Posts from ‘May, 2011’

Shell is often at odds with institutional investors over the generous pay packages it gives to its executives, such as boss Peter Voser, who last year took home £4.6 million in pay and bonuses.

By Tracey Boles and Geoff Ho: Sunday May 15,2011

The Government has now brought in a bonus tax in an attempt to end the “casino banking” culture.

SUNDAY EXPRESS ARTICLE

Former Eau Claire Uniroyal employees reach deal with oil company

May 13, 2011

The workers claim that they ended up with cancers like leukemia from exposure to benzene at the Uniroyal plant.

EAU CLAIRE (WEAU) – An oil company has reached a tentative deal to resolve claims a group of former Eau Claire Uniroyal employees filed against it and other businesses.

Attorney Mike Brose, who is among the lawyers representing the former workers, says Shell reached the tentative agreement. He says the workers claim that they ended up with cancers like leukemia from exposure to benzene at the Uniroyal plant. It was used as a solvent in the rubber-making process.

Brose would not release details of the deal because it hasn’t been filed in court yet.

SOURCE ARTICLE

By GABRIEL NELSON of Greenwire

Published: May 13, 2011

U.S. EPA’s top air pollution official said today that the agency is close to an agreement with Royal Dutch Shell PLC over an air permit for the oil giant’s Arctic drilling project, which has faced years of setbacks.

Shell was planning to start drilling exploratory wells this summer until a ruling by EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board sent the project’s air permit back to federal regulators.

The company, which has spent more than $3.5 billion over the past five years on leases and development, decided to wait another year. Yesterday, it unveiled its plan to start drilling as many as three wells in the Chukchi Sea in July 2012 (see related story).

Gina McCarthy, the head of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, told members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee this morning that the agency isn’t standing in the way. An agreement is close, she said, echoing optimistic statements earlier this week by Shell executives after a series of high-level meetings with officials from EPA and the White House.

“I believe that we are very close to a strong permit that will allow them to have actually three drilling operations going on in the Arctic in a way that is protective of public health and consistent with current law,” McCarthy told the Energy and Power Subcommittee.

House Republicans are drafting a bill to let outer continental shelf projects skip the Environmental Appeals Board and clear up the questions that the review panel raised about Shell’s project. At a time when Congress is fixated on rising gas prices, they argue that EPA — and the rest of the Obama administration — is stopping the development of domestic oil resources.

The legislation from Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) would spare companies from showing that their drilling projects wouldn’t hurt air quality off the shoreline.

McCarthy criticized that proposal today, saying that sparing drilling fleets from the need to control their pollution could harm the health of boaters, fishermen and people on cruise ships. Environmental officials from California and Delaware agreed, telling lawmakers that the Gardner bill could hurt air quality if the federal government were to allow drilling projects in the federal waters of the Atlantic and Pacific.

At the moment, EPA is reviewing nine outer continental shelf permits. Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) compared the review process to the overly complicated machines drawn by cartoonist Rube Goldberg.

“Because of this byzantine system of permits, reviews and appeals — supposedly in the name of environmental stewardship — we are continuing to import more oil from countries that don’t like us, many of them with environmental standards much lower than our own,” he said in a statement.

Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the committee’s top Democrat, said he agrees that Shell’s permitting process has gone on too long. He said he could agree on a bill to address Shell’s concerns, but he and other Democrats don’t want to weaken health protections.

“I refuse to believe that we can’t address some of the specific problems Shell points to without creating much bigger problems elsewhere,” he said.

Copyright 2011 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.

SOURCE ARTICLE

By John Donovan

Twitter is currently flooded with people trying to identity parties who have obtained Super-injunctions in an attempt to hide embarrassing information from public scrutiny.

It is not widely known that Royal Dutch Shell has been a trailblazer in using draconian litigation to silence a conscience driven whistleblower who objected to Shell defrauding its shareholders and recklessly putting employees lives at risk.

In this case, it was a multinational oil giant trying to keep the lid on a potentially highly damaging story.

EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively buried a former employee, Dr John Huong, in High Court injunctions and contempt proceedings seeking his imprisonment, all in an effort to hide Shell’s misdeeds.

Dr John Huong: an employee of Shell Malaysia for 29 years, a Production Geologist and Asset Integrity Engineer

Printed below are extracts from one such legal submission from the law firm acting for the EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies registered in various countries, including the UK, the Netherlands and Malaysia.

