Posts from ‘February, 2011’

A study paid for by Shell Oil and released this week used federal estimates that the Beaufort and Chukchi seas hold 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The Associated Press February 26, 2011, 4:25AM ET

By DAN JOLING: ANCHORAGE, Alaska

Alaska drilling advocates on Friday night dominated a federal public hearing seeking comment on a proposed five-year plan for offshore oil and gas lease sales that includes the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

More than 100 people signed up to testify at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management scoping session covering 2012-2017 but fewer than half had time to make comments during the three-hour session.

Pro-drilling forces offered pizza and soft drinks to encourage supporters to arrive early and sign up to testify. The agency took them in order and drilling opponents, including those who arrived more than an hour early, finally got their chance near the end of the session.

State Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Dan Sullivan led off testimony and said Gov. Sean Parnell advocates additional lease sales in the Arctic Ocean.

“I strongly believe that the vast, vast majority of Alaskans in all walks of life share this position,” he said.

Alaska’s No. 1 industry is petroleum and upward of 90 percent of state general fund income comes from the oil industry. However, the trans-Alaska pipeline is operating at less than one-third capacity and state officials fear it could shut down without additional sources.

“OCS development will be a very important part of stemming the TAPS decline,” Sullivan said. “It will also have a huge impact in terms of jobs and federal revenue and state revenue.”

He also said Alaskans feel enormous frustration with federal government as a partner in resource development projects.

“To put it bluntly, you are missing in action,” he said. The federal government, Sullivan said, has shifted from a policy of promoting environmental protection to shutting down resource development through misuse of endangered species law and wilderness designations. That pushes U.S. oil purchases to other countries, he said.

“Those countries don’t have near the environmental stringent requirements that we do,” he said.

Several dozen other drilling advocates followed and spelled out how the state economy and the country need the oil and gas Alaska has to offer.

Carl Portman of the Resource Development Council said drillng can be done safely. About 30 wells have been drilled in the Beaufort and five in the Chukchi, all using older technology and all without a blowout, he said.

A study paid for by Shell Oil and released this week used federal estimates that the Beaufort and Chukchi seas hold 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

By the time 30 people had testified, the meeting was interrupted by Leslie Cornick, a marine biology teacher at Alaska Pacific University, who asked if the agency intended to listen to anyone on the other side. She finally got her chance to speak with 15 minutes remaining.

She took issue with Alaskans saying they did not want the federal government telling them how they should develop their resources.

“Unless you’re an Alaska Native, we all came from somewhere else, and we have been telling the Alaska Natives what do to with their resources ever since we got here,” she said.

Drilling, she said, threatens the ocean bounty that Arctic coastal communities rely on.

“Oil and gas are not the only resources in this state,” she said. “And they are not the resources on which the Alaska Natives primarily depend.”

History has plenty of examples of the downside of drilling, from the Exxon Valdez to Deepwater Horizon to a tanker that spilled oil last week in a Norwegian marine national park. The technology does not exist to clean spills in ice, she said.

The remote northern coast of Alaska lacks infrastructure needed to respond to a spill, she said.

“I am opposed, vehemently, to these leases going forward in the current period because we aren’t ready,” Cornick said. “The Arctic is not ready.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

By John Donovan

A few days ago we published an article under the headline “Shell dealing with the devil in Libya”

Today I received an email from a well known former senior Royal Dutch Shell official suggesting that the headline should have been

“Satan dealing with the devil in Libya”.

This serious person, of high integrity, knows Shell even better than we do.

THE MOST EVIL COMPANY ON THE PLANET?

By John Donovan

26 February 2011

Bloomberg News has reported the release of an unknown amount of the deadly chemical benzene at its Deer Park refinery in Texas.

According to one source, “Being exposed to benzene can lead to a host of diseases“.

Extract: “The worse case is associated to acquiring acute myelogenous leukemia, a type of disease that involves the production of cancer cells in the blood. Leukemia prevents the while blood cells from growing properly. White blood cells are the main components of the body’s immune system. With them impaired, the body becomes more prone to developing other diseases. This is a life-threatening condition brought about by exposure to benzene”.

The benzene incident comes 10 years after Royal Dutch Shell made a commitment to invest $400 million over eight years to reduce the release into the atmosphere of toxic chemicals at its nine refineries operating in the USA, including Deer Park and the Martinez refinery in California.

