Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts from ‘October, 2010’

The real villain in Corrib gas controversy

Shell and their partners will prevail in their endeavors so long as they have the elected authorities in Ireland, along with local law enforcement, in their ‘hip pocket’.

Comment by a former employee of Shell Oil USA

Political & Corporate Corruption in Ireland

I have been doing some reading and familiarizing myself with the Corrib gas project controversy. The real issue here is not really the pipeline or the route of the pipeline. That is just a local focal point of protest, and a distraction from the real and much larger issue.

The real fundamental issue here is how the Irish government proceeds with the exploitation and development of Ireland’s considerable hydrocarbon resources to the maximum benefit of the Irish people themselves.

It is readily apparent that if the Irish people are truly unhappy with the way the government has handled the situation (and they should be), then they are probably going to have to give their elected officials the ‘boot’, and replace them with individuals who will be responsive to the will of the Irish people.

The Irish can protest all they want, write as many letters of complaint they want, etc., but nothing will happen until and unless the elected government of Ireland responds on their behalf. Shell and their partners will prevail in their endeavors so long as they have the elected authorities in Ireland, along with local law enforcement, in their ‘hip pocket’.

And if those elected officials want to ‘give away’ the natural resources of Ireland they will do so, and to the benefit of ‘big oil’. On this issue it is quite clear the Irish government has ‘bent over’ and let big oil ‘bugger’ the the Irish people. Big oil knows how to buy off governmental officials, corrupt governments, and rape small countries of their natural resources, and they are clearly in the process of doing a pretty good job of it in Ireland.

Ireland and the Irish were an impoverished and exploited country and people for centuries. The Easter Rising was the beginning of the end of ‘colonial’ political exploitation and led to eventual independence a few years later.

However, the Irish are still being exploited, this time economically and by big oil. But it is Irish people who themselves must rectify the situation, and the only way to do that is through a change in governmental policy. That probably will require a change in their government. Until there is a change in governmental policy, Royal Dutch Shell and their partners will prevail, all the way to the bank.

As I see the situation, the real ‘villain’ in this drama is a corrupted Irish government that has betrayed Ireland and her people. It is that elected government that should be the target of the protesters. To quote the cartoon character Pogo – ‘We have met the enemy, and he is us.’

ARTICLE ENDS

Who Really Runs Ireland?: The story of the elite who led Ireland from bust to boom … and back again [Paperback]: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Really-Runs-Ireland-story/dp/1844881660

Shell rejects talks invite from rights organisation

The Irish Times – Monday, October 18, 2010

LORNA SIGGINS Western Correspondent

SHELL EP Ireland and its security contractors for the Corrib gas project have confirmed that they declined an invitation to meet an Amnesty International/Front Line human rights delegation in north Mayo last week.

However, the Garda agreed to meet the delegation to discuss possible monitoring of future Corrib gas protests. Chief Supt Tom Curley, head of the Mayo Garda division, confirmed that the two organisations had been in contact.

Amnesty International spokesman Justin Moran said the remit of the two organisations related to the protection of human rights, following a recommendation made by Front Line in a report earlier this year.

The two organisations had “no position” on the Corrib gas project itself, he stressed, and would not make a final decision on assigning a monitoring team to north Mayo before An Bord Pleanála ruled on the new application for the final section of pipeline.

Shell EP Ireland Ltd said that it believed that “although governments have the primary responsibility for protecting human rights”, it had “a responsibility to respect human rights and to conduct business as a responsible corporate member of society”.

However, it believed the issues raised by both Amnesty and Front Line should be discussed more appropriately through the Government’s North West Mayo Community Forum. The forum was established two years ago by Energy Minister Eamon Ryan and former Gaeltacht minister Éamon Ó Cuív in a bid to address issues arising from the Corrib gas dispute. A number of groups opposed to the project on health and safety grounds have not participated, due to its terms of reference.

Shell said it would be available for “further discussions, should that be warranted”, following presentation of the proposal by Amnesty and Front Line to the Government’s forum.

The private security company I-RMS which is employing 170 people to provide security on the Corrib gas project said it could not meet the delegation as it was “gravely disappointed with serious misrepresentations contained in the Front Line report [on the Corrib gas dispute] as published in April 2010”.

I-RMS has also confirmed that retired Garda Supt Pat Doyle was appointed to its management team for Corrib security in July. However, it said that Mr Doyle, was not hired until 14 months after he left the Garda.

