Click on image to enlarge it.

In 1933, the German subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, Rhenania, launched a series of motorist touring maps, which boasted that Shell was pumping money into the German economy i.e. into the coffers of the evil Hitler/Nazi regime.

(Relevant text shown underlined in red)

Die SHELL-Organisation in Deutschland stellt sich gleichzeitig in den Dienst richtig verstandener Nationalwirtschaft. Sie bemuht sich um weitere ErschlieBung deutscher Erdölvorkommen unter Ausnutzung der in weltumfassender Tatigkeit gesammelten Erfahrungen

The map is displayed on page 470 of “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” Vol 1: “From Challenger to Joint Industry Leader 1890 -1939” by Joost Jonker & Luiten van Zanden published in the UK in 2007 by Oxford University Press.

Header above map says:

Late in 1933 Rhenania set up an information office for motorist and launched a large series of motorists’ touring maps, emphasizing – despite some political doubts from The Hague – the importance of Shell as a contributor to the German economy.

We assume the maps provided clear directions to the Polish border.

By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, November 10th, 2010 — 3:17 pm

With big oil companies eager to expand offshore exploration in the Arctic, an environmental group on Wednesday warned that the United States is ill-prepared to deal with an oil spill there.

Freezing conditions, high seas and fragile ecosystems are among the dangers that could imperil operations to clean up a potential spill in the Arctic, where a gusher like BP’s in the Gulf of Mexico could have disastrous consequences, said the report by the Pew Environment Group.

The report said drillers are unprepared for near-hurricane force winds, 20-30 foot (six to nine-meter) seas, massive blocks of ice, total darkness for parts of the year and hundreds of miles between drilling sites in northern Alaska and major ports where supplies could be flown in case of trouble.

Walrus, seal, fish and polar bear habitats could be disrupted and entire remote communities wiped out if their means of subsistence living are eliminated by a toxic spill, the report said.

“I think there is a great deal of pressure right now to move forward with offshore drilling and I am hoping that our report and raising these questions will help guide toward a more precautionary approach in the Arctic,” Marilyn Heiman, director of the US Arctic program at the Pew Trusts, told AFP.

Skimmers that lift oil off the surface of the water will not work in the icy Arctic. Also unknown is how boats could navigate broken ice conditions to reach a spill site and if chemical dispersants that were widely used after the BP spill would work.

“Oil does not biodegrade nearly as quickly in cold waters,” Heiman said. In the case of the Exxon Valdez spill, “It is still causing toxicity in some species after 20 years, and that includes otters.”

The report urged the federal government to do major research on the Arctic marine environment before oil and gas exploration is allowed to go ahead, and said risk assessments and spill response strategies must be tailored to Arctic conditions.

“Current industry oil response plans are based on small-scale laboratory and field trials that have been extrapolated without large-scale verification,” the report said.

There are four current drilling operations off the Alaskan coast in the Beaufort Sea and two in the works, but those are near the coasts and drillers use manmade ice islands and roads to reach their rigs, Heiman explained.

Logistics could prove a major obstacle if a spill were to occur in deeper waters, with the port of Barrow in northern Alaska 725 miles (1,166 kilometers) by air from the capital Anchorage and 950 miles (1,528 kilometers) from the Coast Guard base in the southern port of Kodiak.

The closest major port, Dutch Harbor, is 1,300 miles (2,092 kilometers) by sea from Barrow.

“If a catastrophic oil spill were to occur, days or weeks could pass before response personnel and assets could be mobilized and deployed,” the Pew report said.

US President Barack Obama imposed a moratorium on new deepwater drilling and exploration in the wake of the BP oil spill, which began in April and was not halted until July by which time 4.9 million barrels had gushed into the sea.

The moratorium was lifted in October. Companies like Royal Dutch Shell want to begin drilling in the coming months and are submitting proposals to show they can meet tougher new government regulations.

The Obama administration’s decision to temporarily halt new drilling caused an uproar in the oil industry as workers were laid off and coastal economies in the US south suffered from the job losses in an already struggling economy.

The US Geological Survey said in 2008 that within the Arctic circle there are 90 billion barrels of oil and vast quantities of natural gas waiting to be tapped, most of it offshore.

