By Fred Pals and Wael Mahdi – Oct 25, 2010 4:33 PM GMT+0100
A joint venture between Saudi Aramco and Royal Dutch Shell Plc plans to drill three wells in Saudi Arabia’s southern Rub Al Khali desert after completing its first exploration period, the company said today.
South Rub al-Khali Co., or SRAK, as the venture is known, also plans to submit an appraisal plan to the government for the Kidan area of Saudi Arabia, it said in a statement. Kidan lies near the Saudi border with the United Arab Emirates.
SRAK said it achieved “good” results from the seven wells it drilled over the past three years in the Rub Al Khali area. The three new wells will be part of the company’s second exploration period, which started on July 26.
SRAK is one of four ventures exploring for natural gas in Saudi Arabia, which holds the fifth-largest gas reserves in the world. Chevron Corp., the second-largest U.S. energy company, said it will soon start looking for gas near the Saudi-Kuwaiti border.
LONDON, Oct. 25 (UPI) — Royal Dutch Shell announced it was investing in developments in the deep waters off the coast of Brazil in order to enhance its American portfolio.
Shell said it was investing an undisclosed sum to support a second phase of development of the Parque das Conchas basin about 62 miles off the coast of Brazil.
Shell began operating in the region in 2009. The second phase envisions drilling to roughly 3,600 feet below the sea bed, 6,000 feet below the surface of the water.
The entire offshore project is expected to yield about 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day, the company said.
“This is another important milestone in our delivery of substantial growth in the Americas,” said Marvin Odum, upstream director for Shell, in a statement.
The company added that production for the first phase at Parque das Conchas was above expectations.
DAILY TELEGRAPH: Royal Dutch Shell has radically simplified the design of the Kashagan oil development, slashing $18bn (£11.5bn) from the cost of the second phase of development as it strives to make the project economically viable.
By Richard Orange in Almaty
Published: 11:38AM BST 25 Oct 2010
The milestone report from Shell’s Kashagan Cost Reduction Team reduces the cost estimate for the second phase of the project from $68bn to $50bn, a senior Kazakh official told The Daily Telegraph.
Shell took control of the planning of the second phase from Italy’s Eni at the start of last year. The Anglo-Dutch company has been working to turn around the economics of the project, which will take production capacity to 1m barrels per day, from the first phase’s production capacity of 450,000.
Even with the reduced cost estimate, the second phase only offers a return on investment of 9.3pc, the Kazakh source said.
“We are culling costs by any type of innovative thinking we can,” Pierre Offant, managing director of North Caspian Operating Company (NCOC), which oversees the overall project, said at this month’s Kazenergy Eurasian Energy Forum in Astana.
When Kashagan was discovered in 2000, it was the biggest oil discovery in more than 30 years, with commercial reserves of some 9bn-13bn barrels of oil.
Italy’s ENI, which was chosen to operate the field in 2001, was forced into a succession of cost increases, and the start date for production has already been pushed back seven years from the initial target of 2005. Control was passed to NCOC, a joint venture of all the partners, in 2009.
The total development costs are estimated at $136bn, making it the world’s costliest project, according to data from the Project Management Institute.
Earlier today I sent an email to Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc advising him of alleged death threats made against Shell Corrib employees, who for some months have been leaking Shell internal emails to us, which we have published.
I supplied to Mr Wiseman the latest batch of leaked emails together with a draft email we intend to send to the Irish Police Commissioner reporting a Shell espionage operation against Shell Corrib employees and alleged related death threats.
My email to Mr Wiseman was also sent to Shell CEO Peter Voser and Lorna Siggins at The Irish Times who has been reporting on the Corrib story from the outset and is the author of the recently published book “Once Upon a Time in the West: The Corrib Gas Controversy“. It seems that the Wild West theme of the title may be more appropriate than the author anticipated. The hired guns in this story are 170-strong.
I await a response from Shell as to the authenticity of the Shell internal emails and any comment on the related alleged death threats.
In the meantime, visitors to this website will have noticed that by co-incidence or otherwise, the website was down again today. This could be due to a cyber attack by an unknown party, perhaps Shell’s counter-measures team? Either the site is becoming even more popular, or it is being maliciously flooded by requests designed to overwhelm the dedicated server. Looks like we will have to ramp up security again.
Daily Telegraph: Royal Dutch Shell’s results beat market expectations in the first half.
25 October 2010
The City is expecting profits at Royal Dutch Shell to have risen 50pc to $4.3bn when it reports its results on Thursday Photo: Johnny Greig / Alamy
When it posts third-quarter figures on Thursday, investors will be watching to see whether Peter Voser, its chief executive, unveils solid results again, as arch-rival BP struggles to recover from its Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Shell’s restructuring programme and a higher oil price helped it to second-quarter profits of around $4.5bn (£2.87bn). The oil giant had slashed its spending by $3.5bn over the previous 18 months by shedding 7,000 staff and making operational savings. At the time, Shell said its radical restructuring programme had come to an end earlier than planned.
