Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts from ‘November, 2010’

Industry and Government Were Unprepared for BP Spill, Study says

November 22, 2010, 1:00 pm

By JOHN M. BRODER

Government and the oil industry were both thoroughly unprepared for a deepwater blowout and oil spill like the one that occurred this year in the gulf, leading to significant delays in capping the well and major environmental damage, the staff of the presidential spill commission concluded in two reports published on Monday.

While oil companies and government agencies learned valuable lessons and developed useful technology from the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the country is still not fully ready to cope with a similar accident, the staff members found in papers submitted to the seven-member presidential panel. (The reports, on preparedness for the spill response and on the containment effort, can be read here and here.)

One major finding was that the oil companies, despite multibillion-dollar profits over the past several years, have devoted only minuscule amounts of money to planning to control or clean up after a significant spill.

Government, too, neglected to devote adequate personnel, money and technology to preparing for a major offshore accident, one report said. The Minerals Management Service, in particular, was vastly unprepared to deal with the BP spill and even after reorganization (and renaming as the Bureau of Offshore Energy Management), it still lags far behind in the capabilities needed to address another accident, the commission said.

“M.M.S. was the sole government agency charged with understanding deepwater wells and related technology, such as B.O.P. stacks,” the commission said in one of the reports, referring to blowout preventers, which are supposed to clamp off an out-of-control well. “Its staff did not attempt to dictate whether BP should perform an operation, to suggest consideration of other options or to determine whether an operation had a significant likelihood of success.”

The report noted that the agency had only four or five employees in Houston trying to oversee BP’s efforts to cap the runaway well and collect the gushing oil.

One M.M.S. employee told the commission that his job was like “standing in a hurricane.” Another said that BP, and the industry as a whole, had 10 times the expertise that government officials could bring to bear on undersea containment. Asked what they would do if government were to take charge of the control effort, two M.M.S. officials said they would hire a major oil company to take over the job.

4:38 p.m. | Updated Michael R. Bromwich, the director of the drilling agency, said on Monday that the agency was moving to address some of the issues raised by the commission’s staff. He said the agency had requested additional money from Congress to hire 24 more full-time employees, including engineers, petroleum geologists and other professionals, to improve oversight and speed the processing of drilling applications. He also said that he had visited the engineering programs at five college campuses in Louisiana and Texas seeking recruits for the regulatory agency.

In a summary passage in their 39-page reconstruction of the four-month effort to kill the Macondo well, the commission staff wrote: “The containment story thus contains two parallel threads. First, on April 20, the oil and gas industry was unprepared to respond to a deepwater blowout, and the federal government was similarly unprepared to provide meaningful supervision.

“Second, in a compressed time frame, BP was able to design, build and use new containment technologies, while the federal government was able to develop effective oversight capacity. Those impressive efforts, however, were made necessary by the failure to anticipate a subsea blowout in the first place,” the report concluded.

The staff members repeatedly note that the government and BP consistently underestimated the rate of flow of oil and gas from the crippled well, affecting numerous decisions about how to collect the oil and contain it at the source.

For example, they found that BP went ahead with its “top kill” attempts in late May without an accurate estimate of the flow rate. Engineers said later that if they had known the true figure, they might have modified or scrapped the project.

“In retrospect,” the report stated, “according to the government official, if BP had devoted a fraction of the resources is expended on the top kill to obtaining a more accurate early estimate of the flow rate, it might have better focused its efforts on the containment strategies that were more likely to succeed.”

The staff recommended several steps going forward:

  • Offshore operators should be required to submit detailed containment plans and prove their ability to carry them out.
  • The government needs to hire and retain qualified experts to oversee future accidents.
  • Government scientists should apply lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon accident to develop better means of gauging the rate of oil and gas discharged during a spill.
  • New technical means should be designed to monitor wells while they are being drilled and in the event of a blowout.
  • Well designs should be modified to take into account the possibility of a catastrophic blowout.
  • And all deepwater operators, including companies smaller than BP and other major oil companies, should be forced to demonstrate the capacity to respond to a major disaster and clean up after it.

SOURCE ARTICLE

There Will Be Fuel

NO SHORTAGE A Chesapeake Energy natural gas well near Burlington, Pa. Experts say the nation has gas reserves for 100-plus years.

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

A version of this article appeared in print on November 17, 2010, on page F1 of the New York edition.

THREE summers ago, the world’s supertankers were racing across the oceans as fast as they could to deliver oil to markets growing increasingly thirsty for energy. Americans were grumbling about paying as much as $4 a gallon for gasoline, as the price of crude oil leapt to $147 a barrel. Natural gas prices were vaulting too, sending home electricity bills soaring.