Bloomberg says: “U.S. refineries must notify the National Response 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”.

Royal Dutch Shell has a track record of illegal emissions at the Deer Park refinery.

On March 21, 2001, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice announced a settlement committing nine refineries owned by Motiva, Equilon Enterprises, and the Deer Park Refining Limited Partnership to a program to ensure compliance with important provisions of the United States Clean Air Act. The companies agreed to invest $400 million over eight years to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter. Motiva Enterprises LLC, is a joint venture between Shell and Saudi Refining Inc. Equilon Enterprises is a subsidiary of Shell Oil Co. Shell Oil Products is a partner in Park Refining Limited partnership. of

On 16 May 2007, Bloomberg News reported that Royal Dutch Shell Plc had shut two ethylene plants at a Texas production complex after it lost steam power and released tons of chemicals into the air around Houston. The report went on to say that Shell’s Deer Park, Texas, complex lost steam from an external supplier on 2 May 2007 and that consequential shut-downs “resulted in the airborne release of dozens of contaminants, including 2,420 pounds of ethylene, 1,782 pounds of propylene, 1,622 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 4,700 pounds of volatile organic compounds” in the Houston area.

By John Donovan

According to  an article published on 25 February 2011 by The Wall Street Journal, Royal Dutch Shell Plc has recently reported “unplanned” flaring at its Martinez refinery in California.

Shell has a track record of illegal emissions at the refinery, paying fines totaling over $25 million since 1989.

On 1 December 1989, The New York Times reported that Shell Oil Company had agreed to pay $19.75 million “for spilling more than 400,000 gallons of crude oil into San Francisco Bay”. Shell said that it had “spent an additional $14 million in cleaning up the spill, when oil flowed from a pipe at its Martinez refinery in April 1988”. Oil leaked out from a 12.5-million-gallon storage tank at the manufacturing complex 40 miles northeast of San Francisco. The Government said that several Federal regulations were broken. According to the article at least 250 birds and 50 other animals were found dead and a valuable wildlife habitat was ruined and tidal marshlands would take 10 years to recover.

On 8 February 1995, an article in the The New York Times headlined “Shell Settles Dumping Suit for $3 Million” revealed that Shell Oil Company had agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging that it had been “dumping illegal amounts of selenium into San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta”. As part of the settlement, Shell agreed “to reduce the selenium released in wastewater at its Martinez refinery”. The article said that selenium is a nutrient in small amounts but is toxic in larger doses. While admitting Shell had exceeded permitted limits, company officials claimed that the selenium discharges in the strait were not enough to harm the environment.

On 9 May 2007, the Houston Chronicle newspaper reported that Shell Oil Products, a subsidiary of Shell Oil Company, had been fined $2.9 million for equipment failure “that sent 925 tons of excess carbon monoxide into the air”. According to the article, “the pollution-causing emissions escaped the refinery in Martinez, California over the course of a week”. Karen M. Schkolnick, a spokeswoman for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, was quoted as saying that “The fine reflects the size of the incident and the fact that human errors compounded the situation” and that “It was a series of either bad judgements or mechanical failures and it led to this acute situation”. Steve Lesher, a spokesman for the Martinez refinery, was quoted as conceding that Shell had not contested the Air District’s claims, “but is proud of its pollution control record”. Lesher went on to say “We have rigorous maintenance standards, and you hope something like this never happens and you work to make sure it doesn’t happen.”

By Valeria Pacheco AFP 24 Feb 2011

RUMIPAMBA, Ecuador — She has no legal training, and doesn’t speak the Spanish that dominates government in Quito but indigenous villager Maria Aguinda helped bring a landmark judgment against US oil giant Chevron for polluting the rain forest she calls home.

The diminutive grandmother whose modest home sits near marshes clogged for decades in sticky oil has been at the heart of the David-and-Goliath case, and spoke out after Chevron was slapped last week with a $9.5-billion fine, among the heaviest ever handed down for environmental damage.

“Before I die they have to pay me for the dead animals, and for what they did to the river, and the water and the earth,” the 61-year-old Aguinda told AFP at her home in Rumipamba, a town in remote Orellana province where pollution caused by 30 years of oil drilling and petroleum accidents had become a sad fact of life.

Texaco operated in the area between 1964 and 1990, and was bought in 2001 by Chevron, which inherited Texaco’s legal nightmare.

