By John Donovan

We have received interesting email following our posting of the threats made against us by Royal Dutch Shell Plc . The threats related to our publication of relevant pages from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”, focused on the Nazi past of the oil giant. The question of our continued mortality was raised.

A Shell insider asked if we were aware that “there is one country in the world that Shell will not do business with?”

This was a reference to Israel. The insider explained events that had led them to ponder the question in our headline.

We suspected that Shell was a racist company. We did not know that it was still anti-Semitic, if that is the case. Israel is not included in the global list of Countries on shell.com where Shell does business. I cannot find any reference by Shell to Israel on Shell’s website. There is no reference to anti-Semitism in its Business Principles. It seems to be a taboo subject?

The paid historians of Shell who supposedly had unrestricted access to Royal Dutch Shell archives revealed that Shell had engaged in anti-Semitic policies against its own employees. This happened while Shell was financially supporting and encouraging Hitler and the Nazis.

So is Shell STILL anti-Semitic, or is it simply because doing business with Israel would upset the rulers of Saudi Arabia, yet another tyrannical regime in bed with Shell?

One Country swims in oil. The other doesn’t. Perhaps that has something to do with it?

Update:

Have checked “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”. No information about Shell doing business with Israel.

Did find this revealing paragraph in the Wikipedia article “Paz Oil Company“

Paz was founded in 1922, as Anglo-Asiatic Petroleum. From 1927 it operated as part of Royal Dutch Shell, under the name Shell Palestine. In 1958 Shell withdrew from Israel under economic pressure from Arab countries. The symbol of the company, a yellow triangle, still resembles that of Shell.

What this means is that Royal Dutch Shell predictably sided with anti-Semitic Arab regimes and has done so for 52 years.

RIGHT OF REPLY

Any comment by Shell will be published here on an unedited basis.

Related Articles

Is Royal Dutch Shell a racist company?: 25 January 2011

Is Royal Dutch Shell a racist company?: 10 December 2007

Is Royal Dutch Shell Plc adopting racist policies against its Malaysian employees?: Thursday 22 September 2005

By Mika

Unrest has reached Oman, the usually “sedate” and “tranquil” Sultanate on the southeastern corner of the Arabian Peninsula. Inspired by uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Bahrain, Omani youth took to the streets to challenge government corruption, cronyism, unemployment and a lack of democracy. Protests spread across the desert country, with police firing bullets and teargas from helicopters, killing at least six demonstrators. Sultan Qaboos exercises absolute power over his kingdom, as he has for forty years since he deposed his father.

Political parties are banned, as is collective bargaining. Omani subjects can’t hold a public meeting without the government’s approval, or express criticism of the sultan in any form or medium. Publication of books is limited and the government restricts their importation and distribution.

This all adds up to a profitable business environment for Shell. The company was the first to drill in Oman in 1956 and exported its initial tanker load of 543,000 barrels of crude in 1967, only three years before Qaboos ibn Said overthrew his father Said ibn Taimur.

Today, Shell still dominates the oil scene in the sultanate. Although other companies including BP are extracting gas, 80% of Omani crude is extracted by PDO – Petroleum Development Oman. Royal Dutch Shell is the primary foreign shareholder in this joint venture, controlling a 34% stake alongside the government’s 60% holding. Shell staff fill key positions, including Managing Director Raoul Restucci and Exploration Director Martin Stäuble. The company takes around 200,000 barrels of crude per day – 5% of its global production – from a relatively risk free and highly profitably operation. Shell also played a key role in establishing, constructing and running Oman’s two LNG (liquefied natural gas) plants – Oman LNG and Qalhat LNG – near the coastal town of Sur that has seen repeated demonstrations.

