PLEASE NOTE THAT WE DO NOT KNOW IF THE INFORMATION BELOW, RECEIVED BY EMAIL, IS GENUINE.  IT TALKS ABOUT SHELL DECEPTION AND A HIDDEN AGENDA BY SHELL, SO IT CERTAINLY SEEMS AUTHENTIC.

Royal Dutch Shell is having serious issues in Sri Lanka with its joint partners.

This was traced by The Global Complain System of Royal Dutch Shell. You may get additional information by going to https://www.compliance-helpline.com/Shell.jsp at any time.

Here is the Report

Attention: Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell

SHELL DIVESTMENT & DISTRIBUTOR INVESTMENT letter to Country Manager

2nd October 2010

Mr. Walter Sanchez
Chairman & Country Managing Director
Shell Gas Lanka limited
498, R.A.De Mel Mawatha
Colombo.

Dear Sir,

This letter is to convey our disappointment in securing our interest in the divestment process of Shell Gas Lanka Limited and the Shell Terminals Lanka Limited.

We are sad to note that the several commitments made to our association by various important officials of Shell, throughout the representations we made in the process of divestment, were just made to pass the time in order to achieve the objectives of Shell LPG only.

We are convinced that Shell LPG, having the desire of divesting it’s business in Sri Lanka, deceived us by making us to expand and improve our distributor Yards, Vehicles, Facilities, Safety and Human Resource with a massive infrastructure cost just before the divestment was aimed mainly to augment the value of your business in Sri Lanka in order to get the best deal at the divestment in the pretext of “V2″ or Volume double concept.

This further indicates the hidden agenda of Shell Gas Lanka Limited as the announcement was made just as the new distributor investments were completed.

Most of our member distributors had the capacity to meet the present turnover (which is not increased as per the shell promise of V2) with the facilities that was available prior to this demand of expansion by Shell. There was tremendous pressure to all the distributors with deadlines to complete and in the process, some distributors were asked to step down as they could not meet the huge investment that was required to meet the shell demand of “comply or get out”.

We request you to compensate the distributors for this investment prior to the transfer of the business as otherwise the membership have decided to expose the entire deceptive tactics and operation of Shell Gas Lanka Limited with it’s stake holders to the World Media followed with suitable legal action.

This has been written by the the Management Committee of L P Gas Distributors Association according to system records

By Sheila McNulty in Houston Published: October 10 2010

Royal Dutch Shell  is offering to spend “tens and tens of millions of dollars” building an oil spill containment system for Arctic conditions if the US government permits it to drill offshore Alaska.

“The ball is in the government’s court,’’ Mr Slaiby said. “They need to step up the pace on this review.’’ Environmentalists object to Shell tacking new procedures on to its old drilling plan, given that BP’s disaster underlined how major accidents can happen.

FULL FT ARTICLE

MORE FT ARTICLES

BY A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF SHELL OIL USA

John,

I don’t have time to spend writing much of an article for you on Alaska and Shell’s drilling plans, but I will make an observation that I am sure the WWF has considered, but then maybe not.

California gray whales migrate to the Beaufort and Chukchi seas every summer to feed. These areas are their summer feeding grounds. Literally. Gray whales are interesting because unlike other baleen whales the gray whales are bottom feeders. They scoop up large amounts of mud off the ocean bottom and then strain it through their baleen plates for shrimp, crustaceans, small fish, etc.

Any large oil spill in the Arctic would most probably end up producing a large amount of oil that settled to the ocean bottom in the form of tar balls, etc. We have seen this the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.

So, the gray whales would ingest these ‘tar balls’ in the process of feeding. In fact, they could ingest a large amount of ‘tar’ in the feeding process. This stuff is toxic, it is hydrocarbons, and I have little doubt large amounts ingested by a whale would be fatal. How much they could ingest is likely unknown.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that a large oil spill in the Arctic Ocean could decimate the California gray whale population. If the spill were extensive enough it might even drive the species to the brink of extinction.

Has anyone thought of this?  Is this considered in the government’s environmental impact statement? I have seen no mention of this.