“The demand (for compensation) is going on track,” said the ethnic Quechua woman, pointing to a nearby spot marked by spillage from an oil well run by Texaco in the 1970s.

“Mary Aguinda et al” are the opening words of the suit launched in 1993 on behalf of 30,000 residents of Orellana and Sucumbios provinces, in which they charge Texaco dumped billions of gallons of toxic crude during its operations, fouling rivers, lakes and soil and causing cancer deaths in indigenous communities.

Aguinda said she believes her husband and two of his 10 children died from effects of the pollution, which rights group Amazon Watch says has affected an area the size of the US state of Rhode Island.

Several of her family members “have skin problems, like fungus,” Aguinda said as she lifted her granddaughter’s foot off the dirt floor to show an outbreak on her leg.

Chevron blames state-run Petroecuador, with which Texaco formed a consortium from 1972 until the US firm departed in 1992, of not doing its part in the clean-up agreed with the state.

“When Texaco came we never thought they would leave behind such damage, never. Then it began to drill a well and set up burn pits,” she said, helped in translation by her son William Grefa.

“It changed our life: hunting, fishing, and other food, it’s all finished.”

She skeptically eyes the ongoing cleanup of a marsh just meters from her house, where workers dressed in oil-stained yellow overalls dredge thick black ooze into suction pipes.

Aguinda said the spill is leftover from a Texaco storage pool which overflowed into the marshes during 1987-1990 operations of the Auca South 1 well about 200 meters (656 feet) from Rumipamba.

Texaco performed operational repairs in the area in the 1990s, and oil extraction continues in the region, according to Grefa.

Six months ago, a dozen workers from Petroecuador, which has managed the concession since 1990, began cleaning up the marshes, reviving bitter memories within the community of the slow-motion disaster.

The company “made arrangements, but they covered everything with sticks and earth and nothing more,” said Grefa, a member of the Assembly of People Affected by Texaco, which represents the 30,000 indigenous people in the suit.

The operation has done little to improve conditions, Aguinda said.

“With the cleanup that Texaco left, the air is just unbearable. I can’t live above the oil,” groaned Aguinda, who grew visibly irritated talking about the disaster.

“If someone comes here from Texaco” he’ll get “pepper in his eyes,” she winced.

A strong petroleum smell permeates Rumipamba, home to nine families, some of whom complain of headaches. Several areas of Sucumbios are also contaminated, according to the plaintiffs, who argue that merely sinking a shovel into the ground yields a thick layer of crude.

Chevron, which has called the judgment “illegitimate and unenforceable,” has asked a judge in Ecuador for clarification of the ruling as it seeks to appeal.

The court last week announced a penalty against Chevron of $8.6 billion with an additional 10 percent for environment management costs.

The plaintiffs, too, plan to appeal, saying the ruling fails to adequately compensate for certain damages and illness. They were seeking more than $27 billion in their suit.

Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved.

SOURCE ARTICLE

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)

By John Donovan

In a matter of days we will publish on the Internet all of the pages from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” relating to Shell’s close relationship with Hitler and the Nazi Party. This is the official account by eminent historians associated with Utrecht University who were given unrestricted access to Royal Dutch Shell archives. The project was supervised by the Research Institute for History and Culture.

The entire 4 volume history costs £140 (over $200). We will make this important part of the information and associated evidence available free of charge because we believe that Shell’s close association with Hitler and the Nazi is not widely known, as it should be. Basically, Shell saved the Nazi Party when it was in danger of financial collapse. The public and investors should be aware of Shell’s Nazi past. Some may wish to boycott Shell on these grounds alone.

We have stated that Shell pumped funds into the Nazi Party, was anti-Semitic and sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis. Shell continued the partnership with the Nazis in the years after the retirement of Royal Dutch Shell founder Sir Henri Deterding, who was infatuated with Adolf Hitler.

The information and evidence, including stunning historical photographs and colorful graphics provide confirmation of these events that stain the name of Royal Dutch Shell for all time, bearing in mind that Shell was arguably indirectly responsible for over 30 million deaths in World War 2.

Royal Dutch Shell was driven by unscrupulous greed then, just as in more recent times, continuing to trade with despotic regimes in Iran, Nigeria, and Libya.

We are providing advance notice of this unauthorized publication so that Shell lawyers have the opportunity to seek an injunction blocking publication.

RELATED: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets.