Having worked closely with Sultan Qaboos’ regime for the past forty years, Shell has developed an ongoing symbiotic relationship with the despot. John Malcolm, the Managing Director of PDO and Shell most senior representative in the country until 2010, demonstrated his allegiance to the crown in an obsequious introduction to the company’s 2007 annual report:

“I would like to give special thanks to Your Majesty for your unflagging support and wise guidance to PDO over the years. Looking forward, our challenge as a Company is to work hand-in-hand with Your Majesty’s Government to secure our capability to produce oil and gas for the next 40 years. [...]

As we move towards an ever more complex and challenging future, we know that we can count on Your Majesty’s continuing support and guidance. For our part, we reaffirm our commitment to securing the future of the Sultanate of Oman under the wise leadership of Your Majesty.”

Shell’s close partnership with the Omani government is part and parcel of Britain’s foreign energy policy towards the region. The Sultan long always been an anglophile, having attended school in Kent, trained as a British officer at Sandhurst and served in the British Army in Germany in 1960. Today, sports pavilions bear his name at both Sandhurst and the RAF officers’ college, Cranwell. But the military relationship went much deeper than educating a young Qaboos.

Back in 2001, Ken Silverstein described in Salon how “the British have played an extraordinary role in Oman ever since the coup. For more than a decade afterward, British officers commanded all branches of Oman’s armed forces and hundreds more were “on loan” to the sultanate. No one was more influential in Oman than Timothy Landon, an officer in the British Special Air Services who was a classmate of the sultan’s at Sandhurst, the British military academy. He counseled the sultan on the coup, helped put down a leftist insurrection soon afterward, and later served as the rough equivalent of Oman’s national security adviser.”

This military support is not a thing of the past. The foreign office boasts in an article titled “The UK & Oman: our relationship”, that “The UK has a very strong defence and security relationship with Oman. Nearly 100 British military personnel are on loan to the Omani Armed Forces – the second largest such group anywhere in the world.”

Such military support is integrated with British government efforts to boost the interests of “our companies”. Only last Saturday, as protests were beginning to sweep the country, Lord Stephen Green, UK trade and investment minister, accompanied a a high-profile British business delegation including oil corporation representatives to Muscat.

What do Omanis really think of the Sultan? Media reports claim that most of Qaboos’ subjects only have praise for the Sultan, reserving criticism for his ministers. But only weeks before Mubarak’s fall, analysts failed to detect how broad and deep opposition to his rule ran. And in the days prior to the Day of Rage in Libya, most reporting claimed that Gaddafi held the allegiance of most Libyans and that a widespread uprising was impossible. With Shell and the FCO both favouring stability and their long, “unique” relationship with the regime, they’re banking on the country remaining “sedate” and “tranquil”.

SOURCE ARTICLE

mika’s blog

AMSTERDAM, March 7 (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell said it would not tie executives’ bonuses in 2011 to a benchmark index after its expulsion from that index over its Nigerian operations scuppered its 2010 sustainability-linked bonuses.

EXTRACT FROM AN ARTICLE BY CHRISTIAN STADLER PUBLISHED TODAY BY FORTUNE

5 ways to keep your company alive

March 7, 2011

In the years before World War II, Shell was very much a one-man-band led by Sir Henri Deterding. Under Deterding’s firm control, the group prospered but also flirted with disaster as he saw Adolf Hitler as the man most likely to preserve Europe from Communism. Luckily for Shell, Deterding retired in 1936 before he could make any disastrous commitments. The company did not forget its narrow escape.

(Photo: The Shell Mex House, Shell’s former headquarters in London. Photo taken in 1955)

SOURCE ARTICLE

Comment added by John Donovan. In fact Deterding remained a director of Royal Dutch Shell until his death in February 1939.

By John Donovan

This posting provides a clarification to my recent article “Will Shell block Internet publication of its Nazi past?”.

It is in relation to the following paragraph.

Information in Shell’s own authorised history of the company confirms that Shell pumped funds into the Nazi in a variety of ways, was at times anti-Semitic, sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis and conspired directly with Hitler.

