Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts from ‘January, 2011’

BP’s Exploration Plans in the Arctic of Russia Draw Opposition From Partners

A version of this article appeared in print on January 19, 2011, on page B3 of the New York edition.

By ANDREW E. KRAMER and JULIA WERDIGIER

MOSCOW — The British petroleum giant BP’s new deal to explore the Russian Arctic in partnership with a state-owned oil company has drawn protests from a group of private Russian investors with whom BP has a separate partnership.

The Russian private partners of BP’s separate and longstanding joint venture here, TNK-BP, say they were not adequately consulted about the Arctic exploration agreement that BP announced on Friday with the state-owned Rosneft.

On Tuesday, a representative of the TNK-BP partners said the Rosneft deal violated a 2003 shareholder agreement that required BP to first consult the management of that joint venture before negotiating new business with others in Russia or Ukraine.

Stan Polovets, the chief executive of the consortium that represents the wealthy Russians in the TNK-BP partnership said on Tuesday the group had concluded that “there appears to have been a breach” of their agreement with BP.

“The shareholder agreement is clear,” he said. “Notice needs to be made in detail and in writing before either shareholder engages in material negotiations with a third party or makes any financial commitments, and that has not been done.”

Some analysts say the dispute raises questions about the future of the seven-year-old joint venture. TNK-BP is Russia’s second-largest privately owned oil company, behind Lukoil.

Rosneft is Russia’s largest oil extractor and one of two large state companies expected to win rights to Arctic exploration.

BP has said it adhered to existing agreements and consulted with the partners last week before announcing the Rosneft pact, which calls for the two companies to swap shares and to cooperate in exploring the blocs in the Kara Sea, off Russia’s northern coast. Rosneft will hold a 5 percent stake in BP, and BP will hold a 9.5 percent share in Rosneft.

The BP-Rosneft deal has the support of Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin.

Mr. Polovets said the shareholder agreement required BP to submit its investment proposal with Rosneft first to TNK-BP management, which had the right of first refusal. Only then, he said, could BP initiate negotiations.

A spokesman for BP in London, Robert Wine, described the reaction by TNK-BP’s Russian partners to the Rosneft deal as businesslike and said BP would “keep them informed” as final details of the deal were settled.

BP’s relations with TNK-BP have a tempestuous history, and a dispute with the private investors greatly curtailed the British company’s operations in Russia two years ago.

The new rift underscores the risks for BP as it invests more heavily in Russia, as it seeks new opportunities after last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill. BP faces years of litigation in the United States over the spill. But Russia poses its own hazards.

In 2006, for example, Russian officials compelled Shell to sell control of its Sakhalin II oil and gas development to the state company Gazprom. At the same time, BP also confronted problems with regulators and threats to its licenses.

But BP’s largest challenge came not from the state per se, but rather from the 2008 dispute with the private partners in TNK-BP. They are members of the wealthy coterie of businessmen known as the oligarchs and have close ties to certain factions in government.

They forced BP to cede some control over the TNK-BP venture. And Robert Dudley, who led TNK-BP at the time, went into hiding outside Russia after the worsening disputes led to the revocation of his work visa. Mr. Dudley is now BP’s chief executive.

Discussion of BP’s prospects here now hinge on the interrelationship between the two main types of risk in Russia — effective nationalization by the state or conflict with private oligarchic partners.

Aleksei V. Kokin, oil and gas analyst at Uralsib bank in Moscow, said the agreement with Rosneft should ensure the Russian state was on BP’s side in any future dispute with the partners.

“In theory, it should help” reduce risk in Russia, Mr. Kokin said. But BP’s elaborate maneuvering could collapse at some point, he said. “It’s not over yet. It may get way too complicated.”

BP has about a third of its global business and 40 percent of its shareholders in the United States. But Russia had been an important market for BP even before the Rosneft deal.

The British oil giant gets about 25 percent of its output and reserves from TNK-BP, based in Moscow. TNK-BP’s profit rose 25 percent, to $1.45 billion, in the third quarter from the previous three months, benefiting from a weaker ruble.

