Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts from ‘May, 2011’

Group bars access to Shell sour gas site; says grizzly bears will be affected

By: The Canadian Press Posted: 05/24/2011 9:54 PM

PINCHER CREEK, Alta. – A small group has blocked access to a sour gas well site in southwestern Alberta.

The province’s Energy Resources Conservation Board approved the Shell project in March and drilling was supposed to start last week in the Castle wilderness area just north of Waterton National Park.

Residents appealed the decision, saying drilling will disrupt core grizzly bear habitat.

Opponents say Shell (TSX:SHC) should wait for the Alberta Court of Appeal to rule on an appeal of the board’s approval before it starts drilling.

Shell spokesperson Larry Lalonde says with more than 50 wells and 200 kilometres of pipeline already in the area, the well won’t have much of an impact.

He says the company will take action to minimize the project’s impact, such as using existing access roads instead of building new ones and moving rare plants to a different area.

Mike Judd, an outfitter and local landowner, is one of the 12 protesters.

“This well is on public land that belongs to all of us Albertans. Albertans have said over and over again they are very interested and very concerned about what’s happening to our public lands and wildlife and that they want to make sure that it is maintained,” Judd said.

Dianne Pachal of the Sierra Club environmental group, says the Alberta government designated the Castle area as a protected area — one of 81 in the province — but hasn’t brought in the legislation to actually do it.

(CHLB)

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell shuts Caspian office, $50bn Kashagan project on ice

Royal Dutch Shell will shut its Caspian office for the giant Kashagan oil field at the end of this month, effectively putting the crucial £30bn ($50bn) project on ice for at least two years.

Staff at Shell Development Kashagan in Atyrau have been laid off or relocated and the office closes on May 30. Photo: ALAMY

Richard Orange
By Richard Orange, in Aktau 3:32PM BST 24 May 2011

The move followed the Kazakh government’s decision to reject a new lower-cost design for the crucial main development phase of the oilfield which has the potential to produce more than 1m barrels a day.

Staff at Shell Development Kashagan in Atyrau, a port on Kazakhstan’s Caspian coast, have been laid off or relocated over the past few weeks, and on May 30, the office will be closed.

The move follows a warning from Karim Massimov, Kazakhstan’s prime minister, that the project would not go ahead unless the disagreements on cost were overcome.

“This is an issue about cost,” he told Financial Times in an interview published on Monday.

Shell is shutting down Shell Development Kashagan, the orders of the North Caspian Operating Company (NCOC), the joint venture which manages the development.

SDK is tasked with managing offshore development for the crucial second phase, and its closure means that NCOC is convinced that the start of project will be delayed at least two years.

This could push first production well into the next decade, making it all but impossible for Shell and its partners to make an acceptable profit before the contract expires in 2037.

When Kashagan was discovered in 2000, it was the biggest oil discovery in more than 30 years, with commercial reserves of some 9bn-13bn barrels of oil. But it is also one of the world’s most difficult fields, and under Italy’s ENI, the company chosen to operate it, costs soared to $136bn, making it the costliest project anywhere in the world.

At the end of last year, a set of new lower cost design options, drawn up by Shell’s Kashagan Cost Reduction Team – one of which reduced development costs for the second phase from $68mn to $50bn – was presented to the Kazakh oil ministry by the project partners.

But the Kazakh oil minister Sauat Mynbayev in January rejected the new designs as “inefficient from an economic point of view.”

On February 14, NCOC gave the order to wind down the work on the crucial second phase.

According to a report this month from Wood Mackenzie, the oil industry consultants, the decision was confirmed in April.

Shell Development Kashagan’s main office in The Netherlands is also being shut down and all staff will be moved elsewhere by June 30.

The team which developed the Kashagan Cost Reduction Plan will refine the low-cost design for NCOC, and submit it again to the Kazakh oil ministry in the second half of the year.

Wood Mackenzie’s report estimated that a delay of two years would bring the Kazakh government an extra $400m a year in revenues from the time the field goes into production at the start of 2013 until 2017, and up to $600m if it then only approves a gradual development.

State oil company Kazmunaigas (KMG) is already struggling to meet its share of spending, which was $1.4bn this year alone.

Wood Mackenzie argues that the Kazakh government will ultimately pay the highest price for the delay, however. It estimated that a delay of two years would cut $8.5bn from the $79.8bn net present value of the project for the government, but only $5.2bn from the $70.7bn net present value for Shell and its partners.

