Posts from ‘June, 2011’

WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 9, 2011 7:14pm EDT

(Reuters) – Environmental activists are suing the Obama administration over its approval of a Royal Dutch Shell Plc plan to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

The suit, filed one day after Exxon Mobil Corp announced two big new oil discoveries in the Gulf, could signal a lengthy fight over the resumption of drilling near the site of last year’s BP Plc oil spill.

Oil exploration in the Gulf was halted after the spill, though drilling has gradually resumed since the administration began approving new permits in February.

Shell’s plan called for five exploratory wells more than 7,000 feet under water and three previously approved wells about 72 miles off the coast of Louisiana.

Environmental law firm Earthjustice, which filed suit on behalf of several groups, claims the Obama administration’s approval ignored relevant concerns involved with deepwater drilling.

“It is as if the government regulators have learned nothing from the BP disaster,” Earthjustice attorney David Guest said in a statement.

The groups want the Eleventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals to overrule the approval.

A spokesperson for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which approved the Shell plan, declined to comment.

Shell said in a statement that the filings “fail to take into account the comprehensive nature of the approved exploration plan” and that the company would work with the Obama administration to defend it.

(Reporting by Emily Stephenson; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

SOURCE ARTICLE

By HARRY R. WEBER, Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) — Environmental groups asked a federal appeals court Thursday to throw out a U.S. government decision to approve a Shell oil exploration plan that involves five proposed wells under more than 7,000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement approved the plan in May. The plan also includes three previously approved wells 72 miles off Louisiana.

Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Natural Resources Defense Council claim in a petition filed in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta that the decision violates the law and that the environment would be harmed if it stands.

New regulations for deepwater drilling were imposed following last year’s deadly rig explosion and Gulf oil spill.

The conservation groups argue that there is no basis to conclude that drilling in waters substantially deeper than the BP well that blew out would have no significant impact on the environment. BP’s well that blew out was in 5,000 feet of water. Engineering experts and some industry observers have argued that more than a year after the disaster oil companies are still not adequately prepared to prevent a deepwater blowout or be able to efficiently deal with one if it were to occur again. The industry says it is prepared and it is eager to get back to business in the Gulf.

A moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf was imposed after the BP oil spill. It was lifted in October, though permits have only started to flow again in recent months. The industry has prodded the government to move faster, while environmental groups have encouraged the government to slow down.

Shell said in a statement that the petition “fails to take into account the comprehensive nature of the approved exploration plan.” The company said the plan reflects numerous improvements to enhance safety and to protect the environment. Shell said it would help the government defend the approval. A spokeswoman for the offshore drilling agency declined to comment on the petition.

Approval of an exploration plan is not an approval to drill. A drilling permit must be issued for that. The government has not yet issued a permit for the project the environmental groups — represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center — are objecting to.

Separately, the government approved in March a Shell exploration plan involving a project 130 miles off Louisiana, south of Lafayette. The offshore drilling agency later approved a permit to drill a new well in 2,721 feet of water. Shell said that as of Thursday the company was preparing to drill that well, but had not yet started.

Follow Harry R. Weber at http://www.facebook.com/HarryRWeberAP

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

SOURCE ARTICLE

By Katarzyna Klimasinska

June 9 (Bloomberg) — U.S. approval of a Royal Dutch Shell Plc oil exploration plan for the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico is illegal and should be withdrawn, environmental groups led by the Natural Resources Defense Council said in petitions.

The NRDC and Oakland, California-based Earthjustice, in filings today in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta, said the May 10 action by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement violates environmental laws.

Earthjustice’s petition included Gulf Restoration Network, Florida Wildlife Federation and Sierra Club Inc. The New York- based NRDC was joined by Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity, the group said in an e-mailed statement.

Shell was first to win approval for its deep-water drilling plans after passing U.S. environmental reviews adopted following the BP Plc oil spill, triggered by an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The Hague-based Shell was cleared to drill five exploratory wells in waters as deep as 7,259 feet (2,213 meters), 72 miles off the Louisiana coast.

“It’s unsafe to resume drilling in the Gulf given what we’ve learned from the Deepwater Horizon incident,” David Pettit, senior attorney at the NRDC, said in a phone interview.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management had no comment, said Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman.

“We will fully assist the government in defending this plan,” Bill Tanner, a Shell spokesman, said in an e-mail.

BP’s well exploded on April 20, 2010, killing 11 people, destroying the rig, and spewing crude for 87 days.