When I said “and conspired directly with Hitler” that was partly an informed assumption on my part.

A four day meeting between Sir Henri Deterding (right), the founder and dictatorial leader of Royal Dutch Shell Group and Adolf Hitler, the fascist German dictator and leader of the Nazis did take place in October 1934. There is no dispute about that fact.

The meeting held at Berchtesgaden – Hitler’s mountain top retreat known as the The Berghof and later as The Eagle’s Nest – was reported at the time in a New York Times article. There was no later retraction by the New York Times of anything stated in the article.

The Deterding/Hitler summit, in combination with the personal message sent by Hitler to the funeral of Sir Henri, provides an indication of the very special relationship between Hitler and Deterding, the undisputed boss of Royal Dutch Shell.

According to the New York Times article, the subject discussed during the summit was the prospect of Hitler granting a monopoly to “Royal Dutch and Shell Companies of petrol distribution in Germany.” It seems reasonable to assume. bearing in mind subsequent events, that other subjects of mutual interest were discussed e.g. Hitler and Deterding both shared an intense interest in Russia, not limited to the Russian oil fields.

The two tyrants must have got on well because Dr. Georg Bell, a mysterious individual said to be a German spy, had already acted as a joint agent for Hitler and Deterding. Bell was an intimate of the perverted Storm Troop Leader Capt. Ernst Röhm, and was reportedly involved with Deterding in a counterfeiting operation against the Russian Rouble.

Bell was murdered in Austria in April 1933 by a death squad of Nazi Storm Troopers and the SS after “making revelations about Deterding and the Nazis.” Bell apparently knew too much about sensitive matters the Nazis and their financiers wanted hushed up.

These historical events were entirely at variance with the picture painted in “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” by Shell’s paid historians of the Nazis repeatedly rebuffing all overtures from Deterding for an audience with Hitler, with the Nazis determined to keep him firmly at arms length. This entire defence was based on a false premise.

Will Royal Dutch Shell carry out threat to block Internet publication of its connection with Hitler and the Nazis?

By John Donovan

I have printed below my recent email correspondence with Mr. Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

As can be seen, it relates to Royal Dutch Shell’s support for Hitler and the Nazis.

I have already published a related article: “Royal Dutch Shell and the Nazis: Shell threatens legal proceedings

This is obviously a highly sensitive subject for Shell.

The reply to my email concerning our intention to publish related information from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”, authored by Shell’s paid historians, is the first time we have managed to elicit any comment from Shell on the subject.

Since Shell’s statement and associated threats are likely to be of most interest, I have printed it first, then again in appropriate order, within the entire correspondence.

The links immediately below are the pdf files which generated the threats from Royal Dutch Shell. Because they contain multiple pages, they take some time to load, so please be patient.

A History of Royal Dutch Shell: Pages from Volume 1

A History of Royal Dutch Shell: Pages from Volume 2

Despite the bluster, it is doubtful that Shell will take any action, because to do so would guarantee coverage of the subject by the mainstream media, a development Shell executives must dread.

The example (top right) from Volume 2 of “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” is the official announcement in May 1940 of the transfer of Royal Dutch’s legal seat to Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles located in the southern Caribbean Sea, off the Venezuelan coast. Royal Dutch Petroleum directors refused to locate the company seat in England. Perhaps they were not sure whose side they were on and were hedging bets about the outcome of the war? There was also antagonism between UK and Dutch directors in the Group, which seems to be a reoccurring theme.

EMAIL FROM MICHIEL BRANDJES, 3 MARCH 2011

From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Date: 3 March 2011 09:02:21 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your message. Except for this message the company does not wish to respond to you other than to convey that it strongly disagrees with your views and allegations, objects to your actions and reserves its legal rights, including with respect to copyrights.

On an exceptional basis we tested your views about history with the relevant historians. They convincingly refute with evidence what you claim in contradiction with A History of Royal Dutch Shell.

