Judge Martin Binning said Monday that workers had warned Shell many times about dangerous conditions at the plant in Bacton, on the Norfolk coast 125 miles (200 km) northeast of London.

By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, June 20, 3:31 PM

(Reuters) – A British court ordered Royal Dutch Shell’s UK unit to pay 1.242 million pounds ($2 million) in fines and legal costs for a fire at its Bacton gas terminal in 2008 which cut more than a tenth of UK gas supply.

A leak of highly flammable hydrocarbon liquid caused the explosion and fire at a waste water plant in which nobody was killed or seriously injured only by “good fortune,” according to Britain’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Shell UK was found guilty of seven offences related to environmental and safety regulation, brought forward jointly by the HSE and the Environment Agency (EA) last December.

“What happened was completely unacceptable and falls well below the standards that we set for ourselves. Safety is our company’s priority and so an incident like this is deeply disappointing,” Shell UK said in a statement on Monday.

The rescue work released 850 tonnes of fire water and fire fighting foam into the North Sea, after Shell failed to close the sea gate until around one hour after the fire broke out, Norwich crown court heard.

“The explosion could have led to a major environmental disaster as other highly flammable materials were stored nearby,” said the EA’s local Environment Manager Marcus Sibley.

Staff were returning from the plant to the main offices to prepare for shift handovers, sparing injuries or fatalities, the two authorities said.

Shell has since invested 3 million pounds into reviewing safety operations and a new waste water treatment plant will be built with additional safety features, the company said.

The Bacton terminal, around 30 km north-east of Norwich, east England, receives gas from North Sea fields and through a subsea pipeline from the Netherlands.

(Reporting by Karolin Schaps)

SOURCE

The court heard the company ignored warnings from staff before the explosion

20 June 2011

Shell UK has been fined £1m plus £240,000 costs after an explosion at a gas terminal in Norfolk in 2008.

The company admitted seven safety and pollution offences following the explosion and fire at the Bacton terminal.

Ipswich Crown Court heard the company ignored warnings from staff before the explosion.

The prosecution was brought by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive.

Shell admitted breaching two Health and Safety Regulations and five areas of environmental legislation, including pollution prevention and control.

“Sleepwaking into danger’

The blast in February 2008 could have killed 10 people, according to prosecutor Andrew Marshall.

The only reason there were no fatalities was because staff were changing shifts at the time, he added.

Judge Martin Binning heard Shell managers had been warned several times by workers over the presence of high levels of North Sea condensate, a highly-flammable hydro-carbon.

Shell UK had previously admitted not taking sufficient steps to protect staff and the public.

Mr Marshall said: “Management were sleepwalking into danger, no matter what was brought to their attention.

“What is not in doubt is that what took place could have been fatal for those in the vicinity of this lethal blast.

“The Crown estimates that 10 people could have been killed and that is not taking into account the injuries, serious injuries and further issues that can follow from such a situation.”

SOURCE

• Shell ‘ignored safety warnings’
• Shell UK pleads guilty over blast
• Shell to be prosecuted over blast

From pages 12, 13, 14 & 15 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.

SHELL IN NIGERIA

Shell assesses its contribution to conflict

With regard to conflict in the Niger Delta, Shell often profiles itself as one of the main victims. In July 2009, the company wrote: “We hope people recognise that the employees and contractor staff of [SPDC]…have to carry out their work against a backdrop of crime, violence, threats of kidnap and community actions.” Indeed, the Niger Delta is an extremely difficult environment for any company to operate.

However, one could also assess how Shell’s activities might contribute to conflict. In 2002 and 2003, Shell commissioned such research. The resulting report, released in December 2003, was written by three external conflict resolution experts. The insights in the report drew “heavily on the experiences of more than 200 individuals consulted during its preparation.” Shell had declined to publish the independent report, but it was leaked in June 2004. The report states that “after operating in the Niger Delta for over 50 years, SCIN [Shell company in Nigeria] is an integral part of the regional conflict environment (….) and the manner in which the SCIN operates and its staff behave creates, feeds into, or exacerbates conflict.”

