and I expect that he is more than capable of fulfilling this tall order.

Related: Leaked Email from Shell VP Tom Purves reveals confidential Motiva Business Plans

“I have about as much faith that the US Congress will do the ‘right thing’ as I do that oil industry management will do the ‘right thing’. ZIP. ZERO. NONE. There is too much oil industry money floating around the halls of Congress.”

Comment by former employee of Shell Oil USA on the LA Times article…

BP spill may cause sea change for energy industry

There a lot of us oil industry ‘worker bees’ who have a thing or two to say about the industry. Most of us find the work in the oil industry, particularly the upstream side of the industry, fascinating, challenging, and extremely rewarding, and would not change careers if we had the chance. There isn’t another profession like it in the world.

But most of us also find the way the industry is managed to be dismally poor and outright abhorring and disgusting at times. Your blog provides a much needed outlet.

The US oil industry has several serious problems here in the States.

However, the most serious may be the fact that they don’t have a political representative at the highest levels of government to make their case and co-opt their regulatory adversaries.

During the Reagan years G.H.W. Bush senior was V.P., and as an ex-oil industry manager he wielded a great deal of influence, at the White House and with Congress, that the oil industry benefited from. When Bush Sr. was President oil companies had a very easy time of it. Clinton’s administration was not overly friendly to the oil industry, but they weren’t overtly hostile either. Of course, with G.W. Bush junior in the White House, and Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton as VP, the oil industry was in the drivers seat.

Don’t think that the war in Iraq wasn’t about oil and political payback to the oil industry for all their support. Iraq has potentially some of the largest on-shore reserves of ‘easy oil’ left to discover. Estimates run as high as perhaps 300-500 billion bbls. That makes oil industry CEO’s drool all over themselves. Of course, Halliburton has made a FORTUNE on that war.

Now, there is nobody in the White House that is beholding to ‘big oil’. And the BP disaster, and revelations of corruption and collusion at DOI and MMS, have only added to the oil industry’s problem.

The real problem the US oil industry has it that it tries to operate in this country like it does in third world countries, i.e., by co-opting the political leadership and demanding special tax treatment, royalty ‘holidays’, and non-enforcement or lax enforcement of environmental and worker safety laws as the ‘quid pro quo‘ for political financial support. They have tried to corrupt the political process here in the US with their vast monetary resources like they have done in most of the rest of the world. And to a good degree they have succeeded. In the US Congress you only get what you pay for.

Now the political winds in Washington have changed somewhat and it is time to pay the piper, maybe, to a degree. The oil industry lobby is working overtime to stop unfriendly legislation and ‘costly’ and ‘unnecessary job killing’ regulation. Time will tell how successful they are.

I have about as much faith that the US Congress will do the ‘right thing’ as I do that oil industry management will do the ‘right thing’. ZIP. ZERO. NONE. There is too much oil industry money floating around the halls of Congress.

Articles and links supplied by a former employee of Shell Oil USA.

ARTICLES

The Arctic and Shell

What happens if Statoil is involved in major Arctic Ocean blowout?

Statoil, Shell and the Arctic Ocean

LINKS

Shell Chukchi Sea Application 2010 Application for Incidental Harassment Authorization for the Non-Lethal Taking of Whales and Seals in Conjunction with Planned 2010 Exploration Drilling Program Chukchi Sea, Alaska: April 2010

(IF SHELL WISHES TO EXPLAIN HOW YOU “TAKE” A WILD MULTI -TON WHALE IN A “NONE LETHAL” FASHION, WE WILL HAPPILY PUBLISH THAT INFORMATION HERE – I HAVE CHECKED THE 50 PAGES IN THIS SHELL DOCUMENT AND CANNOT FIND AN EXPLANATION?)

I have lifted some text from the NOAA EIS that relates to the bureaucratic definitions of ‘take’ and ‘harassment’. As can be seen, they are not benign definitions. These folks talk about ‘temporary loss’ of hearing. How did they determine this with cetaceans (whales)? Do these people know what they are talking about?

NMFS Statutory and Regulatory Mandates

Under the MMPA, the taking of marine mammals without a permit or exemption from NMFS is prohibited.

“Take” under the MMPA means:

“to harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect.”

Except with respect to certain activities not relevant here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

“…any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (a) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (b) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering but which does not have the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level B harassment].”

To date, NMFS’ policy has been to use the 180-decibel (dB) root-mean-squared (rms) received level for cetaceans and 190-dB rms received level for pinnipeds to indicate where temporary threshold shift (TTS, or temporary loss of portion of hearing sensitivity) of these animals from acoustic exposure begins. Since TTS does not result in a permanent loss of hearing sensitivity, and the animal is expected to fully recover from TTS after a certain period of time (see review in Southall et al., 2007), NMFS views TTS as Level B harassment. In addition, NMFS uses the 160-dB rms isopleth for cetaceans and 170-dB rms for pinnipeds to indicate where Level B behavioral harassment begins for acoustic sources, including impulse sounds, such as those used for seismic surveys. In order to obtain an exemption from the MMPA’s prohibition on taking marine mammals, a citizen of the United States who engages in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region must obtain an incidental take
authorization (ITA) under section 101(a)(5)(A) or (D) of the MMPA. An ITA shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or stock by such citizen will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. NMFS shall also prescribe, where applicable the
permissible methods of taking and other means of affecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat (i.e., mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings). ITAs may be issued as either (1) regulations and associated Letters of Authorization (LOAs) where there is a potential for serious injury or mortality; or (2) IHAs, when there is no potential for serious injury or mortality or where any such potential can be negated through required mitigation measures.