The delay also makes it unlikely that the field will ever reach the 1.5bn barre-per-day peak originally envisaged. The first phase of the project will take oil production to 370,000 b/d, the second phase was supposed to push that to 1m b/d.

The Kashagan consortium is led by Shell, ENI, France’s Total, ExxonMobil, and KMG, which each have 16.81pc stakes in the field. ConocoPhillips, from the US, and Japan’s Inpex each hold 8pc.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell considers joining legal fight over Gulf drill ban

By Eduard Gismatullin
Bloomberg News May 24, 2011

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s largest oil company, is examining plans to bring legal challenges over possible losses after last year’s Macondo oil spill, the worst in U.S. history.

“I am considering, but only considering,” Peter Rees, a legal director at Shell, said today at an International Bar Association’s webcast. “Before launching any form of action or deciding not to launch any form of action you need to gather as much information as you can.”

Shell production may be reduced by 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day in 2011 because of delays in acquiring drilling permits from the U.S. government after the spill, Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser said on May 17. If delays continue it may impact 2012 output.

The U.S. Interior Department issued new safety regulations after it lifted the drilling moratorium put in place after BP Plc’s Macondo well exploded in April 2010. The blowout, which killed 11 and sank the drilling rig, led to hundreds of lawsuits against BP and its partners and contractors.

Shell Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry said April 28 the company had lost between 25,000 and 30,000 barrels a day of production in the first quarter because of permit delays.

The company may lose about $600 million in revenue this year as a consequence of the spill, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. said in February. The company postponed about $700 million of investments in the Gulf of Mexico and lost $260 million because of idled rigs in the region last year, Henry said Feb. 3.

Shell has until April 2013 to decide whether to bring any legal challenges, Rees said today.

SOURCE ARTICLE

MPs urge backing for UK shale gas

By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News

Gas is a natural by-product of shale rock

A Commons committee has urged ministers to support plans for controversial shale gas drilling in the UK.

The energy select committee said environmental problems associated with it in the US could be overcome by tight regulation and good industry practice.

But the MPs said the UK government would need to be vigilant to ensure the technology did not pollute water or produce excessive greenhouse emissions.

Environmentalists said MPs should have called for a moratorium on shale gas.

Campaigners want a moratorium until research into allegations about the technology is complete.

Shale gas is significant to the UK in two ways. First, the massive expansion of shale gas in the US and also possibly in China may depress global gas prices and cause countries to favour gas over coal.

Some experts see this as a double-edged sword – low energy prices are a benefit, but might divert investment from the renewables and nuclear essential for the low-carbon future planned by the government.

The second issue over shale gas is one of energy security. The British Geological Survey estimates that onshore shale gas can supply 1.5 years of the UK’s total gas needs.

The MPs say this is a useful but not major contribution – and they recommend that the government should encourage the development of offshore shale gas, where reserves may be far higher, albeit more costly to recover.

‘Regulation case’

Test drilling for shale gas is currently underway in Lancashire near Blackpool. The company, Cuadrilla, believes that onshore deposits of shale gas in the UK may have been underestimated.

Critics fear this is industry hype, but Cuadrilla says the shale gas seam near Blackpool is so thick that it may not need the horizontal fracking (rock fracturing) characteristic of so many deposits in the US. Cuadrilla says vertical fracking may be achievable in Lancashire.

It is the fracking process – creating tiny explosions to shatter hard shale rocks and release gas 10,000 feet underground – that has caused so much controversy in the US. Some householders claim that shale gas leaking into their drinking supply causes tap water to ignite.

The MPs said this looks a case of inadequate regulation. Tim Yeo MP, chairman of the committee, said: “We can’t see any evidence that UK water supplies might be at risk from shale gas – if it is done properly,” he told BBC News.

“The regulatory agencies have to keep their vigilance and monitor drilling closely – but the area where the fracking is being done is well below the water table so there really should not be an issue.”

The other focus of environmental concern over shale gas is greenhouse gas emissions. A study at Cornell University warned that methane leaks from wells could be so high that in some cases the atmospheric warming effect of shale gas drilling might outweigh that of coal. The MPs dismiss this fear, pointing once again to the need for good practice and regulation to prevent leaks.

David Nussbaum, head of the green group WWF, says this is complacent. WWF is calling for a moratorium on shale gas drilling in the UK until the US Environmental Protection Agency has carried out a major report into the practice – probably next year. They also want to see more studies on the climate effects of shale gas.

He told BBC News: “Shale gas is a controversial source of energy. We’ve got to be very, very cautious before we go gung-ho for shale gas and we believe there has to be very good evidence before we decide this is the way forward.”