Examples of fuelling conflict

The report listed several examples of how oil companies fuel underlying factors causing conflict in the Niger Delta:

− The role of the oil companies in fuelling corruption is significant. Numerous examples can be found in how companies seek to maintain their license to operate through short-term cash payments, giving in to monetary demands following facility closures, exorbitant homage payments, use of ghost workers, surveillance contract implementation, contracting procedures, employment processes, and kick-back schemes in community development projects.

− The role of the oil companies in fuelling perceived or actual discrimination is largely related to unclear communications, poor transparency, the non-fulfilment of obligations, as well as corporate arrogance.

− The role of the oil companies in fuelling inequitable distribution of revenue and infrastructure is largely related to the non-fulfilment of obligations.

− The role of the oil companies in fuelling social disintegration largely comprises the design of the benefit distribution process that allows groups to fight over access to cash, jobs, contracts and power.

− It is important to note that accusations abound of “divide and rule” tactics and an active role of oil company officials in fuelling specific communal conflicts. Whereas this is likely to be the case where individuals or small groups of oil company staff are engaged in criminal activities, there is no evidence to suggest a company-wide “conspiracy” or manipulation of conflicts in the Niger Delta.

− The role of the oil companies in fuelling crime and criminal cartels is largely related to corruption in the contracting process and the payment of ransoms that make crime lucrative.

− Beyond the impact of the oil industry on the economy (“Dutch disease”) oil companies do not directly fuel youth unemployment. However, the interaction between companies and youth groups who control employment at a community level is important. Contracts that routinely contain inflated and imaginary elements, excessive numbers of workers and payment, kick- backs, etc. serves to corrupt youth.

The report was published in 2003, and it was meant to assess how SCIN can contribute to conflict resolution and sustainable peace in the Niger Delta. For this report, due to lack of available information it is not examined to what extent Shell has altered the practices described above presently.

Co-opting militants

In 2006, it became clear that some of the militant leaders linked to the attacks on oil facilities in the Niger Delta earn tens of thousands of dollars from contracts with Shell. Leaders of the Federated Niger Delta Ijaw Communities (FNDIC), involved with violent activities in Delta State in 2003, later ran contracting companies working with the oil majors. The payments included “incident free” bonuses. Officials told the Financial Times that subcontracting work to local strongmen is one method some oil companies have used to buy off militants threatening attacks on oil facilities in the Delta. In September 2008, the Shell Executive Vice President (EVP) for Shell Companies in Africa, Ms. Ann Pickard, said that Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi lacked the connections among Rivers State militant leaders to successfully co-opt them as the governors in Delta and Bayelsa states have done with militants in their states. Co-opting militants seems to be one of the tactics to (temporary) reduce conflict. However, it can also be seen as a measure that serves conflict and corruption.

Corruption

On paper, Shell’s stance against corruption is clear. Its Code of Conduct gives employees detailed instructions on the behaviour Shell’s Business Principles require. With regard to bribery and corruption the Code of Conduct contains the following principles:

− Never offer, pay, make, seek or accept a personal payment, gift or favour in return for favourable treatment, to influence a business outcome or to gain any business advantage.

− Ensure people you work with understand bribery and corruption is unacceptable.

− Tell Shell if you suspect or know of corruption in Shell or in any party (company or individual) Shell does business with.

Relevant staff must undergo specific training in areas such as combating bribery and corruption. Shell’s global helpline and supporting website allow staff and business partners to report concerns confidentially. In 2009, 165 violations of the Code of Conduct were reported (204 in 2008). As a result, Shell stated that it has ended its relationships with 126 staff and contractors (138 in 2008).