In a separate development, a group of north Mayo primary school parents have expressed concern they were not informed of Shell sponsorship of water safety classes for their children. One of the five local schools involved in the programme, Pullathomas National School, also told The Irish Times it was “not aware” that Shell was a sponsor until contacted by parents over publicity last week.

Its board of management took a decision some months ago not to apply for funding offered by Shell and its Corrib gas partners. The school made a submission on the new pipeline route to An Bord Pleanála, as it overlooks the proposed location through Sruwaddacon estuary. Shell said it had been funding the Mayo Water Safety Area Committee for three years and had received “no complaints”

SOURCE ARTICLE

Royal Dutch Shell bribery and corruption in Nigeria

Shell, the Anglo-Dutch energy giant, is expected to pay around $30 million in penalties to settle charges stemming from its use of Panalpina as an agent in Nigeria…

Law Blog October 15, 2010

The FCPA Steamroller Nears Panalpina, Royal Dutch Shell

We began hearing that the Justice Department was ramping up its enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act sometime in 2006.

Last week, the WSJ’s Dionne Searcey broke the news of the Justice Department’s investigation of oil-services company Schlumberger for alleged bribery-related activity in Yemen. Today’s news: A big Swiss shipping and logistics company and Royal Dutch Shell, one of its customers, are close to settling foreign-bribery charges stemming from a three-year U.S. investigation. Click here for the story, from the WSJ’s Kara Scannell and Thomas Catan. Click here for a sidebar from Searcey on the revitalization of the law.

According to the story, Panalpina Group, which has 14,000 employees and branches in more than 80 countries, has been at the center of a sprawling probe into whether it paid officials in places including Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Kazakhstan to expedite services, such as clearing drilling rigs and other equipment through customs.

The case could set new standards of vigilance for global companies that rely on contractors to operate in parts of the world where resources are plentiful but the rule of law is shaky, attorneys familiar with such cases said.

Spokesmen for the companies and agencies involved in the Panalpina probe either declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Panalpina is expected to pay around $85 million in fines to settle charges that it violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, said people familiar with the matter.

Shell, the Anglo-Dutch energy giant, is expected to pay around $30 million in penalties to settle charges stemming from its use of Panalpina as an agent in Nigeria, these people said.

In the meantime, the DOJ is using an interesting tactic: going after contractors alleged to have paid bribes on behalf of their corporate clients. Ignorance is no defense under this law, so companies have been advised they must know exactly what their agents are doing in order to avoid liability.

Some legal experts are wondering whether this means that companies now have the legal obligation to monitor the activities of even the most-established contractors.

“How much due diligence were [customers] expected to do on a large, publicly traded Swiss company?” said Alexandra Wrage, president of Trace International Inc., which advises companies on their compliance programs.

WSJ ARTICLE

Blog article headline by John Donovan

Call for Americans to boycott Shell

THE TRUTH BEHIND GAS PRICES

BY RICHARD CLOUGH

Extract from page 157

A second way to boycott this one company is through an economic boycott. Stop buying their stock and watch their value plummet. Individuals as well as institutional buyers, along with other organizations that buy energy stocks as investments would have a major and lasting affect on the whole industry. A boycott of this type will take determination, discipline and togetherness by an informed American people (which we are). Oil companies have deep pockets and believe they can out last and outsmart Americans, Who should be the company that America boycotts? My personal choice is Royal Dutch Shell. When it comes to integrity, honesty, excellence and the war on terror. – they by far have the worst record. A great website that unfolds the true character of Royal Dutch Shell can be found at www.royaldutchshellplc.com.

  • ISBN-10: 0615254209
  • ISBN-13: 978-0615254203

Why the U.S. Dept of Defense confirmed Shell espionage investigation

*Industrial espionage, economic espionage or corporate espionage is a form of espionage conducted for commercial purposes instead of purely national security purposes.

COMMENT FROM AN OUTSIDE OBSERVER

As as outside observer of the shenanigans that have been taking place over the last few weeks with Shell and Wikipedia, and which have been publicized on your blog, I would like to add my two cents worth of observations.

The first is that this is great cyber-opera. Very entertaining. I cannot wait for the next installment of the drama.