The government says existing laws are strong enough to deal with the issues raised – and that bids for licences to extract shale gas (as opposed to prospect for it) will be considered in the normal way.

The new source of energy is proving controversial in Europe, with pro-nuclear France in the process of banning shale gas production and Poland, thought to have by far the biggest reserves in Europe, caught in a major industrial debate about whether to concentrate its efforts on coal or gas.

Some analysts warn that the shale gas phenomenon has provoked an unhelpful war of words between the gas and renewables industries, which complement each other in a way that nuclear power does not.

The argument runs that gas will be needed as a relatively low-cost transition technology, filling in the generation gap when the wind drops. Nuclear power, on the other hand, competes with wind because it produces baseload electricity that needs to be used.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Facing Up to End of ‘Easy Oil’

May 24, 2011

By BEN CASSELMAN

WAFRA, Kuwait—The Arabian Peninsula has fueled the global economy with oil for five decades. How long it can continue to do so hinges on projects like one unfolding here in the desert sands along the Saudi Arabia-Kuwait border.

Saudi Arabia became the world’s top oil producer by tapping its vast reserves of easy-to-drill, high-quality light oil. But as demand for energy grows and fields of “easy oil” around the world start to dry up, the Saudis are turning to a much tougher source: the billions of barrels of heavy oil trapped beneath the desert.

Heavy oil, which can be as thick as molasses, is harder to get out of the ground than light oil and costs more to refine into gasoline. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have embarked on an ambitious experiment to coax it out of the Wafra oil field, located in a sparsely populated expanse of desert shared by the two nations.

That the Saudis are even considering such a project shows how difficult and costly it is becoming to slake the world’s thirst for oil. It also suggests that even the Saudis may not be able to boost production quickly in the future if demand rises unexpectedly. Neither issue bodes well for the return of cheap oil over the long term.

“The easy oil is coming to an end,” says Alex Munton, a Middle East analyst for the Scottish energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. The major oil fields in the Gulf region, he says, have pumped more than half their oil—the point at which production traditionally begins to decline.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration said earlier this month that world-wide oil consumption would hit a record 88 million barrels a day this year. Turmoil in Libya, combined with slowing production growth in Western countries, will keep supplies tight, boosting prices, the federal agency said. It projects oil prices will average $103 a barrel this year, up 30% from last year, and will be even higher next year.

No one suggests that the Gulf nations are running out of oil. Heavy oil, although difficult to pump, is abundant. The Middle East alone is believed to hold some 78 billion barrels of heavy oil that is currently recoverable, more than three-and-a-half times the U.S.’s total reserves.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there are some three trillion barrels of heavy oil in the world, about 100 years of global consumption at current levels. The catch: Only a fraction of it—about 400 billion barrels—can be recovered using existing technology. New techniques like the ones being tried in Wafra could unlock more.

“When people talk about how we’re ‘running out of oil,’ they’re not counting the heavy oil,” says Amy Myers Jaffe, who runs the Energy Forum at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston. “There’s a huge amount of resource there…It’s just a question of developing the technology.”

To get to Wafra’s thick oil, workers are injecting steam into the ground to heat the oil and make it less viscous, allowing it to flow to the surface. The technique is tricky, expensive and unproven in the type of rock that holds Wafra’s oil.

For their half of the project, the Saudis have enlisted the help of Chevron Corp., which has decades of experience extracting heavy oil from fields in California and Thailand. It is a rare chance for a Western oil company to get a piece of the world’s biggest oil reserves.

But it is also a gamble. The project, much more complex that what Chevron has done before, will cost billions of dollars and take decades to complete. And it will be Chevron, not the Saudis, putting up the capital needed to make the project work—and taking the risk that it won’t.

The Wafra oil field lies 30 miles inland from the Persian Gulf, along a highway lined with power cables, pipelines and the occasional herd of camels making their way across the desert moonscape. Inside the oil field’s guarded gates, hundreds of dun-colored pumps rock slowly against a forest of drilling rigs, radio towers and utility poles. Pipelines snake across the sand, gathering crude from more than a thousand wells. About 45% of Wafra’s crude makes its way to the U.S.

That oil is the easy-to-pump stuff. The bigger prize: Wafra’s 25 billion barrels of heavy oil.

Chevron is conducting what amounts to a four-year, $340 million test in a small corner of Wafra. Oil, like molasses, thins when heated. Large silver pipes carry 600-degree-Fahrenheit steam underground, flooding the oil-rich rock. Nearby, a grid of pumps pulls up the oil.