Corruption is rife in the Niger Delta. On 27 January 2009, Shell’s regional executive vice president for Africa, Ann Pickard, met with the U.S. ambassador in Nigeria in Abuja, Nigeria. During the meeting, she stated that corruption in the Nigerian oil sector was worsening by the day. Pickard said that Nigerian entities control the lifting of many oil cargoes and there are some “very interesting” people lifting oil (People, she said that were not even in the industry). As an example she said that oil buyers would pay Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) General Managing Director Yar’Adua, (Note: not related to President Yar’Adua. End Note), Chief Economic Advisor Yakubu, and the First Lady Turai Yar’Adua large bribes, millions of dollars per tanker, to lift oil. Pickard also said that a former associate of hers had told her that he had been present when Attorney General Aondoakaa had told a visitor that he would sign a document only if the visitor paid USD 2 million immediately and another USD 18 million the next day.

Shell fined USD 58 million

The extent of Shell’s involvement and practices with regard to corruption in the Niger Delta is not known. Late 2010, Shell paid a total of USD 58 million to U.S. and Nigerian authorities to head off the threat of legal action for corruption. SNEPCO, a 100% Nigerian subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, had paid approximately USD 2 million in the period 2004-2006 to its subcontractors with the knowledge that some or all of the money would be paid as bribes to Nigerian customs officials to import materials and equipment into Nigeria in relation to the offshore Bonga project. SNEPCO and the U.S. based Shell International Exploration and Production Inc. employees were aware that as a result of the payment of the bribes, official Nigerian duties, taxes, and penalties were not paid when the items were imported.

In November 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that Shell had agreed to pay USD 48 million to settle investigations on violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Deferred Prosecution Agreement Shell signed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) still requires Shell to report to the DOJ, promptly, any credible evidence of questionable or corrupt payments. Separately, Shell also agreed to pay

USD 10 million to the Nigerian authorities.

Shell started an internal research in 2007, and found that a small number of its employees knew or should have known of the incorrect payments. These employees have been subject to disciplinary sanctions or were fired, according to the company.

The Ibori case

In November 2007, it became publicly known that the UK Metropolitan police was investigating alleged money laundering by James Ibori, a former governor who ran the oil-rich Delta state until May 2007. According to a witness statement, the former governor had used banks in Britain to stash GBP 20 million in stolen funds during 2005-06. Since 2005 funds from Nigeria, intended for education and engineering projects, “[were] allegedly stolen by James Ibori [and] have been laundered through the UK banking system”. Over three years, Shell, Chevron and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company paid GBP 3.6 million into a Barclays account controlled by Ibori for renting out houseboats to foreign employees. Nuhu Ribadu, chairman of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which worked closely with the British investigators, told the Financial Times that he was “investigating huge payments made by Shell and Chevron to MER Engineering” over the hiring of the houseboats. Shell admitted that MER was on its register of approved contractors. It declined to elaborate on the amount and type of work done by MER.

A leaked report from the Nigerian Army Intelligence Corps, dated November 2007, linked James Ibori also to thousands of arms stolen from governmental storage depots for onward transfer to Niger Delta militants from the year 2000 to 2007.

Mr. Ibori had close ties to Umaru Yar’Adua, the former president of Nigeria. Mr. Yar’Adua sacked Nuhu Ribadu, the head of the EFCC, after 170 charges were brought against Mr. Ibori. In a very questionable Nigerian court case, in December 2009, a judge dismissed all cases. A Wikileaks cable sent from the UK embassy in London in May 2009 stated that Attorney General Aondoakaa had directly told the UK that the Nigerian Government would not begin negotiations on a prisoners transfer agreement, unless the UK would drop its case against James Ibori and his associates.

Mr. Ibori denies all charges against him. He was arrested in Dubai in May 2010 after the intervention of the global police agency Interpol. Dubai’s highest court ruled in December 2010 that he could be extradited to Britain to face corruption charges. Mr. Ibori’s sister and his alleged mistress are already convicted of money laundering and sentenced to five years in UK prison in June 2010. Mr. Ibori’s wife and his UK lawyer face similar charges.

Further extracts from this section of the report will be published in the coming days.