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

ENTIRE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE IN DATE/TIME ORDER

JOHN DONOVAN EMAIL TO MR MICHIEL BRANDJES, WEDNESDAY 2 MARCH 2011

From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: woensdag 2 maart 2011 13:43
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LSC
Subject: A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

Dear Mr. Brandjes

I have tried, without success, to send you two pdf files for your information. Both exceeded a size limit imposed by your server.

Each contains a selection of pages from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”.

The first pdf relates to Volume One, 1890-1939, and contains the front and back cover, plus three preamble pages, including  copyright and publishers details. In addition, it includes numbered pages 464 to 493 inclusive.

The second pdf relates to Volume 2, 1939-1973, and contains the front and back cover, two preamble pages covering publishers details and copyright information, plus the following numbered pages: 12, 22, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84 and 86.

Both include the following 2 page introduction, plus an article from the New York Times published on 26 October 1934 reporting on a 4 day summit meeting between Hitler and Sir Henri Deterding.

INTRODUCTION

Royal Dutch Shell and the Nazis

By John Donovan

In the “Fortune Global 500 Ranking by Revenue 2010”, Royal Dutch Shell Plc is ranked as the second largest company in the world, after Wal-Mart Stores.

Many people know something about the oil giants’ controversial track record in Nigeria. It includes decades long plunder and pollution, with involvement in espionage, corruption, torture, murder, and other human rights abuses.

Some people are aware of Shell’s unscrupulous dealings with despotic regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Shell deliberately disguised shipping movements of Iraqi and Iranian oil during UN sanctions.

Very few people have any inkling of Shell’s pivotal support for Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Basically, Shell saved the Nazi Party when it was in danger of financial collapse and continued, for over a decade, to pump funds into the Nazi project. As a consequence, Shell was arguably indirectly responsible for over 30 million deaths in World War 2.

I have already published a series of articles on this explosive subject, the most recent major article under the headline: “Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets”

The Dutch oil baron Sir Henri Deterding drove Shell’s support for the Nazis. He was the dictatorial founder of Royal Dutch Shell publicly described as the “Napoleon of Petroleum” and “The Most Powerful Man in the World”. Sir Henri was infatuated with Hitler and the Nazis.

An official account of the history of the oil giant – “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” – authored by eminent historians associated with Utrecht University, provided invaluable information during my research. The historians were given unrestricted access to Royal Dutch Shell archives. The Research Institute for History and Culture supervised the project. The entire 4-volume history published in 1997 costs £140 (over $200).

I have created pdf files from relevant pages of Volumes 1 & 2 for publication on the Internet. Public interest in knowing the truth about such historically important matters in my view outweighs copyright issues. Instead of the information being buried in an expensive set of history books available mainly in a few reference libraries for research by academics, the information is now freely available on the World Wide Web.

The public and investors should be aware of Shell’s Nazi past. Some people, perhaps relatives of those poor souls who suffered horrific deaths in the Nazi gas chambers, may wish to boycott Shell on these grounds alone. Shell’s Nazi business partner, the infamous I.G. Farben, supplied the Zyklon-B gas used during the Holocaust to exterminate millions of people, including children.

Information in Shell’s own authorised history of the company confirms that Shell pumped funds into the Nazi in a variety of ways, was at times anti-Semitic, sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis and conspired directly with Hitler.

Readers can see for themselves from the pages below that Shell continued its partnership with the Nazis in the years after the retirement of Sir Henri Deterding as leader of the company. Sir Henri remained a director after his retirement from the top job and made huge food donations to Nazi Germany that were widely reported. This meant that Shell was aware of his activities and allowed him to remain as a director; no surprise bearing in mind that Shell also continued its partnership with the Nazis (even after the subsequent death of Sir Henri).

As a long-term campaigner against Shell management misdeeds, my objectivity and impartiality is open to question. This is why I created pdf’s containing relevant pages from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”, so those interested can read Shell’s own account of relevant events.