A book making the rounds at the time, “Twilight in the Desert,” by Matthew R. Simmons, seemed to sum up the conventional wisdom: the age of cheap, plentiful oil and gas was over. “Sooner or later, the worldwide use of oil must peak,” the book concluded, “because oil, like the other two fossil fuels, coal and natural gas, is nonrenewable.”

But no sooner did the demand-and-supply equation shift out of kilter than it swung back into something more palatable and familiar. Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation.

Meanwhile, another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just beginning in Europe and Asia. Add to that an increase in liquefied natural gas export terminals around the world that connected gas, which once had to be flared off, to the world market, and gas prices have plummeted.

Energy experts now predict decades of residential and commercial power at reasonable prices. Simply put, the world of energy has once again been turned upside down.

“Oil and gas will continue to be pillars for global energy supply for decades to come,” said James Burkhard, a managing director of IHS CERA, an energy consulting firm. “The competitiveness of oil and gas and the scale at which they are produced mean that there are no readily available substitutes in either one year or 20 years.”

Some unpleasant though predictable consequences are likely, of course, as the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico this spring demonstrated. Some environmentalists say that gas from shale depends on drilling techniques and chemicals that may jeopardize groundwater supplies, and that a growing dependence on Canadian oil sands is more dangerous for the climate than most conventional oils because mining and processing of the sands require

so much energy and a loss of forests.

And while moderately priced oil and gas bring economic relief, they also make renewable sources of energy like wind and solar relatively expensive and less attractive to investors unless governments impose a price on carbon emissions.

“When wind guys talk to each other,” said Michael Skelly, president of Clean Line Energy Partners, a developer of transmission lines for renewable energy, “they say, ‘Damn, what are we going to do about the price of natural gas?’ ”

Oil and gas executives say they provide a necessary energy bridge; that because both oil and gas have a fraction of the carbon-burning intensity of coal, it makes sense to use them until wind, solar, geothermal and the rest become commercially viable.

“We should celebrate the fact that we have enough oil and gas to carry us forward until a new energy technology can take their place,” said Robert N. Ryan Jr., Chevron’s vice president for global exploration.

Mr. Skelly and other renewable energy entrepreneurs counter that without a government policy fixing a price on carbon emissions through a tax or cap and trade, the hydrocarbon bridge could go on and on without end.

So what happened to shift the energy world so drastically the last few years? Is the shift reversible once the economy picks up?

The recession throttled the world’s demand for energy, particularly in the United States and Europe, but that tells only part of the story. Periodic jolts, like the Arab oil embargoes in the 1960s and 1970s, are likely to recur in a world with unpredictable actors like Iran. Access to oil and gas may always be limited by geopolitics, especially in places like the Middle East. Just in the last few days, the decline in the dollar spurred a new spike in oil prices, along with those of other commodities.

Yet, the outlook, based on long-term trends barely visible five years ago, now appears to promise large supplies of oil and gas from multiple new sources for decades into the future.

The same high prices that inspired dire fear in the first place helped to resolve them. High oil and gas prices produced a wave of investment and drilling, and technological innovation has unlocked oceans of new resources. Oil and gas from ocean bottoms, the Arctic and shale rock fields are quickly replacing tired fields in places like Mexico, Alaska and the North Sea.

Much depends, of course, on government policies in the coming decades. The International Energy Agency, the Paris-based organization that advises industrialized countries, projected this month that global energy demand would increase by an astounding 36 percent between 2008 and 2035, assuming the broad policy commitments already announced by governments were exercised. Oil demand is projected to grow to 99 million barrels a day in 2035, from 84 million barrels a day in 2009.

Even in an alternative world where there is a concerted, coordinated effort to reduce future carbon emissions sharply, the International Energy Agency projected oil demand would peak at 88 million barrels a day around 2020, then decline to 81 million barrels a day in 2035 — just fractionally less than today’s consumption. Natural gas use, meanwhile, would increase by 15 percent from current levels by 2035. In contrast, global coal use would dip a bit, while nuclear power and renewable forms of energy would grow considerably.

No matter what finally plays out, energy experts expect there will be plenty, perhaps even an abundance, of oil and gas. IHS CERA, which monitors oil and gas fields around the world, projects that productive capacity for liquid fuels could rise to 112 million barrels a day in 2030 (including 2.75 million barrels in biofuels), from 92.6 million barrels a day this year.

“The estimates for how much oil there is in the world continue to increase,” said William M. Colton, Exxon Mobil’s vice president for corporate strategic planning. “There’s enough oil to supply the world’s needs as far as anyone can see.”

More promising still is that the growing oil production comes from a variety of sources — making the world less vulnerable to a price war with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries or an outbreak of violence in a major producing country like Nigeria. As IHS CERA and other oil analysts see it, new oil is going to come from both conventional and unconventional sources — from anticipated expansions of fields in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and from a continued expansion of deepwater drilling off Africa and Brazil, in the Gulf of Mexico and across the Arctic, where hopes are high in the oil world, although little exploration has yet been done.