Britain’s Cairn Energy, which is drilling two wells off the west coast of Greenland, said last week it had discovered gas and oil during its first exploration of the area.

SOURCE ARTICLE

By Shaun Polczer, Calgary Herald November 10, 2010

Zhou Jiping, vice chairman and president of Chinese oil giant PetroChina speaks at the company’s 2010 interim results announcement in Hong Kong on August 26, 2010. Photograph by: MIKE CLARKE, AFP/Getty Images

In yet another sign of growing Chinese interest in Canada’s energy resources, the Chinese national oil company and Royal Dutch Shell on Tuesday signed a deal that will see the companies partner up on oil and gas projects in Canada.

The China National Petroleum Company – the parent of PetroChina, one of the world’s largest publicly trade oil companies – reported that its president, Jiang Jiemin and Shell CEO Peter Voser signed a memorandum of agreement in Beijing on “integrated co-operation” of oil and gas projects in Canada and coal bed methane development in China.

No other details of the agreement were disclosed but speculation is that the companies would be looking to develop oilsands.

In Calgary, Shell spokesman Phil Vircoe declined to confirm the agreement or what it would entail, although Bloomberg reported that Li Lusha, a Beijing-based spokeswoman for Shell’s China operations, confirmed the accords in a separate telephone interview. Bloomberg also reported that a PetroChina spokesman in Hong Kong confirmed the CNPC-Shell deal without giving further details.

Shell Canada, which was taken private by Royal Dutch two years ago, is one of the country’s largest integrated oilsands producers and owns a controlling interest in the Athabasca Oil Sands Project which is currently expanding its Scotford upgrader to handle higher production.

Greg Stringham, vice-president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), said Chinese interest in Canada’s oilpatch is high. This week he returned from Beijing where he was the keynote speaker at a full-day conference at the Beijing Petroleum University devoted exclusively to Canadian oil prospects.

“They talked not just about oil, but about gas as well,” he said. Although he wasn’t aware of the agreement between the two companies, “I think it’s an indication of strong interest (in Canada) and a good sign of a continuing and growing relationship in energy.”

Shell Canada wouldn’t be the only Western oil major to court Chinese investment in Alberta’s oilpatch, but it’s certainly one of the largest. Earlier this spring Chinese refining giant Sinopec won approval from the federal government to buy ConocoPhillips’ stake in Syncrude Canada for $4.65 billion.

In June Encana Corp. signed an MOU with CNPC to negotiate a potential joint venture to develop unconventional gas plays in British Columbia.

The Chinese are also big investors in Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. and MEG Energy, which are developing thermal oilsands projects in northeast Alberta. And in May, Penn West Energy entered into a deal with the China Investment Corp. worth $2.6 billion to develop oilsands assets in the Peace River region of Alberta.

On the flip side of the coin, Calgary-based Husky Energy is considering a spin out of its Chinese assets to develop a major natural gas find off China’s east coast.

In addition to investing overseas, Stringham said the Chinese are also interested in acquiring Western technology to help develop its own heavy oil and unconventional gas deposits.

China, the world’s fastest-growing major economy, may source one-third of its unconventional gas supply from coal seams by 2030, Wood Mackenzie Consultants Ltd. said in a report on Aug. 24.

Chinese energy demand will jump 75 per cent by 2035, accounting for more than a third of global demand growth, the International Energy Agency said in a report yesterday. PetroChina plans to increase co-operation with foreign energy companies to accelerate its global expansion, President Zhou Jiping said in August.

The two companies have already agreed to work together on energy projects in China and Australia. They signed a joint shale-gas assessment agreement for the Fushun-Yongchuan block in Sichuan last year. That was Shell’s second gas exploration venture in mainland China following a project at the Changbei gas field in Shaanxi province.

Shell and PetroChina also completed a $3.5 billion joint acquisition of Australia’s coal bed methane producer Arrow Energy Ltd. in August.

PetroChina plans to spend at least $60 billion in the next decade on overseas acquisitions, Jiang said in March.

With files from Bloomberg

spolczer@calgaryherald.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

By John Donovan

Printed below is an email my father sent to Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer at Royal Dutch Shell Plc., which was also sent to Peter Voser, Chief Executive Officer and Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary/General Counsel Corporate.

The stated subject: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets.