“After decades of responsible offshore drilling operations in environments around the globe, this approval is further evidence of Shell’s expertise and confidence in the offshore,” Marvin Odum, the president of Shell’s U.S. operations, said on May 11, following the approval of the plan NRDC is now disputing.

–With assistance from Laurence Viele Davidson in Atlanta and Margaret Cronin Fisk in Detroit. Editors: Steve Geimann, Michael Hytha

To contact the reporter on this story: Katarzyna Klimasinska in Washington at kklimasinska@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net; Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

HOUSTON, June 9 (UPI) — Shell said expected production at its Cardamom oil and gas field in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico could reach 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Marvin Odum, upstream director for Shell operations in the Americas, said the estimate bodes well for energy supplies for the United States.

“It will also secure employment for more offshore workers,” he added.

Cardamom is expected to reach an eventual peak production rate of 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. More than 140 million boe is expected from the project over its lifetime.

Shell’s announcement follows similar declarations from Exxon Mobil, which announced discoveries while drilling in 7,000 feet of water south of Louisiana that have a recoverable resource potential of more than 700 million barrels of oil equivalent.

“This is one of the largest discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico in the last decade,” the company said.

Deep-water exploration is under scrutiny following last year’s oil disaster in the gulf. Republican lawmakers pushing for more access to domestic reserves praised the latest finds, however.

“The prospect of new American-made energy supplies means less pain at the pump for American families and more American jobs,” U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement.

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

The chairman of BP has said the company remains the “obviously favourable” partner to explore the Arctic with Rosneft, despite the failure of their £10bn tie-up last month.

Large crowd asks questions about underground plume

June 08, 2011 9:34 PM
GLORIA LLOYD For The Telegraph

ROXANA — Residents concerned about the ramifications of benzene leaks at the former Shell Refinery in 1986 came to an informational meeting Tuesday night looking for reassurance, but many left with more questions than answers.

A crowd of more than 100 residents packed the Rox-Arena to hear a presentation by Simmons law firm attorney Mike Stewart, who outlined a brief history of the benzene plume under Roxana.

Benzene is a carcinogenic chemical that is linked to blood cancers. Stewart said leukemia is benzene’s “signature illness.”

The benzene leak has been monitored by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, paid for by Shell Oil Co., which owned the refinery at the time of two 1986 benzene leaks.

On Monday night, the Roxana Village Board hired Simmons to represent the city in any legal action against Shell related to the benzene.

Residents expressed worry about the effects of rainfall on benzene levels in their basements and how the water table has been affected.

Stewart emphasized that because he only recently became involved at the city’s behest, he could not answer every question residents had but was educating himself on the topic.

“The village has been trying to give me links and information,” Stewart said. “I’ve read everything I can get my hands on.”

Stewart emphasized that the extent of any benzene damage is not fully known until Simmons undertakes a full investigation using outside experts.

“It has been controlled by Shell,” he said. “You’re going to have to do your own testing.

“For those folks that decide to retain us as counsel, we will engage experts, folks that know what to do,” Stewart said. “I’m just a lawyer, right? I’m not an engineer. We hire experts. We test and re-test.”

Stewart said that once individual residents who feel they have suffered damages from the benzene plume hire Simmons to represent them, the law firm’s first step will be an investigation on behalf of those residents.

Some residents wanted immediate reparations.

“I think they should pay for us all to live somewhere else,” one attendee said. “My kids’ rooms are all in the basement, so we’re all just piled in upstairs. This is ridiculous.”

In a telephone interview Wednesday with The Telegraph, Shell spokeswoman Marti Powers said that elevated levels of vapor were detected this spring in the ground beneath the basements of three houses along the refinery fence line.

Powers said Shell sent a mobile unit to the scene to draw soil vapors out of the ground and has applied for a permit for a larger mobile unit to further eliminate the vapors.

These three property owners were told not to go in their basements as a precautionary measure, and the vapors were measured underneath — not inside — the homes.

“We’ve not seen any vapors in the house,” Powers said.

“We have offered alternative lodging and compensation for meals and out-of-pocket expenses for those residents. Only two have taken us up on the offer,” Powers said. “As we’re doing remediation efforts, we’re reducing the levels that are in those homes. We’re working closely with the IEPA and the Illinois Department of Public Health.”

Several meeting attendees were upset that the damage may have been accruing for a quarter of a century.