By Michael Riley – Feb 24, 2011 8:26 AM GMT

Computer hackers working through Internet servers in China broke into and stole proprietary information from the networks of six U.S. and European energy companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc, according to one of the companies and investigators who declined to be identified.

McAfee Inc., a cyber-security firm, reported Feb. 10 that such attacks had resulted in the loss of “project-financing information with regard to oil and gas field bids and operations.” In its report, Santa Clara, California-based McAfee, assisted by other cyber-security firms, didn’t identify the energy companies targeted. The attacks, which it dubbed “Night Dragon,” originated “primarily in China” and occurred during the past three years.

The list of companies hit, none of which disclosed the attacks in filings with regulators, also includes Marathon Oil Corp., ConocoPhillips and Baker Hughes Inc., according to the people who worked on or are familiar with the companies’ investigations and asked not to be identified because of the confidential nature of the matter.

Chinese hackers broke into the computer network of Baker Hughes, said Gary Flaharty, spokesman for the Houston-based provider of advanced drilling technology. Baker Hughes concluded the incident didn’t need to be disclosed because it wasn’t material to investors, he said, declining to comment further.

Undetected Access

In some of the cases, hackers had undetected access to company networks for more than a year, said Greg Hoglund, chief executive officer of Sacramento, California-based HBGary Inc., a cyber-security company that investigated some of the security breaches at oil companies. Hoglund, who was cited by McAfee as a contributor to its report, declined to identify his clients.

“Legal information, information on deals and financial information are all things that appear to be getting targeted,” Hoglund said, summing up conclusions his firm made from the types of documents and persons targeted by the hackers. “This is straight up industrial espionage.”

Hackers targeted computerized topographical maps worth “millions of dollars” that show locations of potential oil reserves, said Ed Skoudis, whose company, Washington-based InGuardians Inc., investigated two recent breaches of U.S. oil companies’ networks. He declined to name his clients or the origin of the hackers.

‘Unsophisticated’ Techniques

The McAfee report described the techniques used to get into the energy company computers as “unsophisticated” and commonly used by Chinese hackers. The attacks began in November 2009, McAfee said. Two cyber investigators familiar with the probes said the attacks began even earlier — in 2008 — and involved several well-financed groups. The investigators asked not to be identified because the company investigations are private.

McAfee based the report on information gathered from its own work on the breaches and from others who were directly involved in investigating them. The report, produced on the condition that the affected companies not be identified, was done to “educate the community,” said Ian Bain, a McAfee spokesman.

The thefts of oil company data like those in the McAfee report match the profile of industrial espionage operations that have the backing or consent of the Chinese government, said Joel Brenner, former head of U.S. counterintelligence during the Bush and Obama administrations and now a lawyer with Cooley LLP in Washington. In his former post, one of Brenner’s jobs was tracking spying efforts against U.S. companies from foreign countries.

‘On the Hunt’

“The Chinese are on the hunt for natural resources to fuel this massive economic leap forward,” Brenner said.

Ma Zhaoxu, spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said he had no information about the attacks on the oil companies when asked about the issue at a regular briefing today.

“The Chinese government opposes hacking activities,” Ma said. “China falls victim to hacking itself. We will step up efforts to crack down on hacking crimes.”

The thefts might trigger legal liability for companies that chose not to disclose them to investors, said Blair Nicholas, a San Diego-based partner at law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossman.

“To the extent that there aren’t adequate procedures in place to protect the companies’ crown jewels and somebody gets the key to jewelry box, there is certainly potential for shareholder derivative liability,” Nicholas said.

Securities Laws

Investors might also argue they had a right under U.S. securities laws to be informed of the thefts, which a judge might construe as a “material” fact that should have been disclosed, Nicholas said.

John Roper, a spokesman for Houston-based ConocoPhillips; Lee Warren, a Marathon Oil spokeswoman at its Houston headquarters, and Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Irving, Texas- based Exxon, said in e-mail messages that their companies don’t comment on security-related issues. David Nicholas, a spokesman for London-based BP, and Kim Blomley, a spokesman in London for Shell, which is based in The Hague, declined to comment.

Jenny Shearer, an FBI spokeswoman in Washington, said she couldn’t comment on whether the agency was investigating the attacks. Laura Sweeney, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said the department can’t comment on a possible investigation.

