Posts from ‘March, 2011’

By John Donovan

It is said that Grenville Turner (right) the Group Chief Executive of Countrywide Plc, has a reputation for turning around businesses operating in hard times.

He is, or should be, fully aware of current matters relating to Carsons Estate Agency, a subsidiary of Countrywide, which could jeopardize his track record by further damaging the reputation of Countrywide for integrity and competence.

Carsons has got into unholy mess involving a man they describe as a con-artist.

Instead of coming clean about the facts, in an attempt to evade responsibility, Carsons/Countrywide has engaged in a cover-up involving two separate investigations of “illegal dealings”. The investigations include possible corruption involving Carsons staff.

Fundamentally important evidence has been fabricated. Either a former member of Carsons staff is telling what is known to be a whopping lie, or his name has wrongly been associated with the lie.

Mr Grenville needs to decide whether he is willing to risk a reputation meltdown when, sooner or later, the cover-up story resting entirely on a claimed telephoned conversation, which never actually took place, unravels.

The case involves a Carsons client, Richard Denton, who after placing his trust in Countrywide, was made homeless for over a year as a direct result of the “illegal dealings”.

The principal investors in the Countrywide group, *Oaktree Capital Management, Apollo Management, Polygon Global Opportunities Master Fund and Alchemy Special Opportunities Fund, may wish to insist that Mr Turner personally investigates the matter and talks directly to those involved, who have provided statements as part of the so called investigations.

*Information as stated on 31 August 2010

RELATED ARTICLES

Countrywide plc cover-up may result in police investigation of ‘illegal dealings’

Countrywide plc cover-up of role in ‘illegal dealings’

Correspondence file/website

Countrywide Plc: The UK’s largest estate agency and lettings network. 46 high street estate agent brands.

Abbotts Countrywide; Buckell & Ballard; Alan de Maid; Chappell & Matthews; Austin & Wyatt; Bairstow Eves Countrywide; Bridgfords; carsons; Dixons Estate Agents; Entwistle Green; Faron Sutaria; Frank Innes; Freeman Forman; Fulfords; Gascoigne-Pees; John D. Wood & Co; Mann Countrywide; Miller Countrywide; Morris Dibben; PS Palmer Snell; Countrywide Scotland; Geering & Colyer; Hetheringtons Countrywide; Slater Hogg & Howison; Spencers Countrywide; Stratton Creber Countrywide; Taylors Estate Agents; Watson Bull & Porter; Wilson Peacock Estate Agents; King & Chasemore; Lock & England; R A Bennett & Partners; Rentons Countrywide; SLM; Andrew Butler; HamptonsInternational

Compiled by the Government Communication and Information System
Date: 08 Mar 2011
Title: Pandor denies meeting Shell over Karoo gas exploration
——————–

By Nthambeleni Gabara

Pretoria – Science and Technology Minister Naledi Pandor has denied meeting with Shell South Africa vice President Bonang Mohale to discuss Shell’s proposed gas exploration in the Karoo.

Last week a media article claimed that the Chairperson and Vice President of Shell South Africa had said that “Shell was in regular communication with Science and Technology Minister Naledi Pandor”.

Ministerial spokesperson Lunga Ngqengelele said Pandor had never had any communication from Shell in this regard, and has never met Mohale to discuss the proposed project.

In a statement, Pandor said: “I am puzzled as to why Mohale, if the article is correct, would put out such a claim.”

The minister said she was intent on ensuring that South Africa won the bid to host the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope (SKA), and was not going to entertain any matter that might distract her from achieving that goal.

Last week, the oil giant detailed its plans to explore natural gas in the Karoo basin. The company has already applied to Petroleum Agency South Africa for exploration rights in the south-western Karoo basin to assess viable, unconventional gas resources.

Shell has also appointed an independent consultancy to compile an environmental management programme.

Mohale said the exploration activities would include geophysical studies and data acquisition, the drilling of exploration wells with possible gas stimulation and flow testing.

The permit covers an area of approximately 185 000 km2. – BuaNews

SOURCE ARTICLE

10 March 2011 by Jeff Hecht

Climate change could take the US navy into treacherous waters. It will have to raise its game in a thawing Arctic and prepare coastal bases to cope with rising sea levels, concludes a review carried out for the navy by the National Research Council (NRC).