The vast oil sands fields in western Canada, deemed uneconomical by many oil companies as few as 15 years ago, are now as important to global supply growth as the continuing expansions of fields in Saudi Arabia, the current No. 1 producer.

“We’ve got a wealth of opportunities to address around the world,” said Mr. Ryan, Chevron’s vice president. “We have quite a few deepwater settings all over the world, some of them very new, like the Black Sea. There are Arctic settings. We have efforts under way re-exploring Nigeria, Angola, Australia. The easy stuff has been found, that’s true, but in the end, we still have many basins in the world to explore or to re-explore.”

The biggest wild card, and a potential game-changer, is Iraq, which now produces a modest 2.5 million barrels a day. With Saddam Hussein out of the picture, international oil companies have rushed there. If all the projects they have agreed to develop pan out, and if Iraq can contain its political turbulence enough to pump, production could mushroom to 12 million barrels a day by the end of the decade — well above what Saudi Arabia produces today.

But even if Iraq’s production does not rise to this level, IHS CERA predicts “it will eventually join Saudi Arabia and Russia as one of the largest global producers, with increasing influence on OPEC and world oil markets.”

New supplies are only part of the equation. Technological innovation has made the use of oil and gas more efficient, too, helping to keep rising demand for energy at least partly in check. Cars, buildings and appliances are becoming less wasteful, and biofuels are increasingly supplementing oil products and extending their reach.

Even in China, India and the rest of the developing world, where the demands of a growing middle class probably represent the world’s biggest energy challenge, there are positive signs.

China, for instance, is making a big push to reduce energy subsidies for exports like steel and aluminum. Countries around the developing world are severely cutting gasoline subsidies, forcing consumers of new cars to contain their exuberance. Cars that run on compressed natural gas are replacing more carbon-intensive gasoline-driven vehicles across Latin America and Asia. Natural gas sales should soar in Europe and the United States if the electric car takes off in the next couple of decades, as utilities are expected to phase out coal-burning plants in favor of gas.

Not surprisingly, the back-to-the-future world of oil and gas begins in the United States, still the biggest economy and the driver of energy markets since World War II.

For the last two decades, the United States has produced less oil each year and been increasingly dependent on imports than the year before. As recently as a decade ago, most experts predicted that the country had only 25 years of gas reserves, and that it would need to import at least half of its needs in the future.

Today the country has reversed both trends, chiefly because of new drilling techniques that have opened world-class oil and gas resources. In 2009, domestic production began to reverse its annual decline for the first time since 1991. The Energy Department expects domestic supplies to grow through 2035, absent a significant decline in oil prices.

Largely shut out of the Middle East, international companies including BP and Shell began seriously looking at the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico in the 1990s. Exploration and drilling below 10,000 feet of water and through miles of hard rock, thick salt and tightly packed sands required the development of supercomputers and three-dimensional imaging and equipment that could withstand the heat and pressures common at such depths, as well as submarine robots to make repairs.

After only a decade of serious deepwater drilling, the gulf is undergoing a drilling renaissance. Despite a decline in shallow-water production, gulf oil production has increased by more than 12 percent since 2000, to 1.7 million barrels a day, comparable to Libya’s output. Those increases are bound to slow over the next year or two as the federal government recalibrates regulations after the BP accident, but oil executives say they are committed to continue the production boom.

“We’ll see the industry ramp back up, go back to work and maybe in a year or year and a half, we’ll be back in a normal pace,” Marvin E. Odum, president of Shell Oil, a major Gulf producer, predicted.

Similar advances have made drilling gas and oil from shale possible on a large scale for the first time. Advances in so-called horizontal drilling allow well drillers to steer and carve through hard shale to expose more and hard-to-reach rock, and it also makes possible drilling under city neighborhoods, as in Fort Worth, which happens to sit atop a large gas field.

Horizontal drilling and advanced fracturing techniques across wide swaths of Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas over the last few years have produced so much natural gas that experts now say the United States has reserves for more than 100 years. That means the country is not only going to have plenty of gas, but also is likely to become an exporter over the next decade.

The American gas glut has set off a glut around the world, because the building spree in recent years of Middle Eastern and Asian liquefied natural gas terminals was originally intended to send much of their gas to the United States.

“The technology producing these resources has absolutely made the difference,” Mr. Odum said. “It’s the same with the Arctic, with the shale oil, all over the world. Technology is the key.”

Shale drilling is also beginning to produce significant amounts of oil in the United States. The Bakken shale field centered in North Dakota has become the fastest-growing major oil field in the United States, with production rocketing to about 350,000 barrels a day, from 100,000 barrels a day a decade ago. In a recent report, the consultancy firm PFC Energy projected production would climb to 450,000 barrels a day by 2013.