Since the historians were paid by Shell, it follows that their objectivity and impartiality is also open to question. They also appear to have enjoyed some global jet setting funded by Shell.

The relevant historians  – Joost Jonker and Jan Luiten van Zanden – downplayed the central issue of Shell funding the Nazis on the basis that Hitler would not even agree to meet with Sir Henri. My own research, including newspaper reports from the 1930’s unearthed in The New York Times archive, revealed that this could not have been further from the truth.

Agents engaged in sinister activities jointly for Hitler and Sir Henri after the two men had a private four-day summit meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat in Berchtesgaden. Both dictators had designs on the Russian oil fields.

What transpired all those years ago obviously has no reflection on current Shell employees, the vast majority of whom are decent hard working people.

The dreadful events do however stain forever the name of Royal Dutch Shell and the brand name by which the company is best known throughout the world: Shell.

John Donovan

March 2011

INTRODUCTION ENDS

You will see my stated contention that public interest overrides copyright issues.

As you will probably be aware, I published an article last week giving notice to Shell lawyers of my intention to publish this information on the Internet.

I have not received any response and this suggests that Shell has no objection to such publication.

Please let me know if this assumption is wrong.

Shell is, as always, welcome to correct any inaccurate information which is stated as fact in the introduction.

If you want any comment or response by Shell to be added, it will be included on an unedited basis.

If there is no response within the next 48 hours, I will take that as confirmation that Royal Dutch Shell plc has waived copyright in favour of the public interest and our right to criticise Shell using the Internet, as stated by your company in its submission to the World Intellectual Property Organisation in 2005. This was in regard to the proceedings by Shell in respect of the top level domain name RoyalDutchShellPlc.com and two other Shell related domain names.

Internet publication in controversial circumstances may promote renewed interest in “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” and generate sales.

If you need more time to consider the matter, that is not a problem. Just kindly let me know within the 48 hour period that you will be responding after due consideration.

Best Regards
John Donovan

EMAIL RESPONSE FROM MICHIEL BRANDJES, 3 MARCH 2011

From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Date: 3 March 2011 09:02:21 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your message. Except for this message the company does not wish to respond to you other than to convey that it strongly disagrees with your views and allegations, objects to your actions and reserves its legal rights, including with respect to copyrights.

On an exceptional basis we tested your views about history with the relevant historians. They convincingly refute with evidence what you claim in contradiction with A History of Royal Dutch Shell.

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

REPLY FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 3 March 2011 13:18:33 GMT
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: Re: A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

Dear Mr Brandjes

Thank you for your response.

For the record, we are not in contradiction with the stated facts based on information/evidence in Shell archives, but rather with the surprising opinions and conclusions aired by your paid historians in relation to that evidence.

Their defence of the numerous allegations of Shell/Deterding funding of Hitler and the Nazi Party was founded on the claim that all attempts by Deterding to meet with Hitler were rebuffed, with the conclusion being that Deterding could not have been held in high esteem by Hitler. I can only surmise that the historians were unaware that in fact Deterding had a summit meeting with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. Only an honoured personal guest would be rewarded with a private four day meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat. In contrast, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s face-to-face meeting in September 1938 with Hitler at Berchtesgaden in an attempt to avoid war, lasted for just three hours. The absence of any reference to the Deterding/Hitler meeting in my view undermines the credibility of the relevant paid historians and their ill informed opinions on this historically important matter.

Further evidence of the high regard the Nazis had for Deterding was apparent at his Nazi funeral, which included a glowing personal tribute from Hitler in a wreath sent by Göring: ‘In the name and on the instructions of the Fuhrer, I greet thee, Heinrich Deterding, the great friend of the Germans.‘

I am sure that you will understand that having been bombarded with various threats by Shell and its lawyers for getting on to 20 years, such threats have lost their impact.  Please also bear in mind the fact that we are in possession of a Shell internal communication indicating that Shell decided long ago that it would never take legal action against us. There was a fear expressed in one such communication about “internal laundry”. If you categorically state that Shell will take legal action if we proceed with our planned publication, then we would be more impressed and act accordingly.