The US Congress may still question the science of climate change, but the Pentagon already thinks a changing climate will be a significant influence on the future security environment. It said as much in last year’s Quadrennial Defence Review Report.

In 2009, chief of naval operations Gary Roughead commissioned the NRC to study the national security implications of climate change for the US navy. The results of that study, published today, conclude that the Arctic is a key challenge for the US – one of five countries with territory inside the Arctic circle.

In 2007, the fabled Northwest Passage along Canada and Alaska opened for the first time as a result of retreating sea ice. It is expected to become navigable – albeit probably still dangerous – by 2030. That will open the region to shipping, tourists and the exploitation of rich natural resources.

Maritime boundaries that determine who controls resources are already in dispute in the area. “The possibility of conflict is low, but it is still real,” says the NRC panel co-chair Antonio Busalacchi at the University of Maryland in College Park. That makes the presence of the US navy or coastguard desirable to support the nation’s interests and protect its citizens in the area.

Cold case

Yet the US has largely ignored the inhospitable Arctic in the two decades since the end of the cold war. “As a nation, we’ve lost some of our experience and edge in cold regions,” says Busalacchi. Special equipment and training are? needed for Arctic operations: for instance, communication links degrade because areas north of the Arctic circle are out of normal range of the satellites in geosynchronous orbit that the navy uses. The US now has just three icebreakers – and two of them are over 30 years old. Of the other four nations with Arctic territory, Russia has 18 icebreakers, Finland and Sweden have seven each, and Canada has six.

To address these problems, the NRC panel urges the navy to build partnerships with other countries operating in the Arctic and to develop new navigation and communications techniques.

The sea-level rises predicted to follow global warming also pose a direct threat to naval facilities, most of which, obviously, lie along coasts. A survey for last year’s quadrennial review found that 56 of the 103 navy bases that responded would be vulnerable to a 1-metre rise in sea level, which the panel considers likely by the end of this century. The report says these facilities are worth about $100 billion, and encourages the navy to identify which are at most risk from storm surges and sea-level rise, take steps to defend them, and develop models to predict future risks.

SOURCE ARTICLE

© 2011 AAP

SOURCE ARTICLE

11 March 2011

Shell to Sea and Rossport Solidarity Camp have invited senior members of Belmullet Garda Station to attend a public meeting instead of holding talks behind closed doors.

Terence Conway, spokesperson for Shell to Sea has said Gardaí have a duty to talk to people and not hold private discussions behind closed doors.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Energy firm Shell UK today (Thursday) appeared at Norwich magistrates’ court charged with failing to maintain health and safety standards for staff at Bacton gas terminal.

The global company faces eight charges relating to the operation of the Paston Road terminal, including failing to ensure staff safety, failing to take measures to prevent accidents and contravening a pollution prevention permit.

District judge Philip Browning declined jurisdiction and referred the case to crown court. The case will be heard at Norwich Crown Court on May 4. No indication of plea has yet been given.

Bacton gas terminal picture by Adrian Judd.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Anglo-Dutch conglomerate applies for permit to drill just 30 miles off World Heritage-listed coral reef in Western Australia

PHOTO ALAMY: The Ningaloo Reef, under threat from Shell’s plans to drill for oil nearby

By Kathy Marks

Wednesday, 9 March 2011

Shell Oil has come under heavy criticism for planning an oil and gas drilling site that could threaten a coral reef off the coast of Australia that is among the most valuable marine ecosystems on the planet.

Just 30 miles away from the marine park that protects Ningaloo Reef, a haven for sealife that was recently nominated for World Heritage status, the proposed drilling project has raised fears of an oil spill that could seriously damage the reef and the creatures that depend on it. Warnings of the risks come shortly after a major international report that three quarters of the world’s coral reefs are under severe threat of ecological catastrophe from overfishing, pollution, and climate change. Ningaloo is one of the minority that is currently relatively protected from such dangers.

The fears of an oil spill have not just been raised because memories of BP’s disaster in the Gulf of Mexico last year are fresh. North-western Australia experienced its own massive spill in the Montara oilfield in the Timor Sea in 2009, which took 74 days to plug.

