Posts from ‘October, 2010’

By Scott Malone

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts Wed Oct 13, 2010 (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell, which is investigating about 10 second-generation biofuel technologies that would use nonfood raw materials, expects to narrow its research to about five options next year, its top scientist said.

“I am putting a lot of time and energy into sustainable biofuels, second-generation biofuels, in essence, the conversion of redundant material, straw, into ethanol,” Gerald Schotman, the Anglo-Dutch oil company’s chief technology officer said on Wednesday. “We’re also playing with ideas on algae, growing algae and then converting algae directly into gasoline and diesel.”

While ethanol has won praise for being a sustainable fuel, today it is largely made from corn and has also drawn criticism for diverting resources that could otherwise be used to feed people.

Shell’s second-generation efforts could work around that problem by converting either agricultural byproducts or algae to liquid fuel, either ethanol or a diesel-like fuel.

The company aims to focus its efforts on about five developing technologies next year, Schotman said in an interview: “2011 is going to be the year of choices.”

Schotman was in Cambridge, just outside Boston, to disclose that Shell had agreed to fund $25 million in Massachusetts Institute of Technology research projects focused on energy over the next five years.

He warned that it will be quite some time before biofuels and other renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar power, displace fossil fuels. By 2050, it’s possible that the world will generate 30 percent of its energy from renewable sources, but that leaves 70 percent in traditional fossil fuels, he said.

“This is a long-distance horse race,” he said of the development process. “The world estimated that it was going to take three laps, but it’s going to take six or seven laps.”

(Reporting by Scott Malone; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

REUTERS ARTICLE

Friederike Heine

Legal Week

October 14, 2010

Debevoise & Plimpton litigation partner Peter Rees is set to leave the firm to take up a new role as legal director at Shell.

Rees, who will join the oil and gas giant on Nov. 15, will take over as legal director at the beginning of next year when current incumbent Beat Hess retires.

Rees will take responsibility for Shell’s global legal function and will advise group management on all legal matters. The Shell legal function comprises 1,200 staff, of which around 720 are lawyers and 80 are intellectual property professionals.

Debevoise managing partner James Scoville said: “This is a great honor and a terrific opportunity for Peter, and we wish him every success. That said, he will certainly be missed, both personally and professionally, in London and throughout the firm.”

Rees had acted on many complex international disputes, and has represented clients including corporations, government departments, local governmental authorities and inter-governmental agencies.

Lord Goldsmith, Debevoise’s European chair of litigation, said: “Peter leaves the litigation department immeasurably stronger than when he joined. We will miss him but we will be continuing to build on the work he has so successfully done.”

Rees took silk at Debevoise in 2009 as one of just three solicitor advocates to make the grade that year.

Before joining Shell in 2003, Hess spent 26 years at energy company ABB, including 15 years as GC and company secretary.

SOURCE

COMMENT FROM A FORMER SHELL EMPLOYEE (A RELIABLE SOURCE KNOWN TO US) WHO RETAINS CONTACT WITH SHELL INSIDERS

I am curious. Did this dust up with Wikipedia occur just after you notified RD Shell of your article about the US Dept. of Defense confirming that Shell was the object of a Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) counter-intelligence operation because of their (alleged) attempts to gain unlawful access to highly classified military technology, including technology related to the design/fabrication of nuclear weapons?

(Or perhaps it was caused by the recent dredging up of the story of their less than responsible manufacturing and distribution history of highly toxic and long lived pesticides, etc. Maybe it was both.)

I find the timing between the these recent events to be more than just serendipitous.

From my observations it appears as if Shell has decided to engaged in a little retaliatory ‘ciber warfare’ in an effort to diminish your on line profile as a credible and effective critic of Royal Dutch Shell’s less than ethical business practices. This would be in line with their apparent attempts to bring down your server just before you published the espionage article.

As an ex-Shell employee I know all about those practices. You have hit the bull’s eye.

REPLY

It has been going on for some time but the activity within Wikipedia became more obvious soon after we published the first article relating to alleged industrial espionage by Shell in the USA.  More recently we published the follow-up article to which you refer confirming that the U.S. authorities launched an investigation of Shell Oil Company for alleged industrial espionage. As far as I know, that investigation is still in progress.

We are in possession of confidential Shell documents dated 2009 and 2010 which discuss my editing on Wikipedia, Shell editing the articles and nomination of the RDS articles for deletion. There was a flurry of correspondence in December 2009. As I have said before, Shell has been obsessed with my contributions to Wikipedia and by coincidence or otherwise appointed a specialist agency to clean up its reputation on the Internet. Where exactly would such an agency make a start?

The campaign of deletions and removal of information on all articles connected to Shell to which I have contributed, started after a new editor, using an alias, popped into existence in May of this year.  That person may just hold a grudge against me, or could be working for Shell directly or indirectly, or it all could be an incredible coincidence and he is perfectly genuine.  Since I know nothing about the person, it is impossible to say.

By John Donovan

Within minutes of me publishing the article Wikipedia Klan exposed, the following posting was made on the Wikipedia nomination for deletion page for royaldutchshellplc.com.

Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources to have its own article. Blog sites criticizing large corporations are like teeth, we all have a mouthful. This article should have borne in mind that Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, it is an encyclopedia.–♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This person does not seem to appreciate that I posted the article on my own website, not on Wikipedia.

He is also completely wrong about the alleged lack of reliable sources.

The information on these links is self-explanatory.

http://www.shellnews.net/blog/LINKS2.html

http://www.shellnews.net/blog/links.html

I do not expect the royaldutchshellplc.com article to survive, particularly since I have shone some much needed light of the culture of subterfuge and secrecy at Wikipedia. Most of the editors operate under an alias. Most are no doubt decent people. I have no idea why they choose to hide behind an alias, but Wikipedia allows them to do so, thereby leaving the door wide open to the less reputable

By John Donovan

Within literally a few minutes of publication yesterday of my article Ku Klux Klan culture at Wikipedia: secrecy and censorship a link to the article was inserted into the Wikipedia nominated for deletion page for the Wikipedia article… royaldutchshellplc.com.

This is the article under heavy attack by persons/ parties choosing to conceal their identities, motives and background.  The article in its current form was authored by a Wikipedia editor, not by me. I have not edited the article since June 2009.

Shortly thereafter the following message was inserted on to my Wikipedia User page…

This was instant retribution by persons/parties unknown in response to me exercising my right to freedom of expression/freedom of speech. An absolute disgrace.

Yesterday evening I received a message from the founder of MyWikiBiz which goes a long way to confirming that my concerns about Wikipedia articles relating to businesses being wide open to manipulation, so they end up being little more than adverts, are well-founded. This is true in respect of the Wikipedia article about Royal Dutch Shell. My own website, with publishes ALL news articles about Shell, negative and positive in nature, provides a much more accurate picture of Shell than the sanitized heavily censored Wikipedia articles.

I also received the following email from George William Herbert. He fired off his self appointed response alleging that I had edited Wikipedia articles about Shell in a highly critical, non-neutral point of view manner, inserting biased information, without providing any evidence to support his allegations. He has a problem since none exists.

I have put up with such smears for over four years.  The allegation has been repeated and used in various Wikipedia discussions to delete articles, even though it is untrue. It is repeated in the current deletion discussion. At least George William Herbert had the guts to make the allegations in his own name. Most have come from the hooded community at Wikipedia. No one to this date has ever provided any evidence in support of this allegation. It is entirely false.

Interesting to note that the majority of votes to delete the article come from the hooded community at Wikipedia, while those Wikipedian’s operating openly, using their own names, have mainly voted to merge the article with the Royal Dutch Shell article, or have voted to keep the article. If it is merged, then it can be deleted at the whim of anyone from the hooded community without any deletion nomination.

And it is mainly the Wikipedia hooded community, choosing to conceal their identities, backgrounds and motives, who make the final judgments in matters under dispute.

I said in my article that at least there is no racist element involved. However, for the reasons indicated in my article, those editors who choose to be open and honest are at a disadvantage to those who prefer to hide behind an alias, so that nothing is known about them. That is a recipe for abuse and scandal. No wonder big business donates to the Wikipedia Foundation – see “Jimmy Wales rattles the tin cup“.

No democratic country or organization would ever allow such a manifestly unfair, unhealthy situation to exist, which is wide open to manipulation, corruption by big business and victimization of the worst kind.

I may well start up a website devoted to this appalling state of affairs.

EMAIL RECEIVED FROM GEORGE WILLIAM HERBERT12 Oct at 20.02

Please feel free to quote this letter in its entirety on your website. I would post this as a comment to your blog post, but it requires login, which I am not going to set up for this one purpose.  If you quote it in part but not completely, I will release the full unedited contents myself.

As a Wikipedia editor and volunteer administrator who has always used my full real name online, and has no affiliations to Shell that I know of (my 401k funds may hold some shares; I have no idea) I have investigated the situation with your account, postings and comments, article edits, and block.

You state that you have always attempted to abide by Wikipedia policy and edit in an open manner.  While I agree you are editing openly, you also have edited in a highly critical, non-neutral point of view manner, inserting biased information.  You are apparently having a hard time separating your blog role as critic of Royal Dutch Shell from writing in an unbiased manner on Wikipedia.

This is not an uncommon problem.  Many very opinionated people, especially bloggers and political and social editorial writers and pundits, have similar problems attempting to engage on Wikipedia.

The pseudonymous editors you have tended to bang heads with seem to have wide varieties of personal interests unrelated to Royal Dutch Shell.  I find it very hard to believe that Royal Dutch Shell would go so far as to create multiple sockpuppet accounts with such wide and varying interests and points of view, going back so many years, simply to frustrate your Wikipedia experience and contributions. It is much more likely that you are encountering normal Wikipedia editors and they are honestly responding, without any undue bias or outside control.

If you have identified particular users you feel have a usage pattern which may indicate that they are single-purpose focused on Royal Dutch Shell, or whose other interests align in a way that suggests to you that they are a Royal Dutch Shell employee, I can review that.