The TNK venture, though, has no prospects in the offshore areas north of Siberia, which BP says could hold as much oil as the British sector of the North Sea. The fact that BP reached the deal with Rosneft directly and not through TNK-BP raises questions about BP’s plans for the joint venture, some investors said.

Kaha Kiknavelidze, managing partner at the investment firm Rioni Capital in London, which owns a stake in BP and Rosneft, said TNK-BP might need to find its own partnership or merge with another oil company.

Andrew E. Kramer reported from Moscow, and Julia Werdigier from London.

New York Times Article Online

Shell: Beware the Yellow Peril

COMMENTS FROM A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF SHELL OIL USA ON RECENT ARTICLES PUBLISHED ON THIS WEBSITE

John

Part of Shell Brent Bravo oil platform falls into North Sea

I just read about the Brent ‘incident’. That ‘little problem’ should have been taken care of through a preventive maintenance inspection program long ago. Sea water is not only highly corrosive to steel, but cyclical loading caused by wave action can induce fatigue failure. Believe it or not, the useful life of an airplane or a submarine is determined by the number of pressurization cycles the fuselage or hull goes through. Oil tankers have a useful life based on the number of stress cycles the hull has undergone. Oil tankers have split in half because of hull fatigue failure.

RD Shell should have recognized the life-cycle maintenance costs long ago and instituted appropriate inspection and maintenance programs to prevent what just occurred. After all, large pieces of structure falling to the sea bottom at high velocity could damage oil pipelines and cause serious releases of oil. Even Shell acknowledges that fact, which is why they shut down the production until the pipelines can be inspected.

This is not responsible conduct on the part of RD Shell and they should be sanctioned and fined appropriately. However, this gives everyone a good idea as to what RD Shell management thinks about environmental issues and platform health and safety issues. The really don’t give a ‘flying rat’s rear end’ about the consequences. They will pay their fine an move on.

Court adjourns case against Shell

I read your article about the law suit against RD Shell for failure to pay a fellow in an arms trafficking deal in Nigeria. RD Shell is admitting ‘arming’ the Nigerian governments ‘Spy Police’. My, my. What can I say, ‘Where the law ends, ….tyranny reigns.’ RD Shell, the ‘Yellow Peril‘, purveyor of tyranny and oppression. What is new. The Mafia is an amateur group of petty thugs in comparison to RD Shell.

Dr John Huong: Donovan correspondence with Royal Dutch Shell

I read the letter your father posted to RD Shell regarding its lawsuit against Dr. Huong. I don’t know how British or the Malaysian courts operate, but here in the States one is protected as a matter of constitutional law from being compelled to give what would amount to be ‘testimony against yourself’. This protection is found in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. In addition we have the ability to depose individuals, i.e., obtain sworn testimony, outside of the proceedings in a court room. So, under US law, which based upon English common law, it would have been possible to receive sworn testimony from your father in his own home, if necessary. This sworn testimony is completely admissible in a court of law in the US.

I find it very odd indeed that the Malaysian Courts and RD Shell’s attorneys in particular, would take the approach they did under the circumstances. Their conduct toward your father was nothing less than deliberately pernicious.

As a history student many years ago I had the opportunity study post WWI Weimar and Nazi German history in some detail. I also had the opportunity to read through the transcripts of the post WW2 trials held in Nuremberg, Germany. What most people do not realize was that Hitler was truly a political genius, if perverted and twisted in his view of the world. He was very careful about how he operated. In fact, the manner in which he did operate was completely ‘legal’ under German law at that time, which was a highly buggered version of the Weimar Constitution.

I must say that the way the Malaysian courts and Shell conducted themselves in this matter brought to might the way the German courts operated during the days of the Third Reich. The approach and methods are uncannily similar.

