Posts from ‘March, 2011’

S Kalyana Ramanathan / London March 5, 2011, 0:34 IST

Essar Energy’s $350-million deal to buy Shell UK’s oil refinery and associated assets at Stanlow, near Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, has hit a road block. The employee union has rejected the deal in its current form due to differences over pension payout and other issues.

Union members who spoke to Business Standard after the first round of consultation on March 1 said that while they were keen to become part of the Essar Group, they would not allow Shell to wash its hands off certain agreements it had entered into with the employees.

A statement from Unite, the union, said it had lodged a complaint with Shell on behalf of all three bargaining units — operators, maintenance technicians and production team leaders/station duty officers. The group comprises around 600 employees at Stanlow out of nearly 1,000 workers. The union said it was keen to continue group negotiations for annual benefits and salary increases while Essar was keen to introduce its policy of individual appraisals.

Unite said, “Shell made a promise to our members, on joining the company, that they would enjoy the benefit of a final salary pension scheme when they retire. We cannot allow Shell to walk away from its obligations to the loyal staff.”

Ron Wood, the branch secretary of Unite in Stanlow and a Shell employee, said, “We work as a team and we should be appraised (annually) as a team and not individuals.”

Essar, however, dismissed this as a minor glitch and said it was at a very early stage of talks with the union.

A spokesman for Essar Energy in London said, “Following the signing of an exclusivity agreement with Shell, we have entered into the standard consultation exercise with employees at the site prior to signing the asset purchase agreement. The consultations are underway and both Essar and Shell are engaging with the staff at Stanlow. The discussions are progressing well, and we remain confident all issues can be resolved. But, we cannot comment on the outcome until the process has been completed.”

A Shell spokesperson here said,“Staff consultation continues,” and refused to comment further on the differences with the union.

Under UK’s laws, consultation with employees is mandatory before a takeover can be completed. However, the approval of the unions is not a pre-condition for the deal to go through. Sources involved in the deal say differences over pension and annual employee appraisal cannot legally derail an acquisition.

The deal, if approved by the unions and the regulatory authorities in the UK, will be the third largest by an Indian group in the UK after Tata’s acquisition of Corus ($8.1 billion in 2006) and Jaguar Land Rover ($2.3 billion in 2008).

Successful conclusion, even at the current capacity utilisation of around 75 per cent, should bring in an additional $7-8 billion revenue to Essar every year, at current crude prices.

The agreement between Shell and Essar is valid till the end of this month. If by March 31, Essar Energy decides not to proceed with the acquisition, it has agreed to pay Shell a break fee of $50 million. Similarly, Shell has agreed to pay Essar a break fee of $10 million if it chooses not to go ahead with the sale.

Essar will take on board 960 workers at the refinery. In the first six months of 2010, the Stanlow Refinery reported earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and goodwill amortisation (EBITDA) of $62.7 million and a gross refining margin of $4.90 a barrel. Average industry benchmark gross refining margins were $2.73 per barrel in the first half of 2010.

SOURCE ARTICLE

By John Donovan

MY NEPHEW, RICHARD DENTON.

Regular readers of this website may recall that in mid-February, I published an article about the the astonishing incompetence and mendacity of Carsons Estate Agents (a subsidiary of Countrywide plc) in its dealings with my nephew Richard Denton.

When I published the article, I challenged Carsons/Countrywide to issue defamation proceedings against me if they disputed the assertions I had made. It speaks volumes that no such action has been taken to protect the reputation of the UK’s largest Estate Agency Company.

As a result of Richard placing his trust in their claimed integrity, competence and experience, he was made homeless for over a year.  This was despite owning a house worth nearly £400,000. He could not live there because he made the mistake of  instructing Carsons to act as agents in the sale of the property. After accepting their advice and assurances, he ended up with a tenant, supposedly a purchaser, occupying his home. Richard never ever put his house up for rental. Only for sale.

So how, you may ask, did he end up with an unwanted tenant who soon stopped paying any rent, while Richard was made homeless?

Carsons Reading, Berkshire branch, introduced a would be purchaser who they now describe in writing as a ‘con-artist’. Richard was told by Carsons that there was a short delay in the arrival of transferred funds to facilitate the purchase and that to save the deal falling through, he should vacate the property and allow the purchaser to occupy it on a temporary rental basis.

They promised that he would be fully protected, claiming that their Lettings Department had the necessary expertise and experience to safeguard his interests.