Add up the shale, the deepwater drilling and Canadian oil sands, says Edward L. Morse, the head at commodity research at Credit Suisse, and what you get is less dependency on OPEC and hostile countries like Venezuela. Synthetic oil made from Canadian oil sands has become the largest single source of imported oil this year, far more than from any OPEC country.

Mr. Morse said the demand side of the equation also helped. He noted that American demand for gasoline appeared to have peaked in 2007 and could decline by 15 to 20 percent by 2020 because of increasingly efficient cars and a federal mandate requiring that renewable fuels, like ethanol, blended into transportation fuels must increase to 36 billion gallons in 2022, from nine billion gallons in 2008.

“When you add it up,” Mr. Morse noted, “you get something that very closely approximates energy independence.”

Source Article

Iran

Comment about Iran from a former employee of Shell Oil USA

John,

I suspect that Iran’s real game has two parts, one is the obvious elimination of the Jewish State. The other is, I believed rooted in Iranian history going back to the days of the ancient Greeks.

Having lived in Iran for about a year many years ago I can tell you that the Iranians are a proud people, a handsome people, and a very bright and talented people. They are warm, generous and kind, and are very well aware of their historical heritage. They are the heirs and descendants of Darius, Cyrus, and Xerxes.

Interestingly, the Iranians still hold a grudge for what Alexander the Great did over 2000 years ago. Ancient Persia once ruled the Middle East from the Indus to ancient Greece. That is their historical sphere of influence. They stopped the expansion of the Roman Empire, and were largely responsible for stopping its resurrection in the 5th century. That war exhausted both empires and they both eventually collapsed.

The Iranians view the Persian Gulf and the surrounding region as THEIR sandbox. Their historical ‘stomping grounds’. They remember the exploitation of their oil wealth by the British, and the machinations of the Americans in their politics in this century. And they hold a grudge for that.

Their desire for nuclear weapons is in large part driven by their desire to regain a ‘place in the sun’ as a ‘great people’, and a desire to exert a controlling influence in the Persian Gulf Region. With those weapons they believe that they can dictate oil exportation policy from the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, and will be able to shut-off the flow of oil from the Gulf to the rest of the world if things don’t go the way they want.

This nuclear weapons program is really more about regional power politics and stuffing it to the West and Saudi Arabia than it is about the Jewish State, although if given the opportunity they will eliminate Israel in a heart beat if they think they can get away with it.

Few people know much if anything about the very long and interesting history of Iran. The following link will give a brief summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Persia#Pre-Islamic_history

This history is important because it has a very strong influence of the national identity of Iran, their view of who they are as a people, and their place in the world today. This history is a (background) driver in their national identity, policies and influences their international relationships and policies.

Iranians are proud of their history and who they are as a people. It is important not to forget that fact.

This is another link for short history of the Persians. It is worth reading.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/PERSIANS.HTM

And another link.

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/forgottenempire/

Royal Dutch Shell Iranian treachery

Royal Dutch Shell is once again funding a fanatical regime intent on the extermination of the Jewish people. Iran is bent on developing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, finishing the job that Shell’s former Nazi partners embarked upon, killing millions of Jews in the Holocaust.

By John Donovan

According to a Reuters article published on Thursday: “Companies are still finding ways to buy Iranian oil. Royal Dutch Shell and some Italian and Spanish refiners buy Iranian barrels with finance coming from Chinese and Italian banks…”

As a result of previous signals from Shell, it seemed that the company had ceased trading with the fanatical Iranian regime supplying road side bombs, which have maimed and killed many US and British soldiers.

Even the Donovan’s, well versed in the duplicity, deceit and trickery of Shell, thought the company had ended its trading with Iran. We should have known better.

On 28 October 2010, Shell CFO Simon Henry (above right) came clean after press reports on the subject and admitted that Shell has continued to trade with Iran:

“Simon Henry, Shell’s top financial official, said his company was still taking delivery of Iranian crude oil under the terms of its existing contracts with the Islamic republic.” (extract from UPI article)

Articles reported that Shell had stopped selling gasoline to Iran. No mention was made at the time that Shell was surreptitiously continuing to buy oil from the Iranians. Shell used subterfuge to disguise shipping movements. Basically Royal Dutch Shell has has continued to fund the military ambitions of an evil rogue regime, just as it did in funding the Nazis. We all know the dreadful consequences. Shell conspired directly with Hitler, was anti-Semitic and sold out its own Jewish employees to the Nazis.

Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets

Royal Dutch Shell is once again funding a fanatical regime intent on the extermination of the Jewish people. Iran is bent on developing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, finishing the job that Shell’s former Nazi partners embarked upon, killing millions of Jews in the Holocaust.