It would appear that, at the behest and co-opting of RD Shell’s eight subsidiaries, the apparently very corrupt Malaysian authorities (e.g. 1 2 3) operated as if Dr. Huong, and apparently your father, were  ‘Enemies of the State’. Only the ‘State’ in this case was standing in for RD Shell. These proceedings against Dr. Huong are not only ridiculous, they indicate how far RD Shell will go to ‘punish’ its perceived ‘enemies of the corporate ‘State’.

These proceedings also indicate that RD Shell management is more than willing to go to great lengths to ‘bend’ the political authority of legal governmental institutions to do their bidding. We have seen this in the way Shell has operated in Ireland, and here in the US through the Gale Norton affair at the US Dept. of the Interior, and their apparent espionage operations targeting the US Dept. of Defense. The revelations of the Wiki-leaks disclosures indicate how far RD Shell has taken this method of operation in RD Shell apparently functions as a ‘shadow government’ there.

It would appear that the warning of 100 years ago to ‘Beware the Yellow Peril’ is as valid today as it was then.

Canadian family allegedly poisoned by Shell gas flaring

The following information is generated from emails received from Donna Getz, who alleges that Shell has poisoned herself and her husband as a result of gas flaring. This article has been updated with related correspondence, including a letter from Shell, plus Medical Reports and Gas Flaring and Gas Analysis Reports.

Donna sought the intervention of the Oil and Gas Commission Board in Canada only to discover that Shell has a representative on the board. She is seeking justice and according to our expert sources appears to have a strong case. Donna urgently needs good legal representation on a “no win no fee” basis. Her email address is available on request from John Donovan: john@shellnews.net

Extract from comments received from an expert who has seen the evidence: “Shell tested and flared gas from their well under inappropriate meteorological conditions, in violation of their flaring permits, either deliberately or through negligence. The end result was the harm suffered by the Getz’s.”

BY DONNA GETZ

Read your articles about Royal Dutch Shell.  It makes me sick what they can get away with.

I am going to tell you what happened to myself and my family.

We were caretaking a ranch near Tumbler Ridge, BC about six years ago. We were looking after their horses and ours. We never received payment for this.

Unknown to us, Shell Oil was drilling a well 3 km across country from us.

When they started to flare the well, something went wrong.  We got hurt from this. The spruce trees had golden patches on them, the leaves on the cottonwood turned upside down, the game left or died. Four of our horses died over time from this and we have one that is still wheezing from it. I have 30% lungs left, my husband and daughter 50% left.  Our truck we had at the time, rusted out on one side.

The Oil and Gas Commission came out and took pictures, etc. They told me to forget about my face, my family and animals because Shell was putting money into the community, they were staying in the hotels, eating at restaurants and spending time in the pubs. I have letters from two politicians, Blair Lekstrom and Richard Neufeld (now a senator) saying the same thing.

Shell flew me to Edmonton to specialists. They told me I was okay. While I was there, the Shell rep took the specialists aside and talked to them. Later on they received money from Shell. Did I get a good report or a bought report?

We later went to specialists on our own and found out that we lost lung function. We also found out that when the specialist was flushing our lungs out that the saline solution turned to a white foam. He told us we could not live by the ocean or be near it for long as this foam would form in our lungs.  We cannot live in the gas fields.

We obtained a lawyer, Brian Sutton from Naniamo, BC.  He led us on for over five years then told us we did not have enough money to fight Shell.  He wanted to get off the case. We tried to get a second opinion and no lawyer in BC will look at the case or talk to us. In the mean time, Shell put it into court and the judge said we had to pay Shell costs.  Their lawyer just sent us a bill.  We have no money, no lawyer and no law.  I talked to Shell’s lawyer after we received the bill.

I took Brian Sutton to the Law Society of BC and they found lots of wrong doings.  They are disciplining him but that still doesn’t help us.  We do not know where to go from here.

We were shocked by what we read on your website. We will never buy Shell products and haven’t for a long time.

Go ahead and publish, it cannot do any more harm to us. It may even help us and other people. We are going to start letting it be known all over the world. It is sad when a company like Shell can make it so a person who is hurt by them has no recourse. Besides what they did with the flaring, they wanted to go back in the same hole to fix what went wrong but couldn’t do it while we were there so they had us run out of Tumber Ridge. We had no money and no place to go.  My husband’s disabled sister in Norway gave us some money to move away.