If a blow-out that size occurred at Ningaloo, it could seriously damage the 175-mile reef and jeopardise the marine life that depends on it, WWF-Australia warned yesterday. The group pointed to Shell Australia’s own modelling, which envisages the worst-case scenario of an oil spill covering a substantial area just off the coast.

Shell itself insists that it has “a very strong commitment to the protection of biodiversity”. But environmentalists are not reassured. “It only takes one accident to create an environmental catastrophe,” said Robin Chapple, a state Greens politician in Western Australia.

Less well known than the Great Barrier Reef but equally spectacular, Ningaloo Reef is a haven for marine life, particularly the giant whale sharks that congregate there every autumn to feed. It is one of the longest fringing reefs on the planet.

One threat was fought off a decade ago, when plans for a major resort at Ningaloo were vetoed by the Western Australian government following a campaign backed by international celebrities.

Highly unusual because it hugs the coastline – at its nearest point, the reef is only 100 yards offshore – Ningaloo is home to 300 species of coral and 500 species of fish, including sharks, manta rays, dolphins and humpback whales. Four of the world’s seven marine turtles, all of them vulnerable or endangered, are found in its turquoise waters.

But the area, close to the small town of Exmouth, is best known for the whale sharks – the world’s biggest fish species, growing up to 18m (59ft) long – that gather from April to July, after a mass coral spawning. Eco-tourism operators offer visitors the chance to snorkel and dive with the enormous creatures.

In the early 2000s, plans to build a resort and marina were opposed by, among others, the actress Greta Scacchi and the British botanist David Bellamy, who called Ningaloo “one of the world’s most special places”. The Australian novelist Tim Winton, on winning Western Australia’s main literary award in 2002, donated his A$25,000 prize money (equivalent to £8,850 then) to the campaign.

The following year, the state premier, Geoff Gallop, rejected the development proposal, saying it would jeopardise “one of the world’s great natural wonders” and declaring: “Today we have drawn a line in the sand.”

Nominated for World Heritage listing last year, Ningaloo is tipped to receive the nod from Unesco soon. In their submission, the state and federal governments describe it as “a unique place… unsurpassed among coral reefs for displaying the interaction of history, physical environment and ecology”.

Nevertheless, the two governments, which would receive millions of dollars in royalties if oil and gas were found, are expected to approve Shell’s proposal to spend 60 days drilling in mile-deep waters, possibly as early as September.

In a statement, Shell said it applied “a very high standard of operating practices” and adhered to “strict environmental plans in all our operations”. However, WWF-Australia said the Gulf of Mexico spill demonstrated that “drilling accidents can happen to even the biggest companies in the business” – particularly when carrying out deep-water drilling.

The group’s conservation manager for Western Australia, Paul Gamblin, said only luck had prevented the Montara slick from reaching the pristine Kimberley coastline, more than 150 miles away. Ningaloo, he said, was one of the world’s few remaining healthy reefs. “It’s one of those places that is just humming with life and is quite amazing, so the fact that the oil and gas industry is getting closer and closer all the time is of great concern,” he said. “This could be the beginning of a whole new push into areas that run right along the reef itself.”

BP recently announced plans to carry out seismic exploration, with a view to deepwater drilling, in the Great Australian Bight, off the South Australian coast: another site exceptionally rich in marine life. Mr Gamblin said exploration should not be approved in such sensitive areas until a network of marine parks had been established, which was one of the government’s election promises.

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES

• US judge halts damages claim over pollution in Amazon
• Michael McCarthy: Why put one of the Earth’s last pristine reefs at risk?
• Leading article: Oil exploration: not a price worth paying

One of the examples of collusion between Shell and HSE was that HSE were aware that the Press Releases by Shell were false.  From the feedback from the CPS investigation they confirmed that the CEO of the HSE was aware that the statements made by Shell in the Press Releases in 2006 were totally false and misleading.

Bill Campbell, retired HSE Group Auditor of Shell International.

