Posts from ‘December, 2010’

18 December 2010

Shell has confirmed that they are in detailed negotiations with Essar for the sale of Stanlow Refinery and associated marketing businesses. They have set a deadline of the end of February to reach agreement on the terms of any sale.

If Stanlow is not sold by then it will continue to operate as a Manufacturing Complex within the Shell Group.

By Katarzyna Klimasinska – Dec 17, 2010 11:12 PM GMT+0000

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s biggest oil company, is preparing three exploration plans to meet new requirements for deep-water wells in the Gulf of Mexico after the U.S. lifted a drilling ban, a spokeswoman said today.

Statoil ASA, the Nordic region’s biggest energy producer, has filed applications for two new wells since the moratorium ended on Oct. 12, Tony Dore, head of Statoil’s exploration unit in North America, said on Dec. 10.

Drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet (152 meters) remains idle more than two months after President Barack Obama ended the moratorium as regulators review compliance with environmental and safety rules imposed after BP Plc’s Macondo oil-well blast. The U.S. received three applications for new wells subject to regulations introduced after the spill, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement said.

“It does remain to be seen how long it’s going to take to get permits approved,” Erik Milito, the upstream director for the American Petroleum Institute, said today in a phone interview from Washington. “The companies have the ability to move forward in a safe, environmentally responsible manner.”

“Future drilling permits must first wait on approved exploration plans,” Kelly op de Weegh, a spokeswoman for The Hague-based Shell, said in an e-mail today.

Shell operated five rigs, more than any other company, in deep waters when Obama halted the activity following the Macondo explosion, the Interior Department said. The blast killed 11 workers, spewed crude for 87 days and shut a third of the Gulf to commercial fishing.

“The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement received three applications for new wells subject to regulations introduced after the spill,” said Melissa Schwartz, spokeswoman for the agency. “Only one of these permits is for activity that was suspended under the moratorium, and has been returned to the operator because it was incomplete.”

The agency also returned 11 other permits that were submitted to the agency prior to the lifting of the moratorium, Schwartz said.

The moratorium cut Shell’s Gulf output by 10,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day, Simon Henry, chief financial officer for the company, said on an Oct. 28 conference call.

To contact the reporters on this story: Katarzyna Klimasinska in Washington at kklimasinska@bloomberg.net;

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net.

BLOOMBERG ARTICLE

Shell had gone beyond merely doing business in Nigeria but had “perfected its despicable act of corporate rule through which it has over the years evaded justice for all its atrocious activities against the environment and the Niger Delta People.”

By Ayo Okulaja

Environmental activists have urged the Nigerian government to begin criminal prosecution of executives of oil giant, Shell, for alleged treasonable activities committed by the corporation as revealed by an online whistleblower, WikiLeaks.

In the released cables of US diplomats in Nigeria, WikiLeaks revealed that Shell’s vice president Ann Pickard admitted to a former US envoy to Nigeria that its employees were seconded to all the relevant ministries and agencies of the Nigerian government and thanks to the infiltration, the company was able to keep a tab on all governmental policies and deliberations.

But the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) said the revelation has shown that rather than operate as a company, the oil-giant had become “a pseudo-political organization bent on taking political power and undermining our national interest, national security and our sovereignty.” The group, in a statement, issued yesterday, said Shell had gone beyond merely doing business in Nigeria but had “perfected its despicable act of corporate rule through which it has over the years evaded justice for all its atrocious activities against the environment and the Niger Delta People.”

Quoting statements credited to Ms. Pickard that the oil company knew “everything that was being done in those ministries” as the Nigerian government had “forgotten” about the extent of Shell’s infiltration and unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations, the activists claimed that it had finally “been vindicated!”, noting that it raised alarm several years back about “Shell’s surreptitious attempt to assume full control of our national systems.”

The group noted that Shell was not only in the drivers’ seat of the oil fields of the Niger Delta but also in government policy-making meetings where it consistently instigated policy sommersaults with the Petroleum Industry Bill and other far-reaching laws that would guarantee transparency and accountability which it did not want.

“With these leaks, it is time for the Nigerian government to reclaim our sovereignty from Shell and restore dignity to the Niger Delta people by forcing Shell to stop gas flaring, reckless oil leaks and total disregard of the environment,” ERA/FoEN Executive Director, Nnimmo Bassey, said.

The group said that when Diezani Alison-Madueke, a former employee of Shell was appointed minister for petroleum, “we warned that it was a tactless surrender of Nigeria’s oil industry to Shell. We told Nigerians that there is irreconcilable conflict of interest in her appointment because the minister has never for once hidden her true identity as a protégé of Shell.”