As part of the MMPA authorization process, applicants are required to provide detailed mitigation plans that outline what efforts will be taken to reduce negative impacts to marine mammals, and their availability for subsistence use, to the lowest level practicable. In addition, IHA authorizations require that operators conduct monitoring, which should be designed to result in an increased knowledge of the species and an
understanding of the level and type of takings that result from the authorized activities. Under the MMPA, NMFS further requires that monitoring be designed to provide information and data verifying (or disputing) that the taking of marine mammals are, in fact, negligible and there are no unmitigable adverse impacts on the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses.

In making a determination of no unmitigable adverse impacts to subsistence uses of marine mammals, NMFS and MMS consider whether a Plan of Cooperation (POC) is negotiated between the affected Alaskan Native communities and the applicants………

Statoil rewrites the rulebook: Sept 2007

Statoil wants to drill off Greenland: 25 November, 2009

Forum magazine – Statoil’s clean sweep on safety

Another article on Statoil. Maybe the WWF would be interested in this and perhaps lobby for the imposition of Norwegian safety standards in the Arctic offshore! They have the ear of the White House, so why not raise the issue?

Norwegian oil company increases Alaska holdings in Chukchi Sea: 2010

Why Norway’s offshore drilling is safer: 3 May 2010

This recent Guardian article on oil rig safety issues also mentions Statoil: BP threatened with legal case over safety of all its oil rigs

Norway’s offshore oil drilling safety record: 4 May 2010

For Big Oil, the N-word is “nationalize”: 27 May 2010

The real driving force in the Norwegian oil industry for safety, the environment, etc. is the Petroleum Safety Authority. I have included a link to their web site. They have their regulations on-line. PETROLEUM SAFETY AUTHORITY NORWAY

I have attached a link to an article in off-shore technology about BP’s proposed development of the Liberty Field in Alaska. It is interesting because of the use of extreme extended reach drilling technology. The cost of building a gravel island directly above the field was prohibitive. BP didn’t even consider some sort of man-made platform.

BP slows down plans for Liberty oil field: 6 July 2010

Six lessons from the BP oil spill: 10 July 2010

Alaska Gov: Judge Clears Shell’s Offshore Seismic Oil Testing: 6 August 2010

Still on hold: Statoil’s Chukchi seismic in doubt after injunction: 8 August 2010

BP America, BPXA may be fined $500m for repeated violations: 1 April 2009

Poisoning the Well: Jan 1997

Frontier Discoverer (The Frontier Discoverer was originally built as a log carrier and was converted in 1975 to a Sonat Offshore Drilling Discoverer Class turret moored drillship.)

The Biggest Oil Spills in History
Arctic Melting and Oil: Countries Stake Claims as World Faces Environmental Disaster
Chukchi Cap
Recent blowout is one of only 18 in Alaska: 18 December 2008
Arctic Governments And Industry Still Unprepared For Oil Spills 20 Years After Exxon Valdez: 19 March 2009
Arctic Oil: A Boon For Nest Predators: 9 September 2009
Low Concentrations of Oxygen and Nutrients Slowing Biodegradation of Exxon Valdez Oil: 18 January 2010
Arctic Voyage Illuminating Ocean Optics 26 July 2010
Alaska’s Arctic Seas: Court Ruling Halts Offshore Lease Sale 27 July 2010
U.S.-Canadian mission set to map Arctic seafloor: 1 August 2010
Chukchi Sea Planning Area: Draft Environmental Impact Statement by Minerals Management Service Volume 1 (pending)
Chukchi Sea Planning Area: Draft Environmental Impact Statement by Minerals Management Service Volume 2
Undiscovered oil resources in the Federal portion of the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: an economic update: 2005-1217 Open-File Report 2005
ALASKA FEDERAL OFFSHORE: Descriptions of Geologic Plays 1995 U.S. Minerals Management Service
Last hope in the last frontier: offshore development key in Alaska.: March, 2007
Digital terrain mapping of the underside of sea ice from a small AUV: 2008

More information which might be of interest to the WWF. This data set consists of upward looking sonar draft data collected by submarines in the Arctic Ocean. It includes data from both U.S. Navy and Royal Navy submarines: Submarine Upward Looking Sonar Ice Draft Profile Data and Statistics

Update 14 August 2010

I have attached a link about the development of riser-less drilling technology. It is about 15 years old, but its use is growing rapidly. With reference to the Statoil article, Statoil has used it on 19 projects, NOT for 19 years, and it probably is not a required method of drilling in Norwegian waters, although I don’t know that for certain. If it isn’t now it probably will be in the near future. The environmental benefits are simply to great not to make it a required drilling technology.