SELF-EXPLANATORY EMAIL TO SHELL:

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 4 March 2011 16:23:35 GMT
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Cc: peter.p.voser@shell.com, malcolm.brinded@shell.com, Jorma.Ollila@shell.com, Cambellxxx.xxxxx.com
Subject: Fwd: Criminal Investigation uncovers lies and deceit and potential corruption

Dear Mr Brandjes

I have forwarded to you an email received from Mr. Bill Campbell. I have deleted part of the first sentence, which commences: “This is a shortened version…”

I have already published the short version of his statement.

Please see:
Shell Brent Bravo Deaths: Criminal Investigation uncovers lies, deceit and potential corruption

Shell is invited to supply for unedited publication within the brief version and for inclusion with the full version, when published, any comment/rebuttal you wish to make.

If Shell fails to do so, visitors to our website, including the mainstream news media, will be entitled to draw their own conclusions i.e. that Shell accepts the facts, as stated by Mr Campbell.

Best Regards
John Donovan

THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE

A day earlier, on 3rd March, Royal Dutch Shell made a blanket denial in response to our account of Shell’s support and encouragement for Hitler and the Nazis based partly on evidence in “A History of Shell Dutch Shell” gathered by Shell’s paid historians. This time there is no denial of any kind.

THE FULL STATEMENT/ARTICLE BY BILL CAMPBELL

Information from Meeting Held with CPS on 18th February, 2011

Criminal Investigation uncovers lies, deceit and potential corruption

Introduction

This is a modern day story of new Shell.  New Shell is an organisation that you can’t be sure about anymore.  An organisation which in the dangerous and unforgiving North Sea, allowed over a prolonged period from1999 till 2003, a negative safety culture to develop offshore which flourished and was sustained within a hostile environment of extreme denial.  In this environment, the hideous Touch F-All policy led to the degradation of installation equipment through neglect of maintenance across the oil field.  When employees were killed as a result of all this, Shell Director(s), whose failures may have led to charges of corporate homicide against them, colluded with the Industry safety regulator to cover these failures up.  This cover-up has been aided and abetted up the organisational line to the CEO and non-executive Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell.  All this has been exposed by an ongoing investigation by Scottish authorities.

The investigation process

Some time ago the police in Aberdeen passed a report to the Procurator Fiscal (public prosecutor).  The report provided evidence alleging that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), who regulate health and safety of persons at work in the UK, including offshore, may have been compromised, bribery and corruption, by Shell.  The allegations relate to a fatal accident offshore on Brent Bravo on 11^th September 2003 and the subsequent Fatal Accident Inquiry into the fatalities.  A criminal investigation commenced based on these allegations. The Procurator Fiscal are part of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), reference to the Crown is simply because UK has a monarchy.

The investigation has focussed to date on the role of HSE officials. These officials are UK Government employees.  Since the investigation is ongoing it is inappropriate to comment on what has, or has not been established with regards to HSE.  The CPS investigation to date however has confirmed that Shell repeatedly made false and misleading statements about its part in these affairs.

The Fatal Accident Inquiry into deaths on Brent Bravo

What has been established is that the HSE, whether in collusion with Shell or not, failed to pass vital evidence to the CPS in 2003 prior to the Fatal Accident Inquiry.  HSE had obtained this evidence directly from Shell only days after the fatalities.  This evidence given to HSE was from Greg Hill, the Production Director in Aberdeen, and was from his internal Technical Integrity Review implemented immediately after the deaths. Hill implemented the Review to ascertain whether Brent Bravo was an unfortunate, but isolated incident, or was there a general malaise offshore.  The Review found chronic weakness in management controls resulting in the deaths on Brent Bravo, for which Shell were prosecuted.  The Review confirmed that Brent Bravo was not an isolated incident as similar conditions were found on many of the Shell North Sea installations.

What were the consequences flowing from this?

My most recent meeting with CPS was on the 18^th February.  The CPS position is that if they had been in possession of the evidence given by Greg Hill to HSE in 2003, as they should have been, this would most likely have led to a more general Inquiry into how Shell had operated across the oilfield and over the prolonged period from 1999.  There was considerable public interest in the Brent Bravo fatalities, and this combined with the evidence of a negative safety culture, may have influenced the Lord Advocate (in US parlance an Attorney General) who heads up the CPS in Scotland, to order such Inquiry.