EXTRACTS

Notwithstanding the Existing Injunction, the Defendant continued publishing statements defamatory of the Plaintiffs. In the Plaintiffs’ view, some constituted contempt of court in the Previous Action. Contempt proceedings have since been initiated. For those statements that probably fell outside the scope of the Previous Action and the Existing Injunction, the Plaintiffs commenced the present proceedings.

The High Court may grant an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant, whether by himself or by his servants or agents or otherwise, from publishing or further publishing matter which is defamatory or of malicious falsehood. It is not necessary to show that there has already been an actionable publication or that damage has been sustained. In appropriate cases an injunction may be granted ex parted and before the issue of  a writ.

In other words, an injunction can be granted even before damage occurs. The present facts are therefore a fortiori.

The Defendant has sought to contend that the publications were by Donovan, not him. This is disingenuous and not the law. As a matter of law, publication is the dissemination of defamatory material to at least one other person:

Here, there was communication from the Defendant to Donovan. Donovan then republished the defamatory material. In law this is deemed to be publication by the Defendant as the publication by Donovan was the natural and probable consequence of the publication from Huong to Donovan.

The full text of this publication is exhibited as ‘TK-2′ of Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai’s affidavit of 5.4.06.

It is a letter to Jyoti Munsiff the newly appointed Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell plc.

We now merely highlight certain passages from that publication to show their defamatory nature:

As you know I am being sued by eight companies of the Royal Dutch Shell Group for alleged defamation. The relevant Shell companies have obtained a restraining order which prevents me for speaking the TRUTH in line with the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. My rights to freedom of expression have in fact been restrained for over 18 months. I had thought that Shell supported this UN Declaration, but it seems that this assumption must be incorrect. I would welcome your clarification on this point as I am sure that my analysis must be at fault?

Something really must be seriously amiss. The answers to my questions are important if, as I assume must be the case, you genuinely want to encourage whistleblowers to speak out if they become aware of misdeeds which are in contravention of the Shell Statement of General Business Principles (SGBP).

It is surely essential in this regard that an even-handed approach is adopted in such matters so that would be whistleblowers and parties with genuine grievances are not deterred by the prospect that they could be ostracized, victimized sacked and/or sued if they do come forward. In regards to this paragraph I am speaking of course in general terms, not about my case, as that would be inappropriate under the current ongoing litigation.

This letter also seeks confirmation from you for me to make significant inputs for improving ethics and compliance at Shell. I sincerely believe that for obvious reasons I have a unique perspective on the question of Shell employees engaging professionally in whistle blowing when faced with ethical moral and/or legal dilemmas.

I also believe that it is fair to make readers of this communication aware that apart from the High Court Restraining Order, I am also constrained in my comments by a threat of imprisonment.

I am sure that the eight Royal Dutch Shell companies who collectively decided to sue me believe that their action is an appropriate and proportionate response to the alleged defamatory comments by one former Malaysian employee of 29 years.

The Plaintiffs case is that these passages clearly identify and defame the Plaintiffs. The crux of the defamation is the allegation that the Defendant, a whistleblower has been gagged to prevent him from speaking the “TRUTH”. He has been restrained from revealing ‘misdeeds’ that are illegal, immoral and or unethical.  The allegation therefore is that the Plaintiffs have abused the legal process afforded by the High Court.

There can be no question that the publication defames the Plaintiffs. The allegations include the following:

However Dr Huong discovered in 1997 and the immediately following years that the SGBP are in fact empty promises – propaganda for use in the circumstances described above and in global advertising campaigns such as “Profits and Principles” or “the triple bottom-line”. The SGBP amounted to nothing more than a confidence trick to encourage the public and financial institutions into investing in Shell.

Dr Huong was, as far as I am aware, the first Shell employee to blow the whistle at Shell (in 1997) about the deliberate falsification of hydrocarbon reserves.

His objections to bending his principles by turning a blind eye to wrongdoing proved to be the turning point in Dr Huong’s previously highly successful career with Shell. He was humiliated, victimised, put under intolerable pressure which made him ill and was ultimately, sacked, thereby further aggravating stress brought about by Shell’s actions against him. Prior to the wrongful dismissal, the domestic inquiry heard that his medical record in the care of the company doctor could not even be found. The records had mysteriously disappeared, just like Shell hydrocarbon reserves.