“It’s not like it has been sitting for this long time; there has been a lot of work that has been happening,” Powers said. “There’s quite a bit of activity right now, which is quite visible, which is drawing some questions about what is really going on.”

“Why wouldn’t they put us in a motel?” one woman asked at the meeting.

Another responded, “Putting us in a hotel means they’re admitting guilt.”

Contingency contracts and questionnaires were available at the meeting for residents who wanted to hire Simmons. Stewart said he would meet personally with anyone who decided at a later time to hire his firm in the matter.

Stewart explained that Simmons had determined that individual lawsuits are the best way to proceed, rather than a single class action lawsuit.

“The damage depends on how close to the plume you are, or any illnesses. Everybody is not similarly situated,” Stewart said. “One person may have a $50,000 home, one person may have a $200,000 home. One person may have lived here their whole life, another person may not have.”

Stewart said any lawsuits would be consolidated for the discovery process, which he said was the best way to actually discern the extent of the damage.

“During the discovery process, we take that information and go to Shell and say, ‘What about this?’ We make them commit to it or deny it,” Stewart said. “That’s what discovery is for.”

Stewart said that during the discovery process of a civil lawsuit, Simmons could request any and all test results stemming from the Roxana benzene monitoring.

Many residents asked questions of Stewart and fellow Simmons attorney Bill Kohlburn, who also would be working on any potential lawsuits.

Powers referred community members to Shell’s website (http://roxanainvestigation.urs-stl.net/), where the company has posted results of testing, as well as fact sheets.

Stewart said his firm received a number of concerned telephone calls and decided to host a village meeting.

Powers said IEPA and city officials plan to hold a more formal informational meeting at some point, which Shell representatives will attend.

Residents expressed concern about being able to go in their basements, and Stewart said that residents are having difficulty selling their houses.

“It becomes an issue if you’ve got benzene in your house,” Stewart said. “You can’t sell your house unless you disclose it to the new buyer. Most people are going to say, ‘Eh.’”

Many wondered what the extent of any benzene damage actually is, with Stewart and Roxana City Attorney James Schrempf both stating they felt the current benzene monitoring, paid for by Shell, is not reliable.

Powers said the contractor conducting the testing, URS Corp., is one of America’s largest engineering consulting firms.

“They have a pretty good reputation with public agencies, governments and companies like ours,” Powers said. “Because of that experience and reputation, the IEPA and some of these other agencies like working with them.”

Kohlburn responded to a questioner who asked about benzene levels rising with rainfall.

“Unless you’re monitoring constantly, we’re not going to know for sure,” he said.

The monitoring does not cover all of Roxana. Stewart said the best information he had indicates the monitoring is taking place from First Street to Eighth Street to Illinois Route 111.

Powers said the IEPA determines where testing takes place, as well as the testing protocol itself.

One questioner said she contacted the IEPA in January to request that her house be tested for benzene, and the IEPA declined to test her house because it was outside the predetermined borders for monitoring.

“That’s for you to decide as a citizen,” Stewart said. “If you’re the one living on top of a plume of benzene, that’s for you to decide (to monitor).”

SOURCE ARTICLE

June 8, 2011

LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA.LN) has taken the final investment decision for the multi-billion dollar development of its deepwater Cardamom oil and gas field in the Gulf of Mexico, the Anglo-Dutch energy company said Wednesday.

“This is another sizable deep-water investment by Shell that strengthens energy supplies to the USA. It will also secure employment for more offshore workers,” said Shell Upstream Americas Director Marvin Odum. (Right)

(END) Dow Jones Newswires
06-08-111427ET
Copyright (c) 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Tuesday, 07 June 2011 08:22

Rabbitte dubs Bord Pleanála decision about Corrib ‘super-tunnel’ as ‘extraordinary’

Áine Ryan

Minister for Energy, Pat Rabbitte has dubbed as ‘extraordinary’ An Bord Pleanála’s decision that a section of the raw gas pipeline for the Corrib project should be laid in a sub-sea tunnel in the Sruwaddacon estuary.

In fact, a series of recent remarks made by the Labour minister, from Ballindine, has led community group, Pobal Chill Chomáin to seek an urgent meeting with him. In a letter, seen by The Mayo News, they claim he is misinformed about key issues relating to the project and protest.

In a recent interview with Eolas magazine about the future exploitation of offshore resources, Minister Rabbitte said: “Unfortunately we haven’t moved on from Corrib. My honest, personal reaction is that the imposition by the planning authorities of the requirement to build a super-tunnel under Sruwaddacon Bay is an extraordinary one.”