Damaging cancer

The group also called on the Nigerian government to begin an immediate “investigation to identify those Shell agents planted in ministries and government agencies and flush them out of the system.” According to the group’s programme director, Godwon Uyi Ojo, “Shell has become a cancer that is damaging every organ of the Nigerian polity. No wonder Shell has been able to evade justice for ecological devastation, complicity in cases of human rights violation and other atrocities linked to its operations in the Niger Delta.”

Secret dispatches from Washington’s embassies in Africa also revealed that Shell swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

Mr. Bassey pointed out that with these leaks, “we have been validated by our publication in 1993 that Niger Delta people have been trapped between a vicious global corporation and a visionless government.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

Apologies for this website being down earlier today. Our dedicated server was apparently under a denial-of-service high load attack by an unknown party. This information comes from our hosting company in Dallas. DoS attack generally involves organised efforts by a third party with malicious intent, to prevent an Internet site or service from functioning efficiently or at all, temporarily or indefinitely. Should this website disappear from the Internet as a result of legal or illegal action by a third party, please visit shellnews.net where we will post information. DoS attacks are unlawful. (some of this information is from a Wikipedia article)

By Eduard Gismatullin – Dec 16, 2010 11:37 AM GMT+0000

Canadian oil sand production has limited impact on the local environment and population, while the government needs to increase regulation of the industry to keep up with expansion, an academy of scientists said.

The Royal Society of Canada’s panel of experts couldn’t find “credible evidence” of increasing cancer rates in people living near the oil sands operations in northern Alberta, it said in a statement posted on its website. The industry doesn’t “threaten” the Athabasca River system and the impact on air quality is “minimal,” the RSC said.

At the same time, environmental regulations don’t “appear to have kept pace with the rapid expansion of the oil sands industry over the past decade,” the RSC said in its 414-page study. Improvements in technology haven’t dealt with increasing tailing ponds and greenhouse gas emissions, it said.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, BP Plc, and Husky Energy Inc. are among companies investing in Alberta oil sands, which contain the biggest crude reserves outside of Saudi Arabia, according to Canadian government estimates. Crude extracted from local bitumen will be the largest single source of U.S. oil imports this year, according to industry consulting group, IHS CERA.

Shell plans to raise its production of heavy crude in the Americas by 60 percent through 2020, the Anglo-Dutch company said in a presentation on Sept. 28. PTT Exploration & Production Pcl, Thailand’s biggest energy explorer, became the latest company to secure an oil sand project in Alberta when it teamed up with Statoil ASA last month.

Statoil, Shell and BP have faced opposition from shareholders because of environmental concerns about the energy- intensive projects to extract oil from the tar-like sands. Dwindling reserves in easier-to-access areas and rising prices are making oil sands developments more attractive to producers.

Total SA, Suncor Energy Inc., Imperial Oil Ltd. and other explorers this month have agreed to “work together in a unified effort to advance tailings management,” Shell said in a statement. The partners plan to complete research next year.

To contact the reporter on this story: Eduard Gismatullin in London at egismatullin@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Will Kennedy at wkennedy3@bloomberg.net

BLOOMBERG ARTICLE

Thursday 16 December 2010

BP shares have fallen back following news that the US government had issued a lawsuit relating to the Gulf of Mexico disaster, prompting talk of a fine of up to $20bn and total costs relating to the spillage of $40bn.

But American legal action could ultimately lead to an American takeover of the company, analysts suggested. BP shares climbed earlier this week on speculation of Middle Eastern stakebuilding or alternatively a bid from Royal Dutch Shell, but yesterday Exxon Mobil was put back into the frame as a possible predator. JP Morgan Cazenove said:

BP trades on a proven reserve multiple that is equal to Exxon Mobil’s 10-year average finding and development cost and is 30% cheaper than its peers…buy or build?

That is, should Exxon spend money on developing its own new fields, or use the cash for a takeover of BP at roughly the same cost? On the lawsuit itself analyst at Jefferies said:

Should BP be able to settle the civil matters in 2011 we think it will benefit the stock, removing one of the largest uncertainties over the Macondo spill cost and potentially allowing the shares to return to something approaching their fair value, which we see as in the 565p region. Despite this we still remain somewhat cautious, as the legal process is far from over and BP will also present its new strategy on 1 February 2011. This will most probably include a resumption of the dividend, we currently forecast a 38 cent annual payout, 32% below the 2009 level, although some are expecting a more radical reduction. Although there is also some speculation that BP may lay out a new strategy, shape and structure, we don’t think BP’s management will have the appetite for such radical change at present.

BP ended the day down 6.55p at 470p but off its worse levels.

SOURCE

Halliburton pays Nigerian regime a bribe/fine to stop bribery charges against Halliburton? (Comment by John Donovan)

Halliburton agrees to pay $250m in fines in lieu of prosecution over alleged multimillion-dollar bribes

David Smith in Port Harcourt Wednesday 15 December 2010 19.42 GMT

Nigerian anti-corruption police said this month they planned to file charges against Dick Cheney. Photograph: Joshua Roberts/REUTERS

Nigeria‘s anti-corruption police have dropped charges against Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, over a multi-million dollar bribery case after the energy firm Halliburton agreed to pay up to $250m (£161m) in fines.