The ‘affidavit’ contains related defamatory assertion of, for example, racism against the Plaintiffs:

Mr Alfred Donovan has pointed out in the same vein that Shell settled a retirement funds related class action law suit brought against it by its American employees, whilst it has for years, dragged out retirement fund related lawsuits brought by its Malaysian former employees.

It there is any substance to Mr Donovan’s speculation, then we would have to add ‘racist policies’ to the description listed above.

The Defendant has gone on a wild rampage with Alfred Donovan to consider any wrongdoing done by any Shell company around the world. He then extrapolates from the particular – individual instances of impropriety anywhere in the world – and reaches a general conclusion that the 8 Plaintiffs have been dishonest, engage in criminal conspiracy and criminal conduct generally.

In the rambling megalomaniacal affidavit Defendant elevates himself to a pedestal and concludes from the fact that he was dismissed and that this was because he had discovered the TRUTH’.

Yet, in all this, not one iota of specific fact is raised to justify any of the very serious allegations against the Plaintiffs. As we have seen, these include allegations of:

Deliberate falsification

Destroying documents to thwart legal proceedings

Racism

That is why he had to run to the Donovans for assistance. Even now, not one specific fact of wrongdoing has been supported.

‘Over·the-top’ abusive and snide statements like those made by the Defendant, aided and abetted by Alfred Donovan constitute clear evidence of an absence of honest belief.

EXTRACTS END

DESPITE ALL OF THE BLUSTER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL SETTLED OUT OF COURT WITH DR HUONG TO STOP THE CASE BEING HEARD IN OPEN COURT. DR HUONG HAD PREPARED EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIS ASSERTIONS AND HAD MANY WITNESSES LINED UP. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, SHELL DECIDED THAT AT ALL COSTS, THE CASE HAD TO BE KILLED BEFORE IT CAME TO TRIAL. HENCE THE OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT AFTER YEARS OF LITIGATION, JUST AS SHELL DID WITH THE NIGERIAN TRIAL IN THE USA.

WASHINGTON, May 12, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Statement of Marvin E. Odum President, Shell Oil Company (Photo right)

SHELL OIL COMPANY ODUM Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Company. (PRNewsFoto/Shell Oil Company) WASHINGTON, DC UNITED STATES

Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Hatch, and members of the Committee:

I am Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Company. Shell is a global energy company, with more than 90,000 employees in more than 90 countries. Approximately 19,000 of those employees are here in the U.S. working to discover, produce, market and deliver to consumers today’s energy and tomorrow’s energy technology. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

I’d like to address right up front the issue that’s on many American’s minds – the rising cost of energy, particularly the cost of gasoline.

Because fuels are refined from crude oil, the biggest impact on the price of fuel is the price of crude oil.

Everything from the weather to politics and the global economy determines the price of oil and the fuels made from it. No one person, organization or industry can “set” the price for crude oil. Weak economic conditions in 2008 and 2009 lowered demand, which helped push prices down. Now, with worldwide economic recovery underway, demand is on the rise, sending prices upward.

In addition, because oil is sold in U.S. dollars throughout much of the world, when the dollar becomes weaker, it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of oil.

Stated simply, oil is a global commodity. And oil companies are price takers, not price makers.

So while we can’t predict or control the price at the pump, we do know that we can increase the stability of our energy future through a combination of efficiency gains and increased supply.

And the surest way to address a challenge of this magnitude is to focus on what we can control — using “what we know” to safeguard against what we don’t.

Without question, our government is facing significant challenges right now – in terms of economic security, energy security, and other challenges.

But when you have a deficit, be it energy or financial, your choices are quite simple– get more, or use less – and, most often, it is a combination of both that achieves the best result.

It can be tempting to assume that there is something to gain by taking more from a few. However, one must also balance the potential implications of increased industry costs on both supply and price. Alternatively, if policies are put in place to allow the energy industry to be an economic growth engine for America — developing our own resources — we would see tens of thousands of new, well paying jobs and billions of dollars in revenue for local, state and federal governments.

Some perspective:

Last year, Shell reported global earnings of $18.6 billion. We also invested some $29 billion, mostly in new projects to bring energy supply to the consumer, and spent more than $40 billion to run our businesses globally.