In an act of breathtaking incompetence and irresponsibility, Carsons neglected to carry out any reference checks of any kind and supplied a hopelessly flawed so called “Lettings Agreement”. Most of the normal terms and conditions used in short term tenancy agreements were entirely missing. Their Lettings Agreement was a joke.

Richard had never rented a property or ever seen a Lettings Agreement, so he was entirely reliant on Carsons/Countywide and thought he was dealing with a trustworthy diligent Estate Agency.

Carsons suggested and drafted the Lettings Agreement. It was prepared and printed at their premises on their paper, using their ink and equipment. Carsons/Countrywide has subsequently attempted to deny any connection with the Lettings Agreement and in an attempt to evade responsibility has fabricated (manufactured) false evidence.

It is claimed by Carsons/Countywide plc that my nephew dictated the Lettings Agreement over the telephone to a then Carsons/Countrywide employee, Mr John Munday. This is a complete fiction. No such telephone conversation ever took place.

Carsons/Countrywide carried out two investigations into the dubious circumstances surrounding what they have themselves described as ‘illegal dealings”. The Carsons employee who dealt supposedly on Richards behalf with the “con-artist” accepted a valuable celebratory gift from the ‘con-artist’ for his help in the “illegal dealings”, in which Richard was the victim. This has been admitted in writing.

Carsons/Countrywide has given two different explanations as to the origination of the Lettings Agreement. One version as a result of the first investigation and a different account in the second investigation. Both are untrue and amount to a cover-up.

As a result of action taken by Richard, Carsons/Countrywide is now legally obligated within a prescribed period to supply him with all relevant Carsons/Countrywide internal documents, including statements obtained from relevant Carsons/Countrywide employees, Christian Wicks and John Munday. We note that more than one statement was obtained from Wicks in the first investigation.

When all of the information is received, a decision will be made on whether to bring in the police, as ironically twice recommended by Carsons/Countrywide to investigate the “illegal dealings”. The “illegal dealings” may involve a criminal conspiracy.

I suggested in my article that Grenville Turner, the Group Chief Executive of Countrywide, should intervene immediately to find out the truth about the provenance of the so called Lettings Agreement foisted on my nephew in very dubious circumstances.

I repeat again that it is in the best interests of Countrywide Plc investors that the cover-up strategy is stopped before more damage is done to the reputation of the company. How many more Carsons/Countrywide employees and directors are going to be sucked into this sorry tale of incompetence, audacious deceit, evasion (and corruption?) before responsibility is accepted for the “terrible ordeal” inflicted on my nephew.

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

Dear John,

Thank you very much for giving my letter a chance to be published in your site.

Shell scam against its employees in the Philippines?

You are a precious gift to me and to others who are presently enslaved by what you called “tyranny” being capriciously committed by Shell against its very own employees.

I am very thankful that I known your website and you, because in the early moments of my struggle, nobody seemed to be listening, but now,  that you hear me, I believe, the honorable justices of the courts in the Philippines down to the labor arbiter who voluntary opted be ignorant of the law are not only listening …more so they have their legs shaking because of the exposure of  their malfeasance and wrongdoing.

Through your website and you, I was able to convey to the world how rotten is the administration of justice in the Philippines.

And  of course, why you can’t be sure of SHELL.

Again, thank you very much.

Sincerely,
–
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

Introduction by John Donovan

I have published below a self-explanatory statement by Bill Campbell (right), the retired HSE Group Auditor of Shell International. I will email this statement and a more detailed version to Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary of Royal Dutch Shell Plc and forward the same information to the senior Shell executives and the non Executive Chairman, Jorma Ollila, named in the statement.

The more detailed version will be published on this website after Shell has had an opportunity to comment and/or take legal action. Shell issued threats of legal action against us yesterday and may wish to add this matter if briefing Counsel.

STATEMENT BY BILL CAMPBELL, RETIRED HSE GROUP AUDITOR OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL

Some time ago the police in Aberdeen passed a report to the Procurator Fiscal (public prosecutor).  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 the UK has a monarchy.

The investigation has focused 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 18th February 2011.  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.

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 14th 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 16th 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.

How did Shell respond to the critical media coverage?

Their Press Releases on 16 June 2006 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),  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 as President of their EP division and Stausholm joined 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?

Lie 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.  As previously stated if the full facts had been known by the CPS at the time it is likely that a more general Inquiry would have been held.

Lie 2

It is not contentious that rather than a continuos improvement from 1999 till the deaths there had been continuos 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.