Hacker Activists

Some aspects of the attacks were disclosed in internal e- mails made public after a February security breach at HBGary. The e-mails were stolen from HBGary’s computer network by the group of hacker activists called Anonymous, which posted them on the Internet.

“I’ve been able to confirm that the same attackers are conducting coordinated IP thefts against Baker Hughes and Shell Oil, going after bid data and operational reporting, as well as projects/plans and related financial information,” according to an e-mail written on Jan. 13 by an independent security consultant working on the cases.

“I reached out to some friends at Conoco and Exxon and they also experienced similar breaches,” the consultant wrote in the e-mail. “This is of course client confidential,” he added under the subject line “coordinated Chinese attacks on oil companies.”

In a separate e-mail, an HBGary investigator discussed the analysis of malware designed to steal data in the computers of a drilling rig working on a ConocoPhillips project.

Marc Zwillinger, an attorney representing HBGary, declined to comment on the e-mails’ content.

‘Stolen E-Mails’

“Those are stolen e-mails and they contain confidential information relating to clients,” Zwillinger said.

The McAfee report, which cites several attacks connected to the Chinese hacking underground, doesn’t link the “Night Dragon” attack directly to the Chinese government.

Analysts who assessed the attacks on energy companies said the source of the breaches was easier to pinpoint than in previous hits by Chinese hackers, including an attack against Google Inc. that that company disclosed in January 2010.

The hackers used tools prevalent in China’s underground hacking forums, the McAfee report said, and they appeared to work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Beijing time. McAfee traced the hackers’ command-and-control operations to servers operated by a company in China’s Heze City in Shandong province.

The owner of the company, Song Zhiyue, said he wasn’t aware of any hacking taking place from his servers and that he always seeks to verify the activities of customers who rent server space from him.

“There are so many servers in the world,” Song said. “This has nothing to do with me. This is very unfair.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Michael Riley in Washington at michaelriley@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Pickering at jpickering@bloomberg.net

The following press release has been supplied to us today by Ogoni activists.

It contains allegations implicating Shell in alleged current violence and killings in Ogoniland.

PRESS RELEASE ON ASSASSINATIONS IN OGONILAND

The attention of National Union Of Ogoni Students (NUOS INTL) USA has been drawn to the recent unprecedented killings and assaults by gun men suspected to have been trained by government secret agent (PDP) on the people of Ogoni, particularly the killing of Jacob Paago, Richard Nimah, Pius Gbarazia and Clement Faah to mention but a few.

NUOS noted that killings in Ogoni became rampant during this political dispensation and immediately after government announced her intention to take over SHELL’s oil wells in Ogoniland through NNPC.

It is disheartening that people in power should take other people’s lives, causing pain and suffering to others, oppressing, suppressing, subjecting them to abject poverty and inhibiting Ogoni development for power, selfishness and personal greed.

We wish to use this medium to  alert the Ogonis,  all good people of Nigeria and the world that this fresh line of killings is politically and economically motivated, and a calculated  attempt to quell Ogoni’s petition for Bori State by intimidating and instigating fear into  the innocent people of Ogoni by the government (PDP).

NUOS viewed the killings of Ogonis as a channel of imposing their surrogate candidates on the people of Ogoni to deliver them in the ongoing election in Nigeria.  The act of killings of Ogoni leaders is an orchestrated parameter to silence Ogoni’s eloquent and influential voices in order to oppress and cow our people into perpetual slavery.

WE therefore state as follows:

1. That the recent wave of violence and killings, are an upshot by some retrogressive elements in the corridors of power that further demonstrates PDP’s undemocratic retail culture of penciling and imposing candidates on the people.
2. NUOS international reliably gathered that the recent violence in Ogoni is masterminded by the government and Shell to cause dissension, disorder and breach of peace in Ogoni so that Bori State will not be created.
3. NUOS  is also disappointed in Ledum Mitee (MOSOP Nigeria), all local government chairmen, Ogoni contact group, Ogoni traditional rulers and all leaders of thought for their conspicuous silence on the recent killings in Ogoni, and declare that their compulsory silence on sensitive  ogoni issues like this, demonstrates how disoriented they are with the common people. We therefore reiterate that the aforementioned should stand up for their rights and speak with one voice to deter criminal activities for Ogoni development.
4. Finally, NUOS vowed that no amount of threats, killings and violence on Ogoni sons and daughters will force any company into Ogoni, particularly NNPC; therefore we call on the government to investigate these killings and punish the perpetrators.