So far, the results have been encouraging. As of November, the wells were producing 1,500 barrels per day, seven times what they produced before steam injection began in 2009.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are paying close attention to the results. Princes, emirs, ministers and ambassadors have visited the project’s incongruously ornate field office, which boasts marble floors. “Everyone is watching our project,” says Ahmed Al-Omer, president of Chevron’s Saudi Arabian division.

Global oil consumption, buoyed by skyrocketing demand in China and India, jumped by 2.3 million barrels a day last year, a 2.8% increase, according to U.S. government figures, the second biggest increase in 30 years. Oil production in the Western world, meanwhile, is barely growing. That means the world is increasingly dependent on production from countries in the OPEC cartel, and particularly Saudi Arabia, its dominant member.

“All the countries in the Middle East are going to have to start grappling with these [heavy-oil] reserves,” says Andrew Gould, chairman and chief executive of oil-field services giant Schlumberger Ltd., which has worked on several heavy-oil projects in the region. “They’ve never had to think about it before.”

Already, some are trying to tap their heavy-oil reserves. Bahrain has said it hopes to double or triple production from its Awali oil field by targeting heavy oil there with the help of California-based Occidental Petroleum Corp. Abu Dhabi in 2009 launched a pilot project with Connecticut-based Praxair Inc. to boost heavy-oil production in its Zakum field.

Oman has been especially ambitious with its heavy-oil projects as it looks to offset a steep decline in its light-oil production. In 2007, Occidental began a steam-injection project in the country’s Mukhaizna field; production in the field has increased 15-fold since the company took it over in 2005. Last year, Oman’s state oil company teamed up with Royal Dutch Shell PLC and other companies to launch a $2 billion project to increase production from its Marmul field using another, similar technique.

The Wafra project dwarfs others in the region. If the Saudis and Kuwaitis decide to expand steam injection to the full field, it would be twice the size of the world’s biggest currently operating steam project, in Indonesia. They would need to drill 19,000 wells and hire some 3,000 workers. Ultimately, they hope to recover six billion barrels of oil.

“It’s a massive, multibillion dollar project that’s spread over 25 to 30 years of investment and drilling,” says Chevron Vice Chairman George Kirkland.

Chevron won’t disclose the projected total cost of the project, but Kuwait has previously estimated it will cost $10 billion over 10 years.

For Western oil companies, such projects are considered worth the risks because they are an opportunity to gain a foothold in a region where they have had little access in recent decades.

In the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, Western oil companies, including predecessors of Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC and most of the other big international producers, helped discover many of the world’s greatest oil fields: Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, Burgan in Kuwait and Rumaila in Iraq.

Those fields were so easily tapped, however, that by the 1970s most governments in the region had decided they no longer needed the help of Western companies and nationalized their oil fields. Big Oil found itself virtually shut out of the region.

As a result, Western companies were left pursuing tougher, less profitable projects: exploring in deep water, mining the Canadian oil sands and coaxing the last drops out of aging fields around the world.

Those projects gave companies expertise they now hope will give them a chance to move back into the Middle East.

But the projects are long and costly, and governments in the region drive a hard bargain, forcing companies to shoulder the costs of the project while governments take a big portion of the profits if they work.

Many experts believe that companies are mostly taking on these early pilot projects to get an inside track on bigger, more profitable projects down the road—a tactic they have used before in places like Russia and Iraq, with mixed results.

Using steam to extract oil isn’t a new idea. Chevron has been using the method to recover heavy oil at its Kern River field in Bakersfield, Calif., since the 1960s. That field yielded less than 10% of its oil using traditional methods. Using steam injection, Chevron is now on its way to pumping as much as 80% of the crude.

The Wafra project, however, is far more of a challenge than traditional steam projects. As in most of the Middle East, the oil at Wafra is trapped in a thick layer of limestone that also contains minerals that can build up inside pipes and corrode equipment.

An even bigger challenge is getting the two crucial elements for generating steam: water and a source of energy to boil it. Most successful steam projects are in places with easy access to relatively pure water and a cheap fuel source, usually natural gas. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have little of either.

With no fresh-water sources in the Arabian desert, Chevron has been forced to use salt water found in the same underground reservoirs as the oil. That water is full of contaminants that must be removed before it can be boiled and injected into the ground.

Finding the energy to boil the water will be even tougher. Chevron could use oil instead of natural gas—literally burning oil to produce oil—but that would burn profits, too. So the company likely will be forced to import natural gas from overseas, an expensive process that involves chilling it to turn it into a liquid, then shipping it thousands of miles.