As to the blanket condemnation of “our views about history”, I note that not a single example of any inaccurately stated fact has been provided.

Best Regards
John Donovan

CORRESPONDENCE ENDS

Text: “Together with Jersey Standard, Shell distributed the synthetic gas oil produced by IG Farben and was a partner in the extension of the project. The town of Leuna in eastern Germany was the hub of I. G. Farbenindustrie and gave its name to the company’s synthetic petrol.”

Royal Dutch Shell was for many years a business and cartel partner both in Germany and on a global basis, with I.G. Farben, the German Chemical giant, which was under control of the SS. The synthetic gasoline contributed significantly to Germany’s ability to wage war despite having been cut off from all major oil fields. I.G. Farben supplied the Zyklon-B gas used during the Holocaust to exterminate millions of people, including children. During the Nuremberg trials, I.G. Farben Directors were found guilty of war crimes, including crimes against humanity, the “mistreatment, terrorization, torture, and murder of enslaved persons” and of being members of a criminal organisation, the SS. (Some information/extracts sourced from the Wikipedia article: IG Farben Trial)

Peter Voser, the chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, believes the $116 oil price caused by the Middle East crisis will soon ease back, but warned of a longer-term shock where “supply cannot meet demand”.

Peter Voser said he had confidence in the ability of OPEC to compensate for the loss of 1m barrels per day of production from Libya Photo: BLOOMBERG

By Rowena Mason 6:31PM GMT 04 Mar 2011

82 Comments

Lack of investment over the past two to three years will most likely be the biggest driver of high oil prices, he said on Friday.

“We may face a situation at one stage where supply cannot meet demand,” Mr Voser said. “That’s where OPEC spare capacity will help but we have to replace significant barrels because of natural decline over time.”

The boss of Europe’s biggest oil company said he had confidence in the ability of OPEC, the oil cartel, to compensate for the loss of 1m barrels per day of production from Libya. More than half the North African country’s production has been lost as uprisings worsens and the nation heads towards civil war.

“I think as OPEC has highlighted there is enough spare capacity to actually replace the shortage of oil out of Libya and it will over time balance itself again,” Mr Voser said.

“Once the Middle East calms down, the oil price will be in the area where it is determined by supply and demand.

“Hopefully in the longer term it will not have substantial impact on economy. I still see economic growth in 2011.”The oil price rose again on Friday as tensions in Libya showed no signs of abating, having dropped down on Thursday on hopes of peace talks. The London benchmark, Brent crude, increased by $1.25, or 1pc, to $116.04 in barrel, as dozens more people were killed in clashes across the country.

The contract price has risen by 3.5pc this week and is up by more than 16pc since the beginning of the crisis in North Africa and the wider Gulf region.

Andrew Horstead, risk analyst at Utilyx, said: “Oil has soared to a two-and-a-half-year high of $116 a barrel and we expect prices to test new highs over the coming weeks if there is no sign of a political breakthrough. Prolonged instability in Libya and the prospect of an all-out civil war spilling over into neighbouring countries is the immediate concern. Any indications that Saudi Arabia is being dragged into the picture will raise immediate alarm bells and will almost certainly mean oil prices soaring further.

The Saudi Arabian stock market has plunged 20pc since mid-February on fears that it could also see insurrection. Shell is holding meetings with major investors about further changes to its executive pay, two years after a serious shareholder revolt.

On Friday, Hans Wijers, remuneration committee chairman, wrote to investors outlining changes to pacify them. The oil group froze executive pay last year and aligned bonuses more with performance.