This Inquiry would have covered how technical and operations integrity of Shell facilities, not just Brent Bravo, had degraded over a prolonged period, and how this degradation had not been halted or reversed, despite many HSE enforcement actions being applied on Shell over this period.  From 1999 to 2003, enforcement notices were issued to counteract 33 serious breaches of legislation.  It appears that the Safety Case regime, put in place post Piper Alpha, had failed to ensure the health and safety of the many hundreds of Shell employees offshore over this prolonged period.

2006 – After the Fatal Accident Inquiry into Brent Bravo

When the Sheriff (a Judge) reported the results of his Inquiry there was significant public concern from Trade Unions and politicians, The Sheriff had determined how the deaths had taken place by after a 38 day Inquiry had made no recommendations.  He did however make the significant suggestion that factors he had not covered, because of the restrictions of the relevant Act concerning such Inquiries, could merit a more General Inquiry, but to date no such Inquiry has taken place.

BBC Scotland encapsulated the public concerns on a programme aired on 14^th June 2006.  Prior to the programme going on air BBC offered both Shell and HSE right of reply but they declined to comment despite the programme content being critical of both parties.  On the 16^th June 2006 significant media interest was stirred up by the oil industry Magazine Upstream articles.  Shell issued a rebuttal in the form of press releases by their Crisis Management Team which were also copied internally to its employees across the World.

The rebuttal stated that Safety is Shell’s foremost priority at all times and we absolutely reject any suggestion that we would compromise safety offshore. In 1999, Shell initiated the Platform Safety Management Review (PSMR), in which Mr Campbell was asked to participate, and responded vigorously to its findings. A follow up implementation audit conducted at the end of 2000 confirmed significant progress had been made on both asset integrity and management systems. This contributed to the continuous improvement in Shell’s safety performance that has been achieved since 1999 in the North Sea.

With the Press Releases the cover-up commenced

It was Greg Hill who led the Crisis Management Team and it was he who way back in 2003 had presented the evidence of the appalling conditions on many of his offshore installations to HSE.  The press release also ignored the findings of their own internal investigation completed in 2005, into the conduct of Directors in 1999.  This investigation concluded that the 1999 PSMR follow-up was ineffective.  The investigation was critical of Malcolm Brinded for dispensing with the services of the SIEP Lead Auditor of the PSMR in 1999 which effectively halted the PSMR in midstream.   Brinded was also criticised for not taking the immediate actions, as recommended by his Platform Safety Management Review (PSMR) in 1999, to reduce the risks on Brent Bravo, which was operating in a dangerous condition.

Why did Greg Hill lie?

Greg Hill was put in charge of the Crisis Management Team in June 2006 with instructions from above to sort this problem out or else!  As evidence of a hostile environment of extreme denial Hill was given no choice being intimidated to lie, and lie again, do anything that was needed to protect Shell from public ridicule and potential prosecution. Jacob Stausholm, the SIEP Chief Auditor who had led the 2005 internal investigation into the behaviour of Brinded and Finlayson at the time of the PSMR, was also threatened.  He was to bury his report and raise no objections to the press releases.  Within a few years both Hill and Stausholm had left Shell.   Hill went to the Hess Corporation to Head their EP division and Stausholm to Statoil Hydro as a non-executive Director.  Both these organisations raised no legal or other objections to the comments made about their employees.

Why did the HSE not respond to the Shell Press Releases?

One of the examples of collusion between Shell and HSE was that HSE were aware that the Press Releases by Shell were false.  From the feedback from the CPS investigation they confirmed that the CEO of the HSE was aware that the statements made by Shell in the Press Releases in 2006 were totally false and misleading.  His defence apparently was that the Shell statement put HSE in a difficult position as their Policy does not allow them to comment of the performance of individual organisations.  A pretty lame excuse.  So the CPS accept that the public statements made by Shell did not reflect the reality of the situation and that HSE allowed these comments to go unchallenged, all this still subject to investigation.

So what lies have been uncovered?