Oil prices are still high at around $80 per barrel and its refining and marketing division is doing better than last year. The City is therefore expecting profits on a cost of supply basis (stripping out inventory effects) to rise by 50pc on last year to $4.3bn.
Analysts at BNP Paribas said: “We expect earnings per share growth to be sector-leading as new mega-projects come on stream.”
I read your article about the so-called ‘secret reactor’ that was possibly buried at a location that is now a residential home site. I doubt that is the case, but one cannot expect Shell to tell the truth about such matters
However, the ownership, operation and disposal of civilian reactors in the UK is a highly regulated business. Therefore, appropriate UK governmental agencies should have records of any nuclear reactor owned and/or operated by Shell, including who built it, the model type, date of commissioning, its location of operation, its size, the type of fuel, and its purpose (medical research, isotope production, etc.).
There should also be records of when it was decommissioned, and when, where and how it was disposed of. It is normal practice to bury old reactors after they have been ‘scrubbed down’. My guess is that the UK operates some sort of ‘old reactor graveyard’, where decommissioned reactors are buried, literally.
However, the spent fuel assemblies are NOT buried with a reactor. That must be dealt with separately. I do know that there is a spent fuel reprocessing facility in the UK and that any such fuel from a Shell reactor would probably have been sent to that facility for the removal of ‘fissionable’ elements, like uranium, plutonium, and neptunium. Most people don’t realize that neptunium 237, which is produced in a nuclear reactor, is fissionable, and that it can be used to fabricate nuclear weapons.
As it happens to be, it was not uncommon in the 1950′s and 1960′s for research reactors to be fueled with weapons grade uranium cores. In fact, and you will find this interesting, in the days of the Shah the US supplied Iran with research reactors that were fueled with weapons grade uranium, but that is another story. The UK government would have mandated that the spent fuel from such a reactor be reprocessed, of that I have no doubt.
Now, with regard to the supposedly contaminated homesite in your article. FYI -- plutonium is NOT a naturally occurring element. It is ALL man-made and it is a fission product of a nuclear reactor. It comes from the bombardment of U 238 by neutrons and alpha particles. PU 239, 240, and 241 are all common isotopes made in a nuclear reactor’s core.
If there is indeed plutonium in the soil of this fellow home, as well as uranium, that is proof of the presence of material from the fuel core of a nuclear reactor. Furthermore, the plutonium indicates that the material came from the fuel core of a once operational nuclear reactor. A detailed soil analysis should also pick up other elements that are radiation decay by-products of the nuclear fission process in a reactor fuel core. Neptunium, cobalt, strontium, etc., should all be found on location, and they should be radioactive isotopes. The decay element profile of spent fuel is well known so determining whether traces of spent reactor fuel are indeed found in the soil will not be a problem.
In the US spent fuel cores from civilian reactors are normally stored in a concrete cooling pool. This is just a pool of water that dissipates heat from the spent core and provides a radiation shield. Spent reactor cores are still highly radioactive and they generate a great deal of heat from the continued decay of all the fission products (radioactive elements) produced in a fuel core.
The elements and isotopes found in spent reactor cores should not be found in uncontaminated soil. The presence of these elements in the soil indicates that there may have been an ‘accident’ and spent nuclear fuel material was ‘spilled’ at that location. This location would then be a bono-fide nuclear accident cite that would require cleanup.
What I find interesting is the lack of interest or involvement of the appropriate UK governmental authorities. It this were indeed such an accident site then the whole area should be under government control for cleanup purposes and the public prohibited from access.
Elements like plutonium are not only highly radioactive they are also highly toxic. Plutonium is one of the best ‘rat killers’ around because of it toxicity.
To allow homes to be built over such a disposal site would be absolutely criminal because these highly toxic and radioactive elements would contaminate the soil, lawns, gardens, etc., surrounding these home. People would ingest and breath in the radioactive dust. PLants also take up heavy elements quickly, particularly uranium. So, if people were eating the vegetables from a garden they would be ingesting these elements.
If the soil analysis from the location you mention are indeed correct and accurate, then it appears that someone (apparently Shell) did something that was probably very highly illegal, and perhaps criminal, at that particular location. They may very well have indeed buried a deactivated reactor without public disclosure, but I doubt that would be the case. Governmental records should solve that mystery.