The people who had the ranch threw us out.  They figured that Shell, Western Canada Coal and Encana were going to pay them money for the ranch. They ended up with nothing, they cannot even stay overnight on the ranch.

Shell Oil has a rep on the Oil and Gas Commission Board. Good regulatory body for the gas companies, isn’t it. It’s like asking the fox to take care of the chickens!!

Thank you for your time.

Latest comments from a former employee of Shell Oil USA who has read the information accessible via the links below:

Shell tested and flared gas from their well under inappropriate meteorological conditions, in violation of their flaring permits, either deliberately or through negligence. The end result was the harm suffered by the Getz’s.

Donna Getz needs to get herself a good attorney if she can find one. This issue here is very straight-forward. I have no doubt also that Shell has probably been interfering with her right to legal counsel, i.e., they have co-opted her attorney in some fashion. I have had that problem myself, so I know that Shell is not above that sort of thing.

The data on gas composition are clear, and the flaring permits are clear as to what Shell’s responsibilities were. She now needs to take them to task.

These people have clearly been victimized more than once and deserve some sort of justice. But when you consider how Shell has treated the Nigerians, it comes as no surprise that they have taken this approach to dealing with the Getz’s.

COMMENTS END

Evidence File

GetzLetterFromShell18Feb2004 Letter Donna received in February 2004 from Lorraine Goobie of Shell Canada

GetzLetterRichardNeufeld24Mar04 Donna Getz letter to Canadian politicians Richard Neufield and Blair Lekstrom

GetzOleMedicalReport20Apri2004 Medical Report dated 30 April 2004 written by Professor Jeremy Beach

GetzDonnaMedicalReport20Apr04 Medical Report dated 30 April 2004 written by Professor Jeremy Beach

GetzEvictionNotice10July2004 Eviction Notice the Getz family received in July 2004 due to the intervention of Shell

GetzClarkWilsonLetter23Nov2010

FURTHER 18 PAGES OF HOSPITAL/MEDICAL REPORTS/MEDICAL NOTES

Getz1 extended gas analysis

Getz2 extended gas analysis2

Getz3 extended gas analysis3

Getz4 flaring approval

Getz5flaring approval2

Getz6 flaring approval3

Getz7 flaring approval5

Getz8 flaring approval6

Getz9 oil and gas report

Getz10 oil and gas report2

Getz12 oil and gas report5

Getz13 oil and gas report6

Getz14 oil and gas report7

Getz15 oil and gas report8

Getz16 oil and gas report10

Getz17 oil and gas report11

Getz18 oil and gas report12

Getz19 oil and gas report13

Getz20 oil and gas report14

Getz21 oil and gas report15

Getz22 oil and gas report16

Getz23 oil and gas

Getz24 oil and gas2

Getz25 oil and gas4

Getz26 post well documentation

Getz27 post well documentation2

Shell: Brent Platforms Shut For Undisclosed Period

JANUARY 18, 2011

By Sarah Kent Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

LONDON (Dow Jones)– Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB) Tuesday said its four platforms in the North Sea’s Brent field will be shut for an undisclosed period while it investigates the causes and impact of an accident Saturday.

The four platforms were shut after a fender fell off the Brent Bravo platform, the company told Dow Jones Newswires.

No people were hurt in the incident, but Brent Bravo and three other platforms, Brent Alpha, Brent Charlie and Brent Delta were shut as a precautionary measure, the company said.

The U.K. Health and Safety Executive, which is responsible for enforcing safety regulations in the North Sea, said it was “aware of the situation and working with Shell U.K.”

In 2005, Shell was fined GBP900,000 for health and safety breaches on the Bravo platform after the deaths of two men on the facility in 2003.

The Brent field produces 20,000 barrels of oil per day and 4.5 million cubic meters of gas.