The second is that the Wiki – nonsense and the messing with your server are very amateurish on the part of Shell. Forgive me if I have passed judgment on Shell with the limited facts available, but I have no doubt they were initiated by Shell given the nature of the articles you published about Shell and its apparent industrial espionage scheme. Nobody else has motivation to give you a hard time. The deduction is obvious. But that kind of crap is just petty harassment.

What I find to be most interesting is that DoD would confirm the fact that there was indeed such an investigation to you. Why? Obviously, DoD wants Shell, and the world, to know that they know what Shell, and their (alleged) gang of bungling accomplices,  have (apparently?) been up to, and that they have known about these activities for a very long time. But they have not used the ‘usual source’ to do that. Interesting. But you did scoop mainstream media on all of this. And it was released in the UK, not the States, again interesting. The consideration here was probably political.

DoD is a very funny organization. It is not the administrative monolith people think it is. By law it is a loose confederation of self-serving bureaucratic feudal kingdoms that are supposedly unified in purpose. In fact, there is a lot of back-biting, infighting, turf protection, etc., that goes on continually. And DoD’s power to constraint all these agencies is actually quite limited. The task is often times much like herding a bunch of bickering cats. The task has gotten easier in recent years, but there is a long way to go.

In the case that you have reported on, the alleged security violation by ONR is very serious and would have had to be investigated by NCIS. US Navy cops investigating US Navy transgressions. You can guess how that came out. No publicity, and things taken care of very ‘quietly’, behind the scenes. The release of nuclear weapons design information is about as serious a security violation as there is.

So, DoD has used you to announce to the world that Shell USA is/was under investigation for (an alleged) conspiracy to commit espionage. They have also used you to expose ONR’s (alleged) bungling and security violations. DoD didn’t do it themselves. Why? The answer is essentially very simple, DoD agencies don’t take other DoD agencies out to the woodshed. These people must work together, not engage in self-destructive internal bureaucratic warfare.

What does this all mean for Shell and their (alleged) bungling minions? In could very well mean that DoD is announcing to Shell, and the world, that they have got the goods on these guys, but for political reasons, i.e., ONR’s screw-up, have not been able to pursue the matter. Exposing Shell would have meant exposing ONR’s bungling. Now that the facts are out in the open, and released/leaked by some news blog, DoD’s hand may be a great deal freer to deal with Shell, et al, and with the transgressions committed by ONR.

Washington is a town where ‘leaks’ to the press are done for a purpose. The purpose here appears to have been to expose Shell and fire a shot across their bow. Shell is also a company with a lot of political connections. This information could do a lot to neutralized those connections and political protection.

Remember, Shell USA is a US corporation, run and staffed by Americans, mostly. RD Shell may own it, but it is a US corporation. Americans spying on Americans? For what, promotions and corporate greed? Very bad business. Very bad indeed. Under US law that would be considered treason in time of war. But a conviction for espionage in peace time carries with it a life sentence in a Federal maximum security prison without possibility of parole. And under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 there is a forfeiture of property clause that is very, very onerous. Uncle Sam could end up owning One Shell Plaza in downtown Houston.

I do think you have managed to get Shell management’s attention. I look forward to the next chapter of this story. Just a few thoughts from a well-entertained observer. When this is all over with you might be able to write a book.

*Wikipedia definition

Comment by John Donovan.

Royal Dutch Shell has repeatedly refused to comment or deny the industrial espionage story. Perhaps senior management was otherwise occupied concentrating on settling bribery charges also brought by the U.S. authorities? Thus far none of the individuals named in the article and related historical narration, including attorneys well known in Houston, have contacted me to protest their innocence and deny any involvement.

Settlements Near In Bribery Case

Shell, the Anglo-Dutch energy giant, is expected to pay around $30 million in penalties to settle charges stemming from its use of Panalpina as an agent in Nigeria, these people said.


OCTOBER 15, 2010

By KARA SCANNELL And THOMAS CATAN

WASHINGTON—A big Swiss shipping and logistics company and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, one of its customers, are close to settling foreign-bribery charges stemming from a three-year U.S. investigation, said people familiar with the matter. It could be the first in a series of such settlements by major multinational companies.

Panalpina Group, which has 14,000 employees and branches in more than 80 countries, has been at the center of a sprawling probe into whether it paid officials in places including Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Kazakhstan to expedite services, such as clearing drilling rigs and other equipment through customs, according to people familiar with the matter and corporate disclosures.

The case could set new standards of vigilance for global companies that rely on contractors to operate in parts of the world where resources are plentiful but the rule of law is shaky, attorneys familiar with such cases said.

The investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission has extended to many of Panalpina’s customers, including Shell and oilfield-services companies Nabors Industries Ltd., Schlumberger Ltd., Transocean Ltd. and Noble Corp., according to securities filings by those companies.

Several of those companies also are expected to reach settlements with U.S. authorities in coming weeks or months, the people familiar with the matter said.

Schlumberger also is under investigation by the Justice Department in a separate bribery inquiry examining the company’s conduct in Yemen, The Wall Street Journal reported last week.

Spokesmen for the companies and agencies involved in the Panalpina probe either declined to comment or didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Panalpina is expected to pay around $85 million in fines to settle charges that it violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, said people familiar with the matter.

Shell, the Anglo-Dutch energy giant, is expected to pay around $30 million in penalties to settle charges stemming from its use of Panalpina as an agent in Nigeria, these people said.

U.S. authorities are aggressively extending their jurisdiction to foreign companies that have shares trading on U.S. stock exchanges or have significant operations in the country.

The settlement talks aren’t over, the people familiar with them said, so the terms of any settlement could change. It isn’t clear if the companies will admit to any crimes.

Penalties collected by the U.S. for violations of the FCPA have soared in recent years, as tougher financial regulations have prompted companies to report violations to U.S. authorities in the hope of getting lenient treatment.

Some legal experts expect a flurry of new cases from a new provision in the Dodd-Frank financial-regulation law that allows company employees or others who bring instances of financial fraud, such as bribery, to the government’s attention to get 10% to 30% of any sum recovered.

In December 2008, German industrial giant Siemens AG was hit with a total of $1.6 billion in fines for foreign bribery, $800 million of which was assessed by the U.S., so a qualified whistleblower could theoretically have received a bounty of up to $240 million.

The Panalpina case could sharply expand companies’ responsibilities to supervise their agents under the FCPA, legal experts say.

Several recent FCPA cases have involved big companies whose agents, typically an individual or small, obscure contractor, were alleged to have paid bribes on behalf of their corporate clients. Ignorance is no defense under this law, so companies have been advised they must know exactly what their agents are doing in order to avoid liability.

However, in the latest crop of cases, the agent—Panalpina—is one of the largest and best-known companies in its field. Some legal experts question whether this means that companies now have the legal obligation to monitor the activities of even the most-established contractors.

“How much due diligence were [customers] expected to do on a large, publicly traded Swiss company?” said Alexandra Wrage, president of Trace International Inc., which advises companies on their compliance programs.

The Panalpina investigation has also cast a spotlight on the darker side of the global hunt for energy resources. As easily accessible resources dwindle, oil companies and their contractors must work in increasingly remote parts of the world, where the rule of law can be tenuous.

Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, for example, all languish in the bottom third of the World Index of Corruption Perceptions, according to an annual ranking compiled by antigraft campaign group Transparency International.

The Panalpina probe, which began in 2007, prompted some oil-services companies to examine how their agents move critical equipment around the world, and some found other laws were potentially broken in the process.

An internal investigation by Global Santa Fe Corp., for example, found that it might have violated U.S. sanctions laws after a freight forwarder shipped goods to its rig in Turkmenistan through Iran, according to company filings.

The company, which has since merged with Transocean, said in a filing it had reported the possible infraction to the U.S. Treasury.

Panalpina has set aside around $133 million, according to securities filings, to resolve legal problems with the U.S. that have dogged it for several years and, it says, cost it business. On Sept. 30, it pleaded guilty to criminal price-fixing charges with five other freight forwarders and paid nearly $12 million to resolve the U.S. charges.

The foreign-bribery investigation has been by far the most damaging for the company, dragging its clients into the legal spotlight and resulting in a shareholder suit. Panalpina shuttered its operations in Nigeria and took a $42 million hit as a result, according to company filings.

Write to Kara Scannell at kara.scannell@wsj.com and Thomas Catan at thomas.catan@wsj.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell urges U.S. to adopt North Sea drilling rules

Reuters Africa

Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:01pm GMT

LONDON Oct 14 (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L: Quote) said the United States should adopt tougher drilling rules applied in the North Sea, adding they could have helped prevent mistakes that contributed to BP’s (BP.L: Quote) Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Shell finance director Simon Henry said on Thursday the United States should force everyone drilling a well to prepare a “safety case” — plans that examine potential risks and define who is responsible for risk management tasks.