It appears that however, that at the very least there may have been an ‘accident’ that involved spent radioactive fuel core material. If so, then it is also apparent that they (whom ever THEY are) did not ‘clean up’ this ‘accident’ site.
It is doubtful that a governmental agency would do such a thing, so the source is probably from a private corporation, i.e., Shell.
There is a story here. When, where and how was Shell’s reactor disposed of, and when, where and how was the spent fuel disposed of. This should be a matter of governmental record and therefore accessible by the public.
If this information is missing, or ‘sealed’, or otherwise unavailable to the public, then someone is hiding something. Shell was NOT involved in the nuclear defense industry, so withholding this information would NOT be a matter of national security.
The UK government should have records on every aspect of Shell’s ‘alleged’ nuclear reactor. I have seen where Shell acknowledged having a test facility that used cobalt 60 to study radiation effects on oils. That is interesting. That information may have been interest to both military and civilian reactor operators.
Shell’s ‘reactor’, whatever it was, had to have been licensed by the UK government. The design had to have been approved by the government. Someone manufactured that ‘reactor’, and it is doubtful that this ‘someone’ was Shell.
Shell had to have obtained permits for the radioactive material, whether it was fuel or cobalt 60. There have to records of how much Shell acquired and ‘used’. And the spent fuel had to have been turned over to the UK government for reprocessing.
I think that all you people need to quit mucking around with Shell, because they are not going to tell you a thing about their ‘reactor’, whatever it was. Go to the government archives. The information should be there and it should be available.
Now, if Shell had any accidents, then those would have to have been reported as well.
This information all exists in government archives somewhere. That is where you will get the information you need for a real story.
It exists in Shell’s archives as well, but you won’t get access to those.
I found this article. The important point here is that all civilian research and power ‘reactors’ are licensed by the government. Shell’s ‘reactor’ had to have an operating license.
This article talks about the problem of how small research reactors of the 1960′s and 1970′s were fueled with weapons grade uranium fuel, although not much of it.
I actually suspect that Shell may have had a small research reactor that they don’t want people to know about. Shell may have had to close it because they could not operate it competently, or they had an ‘accident’, or it was simply not cost effective to continue to operate. At this point who knows.
Once again, there will be records of Shell’s reactor in government archives.
Shell will be reducing activities in Nigeria and appears to be selling off below market price due to all the hassle there. John Browne leading a consortium. All in Sunday Times.
If true, this will be a major blow in the face of Shell, they give up. Precisely what you can expect from beancounters who have never worked in bad places like Nigeria… I see it as reducing value. Bunch of cowards.
And what happened to the promises of Brinded? By 2013 or 2014 he ‘hoped’ to realise 6-6.5 mln boe/d. And this ‘promise’ was as recent as 2005 or thereabouts. I would like to know where the deliverable is?
BP Plc’s former Chief executive Officer John Browne is leading a group of bidders for $4 billion of Nigerian oil fields being sold by Royal Dutch Shell Plc, the Sunday Times said.
Browne’s Riverstone Management Ltd. is interested in bidding, as is KKR & Co. and Blackstone Group LP, the Times said. Another bid group includes Perenco SA, Addax & Oryx Group Ltd. and Oando Plc, the newspaper said. Any bidder will have to have a local partner to meet government requirements, it said.
Partners ENI SpA and Total SA have the right to buy Shell’s 30 percent stake in the fields, and Nigeria’s majority holding national oil company must approve any deal, the Times said.
More than 200 people — led by environmental activist Erin Brockovich — marched to the company’s oil refinery…
October 23, 2010
Residents, activists and city leaders in Carson took to the streets Saturday to protest of Shell Oil Co.’s refusal to take responsibility for the contamination of a tract in the Carousel neighborhood, where high levels of benzene and methane have been found in the ground.
More than 200 people — led by environmental activist Erin Brockovich — marched to the company’s oil refinery at the intersection of Wilmington Avenue and Dominguez Street. Council members Lulu Davis-Holmes and Mike Gipson joined residents at the protest.
Standing at the entrance of the refinery, residents used a bullhorn to call on the company to accept responsibility for contaminating their neighborhood. Other protestors held up signs that read “Shame on Shell” and banners that read “Carousel contaminated.”
Organizers say the oil company is trying to avoid responsibility for contamination of the Carousel neighborhood by claiming statute of repose, a law that cuts off certain legal rights after a set amount of time has passed.
But Shell spokeswoman Alison Chassin said the company was not claiming statute of repose. “We are conducting an environmental investigation, and our actions clearly indicate something else,” she said.
Chassin clarified her earlier remarks, saying that the company was not dragging its feet in response to the concerns of the residents of the affected neighborhood and that she could not comment on the statute of repose because of ongoing litigation.