Lie 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.

Lie 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 Shell 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 by various agencies this did not stop dispensing with the truth to protect the Shell reputation.

STATEMENT ENDS

THE EVIDENCE ASSEMBLED BY BILL CAMPBELL: READ

SELECTION OF ARTICLES RELATING TO BRENT BRAVO FATALITIES: READ

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

THE FULL FILE OF BRENT BRAVO ARTICLES

MARCH 4, 2011, 5:27 A.M. ET

IBADAN, Nigeria -(Dow Jones)- Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Co., or SNEPCO, has started maintenance work at the company’s Bonga deepwater oil field, a company spokesman said Friday.

“Maintenance work started Feb. 28. Can’t yet tell when it will be completed,” Precious Okolobo, said in a text message to Dow Jones Newswires.

Last week Okolobo said the Bonga field was to be shut in February for maintenance but he didn’t say exactly when and the duration of the shutdown.

The field is located 120 kilometers offshore Nigeria and has production of 225,000 barrels a day. It began production in 2004 and hit the first oil in 2005.

The shutdown at Bonga, one of Nigeria’ successful deepwater fields, will likely result in a reduction of Nigeria’ oil export figure, which officials said stood at 2.4 million barrels a day before the start of the Bonga maintenance.

Nigeria could still earn sizeable revenue from the sale of lower quantity of oil because of the sudden rise in prices caused by the Libyan crisis.

-By Obafemi Oredein, contributing to Dow Jones Newswires; 234 2 7510489

Dow Jones Newswires March 04, 2011 05:42 ET (10:42 GMT) © 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

SOURCE ARTICLE

INSIDER COMMENT

Not a very good timing to do maintenance at these times of high oil price. And what is worse, they don’t know how long it will last.  Normally big maintenance projects are planned and know how long it will take. So, perhaps there is something else going on?

Email received today from JOHN ZEBULON

SAVE OUR SOULS-SHELL IS SLOWLY DESTROYING AGUOBIRI COMMUNITY

The oil giant, Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) led pipeline through Aguobiri Community in 1973 and since then, the community has never benefited and is not even considered by SPDC in their community programs.

Aguobiri is a peaceful community in Southern Ijaw L.G.A of Bayelsa State and is located near River-Nun, has a population of about 20,000 adults and 3,000 children, its major occupation is fishing, trading and farming. The community is close to Oporoma where SPDC has a flow station.

Gas flaring and oil spill activities have caused the dead of both human and aquatic live in Aguobiri without compensation from Shell. Cholera and other water borne diseases has made some women childless and others are perpetually deformed, hunger has killed others while incurable ailments is the portion of some.

Letters has been written to SPDC without any positive outcome. They have always cancelled the appointments they fixed with us.

Aguobiri has the right to benefit from empowerment programmes that Shell is organizing in other pipeline communities like Ekowe in Southern Ijaw L.G.A of Bayelsa and Ifueko in Degema L.G.A of rivers state. The dangerous toxin released has caused serious health problems should not be overlooked.

Oil spill is a sabotage to the land and environment where it occurred this cannot be tolerated in USA and Europe. What happened in Gulf of Mexico USA on April 20th 2010 is an example of such.

SPDC is aware that since 1997 there has been several oil spills and toxin in the air, which they have not responded to.

Is Shell waiting till we all die before they come to our rescue, are they waiting for us to go naked on the streets or for all of us to be deformed?

Shell should therefore do the following for Aguobiri Community.

1. Pay compensation for all oil spills since 1997 till date.

2. Build and equip a secondary school classroom blocks as the former is dilapidated.

3. Provide good drinking water.

4. Build and equip health centre.

5. Carry out Youth Empowerment Programmes as done in other communities.

6. Build modern public toilets.

7. Provide a 500KVA Generator which must be powered. Regularly.

8. Free exercise books and text books should be given to students as has been done in other communities.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Aguobiri community should be given her fair attention for justice to prevail.

Aguobiri stand for peace and that is the reason why we have come to this forum and we hope that our plead will be given the necessary attention.

Thanks and God Bless.

I can be reached on

Egai: JOHN ZEBULON
07032780794
Email: zebulon2k7@yahoo.com
Aguobiri Community Environment Activist
Oporoma Clan, Southern Ijaw L.G.A
Bayelsa State, Niger Delta, Nigeria.