You have done one thing on Wikipedia that is flagrantly against the rules, and that is threaten individuals with lawsuits over their Wikipedia contributions. Your editing is not welcome while that threat is outstanding.

Also, your choice to refer to Wikipedia by analogy with the Ku Klux Klan has also rendered your ability to participate in the Wikipedia community in a constructive manner in doubt going forwards.  That terminology is grossly inappropriate and offensive.  Any reasonable person would have known that before posting such a blog comment.

What you chose to post on your blog is under your control and at your discretion.  I would hope that you remember the second clause there more going forwards into the future.

george william herbert

REPLY FROM JOHN DONOVAN 12 October 2010 21.06

Dear Mr Herbert

Is this an official reply on behalf of Wikipedia, or are you acting on your own behalf without authorisation from Wikipedia?

Could you please provide examples of where I have allegedly edited in a highly critical, non-neutral point of view manner, inserting biased information? I would like the opportunity to respond, but it is impossible to do so when you make allegations without providing any evidence whatsoever.

As to how far Shell would go, are you aware that Shell set up a global spying operation against its own employees in an attempt to prevent insider information from reaching me. I discovered this as a result of Shell internal correspondence supplied to me under a SAR application.  Reuters has already published an article on the matter. Shell has in the past admitted using undercover activity against its perceived enemies.

With regards to the Ku Klux Klan reference, I am entitled to express my personal views even if you deem them offensive.

Baffled by your reference to the second clause. A clue would be appreciated.

You will need to decide whether you wish to publish your allegations.

Regards
John

REPLY FROM GEORGE WILLIAM HERBERT 12 Oct 2010 21.18

I don’t know what “Official” would be in this context.

I don’t work for the Wikimedia Foundation, and I’m not on the Arbitration Committee within the community for the English language Wikipedia.

Nobody asked me to respond.  I have no special authority.

Regarding your feelings of Shell conducting a campaign against you on Wikipedia -

Again – the editors you are apparently in conflict with are generally showing wide varieties of contributions and apparently long contribution histories, which would seem to contradict a theory of a simple naive undercover operation of theirs on Wikipedia.  It would not be beyond comprehension for someone to set up identities on Wikipedia and spend some years establishing cover identity, with an eventual goal of engaging you, but that’s quite an acusation to be making without clear evidence.

What they do “spying on their own employees” regarding communications to you in the real world is one thing – and entirely credible, many companies analyze or intercept phone or email conversations.  That’s not surprising to me at all.

Them going to the extent you seem to be claiming, on Wikipedia, would require multiple full time positions working for some years to establish cover identities.

I find that hard to believe.

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN 12 Oct 2010 21.30

I have authentic Shell internal emails stretching back to at least 2007 which shows that Shell was obsessed with my contributions to Wikipedia.

In March 2007, Shell set up a counter-measures team to combat our site and also enlisted the services of a cybercrime unit in Pittsburgh partly funded and staffed by the FBI. All of this information comes from Shell internal correspondence supplied by Shell.

Are you going to provide examples of where I have allegedly edited in a highly critical, non-neutral point of view manner, inserting biased information? It is not proper for you to make such allegations and expect me to publish them when you have not supplied a single example of what you claim.

I have challenged other Wikipedian’s over the years to provide such evidence. I am still waiting for any example to be supplied.

Regards
John

By Alex Brummer
Last updated at 10:29 AM on 13th October 2010

Friends like these…

There has never been much love lost between British-based oil majors Royal Dutch Shell and BP.

But Shell chief executive Peter Voser’s attack on BP over the design of the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico looks over the top.

He accused BP of using cheaper options in the drilling and claimed Shell would have handled matters differently. No doubt it would, in much the same way as it found its own creative way of measuring its oil reserves in 2004 that led to a clear-out of top management and regulatory fines.

Maybe it learnt something from that experience and now builds more safeguards into operations.

But maybe Voser has an ulterior motive. now that the maximum point of pressure for BP has passed, perhaps he is warming up shareholders, and BP chief executive Bob Dudley, for a ‘friendly’ bid.

DAILY MAIL ARTICLE (THE BLOG HEADLINE IS BY JOHN DONOVAN, NOT THE DAILY MAIL)

By Hugo Duncan and Simon Duke

The boss of Royal Dutch Shell last night launched a blistering attack on beleaguered rival BP over the devastating Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Peter Voser said his company would never have made the mistakes that led to the death of 11 workers on the Deepwater Horizon rig and the biggest environmental disaster in US history.

‘Shell clearly would have drilled this well in a different way and would have had more options to prevent the accident from happening,’ he said.

LONDON, Oct. 12 (UPI) — British concerns about natural gas imports are overblown as new supplies are creating a gas revolution, an executive from Royal Dutch Shell said in London.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC will give the Massachusetts Institute of Technology $25 million to research new, efficient technologies to help find and deliver oil and natural gas, officials are expected to announce today.

LONDON — As the United States lifted its moratorium on deepwater oil drilling Tuesday, the European Commission was on the verge of proposing a curb on drilling in extreme conditions until an inquiry into the causes of the fatal explosion at a BP rig in the Gulf of Mexico was completed.