Last year in the Gulf of Mexico, government policies caused Shell to defer some $700 million in capital expenditures and take more than $180 million in special charges. We expect to lose an estimated 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day in 2011 alone. Thinking about that impact to-date, that represents lost gasoline production – just to Shell – that could have powered, on average, 633,000 cars and light trucks every day since January 1.

Here in the U.S., at the invitation of the federal government, we have invested more than $3.5 billion since 2005 to develop energy resources in Alaska. Six years later, we have been prevented from drilling a single exploration well due to the government’s inability to deliver timely permits to allow this potential new resource to be developed. During that time, we have drilled more than 400 exploration wells worldwide.

My point is this: Investments in our industry carry huge amounts of capital and risk. Policy makers must consider this when thinking about the competitiveness of the U.S. versus other regions.

The President recently acknowledged that reducing dependence on imports was a national policy imperative. We agree. The U.S. is resource-rich in many ways, especially in oil and gas. Yet, as a country we import more than 60 percent of our petroleum at a cost of more than $350 billion a year.

And the bottom line is this: if we don’t develop our own energy sources, we’ll have to accept the costs – both financial and geopolitical – of bringing it into this country from places that are less secure or less stable.

In closing, Shell is grateful for the widespread recognition in Congress of the daunting energy challenge facing the nation. Although some of our opinions differ, we all agree that it will take all possible energy sources and energy savings to meet demand.

We should also agree and acknowledge that oil and gas will remain critical sources of energy for decades to come. I urge you to consider the broad and sustained benefits of developing our own domestic resources.

Keeping this economic value here at home, we can at the same time move forward with investments in the next generation of technologies and energy solutions that will power the future.

Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

SOURCE Shell Oil Company

RELATED LINKS
http://www.shellus.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

Extracts from the newly published book: “The Four Stages of Highly Effective Crisis Management” by Jan Jordan-Meier

ALL EXTRACTS FROM THE CHAPTER: “Dealing with Bloggers”

From page 163

First, treat bloggers like mainstream journalists…

The big difference is that they have no editors–there is no editorial chain of command other than their loyal followers and readers.

From page 164

While moms will be fiercely protective of their young, and will fight for their cause (and so would I), so will just about any purist.

Shell found that out when a father-and-son blogging team almost brought the company to its knees. A United Kingdom blogger, who is ex-British military, claims that the team’s blogging efforts have cost the oil giant $15 billion- yes, $15 billion!

Alfred Donovan, now 90-plus years old, and his son John have been collecting and publishing information online about Shell’s activities since 2001. Not only have they been actively campaigning against the company for nearly a decade (they started in 2001), but they own the domain name www.royaldutchshellplc.com–Shell’s proper name, you guessed it, Royal Dutch Shell.

According to an interview on their blog, the site receives millions of hits per month and many of the people using the site are shell employees.

Influential–you bet. The Donovans and their blog are regularly quoted in the mainstream media–no doubt that the father-and-son team is an ongoing headache for Shell.

Amazon

May 12, 2011 9:00 A.M. ET

By Tennille Tracy Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–As Democrats look to repeal tax breaks given to the oil and gas industry, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSA.LN, RDSB, RDSB.LN) President Marvin Odum said in congressional testimony Thursday that lawmakers may think “there is something to gain by taking more from a few,” but that they should consider the effects of higher taxes “on both supply and price” of oil.

Instead of eliminating the tax breaks, as House and Senate Democrats are proposing, Odum encourages lawmakers to expand domestic oil production to combat higher gasoline prices.

“While we can’t predict or control the price at the pump, we do know that we can increase the stability of our energy future through a combination of efficiency gains and increased supply,” Odum said in prepared remarks.

Odum is one of five top-level oil executives scheduled to make a rare appearance before Capitol Hill lawmakers Thursday. Among the other companies represented on a Senate hearing panel are Chevron Corp. (CVX)and Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM).

The companies have become the target of legislation that eliminates billions of dollars of tax incentives given to the oil and gas industry. One such proposal, announced this week by Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) and other Democrats, repeals about $2 billion in annual incentives for the five largest companies and uses the revenue to pay down the U.S. deficit.

Thursday’s hearing is being held by the Senate Finance Committee. The head of that committee, Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.), is developing similar legislation that will use the revenue to promote clean energy.