Royal Dutch Shell went to some effort to make the process of hydraulic fracturing seem rather harmless to a roomful of journalists, with a friendly PowerPoint presentation, full of bullet points and video that explained the process. The process of fracking has received an avalanche of bad press in the US, leading to precautionary banning in some states, and now Shell wants to take the controversial process of mining unconventional gas to the Karoo.

Bonang Mohale, chairman of Shell Oil Product Africa, and Graham Tiley, general manager of New Venture Executions at Shell are hosting press conferences in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg in an effort to allay fears about the process.

At the Johannesburg presentation on Thursday, they did not allay the biggest of the concerns. Could Shell categorically state that the chemicals pumped into the ground as part of the fracking process would not make it into the groundwater acquifers? Mohale said the shale levels they intended to frack were typically 2,500m to 4,000m underground. Groundwater acquifers are typically no less than 500m deep. The massive amount of rock between the two levels would act as a natural barrier, Mohale said. “But ‘categorically’ is a difficult word”, he said “Never say never,” Tiley added.

Shell promised to “commit to disclosing the fracturing fluids at each drilling station”. But they would not say at the press conference what the chemicals pumped into the ground were, with Tiley saying that the exact cocktail was different at each location. According to their presentation, some of the chemicals were reducers, biocides, corrosion inhibitors, scale inhibitors, surfactants and breakers, which certainly made you, and all the Karoo farmers, feel good by now.

The community shouldn’t worry about water either, Mohale assured us. Shell would “engage” with the community to determine which water sources they would use. Water is the biggest waste product in the process, he said, but more than 50% of it is recycled and maybe could even be purified for human and animal use. “We promise not to compete with the people of the Karoo for their water needs,” Mogale said, a statement of painful ambiguity; it would remain to be seen who would define already thirsty Karoo’s people’s water needs.

Mohale was at pains to stress that the entire process was still in its relative infancy. Shell’s application for a licence was accepted by the Petroleum Agency South Africa on 14 December last year. As part of the licence application, an environmental management plan (now available on the website of Shell’s partner Golder Associates, according to Tiley) has to be submitted, and a draft was ready as of 2 March. Pasa will study the EMP, and will make a decision on granting Shell exploration rights on 12 August. “If everything goes according to plan, [exploration] drilling should start in the latter part of 2012, with fracturing starting in 2013,” Tiley said.

Shell intends to sink 24 wells in an exploration area which stretches from Sutherland to Somerset East, at a typical cost of $15 million each.

Of course, we should not worry about what impact the fracking process would have on the Square Kilometre Array project, especially after Mogale assured us the drilling process, where presumably the greatest amount of disruption would occur, would only take weeks. But Shell would keep up a dialogue with “all affected and interested parties”, including the SKA project.

Shell would commit to “full compensation to any landowner with documented direct negative impact or loss on their land as a result of our activities”. It is a canny wording from Shell, because in America, the country where fracking has come under the greatest controversy, the main negative impact has been contaminated water. Even if the chemicals found in tap water were identical to the fracking cocktail, how can anyone prove causation between the two without looking underground? And documenting it? It would be like trying to find someone who farted in a crowd, and spending millions of dollars on it.

To hear Shell tell it, South Africa desperately needs fracking. Not only are we in danger of rolling blackouts, the situation in the Middle East makes the immediate future of oil very uncertain. Besides, the process could make us competitive in the foreign direct investment market. Furthermore, the process could create local jobs, according to Mohale, who, predictably, wouldn’t commit to any figures, vaguely stating that Shell wants to hire locals for the periphery functions, like hydrology and road-building.

Mogale did stop short of promising unicorns and eternal rainbows, rather disappointingly.

And if you, as a Karoo landowner, are still unhappy, then go ahead, sue Shell. The exact quote by Mohale, in an answer to a question about why a member of the Dutch royal family (and a Royal Dutch Shell shareholder) was complaining about the fracking process, was, “The sister to the princess of the Netherlands has a democratic right to say ‘no drilling in my back yard’.”

We expected Shell to take on a patronisingly bullish tone on the issue of fracking, and they did not disappoint. We would not have put it past a vastly rich oil company to confidently welcome lawsuits, and they did not disappoint in this area either. Despite their “trust us” tone (maybe even because of it), Shell have only served to heighten the worries of just how little there is in this for locals, and just how shatteringly expensive the fracking will turn out to be for the Karoo and South Africa. DM

SOURCE ARTICLE

Read more: Royal Dutch Shell really wants to frack up the Karoo in The Daily Maverick.