Royal Dutch Shell supported, encouraged and funded the Nazis, thereby being partly responsible for World War II. Its reckless greed is now in danger of bringing about A THIRD WORLD WAR, with even more catastrophic consequences.

We have printed below extracts from the “United Against Nuclear Iran” website, which contains links to related correspondence with Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary & General Counsel, Royal Dutch Shell Plc., and extracts from some revealing articles.

“United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy organization that seeks “to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons.” (Wikipedia Description)

“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….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.” (Wall Street Journal, “Total, Shell Keep Line Open With Tehran Despite US Claim,” 10/8/2010)

“Open sources reported that Royal Dutch Shell sold gasoline to Iran in 2009, but subsequently stopped in 2009.” (U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report: “Firms Reported in Open Sources to Have Sold Iran Refined Petroleum Products between January 1, 2009 and June,” September 3, 2010)

On September 30th, Shell made a “pledge to stop investing in Iran’s energy sector” as a result of pressure from American sanctions (AP, “US hits Iranian energy firm with sanctions,” 9/30/2010).

“Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil giant, paid the state-owned Iranian oil company at least $1.5bn (£0.94bn) for crude oil this summer, increasing its business with Tehran as the international community implemented some of the toughest sanctions yet aimed at constricting the Islamic republic’s economy and its lifeline oil business.” (The Guardian, “Shell increases oil trade with Iran — despite sanctions,” 9/27/2010)

“Royal Dutch Shell resumed its gasoline shipments to Iran, International Oil Daily reported this morning.  The company got back into business with the Iranian regime after a six-month hiatus. The move is a slap at the U.S. Congress, which has been working to develop energy sanctions that could curtail the regime’s nuclear weapons program, human rights abuses, and support for terrorism.

Shell delivered three 30,000-ton shipments of gasoline last month to Iran’s Bandar Abbas port. The company’s last known shipment to Iran was recorded in October 2009.

Shell now appears to be exploiting Congress’ delay [in imposing sanctions], and is perhaps betting that the United Nations, the Europeans, or indeed the Obama administration will never pull the trigger on meaningful sanctions.

The Dutch firm’s calculus appears to be based purely on profits. Shell is trying to squeeze as many petrodollars it can from the Iranian regime before sanctions take hold. According to The New York Times, the company is still profiting from a 1999 deal signed to develop two oil fields in Iran that became fully operational in 2005.

Shell should come under intense scrutiny by the Obama administration and Congress once sanctions are passed.  In 2009 alone, Shell received $2.4 billion in contracts from the Federal government.”

(Forbes.com, “Inside Shell’s Iran Game,” 6/3/2010).

“An oil tanker named Front Page, chartered by Royal Dutch Shell PLC, left this port on March 17 and reported it was going to another U.A.E. port, then on to Saudi Arabia, ship-tracking data show.

But the tracking information reveals that Front Page also made an unreported stop—to the coast of Iran. There it loaded Iranian oil, according to records obtained by oil traders and shipping sources.

The incident, some oil-industry experts say, is an example of how some companies these days are hiding their business dealings with Iran, even when they are perfectly legal because they aren’t subject to any sanctions…

Still, given all the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program, many companies decline to discuss their Iranian oil purchases. Companies like Shell and BP have said they have stopped selling gasoline to Iran.

But they rarely mention that they continue to buy crude or other Iranian oil products, which generally is a much larger and more lucrative business than gasoline deliveries.” (The Wall Street Journal. “Oil Trade with Iran Thrives, Discreetly,” 5/20/10)

“Royal Dutch Shell signed an $800 million deal in 1999 to develop two huge oil fields expected to produce 190,000 barrels a day, and while that project was completed in 2005, it continues to receive payments as a result of its work. Shell has a second Iranian natural gas development projects in the works, but officials said they are awaiting the results of a feasability study before determining whether they will go forward with it. In the meantime, the company continues to supply oil lubricant to Iran, and until recently, had been a large supplier of gasoline to Iran. Shell is also a huge supplier of gasoline to the American military, won drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Western United States, and shares with a company in China a $200,000 Export-Import Bank loan to build a petrochemical plant in that country. A Shell spokesman, David R. Williams, said that while the company would comply with any new international sanctions, Shell’s activities are not prohibited by European countries, adding that when the rules of different countries conflict “it makes compliance difficult.”  From 2000-2009, the company was the recipient of $11.2 billion US federal funds.  Their investments in Iran are currently active.  They have been listed as a potential violator of the Iran Sanctions Act.  (The New York Times, “Profiting from Iran, and the US,” 3/6/2010)

“Royal Dutch Shell PLC said Wednesday it is no longer selling gasoline to Iran, the latest oil company to make such a move during threats of tougher sanctions against the Islamic republic.