Knowing that my father is 93, it seems extraordinarily impolite of Mr Wiseman to not even have the courtesy to acknowledge receipt.  Shell has not taken issue with the accuracy of what was stated in the article, nor raised any copyright objections.

THE EMAIL TO ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: Alfred Donovan <alfred@shellnews.net>
Date: 3 November 2010 17:38:24 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com, John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Subject: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets

Dear Mr Wiseman

You are probably already aware of the teaser article published this morning under the headline:
Coming soon: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets

I had intended to make the actual article “Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets” available on the website on a password basis, so that only Shell could view it, but we have run into some technical glitches.

I have therefore supplied it as an attachment. It is far from ideal as the graphics are displaced, but the text is readable.

It is a draft and has yet to be proof read and have all the external links checks. We do not, however, foresee any major changes unless Shell indicates that any of the content is inaccurate or untrue.

Can you kindly let me know by Friday evening if you intend to take up the invitation in the teaser article? In that event, just let me know when we can reasonably expect a substantive response. There is no rush. If you say that you will need a couple of weeks, and then decide that more time is required, that would not be a problem.

If, after due consideration, you decide that there are copyright issues involved, please identity the items in question and the precise grounds on which copyright is being claimed. Some of the photographs are over 70 years old.

If we receive no response by Friday evening, we will assume that, as has been the case with other recent draft articles, Shell has no issues it wishes to raise and no objections to our publication plans for the content.

Once the draft is finalised, we will supply it to the Wiesenthal Centre and request a comment for publication with the article.

In a recent email to you concerning a counter-intelligence investigation by US authorities of alleged Shell industrial espionage in the USA, we mentioned our plan to contact UK and American politicians (MP’s and Senators etc). This plan was delayed pending the completion of this topic, which will now form an important part of the warning message being conveyed.

Regards
Alfred Donovan

Photograph shows Swastika flag flying at the head office of Royal Dutch Petroleum, 30 Carel van Bylandtlaan , The Hague, during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands in World War II (From Image Database Hague Municipal)

Comment by a former employee of Shell Oil USA

John,

I have a comment about the comment for your ‘retiree’: He got his biology wrong. Toads are not slimy and do not turn into princess. Only frogs are slimy and Hofmeister has that personality trait in abundance.

I also have another observation for your readers about ‘Mr. Toad’:

With regard to your comments/observations about John Hofmeister: It is almost a certainty that Mr. Hofmeister (the alleged ‘pompous toad’) has initimate knowledge of Shell USA’s  (alleged) espionage plan that targeted their former employee’s IP and WMD technologies classified by the US Dept.’s of Defense and Energy, as well as current legal liabilities in that regard. Mr.Hofmeister’s term at Shell (1997 -2008) puts him at Shell during the time of Shell’s concerted effort to gain access to the classified material. It is also very possible that he was intimately involved in the decision/authorization process that led Shell to proceed ahead with, and/or continue with, that (alleged) illegal effort (if he was not directly responsible for any of the decisions or authorizations himself).

So, Mr.Hofmiester’s (the alleged ‘pompous toad’) conduct as a senior level Shell manager may not only have been devious, but very criminal as well. Somebody at Shell was responsible for the decision/authorization process, and only senior level Shell USA management had that authority. Time will tell what his involvement may have been. Who knows, Mr. Hofmeister may be a very willing accessory to a conspiracy to commit espionage. Something to think about.

U.S. DEFENSE DEPT CONFIRMS ESPIONAGE INVESTIGATION OF SHELL

ENDS

(IF MR HOFMEISTER WISHES TO COMMENT ON THIS OR ANY OTHER POSTING ABOUT HIM ON THIS WEBSITE, WE WILL PUBLISH HIS COMMENTS ON AN UNEDITED BASIS)

Posted on Shell Blog by “retired shellee” on Nov 10th, 2010 at 11:24 am

In 1995, pollution and politics in Nigeria hit the oil giant’s reputation hard

John Vidal: Tuesday 9 November 2010 17.33 GMT

A Shell Oil wellhead spill near Oloibiri Town, Bayelsa, Nigeria. Photograph: Ed Kashi/Corbis

1995 was Shell’s annus horribilis. Even as British environmentalists condemned its plan to dispose of the giant Brent Spar oil platform in the North Sea, a greater threat to the global brand emerged in the deep poverty of the Niger Delta where author and Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, along with other tribal leaders, had challenged the company to clean up pollution from its wells and share more of its revenue with the poorest.