SOURCE ARTICLE

The Inuit prepare to defend their rights

Mar 3rd 2011

WHEN in the Arctic, you should at least treat your host well. Royal Dutch Shell, an oil giant, had to learn this the hard way when planning to drill exploration wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska a couple of years ago. The firm had spent $84m on offshore leases and had satisfied regulators. But it failed to win over the Inupiat, an Inuit group. They worried that icebreakers and drill ships would hurt the bowhead whales on which they depend. Their leaders and environmental groups sued American regulators for not following a 1970 law on environmental impacts. This allowed them to wrest a number of concessions from Shell, including a commitment to stop all offshore operations during the bowhead migration and hunt, should drilling ever proceed.

Much has been made about conflicts between Arctic states because of a retreating polar ice cap, which will make many natural resources accessible for the first time. But so far, the disputes have been of a different kind. Shell’s experience in Alaska is being repeated around the North Pole. And such clashes are bound to become even more common. Native groups claim much of the Arctic coast as their traditional territory (see map)—and are prepared to fight for their rights. In late February representatives of the Inuit met in Ottawa to discuss a common position on resource development in the High North.

In fact, countries surrounding the Arctic do not have much to argue over. The resources on land lie within clearly delineated borders and those under the sea—which include an estimated 83 billion barrels of oil, more than Russia’s proven reserves today—are largely in shallow waters within the uncontested jurisdiction of coastal states. “There is no race for Arctic resources, and no appetite for conflict,” says Michael Byers, author of the book “Who Owns the Arctic?” Instead of getting into a fight, he points out, Norway and Russia last year ended a decades-long dispute.

In contrast, potential for conflict with native groups is in rich supply. In particular the Inuit live in areas where natural resources are plentiful. And although they are only a small minority—an estimated 160,000 of them are spread across the Arctic—they have achieved a degree of power. Greenland, a territory of Denmark with a predominantly Inuit population, assumed self-rule in 2009, giving it control of its resources. Nunavut, a vast northern territory in Canada, was created a decade earlier by a settlement with the Inuit.

What is more, the Inuit are determined not to be bowled over. They have amplified their power by banding together in the Inuit Circumpolar Council, (ICC), a body created in 1977. They have used their membership of various United Nations bodies to compare notes with indigenous groups from around the world. They have teamed up with other Arctic dwellers such as the Sami of Scandinavia and the Dene of north-western Canada. And they have sought expert legal advice for their common position, which is due in May.

The Inuit are not against development, but want to ensure that it happens on their terms. This partly means sparing the environment—but it also means receiving their share. “For centuries the Arctic lands and waters have been exploited by everybody—except the Inuit. Now it’s our turn,” Kuupik Kleist, Greenland’s prime minister, said at a meeting in Ottawa. The territory is counting on offshore oil and gas to speed its way to independence. It allowed exploration to proceed last year when others were hanging back after the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Other delegates spoke dismissively of companies that, a while back, had talked Inuit into bad deals. In one case a firm supplied poor communities in Russia with a crate of vodka and some food. In another a company in Canada tried to buy access to a nickel deposit in Quebec by offering cash and two ice resurfacers for the local rink.

Yet it was the Inuit success stories that most grabbed delegates. One example is the Red Dog Mine in northern Alaska. Created as a joint venture between the operator, Teck Alaska, and the local Inupiat, it has fed much cash—$146m in 2010 alone—into the Inupiat’s coffers. Such deals may be too steep for the appetite of many resource companies with Arctic dreams. But the increasingly interconnected Inuit are unlikely to settle for less in one country when they know what their counterparts have received in another.

The Inuit know that they will not always get what they want—in Russia, say, where the rights of the Yupik, another Inuit group, are enshrined in the constitution but are being eroded by the government. On the other hand, events in the Middle East will only make their oil and gas more desirable. “Development is going to happen”, says Edward Itta, the Inupiat leader who wrested the concessions from Shell, “whether we like it or not.”

SOURCE ARTICLE