Riserless drilling project develops critical new technology

There are some links in this article that I found amusing, but typical for the ‘oil patch’.

When I first went to work for Shell in the early 1980′s there was a popular bumper sticker in Texas that most people in the rest of the US didn’t quite understand and often found somewhat offensive. It went something like :

‘Please don’t tell my Mother that I work in the Oil Patch, she thinks I still play piano in a New Orleans ‘cat’ (whore) house.’

It always makes me laugh. But it tells you how oil field workers and the industry are often regarded by the rest of American society. The oil industry is not highly regarded. It is generally viewed as being a ‘rape, ruin and run’ industry. Like logging and coal mining. And justifiably so (e.g., Nigeria). BP’s bungling and callous disregard for operational safety hasn’t helped improve the image of the oil industry any.

Attached is a corporate news release from Statoil about them being the first to use riser-less drilling technology in the Gulf of Mexico that they have been using in the North Sea for almost 20 years. The article speaks for itself.

Environmentally friendly drilling solutions in the US

The method is clearly a cost effective drilling technology, and far more ‘environmentally friendly’. I presume the use of this technology is mandatory in the North Sea and Arctic waters of offshore Norway. And I am sure Norske Shell is well acquinted with the technology.

One wonders why the US Dept. of the Interior and MMS and Shell Oil USA, et al, are 20 years behind the Norwegians.

Someone should take a long hard look at the proposed drilling prognoses for the Statoil and Shell exploraton wells in next year’s proposed Chukchi Sea drilling program to see how each operator intends to drill their exploration wells. Any bets that Statoil’s plans are far less polluting that Shell’s.

The WWF might be interested in this. The drilling prognoses should be part of the environmental impact statement filed by each operator.

See the attached link and article. When you read the article you will note that reference is made to ‘ice scouring studies’. These are related to seabed scour by dragging sea ice (the pressure ridge issue I mentioned previously), and are obvious follow up studies to those done in the 1980′s, and perhaps later. The water depths in the locations Shell wants to drill are on the order of 30m – 50m.

Again, the WWF should be interested in these studies. They should determine whether production is, in theory, ‘possible’. These studies should also cover a multi-year period in order to obtain an idea of the variability in ice pack characteristics

Duo get greenlight for Chukchi surveys: 9 August 2010

Attached is a link to DOI’s list of EIS’s for Alaska. You might want to post this link in one of those articles. There are a host of them.

http://alaska.boemre.gov/ref/EIS_EA.htm

Alaska Petroleum Reserve lease sale disappoints: 11 August 2010

The massive leak is complicating the belief that the Gulf of Mexico is the nation’s best source of oil and natural gas. Experts predict that production will slow while regulation and deep-water drilling costs will increase.

The BP disaster has complicated the view that the Gulf of Mexico is America’s best source of crude oil and natural gas. Above, workers on an idle oil rig off the coast of Louisiana. (Lee Celano, Reuters / August 10, 2010)

LA TIMES ARTICLE

The Irish Times – Wednesday, July 28, 2010

LORNA SIGGINS Western Correspondent

CORRIB GAS project consultants have apologised for omitting material submitted to An Bord Pleanála as part of its new pipeline route application.

RPS Consultants have written to a number of appellants explaining that some data was omitted from the environmental impact statement.

An Bord Pleanála told The Irish Times yesterday that it was contacted by the consultants, and it believed at this stage it should not delay the resumed oral hearing, set for August 24th, into the last section of pipeline.

The consultants state that the “inadvertent administrative oversight” is “deeply regretted” and has been rectified. The material refers to habitat sheets, designated sites, bird figures and fauna figures. Some of it was in the documents, but misplaced, while the fauna figures were omitted altogether, according to RPS.

The material, which has been reissued, supports Shell E&P Ireland’s revised application to tunnel its last section of pipeline under Sruwaddacon estuary, a special area of conservation.

This last section will link the landfall at Glengad to Ballinaboy terminal.

The developers say it is 234m away from the nearest occupied house – almost three times the distance of the original route.

Shell has also applied to An Bord Pleanála for compulsory acquisition orders to 10 pieces of land at Glengad/Dooncarton, Aughoose and Bellagelly South, under section 40 of the Gas Act.

Pobal Chill Chomáin community group spokesman John Monaghan said he was “disappointed” this issue only came to light shortly before the final deadline for submissions to the board on the new application. Submissions must be with the board by today.

“This may be a genuine error, but the developers are always telling us that errors cannot happen,” Mr Monaghan said.

Up to half of a previous “modified” pipeline route was deemed by the board to be unacceptable on safety grounds, due to proximity to housing.

In a separate development, the Corrib gas partners, including Shell EP Ireland, have said responsibility for the Corrib gas field wells “has been clarified”.

It was commenting on e-mails leaked to the royaldutchshellplc.com website run by father and son Alfred and John Donovan, which indicate Shell staff concerns about there being “no clear ownership” of the Corrib wells.

Responsibility for subsea structures is a serious issue after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The Corrib gas partners said the technical integrity of five Corrib well fields had been “regularly monitored and assured”.

SOURCE ARTICLE