‘Shell is not currently selling gasoline to Iran,’ a company spokesman said. He declined to comment on whether it was related to sanctions against Iran.

Shell’s move comes as a number of Western oil companies have decided to stop trading with Iran as international pressure bites deeper into its oil and gas industry. Traders Vitol Holding BV and Glencore International AG, historically key fuel-oil suppliers to Iran, recently decided to halt sales of gasoline to the country.” (The Wall Street Journal, “Shell Stops Gas Sales to Iran,” 3/10/10)

“Royal Dutch Shell signed an $800 million deal in 1999 to develop two huge oil fields expected to produce 190,000 barrels a day, and while that project was completed in 2005, it continues to receive payments as a result of its work. Shell has a second Iranian natural gas development projects in the works, but officials said they are awaiting the results of a feasability study before determining whether they will go forward with it. In the meantime, the company continues to supply oil lubricant to Iran, and until recently, had been a large supplier of gasoline to Iran. Shell is also a huge supplier of gasoline to the American military, won drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Western United States, and shares with a company in China a $200,000 Export-Import Bank loan to build a petrochemical plant in that country. A Shell spokesman, David R. Williams, said that while the company would comply with any new international sanctions, Shell’s activities are not prohibited by European countries, adding that when the rules of different countries conflict ‘it makes compliance difficult.’”

From 2000 through March 2010, Royal Dutch Shell has been the recipient of $11.2 billion in U.S. federal funds, despite being a “possible violator of the Iran Sanctions Act.” (The New York Times, “Profiting from Iran, and the U.S.“, 3/6/10)

“New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli also announced Tuesday the $110 billion fund would freeze an additional $300 million in seven other companies…The decision comes after two years of reviewing these companies, the potential risk of the investments and, in some cases, humanitarian efforts in these countries. ‘We don’t expect our investments to benefit regimes that support genocide and terrorism,’ said DiNapoli…The fund also plans to monitor and prohibit further investment in ENI (E), Repsol YPF (REP), Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA), Total SA (TOT), ABB Ltd. (ABB), Alstom (ALO.FR) and Snam Rete Gas (SNMRY). Additionally, it plans to focus on other industries including telecommunications.” (The Wall Street Journal, “NY Comptroller To Divest $86.2M In State Pension Fund Investments,” 6/30/09)

“Another step the Obama administration should take is to sustain American pressure on foreign banks and oil companies to halt their dealings with Iran’s energy sector. This effort has led such major firms as Germanys Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, Englands HSBC, Credit Suisse and Royal Dutch Shell to halt or limit their business with Iran.” (The Baltimore Sun, “Facing the Iranian Threat,” 12/9/08)

“U.S. outreach to foreign banks and to oil companies considering investing in Iran’s energy sector has reportedly convinced more than 80 banks and several major potential oil-field investors to cease all or some of their business with Iran. Among them: Germanys two largest banks (Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank), London-based HSBC, Credit Suisse, Norwegian energy company StatoilHydro, and Royal Dutch Shell.” (The Wall Street Journal, “How To Put The Squeeze On Iran,” 11/13/08)

“William Burns, U.S. Under Secretary of State for political affairs, pointed out that several big energy companies, including Total, Shell, ENI and Repsol, have scaled back their business in Iran over the past few years.” (Reuters, “US to review if Statoil violates Iran sanctions law,” 7/9/08)

“Total, Shell and Repsol of Spain are hanging back from signing contracts, which the Iranians are desperate for them to sign, said Simon Henderson, an oil expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.” (Associated Press, “Iran looks to tap key oil field with homegrown crews,” 5/11/08)

“In January [2007], Shell and Spains Repsol signed a preliminary deal with Teheran jointly to develop two phases of South Pars. At the time, Shell said it might be a year away from knowing whether to proceed, a timescale that Shell chief executive Jeroen van de Veer repeated six months later.” (The Daily Telegraph, “Shell delays decision on Iran project again,” 12/29/07)

“The Teacher Retirement System of Texas investment portfolio includes 19 companies that do business with Iran. The most familiar company names: Royal Dutch Shell, Mitsubishi Heavy Industry and Samsung Engineering.” (San Antonio Express-News, “TRS, ERS miss 30-day deadline to formulate Iran-divestment plan,” 11/18/07)

Listed by U.S. Government as doing business in Iran. (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “List of Companies Doing Business With State Sponsors Of Terror,” Removed from the Internet in July 2007)

“While U.S. companies have long been barred from operating in Iran, more than 200 multinationals have investments there, from British-Dutch oil giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC and French telecommunications-equipment company Alcatel SA to Swedens electronics company Telefon AB L.M. Ericsson.” (The Wall Street Journal, “Should states sell stocks to protest links to Iran,” 6/14/07)