-By Sarah Kent, Dow Jones Newswires;4420-7842-9376; sarah.kent@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell Shuts Brent North Sea Platforms After Incident, Can’t Forecast Return

By Eduard Gismatullin and Lananh Nguyen – Jan 18, 2011 12:49 PM GMT+0000

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s largest oil company, said it shut down production from four Brent platforms in the North Sea following an accident.

“All non-essential personnel onboard the Shell-operated Brent Bravo platform in the northern North Sea returned to shore on Saturday,” Sally Hepton, a London-based company spokeswoman, said by phone today. “We have taken these actions as a precautionary measure.”

Shell declined to say when operations will resume or whether the company would have to declare force majeure on Brent crude shipments. There were no injuries, Hepton said.

Brent crude futures have advanced relative to U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate amid recent outages in the North Sea, such as Statoil ASA’s Jan. 11 closure of its Snorre A platform and Vigdis oil field after a gas leak. Brent crude for March rose as much as 94 cents today before erasing gains.

A 50 metric-ton bar fell from one of the rigs into the sea, Jake Molloy, regional organizer for the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, said by phone from Aberdeen, Scotland. Shell evacuated as many as 100 non-essential staff from the Brent Bravo platform, he said.

“We are aware of the situation and are working with Shell,” said Kevin Hegarty, a Liverpool, U.K.-based spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive.

Brent Output

The Brent field supplies about 4.5 million standard cubic meters of natural gas and 20,000 barrels of crude oil a day, equal to about 2 percent and 1 percent of the U.K.’s respective fuel needs, according to Shell.

Brent is one of the four North Sea crude varieties that compose Dated Brent, used as a benchmark to price cargoes from Europe, Africa and Russia.

Daily exports of North Sea Brent blend crude are scheduled at 135,484 barrels a day in January, according to a monthly loading program. Shipments in February are poised to increase 26.5 percent from this month to 171,429 barrels a day, the plan shows.

WTI futures were $7.14 a barrel cheaper than Brent on Jan. 14, the widest gap between the two grades in almost two years.

The “shutdown in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea increased backwardation in the front end of the Brent futures market,” Lawrence Eagles, New York-based head of oil research at JPMorgan Chase & Co., wrote in an e-mailed report last week.

A market is in so-called backwardation when later contracts cost less than earlier ones.

To contact the reporters on this story: Eduard Gismatullin in London at egismatullin@bloomberg.net Lananh Nguyen in London at lnguyen35@bloomberg.net

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

SOURCE ARTICLE

Oil platform plan threatens rare Pacific whale-WWF

Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:02am GMT

TOKYO Jan 18 (Reuters Life!) – Plans for an oil platform off Sakhalin in Russia’s Far East poses a major threat to an endangered whale population already on the brink of disappearing, a wildlife protection group said.

Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, which is partly owned by Shell as well as several Japanese companies, has announced plans for a major oil platform near the feeding grounds of the Western North Pacific gray whale population, of which only about 130 exist, said WWF-International.

Though a number of oil and gas development projects already exist in the area, construction of an additional off-shore platform could further disrupt feeding and increase the danger of whales being struck by ships, not to mention the potential impact of an oil spill.

“Just around 30 female western gray whales of breeding age remain. The population is already on the brink of disappearing forever,” said Aleksey Knizhnikov, oil & gas environmental policy officer for WWF-Russia.

“The loss of even a few breeding females could mean the end for the population.”

Gray whales occur on both sides of the Pacific, but the Western population is classified as separate from the Eastern population, with genetic studies showing the two populations probably do not mix, says the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The International Whaling Commission (IWC), estimated the Western gray whale population at 121 to 130 in 2007, the last year for which figures are available. The IUCN classifies them as “critically endangered”.

During their feeding season, the gray whales must consume enough to maintain themselves for the rest of the year, including travelling long distances to their breeding grounds.

The feeding area near the proposed platform site, where Sakhalin Energy Investment Company already has two oil platforms, are also key because it is shallow, making it one of the few places where mother whales can teach calves to feed on the sea bed, WWF said.