By June 1995, the company had been expelled from the delta following a peaceful uprising and was fending off allegations that it had colluded with the military in a series of massacres and human rights abuses. But a bad situation for Shell turned terrible when in November 1995 Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni were sentenced to death on trumped-up murder charges by a military tribunal.

Two weeks later they were hanged at dawn and it emerged that Shell had not tried to plead for mercy for its critics, saying it was a matter for the state.

Outrage spread across the world. There were vigils and demonstrations, Nigeria was suspended from the Commonwealth and an international boycott of its products hurt the country financially. A reputation for honesty and integrity was shredded. Activists in Europe firebombed Shell stations, there were questions raised in parliaments around the world and the company’s reputation was in meltdown.

In response, Shell turned to the crisis limitation exercises, promising inquiries, offering money to rebuild Ogoni schools and hospitals and to clean up pollution. Within two years it had rebranded itself with “new values of honesty, integrity, respect for people, as well as professionalism, pride and openness, sustainable development and human rights.”

It never admitted guilt for what happened in the delta but publicly maintained that technically, legally and ethically it had acted correctly.

The papers that have shed light on Shell’s attempts to deal with the PR nightmare emerged from last year’s New York trial of the company by Saro-Wiwa’s son and others. The case never came to court because in June, the company agreed to an out-of-court settlement of $15.5m. Once again, the company denied any liability for the deaths, stating that the payment was part of a “reconciliation” process.

GUARDIAN ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLE MI6 ‘firm’ spied on green groups for Shell. Part of of the undercover activity related to Ken Saro-Wiwa.

NGOs and BBC targeted by Shell PR machine in wake of Saro-Wiwa death

Secret documents reveal the oil giant’s crisis management strategy following the execution of the Nigerian activist

Eveline Lubbers and Andy Rowell: Tuesday 9 November 2010 17.33 GMT

Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1993. Shell faced accusations that it had colluded with the government over the activists’ deaths. Photograph: Greenpeace/AFP

Secret internal company documents from the oil giant Shell show that in the immediate aftermath of the execution of the Nigerian activist and writer Ken Saro-Wiwa it adopted a PR strategy of cosying up to key BBC editors and singling out NGOs that it hoped to “sway”.

The documents offer a previously hidden insight into efforts by the company to deflect the PR storm that engulfed it after the Nigerian activist was hanged by the country’s military government. Shell faced accusations that it had colluded with the government over the activists’ deaths.

In June last year, the company paid $15.5m to settle a legal action over the deaths in a federal court in New York without admitting liability. It was one of the largest payouts agreed by a multinational corporation charged with human rights violations.

The documents – which were part of this legal case but were never made public – describe the company’s “crisis management strategy and plan”. This was finalised by Shell’s senior executives at a secret meeting in Ascot in January 1995, two months after Saro-Wiwa’s death. The strategy was described as “most confidential”.

In a similar move to Tony Blair’s re-branding of the Labour party, the executives considered renaming the oil company “New Shell” in an effort to shake off some of the recent bad publicity.

Saro-Wiwa had been a vocal critic of Shell’s activities in the Niger Delta and of the Nigerian military government. His hanging 15 years ago on 10 November 1995 prompted international outrage and a public backlash against Shell. The executions led to Nigeria‘s suspension from the Commonwealth for three years.

The company’s “crisis plan” focused on what the documents refer to as “the message” and getting the “style, tone, content and timing right, reflecting greater humanity”. Philip Watts, who would later become Shell chairman, emphasised that everyone must “sing to the same ‘hymn sheet’.”

The documents outline a tactic of divide and rule, where Shell planned to work with some of its critics but isolate others. Under the “occupying new ground” scenario, the document detail how Shell would “create coalitions, isolate the opposition and shift the debate.”

Dividing NGOs into friends and foes, Shell emphasised the need to “work with [and] sway ‘middle of the road’ activists”. The Body Shop, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were seen as unlikely to change their position. One suggested tactic to counter these organisations was to “challenge [the] basis on which they continue their campaign against Shell in order to make it more difficult for them to sustain it”. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were seen as more easily persuaded. The document suggests building relationships with the organisations and encouraging “buy-in to the complexity of the issue”.