Some experts are shaking their heads.

“They’re in trouble,” says Robert Toronyi, a retired Chevron engineer who now serves as chief operating officer for Quantum Reservoir Impact, a Houston-based consulting firm. He says the project is so challenging that it will be hard for Chevron to turn much of a profit.

Chevron says the project will be profitable as long as oil prices stay above $60 or $70 per barrel, well below Monday’s level of $97.70.

Bill Higgs, Chevron’s top operations manager in Saudi Arabia, likens the project to a “chemistry experiment” and says the company is still figuring out whether it is worth the massive investment that would be required to take the project from the pilot stage into full-scale development. Still, the project has an advantage over deep-water exploration.

“You know where the oil is,” Mr. Higgs says. “There’s no doubt about that. So the question is: How do I economically produce it?”

Source Article

Royal Dutch Shell Denial of Brazilian pesticide diseases

From pages 17, 18 & 19 of “Royal Dutch Shell and its sustainability troubles” – Background report to the Erratum of Shell’s Annual Report 2010

The report is made on behalf of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands)
Author: Albert ten Kate: May 2011.

A Shell pesticide factory

For a decade or more, beginning in 1977, Shell produced organochlorine pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin etc.) and other pesticides at a plant located near Paulínia, about 125 kilometres north-west of São Paulo, Brazil. The plant covered approximately 40 hectares.78 Due to its severe health impacts, by 1990 the use of aldrin and dieldrin was totally banned in the USA and Brazil.

After negotiations starting in 1993, in 1995 Shell sold the Paulínia facility to the companies American Cyanimid and BASF. A sales condition was that Shell would assume legal responsibility for the pollution at the site. In 2000, BASF took full ownership of the facility.79 In 2002, BASF shut it down the facility after a ban by the Brazilian Ministry of Labour, in view of existing contamination and serious risks to human health.

Pollution at the factory site

There have been many cases of pollution at the factory site: − Between 1998 and 1985 three leaks in a waste-water storage tank were officially reported. − Over the years, CETESB (São Paulo State Environmental Protection Agency) had issued three warnings that the plant’s incinerator was not operating within acceptable standards. − March 2001, the Justice Department listened to the testimony of a former company employee, Antonio de Marco Rasteiro. He confirmed the existence of four clandestine landfills inside the plant area, and accused Shell of dumping ash from its incinerator and waste from its manufacturing process in these landfills. He also confirmed that Shell’s incinerator sold its services to third parties, for example to DuPont. He also reported that drums with toxic wastes were buried in other areas inside the plant.

Pollution spreading across farmlands

Later, several studies of the area revealed that the contamination had moved into the groundwater under the farms located between the plant and the Atibaia River. For example, in February 2001, the Dutch environmental consulting company Haskoning/Iwaco, hired by Shell, produced a technical report with soil and groundwater analysis in nine sites located in the farms near the industrial site. Levels of contamination by dieldrin as high as 17 parts per billion (ppb) in soil and 0.47 ppb in water were found. The water contamination levels were higher than the levels allowed by Brazilian law (Administrative Rules 36/1990 and 1469/2000 – Ministry of Health – Highest Permissible Level: 0,03 ppb of dieldrin). However, no decontamination work had begun in the area. In February 2001, Shell admitted that it had contaminated the groundwater and sections of the nearby community, and was ordered by CETESB to begin a clean-up.

Pollution creating severe health problems

Both aldrin and dieldrin are highly toxic to humans, the target organs being the central nervous system and the liver.83 A report at the request of the Paulínia local government, produced by August 2001, showed that 156 of the 181 examined residents living near the factory had some degree of contamination from metals or pesticides which could result in various cancers, liver disorders, or neurological problems. Shell dismissed the Paulínia report, saying it used very low thresholds to measure contamination compared with those recommended by the World Health Organization. Shell also claimed its own tests showed no human contamination. “If there is proof of contamination with the products that we handled there, we will assume the responsibility immediately, which is our policy worldwide,” said Jose Cardoso, a Shell manager in Brazil. “But so far, there is no data indicating that.”84 Maria Lucia Braz Pinheiro, vice president of Shell- Quimica for Latin America, described the report as “another report with technical inconsistencies and lacking a scientific base.”