The company has taken 190 soil and vapor soil samples at the 285 affected homes, Chassin said. “None of the regulatory agencies overseeing the investigation have suggested that there’s imminent health risks to the residents at this point.”
Shell’s environmental investigation is being overseen by government agencies including the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the state Department of Toxic Substances Control.
“It’s important to also note that in the historical documents, we sold the property as is to the developer,” Chassin said. “The developer at the time took responsibility to demolish and clean up the site.”
A homeowner lawsuit was filed against Shell about a year ago, said Barbara Post, 74, a longtime resident and organizer of Saturday’s march and rally.
The suit alleges that Shell found significant levels of benzene at 66 of 73 locations it drilled, mostly streets and other public areas. According to the homeowners’ lawyer, the cancer risk exceeds the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s level of a risk by a factor of 1,400. At the high level, he said in a letter to the water board, 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.
The contamination at the Carousel neighborhood tract was discovered more than two years ago, when the state Department of Toxic Substances Control was investigating the site of an old chemical plant west of the small neighborhood. Workers there found benzene and petroleum in the soil and groundwater but concluded that they were coming from somewhere else. The chemicals were then traced to the 50-acre site, where the neighborhood sits.
That land was owned and operated by Shell from 1924 to 1966 and hosted three crude oil reservoirs. The reservoirs were demolished and the land was sold around the mid-1960s, records show. It was developed into a single-family residential neighborhood around 1970.
“Shell is not cooperating. They won’t take responsibility,” she said. “They’re playing a chess game with our lives.”
Post said that until recently, most residents were unaware that their neighborhood was sitting on top of a former crude oil reservoir.
She said they feel trapped because their homes no longer have value and therefore they cannot sell them. “We would all like to pick up and leave, but we can’t,” Post said. “We’re in fear. We don’t know who’s going to be next, who’s going to be sick, or dead.”
Channel 4 TV “Mark Thomas’ Secret Map of Britain”:
“Welcome to the most polluted house in Britain…”
The dramatic introduction in a Channel 4 TV programme “Mark Thomas’ Secret Map of Britain” about Ray Fox and the most polluted house in Britain. The house in Wokingham Road, Earley, Reading, is next door to an alleged buried secret nuclear reactor on a former Shell petrochemical terminal. The package includes an interview with toxicologist Dr Dick Van Steenis (who says Ray has symptoms and effects of radioactive poisoning) and with Dr Chris Busby BSc, PhD, C.Chem, MRSC, a radiation scientist. Mark Thomas states that soil tests carried out by Dr Busby at the house revealed some of the highest levels of plutonium and uranium contamination ever recorded in Britain. Busby says in the report that the unique footprint of the uranium came from a nuclear reactor. Shell was quoted as stating that no nuclear material was ever stored or processed at the site which Shell sold for a housing development without disclosing ANY nuclear history of the site.
Shell will report estimated earnings of $4.4 billion (£2.8 billion)
Sunday October 24,2010
By Tracey Boles
OIL giant Royal Dutch Shell will confirm its star is rising this week by reporting estimated earnings of $4.4 billion (£2.8 billion) for the third quarter, up almost 70 per cent on last year.
The earnings haul for the Anglo-Dutch company compares to $2.6 billion (£1.6 billion) in the third quarter of 2009 and has been driven by its exploration and production arm, much of it from gas revenues.
Analysts at Citigroup said Shell’s expected earnings growth represented “the strongest momentum in its peer group’. It added 2011 could be the “year of project delivery” for the oil group as two massive projects in Qatar come onstream and the firm ramps up its Canadian oil sands project.
Shell’s troubled arch-rival BP will report third-quarter earnings on November 2. Despite the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, underlying profits are forecast to be $4.8billion (£3 billion), slightly up from $4.7 billion (£2.9 billion) reported a year ago.
However, the figure does not include any write offs due to the Gulf spill and resulting environmental disaster. At the time of the spill BP was Britain’s biggest company. The disaster wiped billions off the value of the company and cost chief executive Tony Hayward his job. It also led to a $17 billion (£10.8 billion) loss in the second quarter due to a massive write off for the spill.
Illustration of 94 year old Alfred Donovan, founder of royaldutchshellplc.com, displayed courtesy of The Wall Street Journal. DISCLAIMER: This is not a Shell website nor is it endorsed by or affiliated with Shell. It is recommended internally by Shell far above what our own group internal comms puts out.
an observer of Shell: 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.
Golden Triangle Watchman: 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.
LondonLad: 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.
LondonLad: 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
Outsider: 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.
LondonLad: 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.
Old Spirit: 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!
an observer of Shell: 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.
GoldenTriangle Watchman: 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.
Goldentriangle Watchman: 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