“GIANTS WITH A FOOT IN TEHRAN: Total, Shell, Statoil, BNP Paribas, Commerzbank, MTN, UPS, Linde, Technip, Nokia, Ericsson, Peugeot, Renault, OMV, Societe Generale, ENI, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, Siemens, LG, Samsung, Bosch, Valeo, Nestle, Unilever, BAT, Japan Tobacco.” (The London Times, “American pressure threatens UK firms,” 5/27/06)

Response:

Shell’s London office UNDER WATER and besieged by GIANT EELS

Oil giant’s riverside office now part of the river

By Kelly FiveashGet more from this author

Posted in IT Director, 19th November 2010 12:44 GMT

Royal Dutch Shell’s London headquarters has been shuttered since Monday (15 November) after the River Thames decided to pour into the iconic office building.

The Register understands that the oil giant’s Shell Centre, which stands on London’s South Bank in Waterloo, is awash with water from the River Thames, scuppering assorted building facilities including IT systems housed in the basement.

The building is famed for using water from the River Thames for cooling purposes, and it is thought this is the cause of the deluge.

However, various spokespeople in London and The Hague, where Shell’s other major office is located, confirmed the flood, but refused to say whether it had affected IT systems specifically.

“There’s too much water,” exclaimed a Shell spokeswoman, who went on to tell El Reg that the firm’s London server room was “not necessarily” located in the basement.

“They [Shell in London] won’t tell us [Shell in The Hague],” she said, before weirdly adding: “We don’t give names when interviewed”.

Worse still, there are uncorroborated reports that the buildings’ lifts are under siege from some shifty-looking Cockney eels.

We asked a security guard at the Shell Centre, which opened its doors in 1963, about the slippery river creature problem.

“[Laughs] I don’t know anything about that,” he said.

Meanwhile, Shell has issued several statements over the past few days about the flood.

“We can confirm that on Monday evening (15 November) a leak occurred in the basement of Shell Centre,” it said on Tuesday.

“The leak has been stopped. However our central heating system has been affected so Shell Centre is temporarily closed. This closure does not affect our business operations.”

The company has told staff based in Waterloo to enact their “business continuity plans”. In practice, this has meant Shell’s employees have been working from home all week and are currently being told not to return to the Shell Centre until next Monday.

We asked Shell if maintenance cutbacks had contributed to the flood, but at time of writing it hadn’t got back to us with comment.

In March 2008, Shell waved goodbye to 3,000 IT staffers in a $4bn outsourcing gig.

The company’s London office at one point contained a travel agency, hairdresser, restaurants and bars, a gym, bank, cinema and huge swimming pool – all operating underneath the tower. ®

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell Shuts Houma-to-Houston Oil Pipeline After Leak

By Aaron Clark – Nov 18, 2010 3:46 PM GMT+0000

Royal Dutch Shell Plc said a crude oil pipeline from Houma, Louisiana, to Houston remains shut after a Nov. 16 crude oil leak.

Ted Rolfvondenbaumen, a company spokesman, said he couldn’t provide a target date for the line’s restart. The conduit, known as the Ho-Ho pipeline system, can make deliveries to refineries in Texas and Louisiana with a combined capacity of more than 1.2 million barrels, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Rolfvondenbaumen said the 22-inch line has a maximum capacity of 360,000 barrels a day. According to Shell’s website, the line’s capacity is 325,000 barrels a day.

The leak occurred near the Intracoastal Waterway, and initially raised concern that crude might flow into the water, U.S. Coast Guard Capt. J.J. Plunkett said in a telephone interview. The spill pooled on dry ground and did not enter the waterway, he said.

About 1,500 barrels were spilled, according to an initial estimate done after dark, according to Plunkett.

The leak occurred in an “undeveloped area” outside Vinton, Louisiana, about 35 miles (56 kilometers) northeast of Port Arthur, Texas, according to a Shell statement. “There are no reports of any injuries or health impacts to people, impacts to wildlife or the Intracoastal Waterways,” the company said.

According to a filing with the National Response Center, a Shell pipeline spilled an unknown amount of crude oil Nov. 16 in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, near Vinton. According to a “worst case estimated” scenario, as much as 1,500 barrels may have leaked, according to the filing.

Refineries

The Ho-Ho system can deliver crude to refineries operated by Citgo Petroleum Corp. and ConocoPhillips in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and Motiva Enterprises LLC and Total SA in Port Arthur, according to Shell’s website.

Rolfvondenbaumen said no Shell or Motiva refineries were affected by the pipeline shutdown. Bill Stephens, a spokesman for ConocoPhillips, didn’t immediately return an e-mail asking if the company’s Lake Charles refinery was affected.

Rick Hagar, a Total company spokesman, didn’t immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

The Ho-Ho system can also connect to Exxon Mobil Corp.’s Baytown, Texas, refinery via third party pipelines, according to Shell’s map of the system. Neely Nelson, a spokeswoman for the Baytown refinery, said the plant wasn’t affected.