Signed:

Pius B. Nwinee, (NUOS PRESIDENT)          Sampson B. Npimnee (SECRETARY GEN.)

…………………………………………………………….
“We are going to demand our RIGHTS – Peacefully, Non-Violently, and we shall WIN” – Ken Saro-Wiwa  (1941-1995)
…………………………………………………………….
NUOS Intl – Seeking solutions to the plight of indigenous students around the world.
(www.nuos-ogoni.org ~nuos.intl@gmail.com ~ friends@nuos-ogoni.org ~ phone/msg – 773.250.7004)

By John Donovan

We have in recent years published a number of articles drawing attention to Shell getting into bed with the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who was presented as being a reformed character, despite his notorious track record as the principal financier of international terrorism.

Gaddafi financed the Black September Movement, which carried out the massacre in Munich at the 1972 Summer Olympics and also financed “Carlos the Jackal”.

Currently Shell is engaged in an evacuation plan to extract employees who otherwise might end up as hostages held by the supposedly benevolent dictator.

Basically, Shell demonstrated once again that it is willing to deal with the devil incarnate, whether in the guise of Hitler, or the corrupt Nigerian dictator, General Sani Abachato, or “Mad Dog” Gaddafi, to get its hands on hydrocarbon reserves, irrespective of moral considerations, or the potential dire consequences to its employees and contractors plunged into a crisis situation.

As will be seen from the various articles, Royal Dutch Shell Executive Malcolm (TFA) Brinded (above left) played a key role in the intrigue and controversy surrounding Shell’s reprehensible dealings with Gaddafi which have brought shame to the UK.

Our warnings that Gaddafi had not really changed were ignored.

Extracts from some of the articles we have authored and published…

ARTICLE: Royal Dutch Shell Nazis Secrets Part 7: Why does it still matter?

FROM: Trading with the enemy

While Royal Dutch Shell support for the Nazi all those years ago has no link to current Shell management, there is a link to current activities, with Shell supporting *yet another evil dictator. Access to oil and gas is the reason why Shell has signed contracts in questionable circumstances with the supposedly reformed Libyan mass murderer, Gaddafi,(15) handing over billions of dollars to a regime which may well end up funding future terrorist atrocities, as it has in the past. In addition to the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Gaddafi was also responsible for arming the IRA, another terrorist organisation.

In 1984 police constable Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead outside the Libyan Embassy in London while policing an anti-Gaddafi protest. Machine-gun fired from within the Embassy was suspected of killing her, but Libyan diplomats asserted diplomatic immunity.

ARTICLE: Mounir Bouaziz, Shell VP for making deals with corrupt governments

Tunisian, Mounir Bouaziz (right), is the Shell VP responsible for making deals on Shell’s behalf with the Libyan dictator, Gaddafi, the corrupt Iraqi government and an equally corrupt African dictator.

Bouaziz worked with Shell EP boss Malcolm Brinded to secure the Libyan deal. Brinded, an Anglicized Scot, is apparently willing to forget Libya’s bombing over Scotland.

ARTICLE: Senator Lautenberg should also investigate Shell’s Libyan links

…as the senator seems to have realized, the stench is not just emanating from the Gulf,  but from evil deeds involving ethically challenged UK Prime Minsters Blair and Brown falling over themselves to assist Big Oil, and the Libyan dictator and supposedly reformed sponsor of state terrorism, Muammar (Loony Tunes) Gaddafi (above right). Even members of the British royal family – The Prince of Wales and his brother Prince Andrew, were recruited in the cause.

However there is even more damning evidence pointing at another foreign owned oil company involved in the conspiracy to release the Pan Am bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, in exchange for access to Libyan oil.  I refer to the recent revelation that the then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, sent a letter to Gaddafi, which was actually drafted by Shell.

Blair in secret talks with Gaddafi: Lockerbie families’ fury as ex-Premier is treated like a ‘brother’ by dictator just days after denying links with Libya (see Daily Mail article in links below)

Documents released under a Freedom of Information Act request show the scale of the effort to win commercial advantage in Libya. The details raise questions about whether it is possible the Scottish decision to release the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi last week could have been done without the acquiescence of the British government as it insists it was.