(Reporting by Elaine Lies; Editing by Robert Birsel)

© Thomson Reuters 2011 All rights reserved

SOURCE ARTICLE

Dr John Huong: Donovan correspondence with Royal Dutch Shell

At the age of 90 and with numerous aliments, the thought of ending up in a small room with only iron bars for a view and without air conditioning in a tropical climate, is not much of an incentive to make the trip. In other words, while pretending that my presence in court in Malaysian legal jurisdiction is essential, there is also more than a hint of intimidation attached to deter me from giving evidence in support of my sworn affidavit, which quite frankly, completely destroys Shell’s defamation case against Dr Huong. (Head cut image of Alfred Donovan courtesy of The Wall Street Journal)

Self-explanatory email correspondence between royaldutchshellplc.com owner Alfred Donovan and Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

—–Original Message—–
From: Alfred Donovan [mailto:alfred@shellnews.net]
Sent: vrijdag 3 augustus 2007 12:26
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LC
Cc: van der Veer, Jeroen J RDS-CEJV; Ollila, Jorma RDS-RDS/CH; Brinded, Malcolm A RDS-ECMB; Wiseman, Richard RM SI-LMAPF; ‘John Donovan’

Subject: THE DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DR JOHN HUONG BROUGHT BY EIGHT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL COMPANIES

Dear Mr Brandjes

My name is Alfred Donovan. I am writing to you directly because my son, John, speaks highly of you and because you seem to be the right person to contact on this matter given that you are Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

I am 90 years old. For over a year, I have had the prospect of a cross-examination by Shell barristers hanging over my head. This is in respect of the defamation case brought in June 2004 by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies against the former Shell production geologist, Dr John Huong.

This is a link to the relevant Summons in Chambers:
http://shellnews.net/2006affidavit/shell-summons-in-chambers-june-2006.htm

Below is an extract from related “Show Cause” contempt proceedings launched against Dr Huong in March 2006 by the Malaysian solicitors representing the eight Shell Group plaintiff companies. It confirms the extremely serious nature of the case, with the freedom and reputation of Dr Huong being at stake.

19. We therefore now provide you with this formal notice for you to show cause within 10 days of its service on you, why you should not be committed to prison or fined for the above contempt.

Dated this 9* day of March, 2006.

MESSRS T H LIEW & PARTNERS
SOLICITORS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

This Notice to Show Cause is issued by Messrs T H Liew & Partners, solicitors for the Plaintiffs abovenamed and whose address for service is at 4-02, 4* Floor, Straits Trading Building, 2, Lebuh Pasar Besar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur. Tel : 03-26129000 Fax : 03-26129001

In this connection, please be aware that there is a clear implication from TH Liew that if I do travel to Malaysia for cross-examination, as demanded by Shell, I will run the risk of a contempt action being brought against me. At the age of 90 and with numerous aliments, the thought of ending up in a small room with only iron bars for a view and without air conditioning in a tropical climate, is not much of an incentive to make the trip. In other words, while pretending that my presence in court in Malaysian legal jurisdiction is essential, there is also more than a hint of intimidation attached to deter me from giving evidence in support of my sworn affidavit, which quite frankly, completely destroys Shell’s defamation case against Dr Huong. The last thing the plaintiff companies really want is for me to actually give evidence confirming my sworn testimony.

I was given to understand several months ago that Shell’s application for my cross-examination would be heard this month: August. However, the law firms involved and Dr Huong himself seem frightened about giving me any information.  Dr Huong is presumably concerned about attracting any further injunctions from Shell in respect of information allegedly passed to us and hence is simply too intimidated to say anything, as are his lawyers.

Although I have written several times to TH Liew in the past, I have never received the courtesy of an acknowledgment, let alone a reply. Consequently there is no point in me writing to them now. If they had taken note of my first letter in June 2004, your shareholders could have been spared what must by now be a huge legal bill for the deluge of proceedings launched against Dr Huong.

I am therefore asking you if you could kindly find out and advise me of whether Shell is still pursuing the application before the High Court for me to be cross-examined? If so, when is the date of the hearing? Is it still taking place this month?