The move followed the intervention of ex-president George Bush Sr and former secretary of state James Baker, according to Nigerian press reports.

The country’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) said it met officials representing Cheney and Halliburton in London last week after filing 16-count charges relating to the construction of a liquefied natural gas plant in the conflict-ridden Niger delta.

Femi Babafemi, a spokesman for the EFCC, said: “There was a plea bargain on the part of the company to pay $250m as fines in lieu of prosecution.”

The sum consists of $120m (£77m) in penalties and the repatriation of $130m (£83m) trapped in Switzerland, he added.

Babafemi said he expected Nigeria’s attorney general Mohammed Adoke to ratify the decision . “I can tell you authoritatively that an agreement has been reached.”

Several Nigerian newspapers added that Bush and Baker took part in negotiations through conference calls with Adoke and other officials, but Babafemi could not confirm this.

Houston-based engineering firm KBR, a former Halliburton unit, pleaded guilty last year to US charges that it paid $180m in bribes between 1994 and 2004 to Nigerian officials to secure $6bn in contracts for the Bonny Island liquefied natural gas project in the delta. KBR and Halliburton reached a $579m settlement in America but Nigeria, France and Switzerland have conducted their own investigations into the case.

Last week, the EFCC charged Halliburton chief executive David Lesar, Cheney, and two other executives. It also filed charges against Halliburton as a company, which was headed by Cheney during the 1990s, and four associated businesses.

Campaigners in the Niger delta expressed disappointment at the plea bargain. Celestine AkpoBari, programme officer at Social Action Nigeria, said: “I would have loved to see Dick Cheney in chains in our court and facing justice in our prisons. That would have been a very big point that would have lifted Nigeria out of its woes.”

Kentebe Ebiaridor, a project assistant at Environment Rights Action, suggested that Bush and Baker took part to protect America’s huge oil interests in the region. “They are trying not to jeopardise the relationship,” he said. “But if Dick Cheney is guilty, he should be brought to book.”

GUARDIAN ARTICLE

Interview by Shelley DuBois December 15, 2010: 3:25 PM ET

FORTUNE — Slowly but surely, the energy landscape in America and around the globe is changing. Crude is still king, but oil and gas companies are increasingly folding in more and different assets.

Shell (RDSA), for example, has purchased and developed tons of natural gas assets, even though the commodity sells for cheap in the current market. To get some insight into Big Oil’s strategy for the future of energy, Fortune spoke with President of Shell Oil Company, Marvin Odum. Odum filled us in on the long-term natural gas outlook, drilling in the Gulf after BP (BP) muddied the industry’s reputation and why Shell feels like oil sands are cleaner than you think.

Fortune: Energy as we know it is changing, how will Shell adapt?

Odum: One of the interesting things about our portfolio is that Shell, by 2012, will actually produce more gas than it does oil. And that’s done with intent. We see increased demand for gas. Economies around the world are growing, and we see gas as being a big part of the solution with a lower environmental impact.

But isn’t it a problem that natural gas is so cheap?

There is a degree of drilling in the system right now that’s oriented towards maintaining acreage for longer-term development–so there’s additional production that doesn’t look economically rational. A rational market would hold off from drilling some of those wells, but instead you get this aberration of drilling to hold acreage for a longer-term position. But I do think we’ll see that play out certainly over the next two years, if not the next 18 months.

How?

Put yourself on the consumer side of this: if you have a choice between building a coal-fired power plant or natural gas-fired power plant, part of what you’re going to want to know is what’s going to happen to natural gas in the future. With all of the resources that have been identified now across North America, consumers have confidence that not only will the supply be there, but also there will be a dampened volatility of natural gas price. And that’s helping natural gas.

So the cheap price of natural gas now could help the industry long term?

It’s not just the current low prices, it’s actually being able to look at the magnitude of these resources and imagining their development over time.

What about exporting liquefied natural gas?

When it comes to the skills and the technology around liquefied natural gas, we’re well-placed if not the best placed company in terms of bringing the solution to that equation. As this market continues to develop, if the right thing is for this resource to leave the continent, we’re in a good place to do that.

And you’re actually working on turning liquids into gas, right?

Gas to liquids a step further beyond an LNG project. We’re moving into Qatar, which will be by far the worlds’ largest gas to liquids facility with some proprietary technology. Qatar has the largest gas provinces in the world, and the ability to take part of that stream, which will have a different market than natural gas, was a natural step for us.

Any interest in drilling in deepwater?

Deepwater continues to be an important area for us. We’ve made a number of significant discoveries, and are anxious to get back to the Gulf of Mexico.