Rolfvondenbaumen said he couldn’t comment on what percentage of capacity the Ho-Ho pipeline was operating at prior to the shutdown.

The Houma terminal can accept crude from the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, according to Shell’s website. Barb Hestermann, a spokeswoman for the port, said the facility hasn’t been affected.

To contact the reporter on this story: Aaron Clark in New York at aclark27@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dan Stets at dstets@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Toxins confirmed in Australia coal-seam gas wells

Reuters Africa

Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:59pm GMT

SYDNEY Nov 18 (Reuters) – An Australian coal-seam gas company owned by Royal Dutch Shell and PetroChina Co Ltd has confirmed the presence of toxins in three wells in an Australian project.

Arrow Energy said in a statement released to the Australian stock exchange on Thursday that trace amounts of so-called BTEX group chemicals, which include benzene, had been found in the wells in Bowen Basin coal fields of northern Queensland state.

Arrow Energy is leading the development of a project that aims to turn coal-seam gas into liquefied natural gas for export, at an estimated cost of $10 billion for the first phase.

(Reporting by Mark Bendeich; Editing by Balazs Koranyi)

SOURCE

Shell’s Anacortes Refinery Has Hydrogen Sulfide Leak

By Aaron Clark and Samantha Zee – Nov 17, 2010 8:06 PM GMT+0000

Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s Puget Sound refinery in Anacortes, Washington, released hydrogen sulfide from a flare line in the crude unit, state regulators said.

The emission occurred at about 7 p.m. local time yesterday, according to a report filed with the Northwest Clean Air Agency. An estimated 137 pounds of hydrogen sulfide was released, Lyn Tober, a chemical engineer with the agency, said in an e-mail.

“They are installing a clamp on the line,” Tober said. “There was no injury, fire, or explosion causing or resulting from this release.”

The emission was also reported in a filing with the National Response Center. U.S. refineries must notify the center if they release hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities, according to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund.

“The refinery is operating normally,” Jody Barnett, a spokeswoman for Shell, said in an e-mail. She declined to provide details on the operational status of individual units or equipment at the Puget Sound refinery.

To contact the reporters on this story: Aaron Clark in New York at aclark27@bloomberg.net; Samantha Zee in San Francisco at szee@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dan Stets at dstets@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Flood closes Shell Centre

The London Central Office of Royal Dutch Shell has been closed as a result of there being a major flood in the basement during the night of 15th November 2010. Heating, air conditioning and water supplies are all affected. The flood caused the building to be closed today and it will remain closed tomorrow. Current expectations are that Shell Centre will reopen on Thursday 18th – but this has yet to be confirmed. null

Remembrance/Veterans Day

From a former employee of Shell Oil USA

John,

I noticed that your article regarding the Nazi connection with Deterding and Royal Dutch Shell came out about the time of Remembrance/Veterans Day. I don’t know if that was deliberate or serendipitous, but given the nature of that article and some of the comments you have received I thought it might be appropriate to write something about the men to whom we all owe so much for the world and freedoms we have today.

I am a few days late, but had some trouble writing this. Unfortunately, I am no poet so after much thought I decided that I could not better the words of the ‘Great Bard Himself’. His famous ‘St. Crispian’s Day Speech’ (paraphrased) is more than adequate to lead with:

This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words…..
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.

This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; …….

And gentlemen ….. now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap while any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

W. Shakespeare (Henry V)

It is hard to express in words what we owe those men who fought in WW2 and brought an end to two brutally repressive regimes – Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Those were terribly desperate times, and victory was by no means guaranteed.

Yet those young men, mostly, met that challenge, and those that returned home rebuilt a shattered world. This was not an easy task given all that they had experienced. But in the process they also kept another one of the most evil of regimes contained until it collapsed from its own internal rot and decay. Today we often call them them: ‘The Greatest Generation’, and with good cause.

These good men, these brave men, these lions among men are our fathers, our grandfathers and our great grandfathers, and time is passing. Nobody escapes the ‘artillery of time’ and their ranks have been decimated by the years. While we still can we should honor them, cherish them, and above all, never forget them and what they have done for us all. Time is short and if you listen carefully you will hear the distant refrain of Taps or Last Post gently recalling them one by one for one final march ….

The lesson here is that History does matter, and as always that ‘the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing.’

The Nazis came to power in great measure because men of good will did not take Sir Henri Deterding and Royal Dutch Shell to task on their relationship with the Nazis. Had they been taken to task on the matter history might have been radically different.

Royal Dutch Shell management is as amoral today as they were in the days of Hitler and his gang of perverted thugs. The task today is for men of good will to hold Shell management accountable for their conduct.