At least 11, but possibly as many as 26, meetings took place – many in Tripoli – between Shell executives and high-ranking ministers or mandarins in a period between 2004 and 2007. The Foreign Office has yet to provide details of what exactly was discussed at the meetings, but the request asked for any discussions with Shell on either Libya or Egypt, the latter being of much less political or potential commercial importance to the oil company.

Miliband met Malcolm Brinded, the Shell exploration director, in October 2007 while James Smith, the Shell UK chairman, met Jack Straw when he was foreign secretary in July 2003.

RELATED ARTICLES

The Guardian: Shell signs $200m Libya deal: 25 March 2004

The Guardian: Shell gas deal worth up to $1b: 26 March 2004

The Independent: Shell first off blocks in race to cash in on UK’s new friendship: 26 March 2004

New York Times: Libya Signs Energy Exploration Deal With Shell: 26 March 2004

Telegraph: Shell fills its boots in the desert sun: 27 March 2004

afrol News: Shell secures Libya deal during Blair’s visit: 26 March 2004

Telegraph: Shell signs first major deal in Libya for 30 years: 3 May 2005

The Guardian: Shell steps on the gas as Libya comes in from the cold: 4 May 2005

Entrepreneur: LIBYA – The Shell Deal: 16 July 2007

Shell’s Executive Director for E&P Malcolm Brinded then said: “We are delighted to be back in Libya and honoured to work together with NOC to develop a modern LNG industry, and explore for and develop gas in the prolific Sirte Basin. Libya’s integrated gas industry has enormous potential, based on its large gas resources and favourable geographic location. I look forward to our co-operation and believe that this is the beginning of a new lasting and fruitful partnership with Libya”.

(NOC = “The National Oil Corporation of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”)

Royaldutchshellplc.com: Shell’s Malcolm Brinded – lustful friend of Libya: 22 August 2009

The Guardian: Secret documents uncover UK’s interest in Libyan oil: 30 August 2009

Documents obtained by the Observer show ministers and senior civil servants met Shell to discuss the company’s oil interests in Libya on at least 11 occasions and perhaps as many as 26 times in less than four years.

Foreign secretary David Miliband and the former Labour leader Lord Kinnock were involved in the meetings with Shell about its business in Libya or Egypt.

A deal was signed by Shell on 25 March 2004 covering the establishment of a “long-term strategic partnership” between the oil company and the local state-owned energy group. It was penned during a ground-breaking visit by the then prime minister, Tony Blair, and was followed up by meetings during July between Shell and foreign minister Baroness Symons and then the foreign secretary at the time, Jack Straw.

In October, Malcolm Brinded, the head of exploration at Shell who signed the deal to explore for oil and redevelop a gas export terminal in Libya, met another foreign minister, Douglas Alexander, with a particular focus on trade. In February 2005, Kinnock was involved in a reception at which Shell was present and North African oil interests were raised.

Daily Mail: Blair in secret talks with Gaddafi: Lockerbie families’ fury as ex-Premier is treated like a ‘brother’ by dictator just days after denying links with Libya: 17 July 2010

The Observer: Revealed: how Shell won the fight for Libyan gas and oil: 30 August 2009

International Business Times: Shell says appraising Libya gas discovery: 23 December 2010

By Andrea Dearden

The family of a Bethalto woman who died of leukemia blames two Roxana oil refiners for allegedly causing the disease.

Jeffrey Ochs, on behalf of his wife Debra Ochs, and the couple’s daughter filed a lawsuit Jan. 20 in Madison County Circuit Court against Shell Oil Company and BP Products North America Inc.

Ochs says Debra spent a lot of time in Roxana the last three decades, working as a teacher and principal at Central Elementary from 1994 through 2003. During that time, Shell and BP operated refineries in the area.

Ochs alleges both companies processed and used benzene and benzene-containing pollutants, known to be highly toxic and cancer-causing. Ochs says Debra’s exposure to the chemical caused her to be diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia in 2003. She died in January 2008.

Ochs is suing Shell and BP for wrongful death and negligence, saying they knowingly released benzene into the air and ground water. He is asking for more than $150,000 in damages to pay for medical expenses, lost income and court costs. They ask for a jury trial.

Attorneys Thomas E. Schwartz and Justin D. Guerra of St. Louis Keith E. Patton of Houston and Allyson M. Romani of Glen Carbon are representing Ochs.

Romani is the daughter of Madison County Circuit Judge Charles Romani.

Madison County Circuit Court Case No. 11-L-52

SOURCE ARTICLE