In a doctoral dissertation approved in February 2005, an analysis was made on the existing health data from a group of 62 former Shell/Cyanamid/BASF workers. Three cases of thyroid cancer were confirmed. The author concluded that the incidence of thyroid cancer among the estimated 1,120 workers of Shell/Cyanamid/BASF was 166 times greater than the incidence in the male population of Campinas, a county within Sao Paulo state. The chance of finding three cases of thyroid cancer out of a random selection of 1,120 men living in Campinas would be less than 1 out of 1,000,000.

At the beginning of 2009, it became publicly known that the Center for Excellence in Occupational Health (Cerest) of Campinas had examined 69 former employees of Shell / Cyanamid / BASF. Ten malignant cases of cancer to the prostate and thyroid were diagnosed. There was also a case of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS, formerly known as “preleukemia”). There were 34 cardiovascular diseases, of which 21 related to hypertensive heart diseases. There were also an unspecified number of liver diseases. In 30 cases there was a prevalence of repetitive strain injury (RSI). In total 56 ex-workers had serious problems with reproductive organs and the urinary system, with prostate disorders, changes in fertility and impotence.

August 2010: Shell/BASF ordered to pay severe fine

In 2007, the public prosecutor Ministério Público do Trabalho (MPT) filed a case to ensure funds for health treatment of former employees, along with compensation for damages. The Association of Workers Exposed to Chemical Substances (ATESQ) and another union of workers had also filed a case against Shell and BASF. ATESQ was created by Antonio de Marco Rasteiro, a former employee of the Shell/BASF plant in Paulínia. He worked there for 21 years. In his role as ATESQ Coordinator, Mr Rasteiro has led the struggle of nearly a thousand former workers. In November 2009, he won the International Health & Safety Award of the American Public Health Association.

In August 2010, a Brazilian court (Tribunal Regional do Trabalho de Campinas) ruled that Shell and BASF should assume responsibility for the medical treatment of all former employees of the Paulínia facility, and pay a total of 1.1 billion Brazilian Real (about EUR 490 million89) in connection with the More than 1,000 former employees of the companies were covered by the court order, and also the children of employees who were born during or after services and independent contractors.

Some extracts from the court ruling in August 2010: − “Workers were constantly exposed to harmful substances in water and air, without any use of protective clothing. This exposure took place during and after work, during breaks, in the vicinity of the site, as well as through the use of water on site. Therefore, the simplistic explanation of Shell that the presence of harmful substances in the bodies of the workers do not constitute evidence of intoxication is unacceptable”

− “(…) Although it is not certain that all employees will develop diseases such as cancer, it is not excluded. Certainly it has been determined that among the employees exposed to the pollutants, cancer occurs much more frequently than normal.” − “(…) The most shocking is that the accused companies, especially Shell, were since 1970 fully aware of the harmful effects of substances used by them. After the production was banned in the U.S., Shell coolly moved its plant to Paulínia. BASF also has not taken precautionary measures: it was aware of the pollution at the site, which was already raised and well known in Paulínia. Nevertheless, BASF located itself in the same place, in the full knowledge that this place was not appropriate, with the result that its employees were exposed to obvious risks”.

Shell and BASF appealing

Soon after the court order in August 2010, Shell and BASF announced that they would appeal the decision. “We expect that the Brazilian courts at a higher level will eventually establish that we were not responsible for alleged health impacts and other claims”, a Shell spokesman told press agency Reuters.

Jennifer Moore-Braun, a spokeswoman for Basf told press agency Bloomberg: “We are of the opinion that the environmental damage was caused by Shell, and we will appeal the decision.” Shell was quoted saying: “We are convinced there is no link between our operations and injury to people’s health based on blood tests of local residents, medical assessments of former workers and expert medical opinions.”93 In April 2011, the Tribunal Regional do Trabalho de Campinas denied an appeal filed by Shell and BASF against the decision, and maintained the sentence. Shell and BASF may appeal the decision at the Superior Labour Court (TST) in Brasilia.

THE COMPLETE 73 PAGE REPORT (with reference sources)

Shell slammed for ‘serious’ safety slips

Anglo-Dutch supermajor Shell has been hit with a safety order from the Norwegian authorities following an investigation into a well incident on the Draugen platform in December last year.

Aleya Begum 23 May 2011 11:44 GMT

The Petroleum Safety Authority said today its investigation of the incident identified several serious breaches of the regulations.

“The non-conformities are related to inadequate management, inadequate risk assessment, inadequate well barriers, inadequate well barrier sketches, inadequate well control, and inadequate daily reporting of drilling and well activities,” said the PSA.