THE COMPLETE 73 PAGE REPORT (with reference sources)

LONDON (Dow Jones)–Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA.LN) and China National Petroleum Company or CNPC, announced Monday a Global Alliance agreement emphasizing their shared intent to pursue mutually beneficial cooperation opportunities internationally as well as in China.

MAIN FACTS:

-The two parties also signed a Shareholders agreement to establish a Well Manufacturing joint venture (50% CNPC and 50% Shell) subject to further corporate and government approvals.

-It is intended that the joint venture will develop an innovative, highly automated Well Manufacturing System that could significantly improve the efficiency of drilling and completing new wells onshore.

-The details of the parties’ respective contributions to the joint venture will be agreed during the transition phase over the coming months.

-Royal Dutch Shell Shares at 1051 GMT down 19.5 pence, or 1.0%, at 2102.0 pence.

-By Zechariah Hemans, Dow Jones Newswires; 44-20-7842-9411; zechariah.hemans@dowjones.com

SOURCE

ANCHORAGE, Alaska, June 17 (UPI) — Shell sees a “clear path” to getting approval to drill in arctic waters off the coast of Alaska as early as July, an executive said.

Warming trends have resulted in less sea ice in arctic waters and exposed areas believed to hold vast reserves of oil and natural gas.

Shell Alaska President Pete Slaiby told the Platts news service that the company was close to getting approved to work on the outer continental shelf in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

“We can now see a clear path toward getting final approvals for drilling,” he said.

Environmental groups worry about the consequences of potential disasters in arctic waters, a concern exacerbated by last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Slaiby said his company was working closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to get approval for its planned drill ships contracted for work in the northern seas.

Work in the region by Shell is expected next summer.

© 2011 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SOURCE ARTICLE

The Dysart Law Firm Announces Benzene Leukemia Personal Injury Case Filed Against Shell Oil Company and BP Products North America Over Benzene Pollution Roxana, IL

On June 16, 2011, Scott Monroe, a 20 year old resident of Roxana, Illinois filed a leukemia personal injury lawsuit in the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, Scott Monore v. Shell Oil Company et al., Case No. 11-L- 577, against Shell Oil Company, and BP Products North America, Inc, alleging he developed acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) as a result of benzene released into the groundwater, ground, and air in and around his home and the high school, middle school and grade school that he attended in Roxana.

June 18, 2011

According to the Dysart Law Firm, the benzene leukemia personal injury Complaint filed in the Madison County Circuit Court (Case No. 11-L- 577) alleges Mr. Monroe was first diagnosed with AML in April 2010 when he was just 19 years old. The Complaint alleges that as a result of developing AML, Mr. Monroe lost a $180,000 Navy scholarship to the University of Michigan to pursue a degree in nuclear engineering and that his career prospects have otherwise been severely and permanently damaged. The Complaint also alleges that he has a shortened life expectancy, that he has suffered mental anguish, that he has incurred medical bills and will incur medical bills in the future and that he will have to undergo lifelong medical treatment. The Complaint seeks monetary damages against Shell and BP in a reasonable amount in excess of $50,000.

The Complaint alleges Shell and BP released toxic chemicals into the ground and groundwater of Roxana, Illinois and did nothing to clean up, or otherwise address, the toxic chemicals, including Benzene, for over 20 years. The Complaint alleges that among the toxic chemicals released, the Illinois EPA documented the release of 8,400 gallons of pure benzene in 1986 from an underground pipeline that extended from the Wood River Refinery in Roxana, Illinois to a barge loading facility on the Mississippi River. Another Illinois EPA documented release of pure benzene occurred in February 1986. The original benzene releases occurred near the intersection of Rand Avenue and Central Street in Roxana.

The Complaint alleges that between 1986 and the present, the Wood River Refinery continued its groundwater pumping activities pulling the benzene from the 1986 leak under the homes and businesses of the residents of Roxana. The benzene in the ground water exposes the Roxana residents to benzene vapor intrusion into their homes.