Another key group Shell was interested in winning over was the press. The documents complain that the media was too willing to report the views of pressure groups. It wanted to generate media coverage showing ” ‘the other version’ of events/issues”. Other company documents identified which media outlets would be targeted. It said that “stable relationships” had already been established with the Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, Times, and the Independent.

The BBC was one of the organisations singled out by Shell’s PR department. One of the documents reveal that “relationships are underdeveloped” with the BBC World Service. It continues: “We will identify and cultivate important editorial and senior management staff through a contact programme.” In particular they wanted to “build a relationship” with journalist Hilary Andersson, who had recently become the BBC’s Lagos correspondent, as well as “any of her known contacts in the divisions”.

The documents also noted that “showing progress with the ‘greening of Shell Nigeria’” was “strategically critical” after Saro-Wiwa’s death. Although elsewhere, the documents acknowledge that the strategy may not be seen as genuine. “Our present communications strategy could be construed as green imagery” the authors wrote.

To improve its green image, the company had to counter accusations of “environmental devastation”, so Shell planned to produce a video “to publicise successes” and “to turn the negative tide”. The most important topic to be included in the film was “oil spills generally, focusing on sabotage.” This would have had the effect of playing up the impact of illegal activity in causing oil spill pollution in the delta, but in another document, the head of Shell Nigeria, N A Achebe, had acknowledged internally that “the majority of incidents arise from operational failures”.

The documents even reveal that Shell discussed whether it should stay in the country in the wake of Saro-Wiwa’s death. One scenario was called “milking the cow”, whereas the “pull-out” scenario was seen as “giving in” or “caving in” which would set a “very negative precedent for the group”. Another reason for not leaving was that “issues of liability will not disappear even with a total withdrawal.”

A spokesperson said that the company’s environmental record had improved greatly in recent years. “The total number of spills in 2009 was 132, against the average between 2005 and 2009 of 175 per year. Thieves or saboteurs spilled about 103,000 barrels from [Shell Petroleum Development Company] facilities in 95 incidents – an average of one spill every four days. This accounted for almost 98% of the volume of oil spilled during the year.” The company declined to comment on its PR strategy in 1995.

The spokesperson continued: “Whatever the cause, SPDC is committed to stopping and containing all spills, recovering and cleaning up as much oil as it can and restoring sites in compliance with regulations.”

But Nnimmo Bassey, Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action and chair of Friends of the Earth International said the company had not changed and were still not doing enough to help local people in the Niger Delta. “Internationally they polish their image. The claims they make in the international areas, do not stand scrutiny on the ground.”

GUARDIAN ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLE MI6 ‘firm’ spied on green groups for Shell (including some of the NGO’s mentioned above). Part of of the undercover activity related to Ken Saro-Wiwa.

Royal Dutch Shell boss Peter Voser said the move was part of a global drive ‘to simplify the company and to improve our capital efficiency’

By Rob Davies
Last updated at 8:33 AM on 9th November 2010

Shell has raised £2.1billion by selling a 10 per cent stake in Australia’s Woodside Petroleum as chief executive Peter Voser presses on with plans to streamline the group.

The sale reduces Shell’s holding in Woodside to 24 per cent and means the Anglo-Dutch firm has completed around £3.4billion of a plan to offload up to £5billion of assets by the end of the 2010-11 financial year.

The company said the sale formed part of a strategy to own energy assets directly or through joint ventures, rather than via shareholdings in other firms.

And insiders said Shell (down 25.5p to 2059p) had only retained a 24 per cent stake due to the difficulty of offloading such a large volume of shares in one go.

It has agreed to hang on to its remaining stake in the company for a year, unless a third party comes in to buy more than 3 per cent of Woodside.

Voser said the sale was part of a ‘worldwide push to simplify the company and to improve our capital efficiency’, as the firm gears up for a period of costly investment.

Shell spent £20.7billion building the business this year and expects to invest a further £17billion each year until 2014, as it bids to up its oil output from 3.1million barrels a day to 3.7million.

DAILY MAIL ARTICLE