I don’t see Shell running around the Arctic with specialized ships that don’t exist trying to vacuum up trillions of tar balls, etc., that could cover tens, hundreds, or even thousands of square miles (kilometers) of ocean bottom. They don’t have the money or technology to do that. They will opt for paying a large fine that is miniscule in comparison to clean-up costs.

So, an oil spill in the Arctic is going to have some very serious consequences that probably cannot be reversed. Is every body comfortable with that fact? Because there will be a large spill in the Arctic, soon or later.

Link to 220 page report on gray whale and walrus feeding habits in the Chukchi Sea by the US Geological Survey and prepared for MMS

Daily News – Miner
newsminer.com

NOT IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE: WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS “A THIRD LAW SUIT” WAS IN FACT THE FOURTH. SHELL PAID ALL LEGAL COSTS AND JOHN DONOVAN RECEIVED A SECRET PAYMENT AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE. THE PAYMENT MADE BY SHELL TO THE SOLICITORS ACTING FOR JOHN DONOVAN WAS APPROVED BY SHELL CHAIRMAN, MARK MOODY-STUART, THE HUSBAND OF JUDY MOODY-STUART, WHO HAD PERSONALLY INTERVENED IN THE SAGA. SHELL SETTLED SEVEN COURT ACTIONS INCLUDING TWO FOR LIBEL BROUGHT BY THE DONOVANS. SHELL ALSO LOST THE WIPO ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST ALFRED DONOVAN BY SHELL INTERNATIONAL. SHELL HAS NOT WON A SINGLE CASE AGAINST THE DONOVANS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Revision as of 19:16, 24 December 2007

Treacherous conniving Royal Dutch Shell:

“LONDON (Dow Jones)–Total SA and Royal Dutch Shell PLC discreetly contacted Iranian authorities last week, seeking to reassure the Islamic Republic after telling the U.S. they have no plans for further investments for now, people familiar with the matter said in recent days.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

OCTOBER 8, 2010

By Benoit Faucon
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

LONDON (Dow Jones)–Total SA (TOT) and Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN) discreetly contacted Iranian authorities last week, seeking to reassure the Islamic Republic after telling the U.S. they have no plans for further investments for now, people familiar with the matter said in recent days.

Total and Shell contacted Iran as the U.S. announced commitments by the companies “to terminate their investments and avoid any new activity in Iran’s energy sector.” The disclosure was made by the State Department in a Sept. 30 press release, which also said Statoil ASA (STO) and Eni SpA (E) had made similar commitments.

Though the two companies are not breaching any sanctions in communicating with Iran, the contacts suggest they have not renounced their long-term ambitions in Iran, which hosts the world’s second-largest natural gas resources and stands as the fourth-largest global oil exporter.

Immediately after the U.S. announcement, a Total manager contacted the Iranian authorities to reassure them the French oil major had no intention to discontinue its business ties with the Islamic Republic, a person familiar with the matter told Dow Jones.

The Total manager told the Iranian authorities it “will take into account French national interests,” instead of U.S. interests, the person familiar with the matter said, paraphrasing the conversation with the company manager.

While U.S. sanctions have long barred oil investment in Iran, European countries like France have traditionally opposed sanctions. That enabled Total, Shell, Eni and Statoil to develop Iranian oil and gas fields and produce petroleum in Iran. This changed when the European Union this summer announced sanctions barring European companies to invest in the country’s hydrocarbons sector.

A person familiar with the contacts said that just before the U.S. disclosed Shell had renounced to new investments in Iran, a Shell representative also contacted Iran’s authorities to reassure them the company intended to maintain its business ties.

The U.S. Department of State didn’t return repeated requests for comment.

An official at Iran’s oil ministry said he wasn’t aware of the contacts.

Iran remains home to huge natural resources that are increasingly inaccessible to U.S. and European oil giants as Western governments seek to punish Iran’s nuclear ambitions with new sanctions. According to BP’s latest statistical report, Iran’s proven oil reserves hit 137.6 billion barrels of oil and 29.61 trillion cubic meters of gas in 2009.

“Iran has been one of the few countries in the Middle-East open to foreign investment” in oil and gas projects, when neighbors Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are mostly closed, said Samuel Ciszuk, a London-based senior analyst at IHS Energy.

Foreign companies “need to keep (Iran) open as an option” for when sanctions are lifted, he said. “Nobody wants to slam the door completely” on Iran’s oil and gas sector.