“What we would like to see is that the regulations, as they evolve, match more clearly the European approach, which is always to identify all the hazards,” he told Reuters Insider TV in an interview.

(Reporting by Angeline Ong and Tom Bergin; Editing by Dan Lalor)

© Thomson Reuters 2010 All rights reserved

Shell Philippine unit denies govt smuggling complaint

MANILA Oct 14 (Reuters) – The chairman of the Philippine unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSa.L) denied on Thursday that it had engaged in smuggling after the government said it was seeking $567 million in back payments and penalties in a technical smuggling complaint.

“We have never, ever engaged in smuggling,” Edgardo Chua, Pilipinas Shell Petroleum chairman said in a television interview. “That’s against our business principles.”

*(So was securities fraud, but that never stopped Shell from being responsible for one of the biggest securities frauds in corporate history)

“We are one of the biggest taxpayers in the country. This charge is totally, totally, shall we say, ridiculous.”

In total, the government was seeking 24.486 billion pesos ($567 million) from Pilipinas Shell, made up of lost revenues of 2.7 billion pesos and penalties, which it said was a record claim. The charges were filed with the Department of Justice, which will investigate the claims.

The government said some officers, employees, and customs brokers of Pilipinas Shell had intentionally misclassified fuel imports between 2007 and 2009 and misdeclared imports between August 2005 and December 2008.

(Reporting by Rosemarie Francisco; Editing by John Mair)

SOURCE

*Comment in brackets inserted by John Donovan

Wikipedia Foundation non profit status at risk?

COMMENT RECEIVED FROM USA

Wikipedia/Wikimedia is a non-profit organization/foundation. From their website they claim to be a 501(3c) corporation. As such it enjoys tax-exempt status here in the States.

If for profit businesses are contributing to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is in turn sponsoring informational web pages on those businesses, which are nothing less than sanitized advertisements for those businesses, then the Wikipedia organization may be violating the terms of its non-profit tax-exempt charter and US law.

Given that businesses have found a clever way to ‘get around the rules’ and sanitize their Wiki pages for image and commercial promotional purposes it behooves Wikipedia to separate out the web pages of operating for profit businesses /organizations from the rest of their data base. This could become their ‘commercial’ data base for business propaganda for which they could charge an annual fee and corporations control what went on their pages.

I would suggest Wikimedia needs to make this adjustment because there is clearly a conflict of interest at work here between corporations business interests and Wikipedia’s fundamental information distribution purpose.

I think that the tax regulators need to take a hard look at Wikipedia’s charter as a non-profit foundation. I would suggest contacting the Commissioner of the US Internal Revenue Service and filing a formal complaint regarding Wikipedia/Wikimedia’s non-profit tax exempt status and challenging the continuation of that tax-exempt charter

Shell Gets $567 Million Philippine Smuggling Complaint, Will Face Probe

Bloomberg

By Francisco Alcuaz Jr. – Oct 14, 2010

The Philippines filed a 24.5 billion peso ($567 million) smuggling complaint against the local unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, saying it was shifting its drive against tax evasion “to a much higher gear.”

Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. evaded 2.72 billion pesos of excise and value-added taxes by misdeclaring and misclassifying 52 shipments from 2005 to 2009, the Bureau of Customs said in a statement. It said it was seeking the maximum fine of 800 percent, or 21.8 billion pesos, on top of this.

The bureau filed the complaint with the Department of Justice, which will conduct an investigation before filing any case in court. Shell spokesman Roberto Kanapi said he had just learned of the filing and couldn’t immediately comment.

Shell, one of two oil refiners in the Philippines, is the biggest company included in President Benigno Aquino drive against tax evasion and corruption. The tax and customs bureaus have filed complaints with the justice department every week starting in July, after Aquino took office vowing to fight poverty by battling corruption. The justice department hasn’t completed its investigation of any of the complaints.

The government says it loses as much as 250 billion pesos a year to tax evasion. It forecasts this year’s budget deficit will widen to a record 325 billion pesos. The budget was already in deficit for 21 of the last 25 years.

To contact the reporter on this story: Francisco Alcuaz Jr. in Manila at falcuaz@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Clarissa Batino at cbatino@bloomberg.net

SOURCE

RELATED: Royal Dutch Shell Plc Tax Dodgers: offshore – and out of reach to the Revenue: 3 February 2009