March 31, 2011

A Royal Dutch chief executive has warned that the development in the events recently that led to oil companies and governments being open to revealing to each other the money flows, might be threatened due to the new US legislation regarding transparency requirements.

The US Dodd-Frank Act is a process that is bound to be commanded by one country that breaks national sovereignty, according to Peter Voser.  This entails all US listed companies to reveal all payments to governments and other information on a granular and country by country basis.

He further reiterates, “Dodd-Frank treats foreign governments not only as irrelevant, but as a problem and not a solution. It may even require companies to violate sovereign laws to disclose information that the laws do not allow.”

Mr. Voser gave a strong opinion on the matter on the year when anti corruption initiatives have been set in stone in many of the most powerful countries all over the world.

A similar pro-transparency initiative may be implemented this year in the UK, the UK Bribery Act, that aims to expose corrupt individuals on London listed multinationals.

Not only was the UK the only country who intends to have pro transparency laws.  “Germany is trying very hard to get the EU Commission to enact legislation that is like Dodd-Frank,” according to Gudrun Kopp, secretary of Germany’s ministry for economic development.

These laws puts a heavier regulatory burden on oil and mining companies that lean on having their operations in countries without many transparency laws.

SOURCE ARTICLE

By DONNA BRYSON: JOHANNESBURG

Shell wants to use thirsty technology that could contaminate groundwater to extract natural gas from a semi-desert region of South Africa, but officials from the international energy giant said Thursday that people living in the area won’t be left dry.

The proposal is only in its early stages, but has drawn such opposition — including threats of a lawsuit — that top Shell officials sat down with reporters in South Africa to try to offer reassurance.

Shell’s international exploration chief Graham Tiley acknowledged that using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract natural gas requires vast amounts of water. He said Shell will dig wells or import water from the sea to avoid competing for scarce water with residents of the Karoo, a western region known for sheep and ostrich farming and for its eerily beautiful vistas.

Fracking is behind a natural gas boom in the United States, where questions have been raised about its impact on the environment. Shell South Africa chairman Bonang Mohale said Thursday the depth of the wells and layers of steel and concrete will ensure ground water is not contaminated.

“That’s at least three physical barriers,” he said. “We are doing everything possible, within what technology can allow today.”

Fracking involves pumping water mixed with sand and chemicals deep underground to force natural gas out of shale.

The technique is decades old, but has come under scrutiny in recent years as its use grows in the United States, particularly when wells are being drilled under heavily populated areas.

Waste from fracking is mainly water laden with salt and bearing traces of chemicals, some of which can cause cancer if they are ingested in large enough quantities. Fracking water also has been shown to contain barium, which is found in underground ore deposits and can cause high blood pressure.

Tiley said Shell would work with local authorities to ensure the waste is disposed of safely.

Natural gas is seen as a relatively clean, cheap fuel. Shell has used fracking to extract it in North America, Europe and Asia, and applied in 2009 for what would be the first such project in Africa.

“We think there are good reasons to believe that there may be gas in the shales of the Karoo,” Tiley said, but added it was unclear how much, or how expensive it would be to extract it.

Shell has to satisfy environmental and other concerns before it can begin exploring to determine whether fracking will be commercially viable in South Africa. Tiley and Mohale said Thursday drilling was unlikely to begin before late next year, and it could take years of testing before it would be clear whether an investment would pay off.

SOURCE ARTICLE

By John Donovan

Royal Dutch Shell has today threatened legal proceedings in relation to revelations published on this website about the funding of Hitler and the Nazi Party by Shell and Sir Henri Deterding.

The Shell email says that Shell “reserves its legal rights, including with respect to copyright.”

This means that Shell is threatening defamation and copyright proceedings. This would be interesting litigation to say the least, likely to generate significant global publicity.

Shell has checked with its paid historians responsible for “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” and says that “they convincingly refute with evidence what you claim in contradiction with A History of Royal Dutch Shell.”

A blanket denial yet not one example provided of any specific inaccuracy.

It therefore seems even more appropriate that we publish all of the relevant pages from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”. The public will then be in a position to draw their own conclusions, taking into account all of the other evidence we have assembled.

Subject to any High Court injunction, we will publish the information on the Internet *later today along with the unedited related email correspondence, which includes Shell’s first statement on this highly controversial matter.

*Since we have sent a reply to Mr Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate, we will hold off publication until Friday evening to give him a reasonable opportunity to make any further response or take any action.