The proposals have emerged as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle look to respond to high gasoline prices heading into an election year.

-By Tennille Tracy, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-6619; Tennille.tracy@dowjones.com

Associated Press

Oil-company executives, from left, Shell Oil President Marvin Odum; BP America Chairman H. Lamar McKay; and ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva, testify before the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday.

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE: Oil CEOs on the Hot Seat

By RYAN TRACY

WASHINGTON—The U.S. approved a Royal Dutch Shell PLC plan to drill for oil in five locations deep under the Gulf of Mexico.

The Shell proposal is the second deep-water exploration plan approved in the Gulf since the U.S. government lifted a moratorium on deep-water drilling in October. The moratorium was imposed following the BP PLC oil spill in April 2010. At least six other deep-water plans are pending for the Gulf.

Companies apply for permits to drill after receiving approval for an exploration plan.

The Shell plan approved Wednesday, for the so-called Appomattox discovery, includes five wells in about 7,200 feet of water roughly 72 miles, or 116 kilometers, off the Louisiana coast. Shell runs the Appomattox venture and holds an 80% stake. Nexen Inc. holds the remaining 20%.

U.S. regulators assessed the plan and determined it met new safety standards instituted after the Gulf oil spill last year. The drilling “would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment,” according to a press release from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement.

Marvin Odum, president of Shell’s U.S. subsidiary, said the company was “pleased” with the news.

Environmental groups have signaled they would challenge the government in court if it determined the Shell plan would have no significant impact.

Michael Bromwich, head of the ocean energy bureau, defended the decision and the new safety standards. “The standards are higher than they used to be,and further support our goal of ensuring that deep-water exploration is done more safely and with greater protections for the environment than ever before” he said in the bureau’s press release.

“After decades of responsible offshore drilling operations in environments around the globe, this approval is further evidence of Shell’s expertise and confidence in offshore drilling and should be strongly considered as Shell moves forward with additional exploration in both the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska,” Mr. Odum said through a spokeswoman. The ocean energy bureau also said it would no longer issue news releases announcing its approval of offshore exploration plans, calling the approvals “standard.”

The agency hadn’t sent such announcements before the Gulf oil spill.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Guest Author: Author Bio :This article has been written by Amy Lewis. She is associated with Oak View Law Group, a bankruptcy law firm. She writes on a wide range of financial topics like debt, credit card debt settlement, debt management, debt consolidation, bankruptcy etc.

May 11, 2011

By Amy Lewis

With the price of oil soaring high, more and more people are getting inclined to invest in oil and gas exploration. However, if you are a timid investor and not willing to take any risk, it is not your cup of tea. Enthusiastic and aggressive people who have enough knowledge of the field should try their hands in investing in oil or gas well or in oil operation. Read on to know a few factors you must look out and watch out for when you are considering to invest in this field.

Successful oil companies never give an advertisement for an investor; they usually have prolonged tie ups with a line of loyal investors with deep pockets.

However, the fly by night companies in the business usually seek investors. As a newbie on investing you can start with these companies and can get acquainted with the business circles and network of industry professionals. You never know, you might meet the most influential people of the industry at the gatherings in your church, social clubs or fraternal organizations and any other social hub.

The minimum investment you can settle with is around $30,000 which is a small share of the oil wells lifetime revenue. This is applied for a shallow well, which is almost 5000 feet in an area and the drilling is not so tough. Deeper exploratory wells are usually handled by big money investor territory and the minimum investment amount here is a hundred thousand or more.

Success in investing in a wildcat oil or gas well entirely depends if Lady Luck is in a good mood or not. As an investor your duty is to locate a company which will let you invest in a well that is being drilled near other productive wells or a company that has a sound seismic information. Buying latest, updated, specific 3D type seismic information is pretty expensive, therefore you must aim at finding a company which is well versed in this technology.

In case you find this business venture too risky, consider buying shares of a well established company which now operating or drilling in recently discovered areas. For example Chesapeake (CHK) has large holdings in the newly invented Barnett Shale and Marcellus Formations

If you are a smaller investor, investing in individual stocks must be a better choice for you. However if you like to stick oil and gas exploration investments consider taking help from an ETF (Exchange traded Fund) consisting of several oil and gas exploration companies. If you want expert suggestions, in this regard you can consult investment teams like Invesco or Powershares as well.

Department of Justice