The incident occurred during a wireline operation to replace a gas lift valve in well 6407/9-A-01. The operation resulted in the subsurface safety valve becoming stuck in the Xmas tree, blocking the upper mast valve, and leaving only one barrier against a potential leak.

“Our main finding from the incident is that Shell had planned the wireline operation with only one barrier to prevent an accident from happening,” said PSA spokesperson Ola-Johan Faret.

“Safety regulations are quite clear that two separate barriers are required at all times. So we are now asking why Shell planned this wireline operation with only one.”

The incident did not result in any injury to personnel but involved major accident potential, said the PSA in its statement.

Shell now faces orders to “assess as well as test” its criteria for continuing the well intervention on Draugen and to assess its criteria for implementing internal investigations of serious incidents on the facility.

The company has until 1 June to comply with the order.

“Shell must now show us that they understand that future operations must have two barriers. This is not an order specific for Draugen, its organisational and about overall management,” said Faret.

“They must show us that they understand the requirement applies in all their operations. “

“We will comply with the order from the PSA and use any learnings to avoid similar incidents in future,” said Shell spokesperson Kitty Eide.

“We will implement the PSA safety order.”

Published: 23 May 2011 11:44 GMT  | Last updated: 23 May 2011 13:59 GMT

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED: Hypocrisy of Shell CEO Peter Voser on BP Gulf of Mexico disaster

RELATED: Shell rapped over North Sea Draugen field accident (Telegraph)

RELATED: Norway criticizes Shell for safety lapses on rig, says 2010 incident could have caused spill (Washington Post)

RELATED: Shell scolded for North Sea accident (UPI)

RELATED: Shell oil well incident led to risk of spill -Norway (Reuters)

Fond memories of Mr Justice Eady, the privacy law judge

By John Donovan

Mr Justice Eady is the High Court Judge accused of being responsible for “bringing in a privacy law by the back door with a series of “arrogant and amoral” judgments…

Personally, I have fond memories of Mr Justice Eady. Royal Dutch Shell may take a different view.

On 18th April 1998 I was surprised to learn from Rachel Oldroyd, a reporter from the “Financial Mail On Sunday”, that Shell had issued a press statement that clearly inferred that previous claims I had brought against the oil giant were bogus, thus repeating a libel of March 1995 , which Shell had already settled at some considerable cost to Shell shareholders.

The following day, the “Mail On Sunday” published a report written by Rachel actually quoting from the Shell press statement. Shell issued a further libelous press statement on 25th April 1998 and then on 27th April 1998, capped it all by circulating a letter to its service station network containing a further libel. A trade magazine subsequently published an article relying on the information in Shell’s press statements. Also in April 1998, Shell had circulated a libelous statement about us to Shell staff.

What Shell had not anticipated is that we would get our hands on the offending materials. Friendly publications and Shell petrol station managers had been happy to supply us with copies, so that we had an astonishing array of hard evidence against Shell.

Although we did not find out until making our first application to Shell under the Data Protection Act, Shell published in a Shell internal magazine in November 1998, a libelous article about my father (Alfred Donovan) and me under the headline: “FUEL FOR THOUGHT: DEFENDING THE COMPANY’S GOOD NAME AND REPUTATION.” It was authored by Shell’s rule bending Legal Director, Richard Wiseman, now retired.

In view of the past history of the claims Shell had already settled and the unsolicited written apology we had received from Dr Chris Fay, the then CEO & Chairman of Shell UK Limited, the new allegations were distressing and damaging.

What made it even more galling is that Shell’s sleazy solicitors,  DJ Freeman, had previously warned in writing about us issuing ANY press statements concerning the previous litigation. They said it would be a breach of the secrecy agreements. Apparently they believed that the relevant agreements were binding on David, but not on Goliath.

My solicitors wrote to DJ Freeman confirming that a libel writ had been served and that as a result of the libelous press releases, Shell was “…self-evidently in breach of the Funding Deed and there is no room to argue to the contrary”.

Shell subsequently tried to have the action struck out on the basis that the words used were not potentially libelous.

Mr Justice Eady ruled against Shell and ordered the company to pay the substantial costs of the hearing held at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

The case was one of those later settled by Shell, with Shell paying all of my legal costs. I also received a payment.

It appears from current email correspondence with Shell that the company has in recent months obtained legal advice about us and our website. We will see if Shell has the courage to face us once again in court to discuss its nefarious activities.

Norway Raps Shell for Risking Oil Leak

May 23, 2011 8:52 A.M. ET

By JAMES HERRON

LONDON—Royal Dutch Shell PLC has been rapped by Norway’s Petroleum Safety Authority for a maintenance error on an oil well that had “major accident potential” and risked an oil leak.