Has the BP spill affected your goal of getting back to the Gulf?

Absolutely. I’ll start with the obvious statement, which is that most people lost faith in the industry as a results of that event. The trust that was there had been built up over many decades, but it’s something that we have to rebuild. I personally have spent a lot of time over this last year to basically be present to answer questions and work directly with the oil spill commission and the regulator. It did a lot of damage to the industry.

You’re in charge of prioritizing Shell’s exploration assets–how do you choose which ones to develop?

You have to be looking forward in what most people would think of as the distant future to think about how the energy mix for the world is going to be changing over decades. There are near term, mid-term, and long term aspects of that. You have to be able to think across a number of different time scales that really matter for this business.

You’ve added oil sands to Shell’s portfolio too. That’s a controversial play right now.

I think the thing about the oil sands that needs more public conversation is that it carries the heavy burden of being detrimental from an environmental perspective. The bottom line is that from an emissions standpoint, these resources are about 5-15 percent more CO2 intensive than the equivalent amount of crude.

So we–Shell and our partners–are now pursuing a carbon capture and storage project with government leaders in Canada. My point is, yes, it’s a higher energy intensive research to develop, but we’re in parallel working on the elements to reduce emissions and increase efficiency.

We see the criticality of the resource and say that this is an important place to be. We also recognize that further development of the oil sands will come with further development of environmental technology. I clearly don’t like it when it appears that things we do don’t hang together well. But that just requires the opportunity to have the full conversation. 

FORTUNE ARTICLE

By Hugo Duncan
Last updated at 10:36 PM on 15th December 2010

The US government last night sued BP in an effort to recoup billions of dollars in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The Obama administration is seeking unlimited damages from BP and other firms linked with the disaster. It is also suing BP’s insurer Lloyd’s of London.

The move could put pressure on BP’s share price when the stockmarket opens today, potentially making the firm more attractive to a bidder. Rival Royal Dutch Shell is tipped as a predator.

Damaging times: The Obama administration wants recompense for the Deepwater Horizon disaster

A lawsuit was filed in New Orleans against the British oil giant over its role in the worst environmental catastrophe in American history. It is the first lawsuit filed by the US government over the disaster and will trigger a lengthy and costly legal battle.

‘We intend to prove that these defendants are responsible for government removal costs, economic losses and environmental damages without limitation,’ said US attorney general Eric Holder.

Among the companies named on the lawsuit with BP was rig operator Transocean and Lloyd’s of London. But it did not include Halliburton, the US firm that poured the cement into the well, or Cameron International, which provided equipment for the well.

The explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig last April killed 11 workers and sent nearly 5million barrels of oil spewing into the ocean from the Macondo well over several months.

The US is seeking unlimited damages that could run into tens of billions of dollars under the US Clean Water Act and Oil Pollution Act. An official US report published in October said that BP and Halliburton were both aware the cement used in the well was unstable.

The US Justice Department said the investigation was ongoing and more defendants and charges could be added later. ‘Both our civil and criminal investigations continue,’ said Holder. ‘As investigations continue, we will not hesitate to take whatever steps necessary to hold accountable those responsible for this spill.’

For every barrel of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, there could be a fine of up to $4,300 if gross negligence is found. That would equal a final total of at least $21billion (£13.5billion).

BP has set aside $40billion to pay for the clean-up operation and cover any legal costs and damages. Shares in BP were worth more than 600p before the explosion but fell to around 300p at their lowest point – wiping £65billion off the value of the company. They were up 3.45p to 476.55p yesterday.

DAILY MAIL SOURCE ARTICLE

DAILY MAIL ARTICLE COMMENTS

By John Donovan

Although their names have been redacted, it appears from this report that John Hofmeister and Malcolm Brinded were both directly involved in negotiations/discussions with Gale Norton?

If the issue of Shell corruption is raised, based on our knowledge, there is always a good chance that Mr Big Brain, No Scruples  Brinded will be involved e.g. the “Touch F*** All” safety culture on North Sea Oil Rigs, his backing for a rigged Shell contract tender and now his interesting meeting in London with Gale Norton.

The Office of Inspector General approached me on this particular matter and at their request I supplied Shell internal documents for use in the investigation.  It was at about this time that Shell Oil recruited the services of a specialist unit partly staffed and funded by the FBI to try to cut off the flow of insider information and Shell internal emails etc from reaching me.

Ironic that while we were supplying one U.S. investigative agency with Shell insider information and documents at their request, another was brought in by Shell security to try to plug the leaks. They were unsuccessful.

INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON GALE NORTON, SHELL SCANDAL – PART 1

INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON GALE NORTON, SHELL SCANDAL – PART 2

INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON GALE NORTON, SHELL SCANDAL – PART 3