As Shell is aware, I receive a war disability pension from the British Army arising from fighting in the Burma Campaign against the Japanese some 60 years ago. I had half of one lung removed in a related operation. Among other ailments associated with my age, I have diabetes, angina and poor hearing. I also suffer from stress  generated by the bouts of litigation with Shell over the years, including the ill-considered current proceedings.

Since I am sure you would agree that it is morally wrong for me to be left completely in the dark in such circumstances, I hope that you will kindly find out what is happening and advise me accordingly.  Bearing in mind that the application relating to me was instigated and filed collectively on behalf of EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, as the parent company of all eight plaintiff companies, can hardly claim that it has no involvement.

Please note that John has been involved in all of the events relating to Dr Huong, right from the outset, and because of my fading hearing, had all of the material telephone conversations with him. I have only spoken briefly with Dr Huong. John is willing to give evidence and be cross-examined. His affidavit was prepared at the same time as mine.  However under the circumstances, he would obviously require undertakings from Shell before stepping foot in Malaysia. There is of course the alternative possibility of cross-examination taking place in a video conference setting, perhaps in the Malaysian Embassy in London? As you can see, we are trying to be constructive. I trust that this communication will be passed to the parties involved and disclosed to the trial judge.

Regards
Alfred Donovan

RESPONSE FROM MICHIEL BRANDJES

From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com [mailto:michiel.brandjes@shell.com]
Sent: 03 August 2007 16:59
To: alfred@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: THE DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DR JOHN HUONG BROUGHT BY EIGHT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL COMPANIES

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your kind introductory words. I will enquire within Shell about the matter you have raised and revert to you.

Best Regards,
Michiel Brandjes
Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Registered office: Shell Centre London SE1 7NA UK
Place of registration and number: England 4366849
Correspondence address: PO Box 162, 2501 AN  The Hague,
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 377 2625 Fax: 3687
Email: Michiel.Brandjes@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

EMAIL ENDS

Mr Brandjes subsequently confirmed that Shell would abandon its demand for Alfred Donovan to travel to Malaysia for cross-examination. Shell later settled with Dr Huong on an out-of-court basis because its defamation case was a complete shambles brought by incompetent Shell lawyers in Malaysia at the behest of Shell Malaysia Country Chairman, Jon Chadwick.

Shell led Sakhalin II construction threatens endangered gray whales

The multi-billion-dollar project, led by Royal Dutch Shell, has also been accused of inflicting large-scale damage on Sakhalin’s ecosystem, including illegal deforestation, the dumping of toxic waste, and soil erosion.

The construction of a third oil platform for the Shell-led Sakhalin II energy project may threaten a critically endangered population of gray whales off Russia’s eastern coast, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) said on Monday.

The company, which already has two platforms in the Russian Far East, announced in December its plans to build another one near the crucial feeding habitat of the gray whale population.

“The construction and operation of an additional off-shore platform could have numerous negative impacts on the whales, potentially disrupting feeding behavior and increasing the chance of fatal ship strikes,” WWF said in a statement. “Also, a third platform heightens the risk of an environmentally catastrophic oil spill in this sensitive habitat.”

Activists from various environmental groups have repeatedly voiced their concern about the possible negative impact of seismic work on gray whales, listed in the International Red Book of endangered species.

“Just around 30 female western gray whales of breeding age remain – the population is already on the brink of disappearing forever,” the statement quoted Alexei Knizhnikov, Oil ans Gas Environmental Policy Officer for WWF-Russia, as saying. “The loss of even a few breeding females could mean the end for the population.”

The multi-billion-dollar project, led by Royal Dutch Shell, has also been accused of inflicting large-scale damage on Sakhalin’s ecosystem, including illegal deforestation, the dumping of toxic waste, and soil erosion.

MOSCOW, January 17 (RIA Novosti)

Climate Change Demands Action Now, Shell’s Chief Executive Says

By Ayesha Daya – Jan 17, 2011 4:17 PM GMT+0000

Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s chief said the implementation of climate change agreements made at Cancun last month “won’t happen overnight”, and policymakers must take action now “because the clock is ticking.”