The incident occurred Dec. 4, 2010 on Norway’s Draugen field, which produces around 50,000 barrels of oil a day, the PSA said on its website Monday. An operation to replace a subsurface gas valve went wrong, the device became stuck inside and blocked the operation of another piece of machinery called a Christmas Tree, which sits atop the wellhead, it said.

“The incident didn’t result in any injury to personnel,” the PSA said. “However, the incident involved major accident potential in a situation with only one remaining barrier against hydrocarbon outflow from the well.”

Shell wasn’t immediately able to comment on the PSA’s conclusions.

The failure of all barriers to hydrocarbon flow from a well is very serious. An out-of-control well caused the explosion that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig last year, resulting in a three-month oil spill from a BP PLC well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Shell’s management, risk assessment, well control, well barriers and reporting of drilling activities during the Draugen incident were inadequate, the PSA said. It ordered Shell to improve its procedures for well intervention, well control and internal investigations by June 1.

The incident on Draugen wasn’t the only potentially dangerous well-control problem in Norway last year. In May 2010, Norwegian oil firm Statoil ASA‘s Gullfaks C platform was evacuated after it experienced recurring pressure problems in a well.

The PSA described the incident as “very serious” and concluded that “only luck averted a subsurface blowout [and] explosion, and prevented the incident from developing into a major accident.”

The number of well-control incidents per well drilled offshore in Norway has increased notably in recent years, according to the PSA’s annual report. In 2010, 28 well control incidents were reported, up from just 11 in 2008, it said.

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED: Hypocrisy of Shell CEO Peter Voser on BP Gulf of Mexico disaster

Shell slammed on safety

upstreamonline: In-depth revision ordered at Brent Charlie following major gas leaks

The UK Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has taken the rare step of ordering a thorough safety review at Shell’s Brent Charlie platform following two major gas leaks.

ROB WATTS London  06 May 2011 01:53 GMT

The HSE has told Shell to submit a revised safety case for the Brent Charlie platform after gas was detected on its topsides following leaks on 12 January this year and 27 September 2010, Upstream can reveal.

Shell, which took the decision itself to close the platform after the January incident, has been battling for some time to resolve technically complex issues related to the venting of gas from inside one the platform’s huge concrete legs — Column 1 (C1) — and dispersing it effectively away from the platform.

The operator now expects the ageing Brent field to remain shut down for several more months.

Gas can build up periodically in some of the platform’s large concrete storage cells on the seabed, where oil and produced water are stored after processing, and can then migrate into the C1 leg. This is called a ‘glug’.

The Brent field has been shut-in since mid-January when a 25-tonne protective fender fell from the Brent Bravo platform into the sea, two days after the gas leak that prompted Shell to shut in Brent Charlie.

The Anglo-Dutch operator has been working since to resolve the two separate problems.

Shell told Upstream: “Production will not resume until all necessary work is done and we now expect that could be some months rather than weeks.”

The HSE said: “We can confirm that Shell… has been directed by HSE to prepare a revision of the Brent Charlie safety case and resubmit the safety case to HSE for assessment.”

The regulator said that the current safety case “does not adequately consider the major accident hazard arising from the uncontrolled release of flammable or explosive substances from the storage cells into Column 1”.

Brent Charlie will remain shut in if the HSE is not satisfied Shell has found a solution that mitigates the risk of a major incident happening.

The request from the HSE is understood to be one of the first since the UK’s goal-setting offshore safety regime was introduced in the wake the 1988 Piper Alpha disaster.

It could also mark an apparent willingness on the part of the regulator to use an unconventional method of enforcing offshore safety requirements, normally done using Improvement or Prohibition notices.

Oil and gas installations off the UK cannot operate without an approved safety case.

Shell said: “The safety case for Brent Charlie has not been withdrawn. The HSE has asked Shell to provide more detail on the part of the safety case which relates to Column 1.

“There was a ‘glug’ in 2010. After another occurred on 12 January 2011 Shell made the decision to shut down the platform.

“The additional material for the safety case was requested after the January 2011 incident. We are working towards restarting production as soon as safely possible.”

Shell confirmed it is also facing other issues at Brent Charlie, including the thinning of export pipeline walls, which will also have to be overcome before the platforms can be restarted.

Published: 06 May 2011 01:53 GMT  | Last updated: 06 May 2011 08:19 GMT

RELATED ARTICLE