1.    It is not contentious that Shell neglected to inform HSE about the 1999 PSMR and its findings.  In 2006, Shell defended this by stating that the PSMR was just a Review and not an audit.  The facts established and accepted by the CPS is that the PSMR was conducted by Auditors, was based on seven offshore audits, the PSMR report was issued by the Internal Audit Manager and was ipso facto an audit.  Not to inform HSE and the offshore workers about the results of a health and safety Audit is an offence under Safety Case Regulations.  The PSMR produced many recommended actions, these were accepted by Shell Expro, but not effectively implemented.  This contributing to the deaths on Brent Bravo and to the chronic weaknesses in essential controls across the oilfield as witnessed in 2003

2.    It is not contentious that rather than a continuous improvement from 1999 till the deaths there had been continuous degradation of standards due to the imposed negative safety culture and the failure to implement the PSMR findings.  In the words of the Lord Advocate, it was clear from the conditions on Brent Bravo, that the deaths had resulted from ineffective management of Shell’s offshore operations over a prolonged period of time

3.    In 2006, under intense media pressure van der Veer responded to critical media comments, and separately in correspondence with me (held by the CPS), that there was no evidence that the performance results of ESD valves had been falsified in 1999.  Another blatant lie now uncovered

4.    Asked to investigate the role of van der Veer and Brinded by me, the RDS Chairman Jorma Ollila in writing replied that he was satisfied with the statements made in the 2006 Press Releases and the Shell position was supported by their internal investigation.  He now accepts that his statements were not factual.  Although he has been bestowed with nine badges of honour this does not stop him to lie at will to protect the Shell reputation.

In conclusion

It is hoped that this article will be seen and widely circulated by Shell employees.  New Shell is an organisation in decline with all the usual symptoms of an organisation where power corrupts.  Lies, deceit, potential corruption, hypocrisy, self-delusion with a loss of reality, criminal negligence and gross intimidation of its employees who must lie to cover up wrongdoing of Directors, or suffer the consequences.

Post the reserves scandal new Shell placed great emphasise in media releases that honesty and integrity were to be at the core of everything they did in the future.  The non-executive governance was to be beefed up along with improvements to the internal audit process, but we observe from the evidence a powerless and compliant Chairman, and an Internal Audit system that is a sham.

The principal learning point from this is that new Shell is an organisation that Society can not be sure of anymore and whose statements can not be trusted. It is an organisation prepared to condemn others to gain commercial advantage, as it did with BP over Deepwater Horizon well, whilst covering up its own criminal neglect.

RELATED AUGUST 2008 LETTER FROM THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 08/03/2011

Reporter: Minsi Chung

Petroleum giant Shell plans to drill for oil 50 kilometres from the national heritage listed Ningaloo Reef.

Transcript

ALI MOORE, PRESENTER: Petroleum giant Shell is on a collision course with conservationists over a plan to drill for oil 50 kilometres from Ningaloo Reef, a national heritage listed area.

The industry says it’s safe, but critics argue it puts wildlife and irreplaceable coral reefs at serious risk.

Minsi Chung reports from Perth.

MINSI CHUNG, REPORTER: Ningaloo Reef is recognised as one of the state’s major tourism drawcards and is on the waiting list for world heritage status. Now Shell wants federal environmental approval to drill an exploration well. If it gets the go ahead, work could start as early as September.

With the Montara well, fire and oil spill still fresh in the public mind, conservationists are gearing up for a fight.

PAUL GAMBLIN, WWF: Some areas like this need to be fully protected and the Australian Government needs to get serious about protecting our magnificent marine environment.

MINSI CHUNG: Shell says it’s committed to protecting the area and it has strict environmental management plans in place. The petroleum industry is also confident it can meet environmental standards.

MARK MCCALLUM, APPEA DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE: The fact is the industry has operated in this region for over 40 years and we’ve had actively-producing facilities that have not damaged the values of Ningaloo.

MINSI CHUNG: But the environmental movement says a decision on Shell’s application should wait until a final report into the Montara incident is released.

PAUL GAMBLIN: The Federal Government should make sure that the system of regulations, the laws that are apply to oil and gas activities, are fixed, are in place, based on the Montara experience.

MINSI CHUNG: The State Government will also have a say in whether drilling can go ahead.

KIM HAMES, ACTING PREMIER: We want to make sure that Ningaloo Reef as a system is protected and we have concerns because of the oil spills that we’ve seen in parts of the world.

MINSI CHUNG: It’s not clear when the Federal Government will make a decision on the Shell application.

Minsi Chung, Lasteline.

SOURCE