The Complaint alleges that in addition to the documented benzene releases, the Illinois EPA has also discovered hydrocarbon contamination that has been leaking from the refinery grounds into the subsurface soils along the western fence line of the refinery property. According to a letter sent to the residents of Roxana, Shell, “has recently found high concentrations of certain hydrocarbons, including benzene, as vapors in subsurface soils near the refinery boundary and under the Roxana Public Works buildings south of Eighth Street.” According to the Illinois EPA the “potentially affected area of Roxana is bounded to the north by First St., to the south by Rand Ave., to the west by Central St., and to the east by Chaffer St.”
The Complaint alleges that the toxic chemicals include Benzene, Hexane, Toulene and Xylene.

The Complaint alleges that Shell has known about the dangers of benzene for decades. Scientists began raising concerns about the toxic effects of benzene exposure in the early 1900s. In 1948, the American Petroleum Institute published a toxicological review for its members on benzene stating it is generally considered that the only absolutely safe concentration for benzene is zero.

The Complaint alleges that despite Shell’s knowledge of the dangers posed by benzene exposure, it publicly minimized and hid the dangers. The Complaint alleges that most recently, in May 2010, the Illinois Department of Health (“IEPA”) sent a letter to the Illinois EPA which states that a report dated February 2010, prepared for Shell by its contractor URS and posted on the Roxana Investigation Website for the citizens of Roxana to read, set forth misleading conclusions and recommendations regarding the dangers posed by Benzene and other toxic chemicals in the ground water under Roxana. Specifically, the IEPA “strongly disagreed” with the Shell URS posting on the Website, which stated the soil vapors do not pose a risk to the residents of Roxana. Instead, the IEPA stated “[i]n the shallow vapor samples (5 to 10 feet deep) the elevated benzene and hexane concentrations at this site are of great concern when considering potential residential exposure at this site.” The letter goes on to state “[t]here is good reason to expect benzene and hexane vapors may be entering homes in Roxana based on the levels detected in the shallow soil gas (5 to 10 feet deep), the vapor monitoring points being located in a residential area, and the shallow depth of the more permeable sand unit.”

The Complaint alleges Shell has known about dangers posed by benzene vapors entering homes and other property since it performed studies concerning vapor intrusion in the 1980s. The Complaint alleges that despite Shell’s knowledge of the cancer causing nature of benzene, and despite its knowledge that vapor intrusion poses a significant danger of exposing the residents of Roxana to benzene vapors, Shell did nothing to clean up, or otherwise address, the Roxana Benzene Plume for over 20 years. During this time period, the Wood River Refinery continued its groundwater pumping activities causing the benzene from the 1986 leak to move under the homes and businesses of the residents of Roxana causing prolonged exposure to benzene vapors.

Specifically, in a May 2, 2008 letter to Shell the Illinois EPA stated that the movement of the Benzene Plume is being influenced by the Northfield well pumping and is moving to the Northeast. This movement has caused increased risk to the down gradient receptors, homes and businesses located between the release site and the pumping wells. The letter goes on to state that this creates the potential for residents to be at risk for vapor intrusion and that the concentration of contaminants present on the surface of the water table and the unconfirmed sand aquifer present suitable conditions for vapor migration.

The Complaint alleges the Illinois EPA and the U.S. EPA have cited Shell for numerous environmental violations for its operations at the Wood River Refinery in Roxana, Illinois. Most recently, in May 2008, Shell is known to have violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act 41 times by exceeding the standards for the release of benzene, ethylbenzene, toulene and xylene into the groundwater of Roxana, Illinois.

The Complaint alleges that about 1,500 people live in Roxana, Illinois, a small town located in Madison County, Illinois not far from the Mississippi river and St. Louis, Missouri.

Christopher Dysart
cdysart@dysart-law.com
636 812 0191
Email

Plaintiff Scott Monroe with his Mother Cathy Monroe

SOURCE

Not all tar sands waste ends up in tailings ponds. As described in the attached paper – in Alberta it is spread on arable land. This practise is actually encouraged by the Alberta Government agencies and regulations.

Feds shake up offshore energy inspections; will send teams of inspectors instead of single auditors