One Shell official said the Iranian government is “a stakeholder” in the oil and gas sector. As a result, an international oil company will “have to go and meet with them” regardless of the political context, this person said.

Total and Shell still do some direct business with Iran, regularly buying crude oil from the Middle Eastern country. But the Anglo-Dutch oil company has come under pressure for the trades, which are not prohibited under European sanctions.

The U.S. imposed new energy and financial measures on Iran in June, targeting gasoline imports in particular. The West suspects the program has military aims but Iran says its religious principles prohibits the development of nuclear weapons.

Iran has reacted by increasing its refining capacity, signing oil and gas projects with domestic companies and pursuing talks with Asian and Russian companies.

A spokespeople for Total and Shell declined to directly comment on the companies’ recent contacts with the Iranian authorities.

A Total spokeswoman said that “following questions asked to us by the State Department, Total has confirmed it complies with all laws applicable at the international, European and national levels, which, within the framework of sanctions recently imposed by the European Union, can only limit to a minimum our activities in a country where we were already hardly present.”

While insisting the company would comply with sanctions, Total has been vocal in criticizing them and pleading for a long-term engagement with Iran.

In July, its Chief Executive Christophe de Margerie criticised the U.S. embargo on petrol products was an “error” that would harm ordinary people.

And in December, the CEO insisted Total must continue to talk to Iran because energy investments are long-term and politics change. “If you just say, ‘OK, there is a problem today, so I will never look at it anymore,’ then you never do anything,” he said.

Shell hasn’t commented on sanctions beyond saying it would comply with them but has stressed the importance of Iran’s resources to global energy security.

“Given the size and global importance of Iranian hydrocarbon resources, Shell finds it hard to see a future in which production of these resources would not, at some point, play an important role in the global energy supply and demand balance,” Shell said in its 2009 annual report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Despite this analysis, Shell abandoned negotiations over the development of phases 13 and 14 of the giant South Pars gas field this summer, after Iran gave $21 billion in contracts to domestic companies to develop the two projects.

But a person familiar with the negotiations said that, just before the domestic contracts were signed, Shell asked for a new reprieve of a few months to make an investment.

It sought a meeting with Iranian oil minister Masoud Mirkazemi, who refused, the person said.

By Benoit Faucon, Dow Jones Newswires; +44-20-7842-9266; benoit.faucon@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

October 6, 2010 |  8:56 pm

With the BP oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico successfully contained, Shell Alaska announced that it has filed an application to proceed with exploratory offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska.

The Obama administration suspendedall offshore operations in the remote, fragile Arctic seas this year in the wake of the BP spill, but Shell officials said they have prepared a more robust oil blowout containment plan and are ready to proceed next summer with a single well 17 miles off the North Slope.

The company said it is postponing an even more controversial plan to drill in the more-distant Chukchi Sea until litigation over that proposal is resolved.

“We think we’ve got what we need in place to make a strong program even stronger,” Pete Slaiby, Shell Alaska’s vice president, said in a conference call with reporters in Anchorage.

The company has not submitted a new exploration plan, as drilling critics have sought, but has scaled back its original drilling schedule and put into place new oil spill containment equipment, including a dome that could be quickly put over a leaking well, and a beefed-up blowout preventer.

In addition, Shell said it is proposing to install a subsea panel that would allow the blowout preventer to be engaged in an emergency, even if the connection were lost between the emergency device and the surface drilling rig.

In coordination with research now underway in the Gulf of Mexico, the company is continuing to look for ways to build a containment cap that would allow any blowout to be immediately sealed. The containment dome now proposed would collect oil from any blowout and funnel it to surface vessels for collection, much like what happened for several months after the BP blowout.

“We have every reason to believe the administration will permit 2011 exploration drilling in Alaska,” Slaiby said in a statement. “The president himself endorsed our Alaska exploration program last spring. Unfortunately, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy occurred and led to a suspension of offshore activities in Alaska. Since then, Shell has taken extraordinary steps to build confidence around our 2011 program, which involves a limited number of exploration wells in shallow water with unprecedented, on-site oil spill response capability.”

But it is unclear whether the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will approve the permit application or require additional measures.