“In the short term, we should focus on areas where we can get the cheapest and quickest carbon dioxide reductions,” Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser said at a renewable energy conference in Abu Dhabi today. “It will take a while for international standards to be implemented, but we are of the opinion that we have to move now.”

Voser offered four ways for policymakers to begin reducing CO2 emissions: energy efficiency, increased use of natural gas, carbon capture and storage projects, and biofuels.

Energy efficiency, such as fuel-efficient vehicles and insulation of buildings, will need government mandates and regulation, he said.

Increased use of natural gas, which would cut emissions by 60-70 percent if it was used in place of coal, will also require government policy to support the switch in fuel type. China has already pledged to obtain 8 percent of its energy consumption from gas by 2020, compared with 4 percent now, he said.

“There’s a revolution in the U.S. now, and also in China with unconventional gas,” Voser said. “So there is ample gas available, and it is cheaper than nuclear power, so it is clearly something in which we can invest.”

Carbon capture and storage projects are yet to be deployed in a big way, and pilot projects require government funding to drive the technology.

Biofuels offer “the only fast transport fuel option” and can be developed in a sustainable way if the correct standards are set, Voser said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ayesha Daya in Dubai at adaya1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Voss at sev@bloomberg.net

BLOOMBERG ARTICLE

Part of Shell Brent Bravo oil platform falls into North Sea

Good Morning John: Please find link to an article in the mornings Aberdeen press and Journal.  It would appear that Brinded’s “Touch F***All” initiative is alive and well in the Shell organisation! The natural enemies of safety are still:- Ignorance, arrogance and complacency, all three are still being lovingly cared for within the Shell Business Principles .

Production Stops at Shell’s Brent Bravo

By Rebecca Buchan

Published: 17/01/2011

OIL giant Shell has halted production at four of its platforms and sent 100 workers back onshore after part of a platform fell into the North Sea.

An investigation is being carried out on the Brent Bravo platform after a heavy protective frame, known as a fender, collapsed.

No one was injured and the company said there was no significant damage caused.

The other three Brent platforms – Alpha, Charlie and Delta – do not have these protective frames, however Shell has had to stop all production on the Brent field as all the rigs work together in a “hub”.

Around 40 employees still remain on the platform and the oil company was last night unsure when they would be able to begin production again.

HALTED

A spokeswoman for Shell said: “All non-essential personnel onboard the Shell-operated Brent Bravo platform in the northern North Sea returned to shore yesterday and production has been halted on the four Brent platforms. We have taken these actions as a precautionary measure while we inspect three heavy protective frames at the waterline on the Brent Bravo.”

Jake Malloy, general secretary of the Oil Industry Liaison Committee, said: “If this piece of structure has damaged any piping on the sea bed then a precautionary measure to shut down operations is a responsible decision on behalf of Shell.”

In October, the platform was awarded a Sword of Honour, an award which recognises health and safety systems which are among the best in the world. A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) spokeswoman said: “HSE is aware of the situation and is working with Shell UK.”

The Brent field came into production in 1976 and once provided 10% of Britain’s gas.It still produces 14 million cubic metres of gas and 28,000 barrels of oil a day.

SOURCE ARTICLE

ARTICLE NEGLECTS TO MENTION THE BRENT BRAVO EXPLOSION IN WHICH SHELL WORKERS LOST THEIR LIVES AND SHELL RECEIVED A RECORD BREAKING FINE FOR AVOIDABLE DEATHS

SHELL BRENT BRAVO SCANDAL:

THE EVIDENCE ASSEMBLED BY BILL CAMPBELL, FORMER HSE GROUP AUDITOR, SHELL INTERNATIONAL: READ

SELECTION OF ARTICLES RELATING TO BRENT BRAVO FATALITIES: READ

RELATED EMAIL/LETTER SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE UK HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: READ

THE FULL FILE OF BRENT BRAVO ARTICLES