He remarked: “Is [the tunnel] necessary in terms of safety?…I suppose if the authorities say it is, I’m not going to second guess them, but it is an extraordinary undertaking.”

During April, the Energy Minister told the Dáil that only four commercial discoveries of oil had been made since the 1970s and that due to the huge costs incurred, exploration costs should be borne by the industries rather than the Irish taxpayer.

He was responding to a Sinn Féin Private Members’ motion that called for the establishment of a State exploration company.

The proposed company would hold a 51 per cent share in all oil and gas finds.

A 2006 study for the minister’s department estimated a total reserve potential of ten billion barrels of oil equivalent for offshore frontier basins west of Ireland – worth €750 billion at current prices of €75 a barrel.

Minister Rabbitte said last week the Corrib gas field must be brought to full production for strategic reasons, when he outlined his energy policy at an Energy Ireland conference in Dublin.

He also revealed that a record number of 15 applications had been made by exploration companies on the Atlantic margin.

Addressing the Corrib issue on RTE, he said: “Most people who were concerned about safety acknowledged that everything that is humanly possible has been done on the safety front, and the people who were concerned about safety deserved support.”
“Unfortunately, the protests have now passed on to people – you know – it’s no longer a case of Shell to Sea, it’s Shell out of Ireland, and that’s not in Ireland’s national interest, in our strategic interest at this time.”

He also said the recent increased price of gas was an argument for proceeding with the Corrib project as soon as possible.

Community group responds

RESPONDING to Minister Rabbitte’s comments, Vincent McGrath of community group, Pobal Chill Chomáin said his views could be perceived as prejudicial to two ongoing judicial reviews regarding permissions for the project. They are being taken by An Taisce and residents, Monica Muller and Peter Sweetman and are due to be heard in the Commercial Court on October 4 next.

Challenges to key consents signed by former Minister for Energy, Pat Carey, on the day of the General Election, may also be heard in tandem with the abovementioned hearings.

Mr McGrath also wrote: “You say that most people concerned about safety in the Corrib project acknowledged that everything possible had been done to improve safety. Our concerns about health and safety have not been allayed by the constant tweaking of a project, which is essentially the same as that rejected by An Bord Pleanála in 2003. The people who are most concerned about health and safety live in this community and have been forced to defend themselves and their environment when the State abandoned them.”

He goes on to quote the Labour Party Manifesto 2011. “Equality is not a luxury for the good times or a buzzword: it is at the heart of what it means to be a citizen in our Democracy.”

Requesting a meeting with members of Pobal Chill Chomáin, he also challenges the minister’s remarks that gas prices will fall when Corrib begins to flow.

SOURCE ARTICLE

• May 17, 2011: Protestors blockade Corrib Natural Gas building
• May 17, 2011: Human rights observer appointed to Corrib
• May 10, 2011: Erris teenagers praised at opening of Páirc Bheo
• Apr 26, 2011: FOOD Spring Fair at Inver
• Apr 19, 2011: Rape Tape – far from harmless banter
• Apr 19, 2011: Corrib contractor accused of ‘arrogance’ and ‘bullying’
• Apr 14, 2011: Shell to Sea denies ‘exploiting’ rape-tape controversy
• Apr 12, 2011: ‘Rape tape’ still not with Ombudsman
• Apr 12, 2011: Garda ‘rape tape’ unravels new Corrib twist
• Apr 07, 2011: ‘Rape-Tape’ woman to reveal identity

From pages 7, 8, 9 & 10 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.

Oil spills

Oil spills in the Niger Delta

Oil spills from oil installations (pipelines, flowlines, well-heads, flowstations, storage tanks etc.) occur at a regular basis in the Niger Delta, some ten times a week. According to the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA), oil companies reported 2,054 cases of oil spill incidents (spills of more than one barrel) between June 2006 and June 2010.

Human suffering

Amnesty International has concluded that the oil companies in the Niger Delta are linked to violations of several internationally recognized human rights as stipulated by the United Nations. These rights comprise the right to food, the right to work, the right to an adequate standard of living, and the right to health and a healthy environment. Audrey Gaughran, Amnesty International’s Head of Business and Human Rights, describes the impacts of oil spills on communities as follows: “People living in the Niger Delta have to drink, cook with and wash in polluted water. They eat fish contaminated with oil and other toxins – if they are lucky enough to be able to still find fish. The land they farm on is being destroyed. After oil spills the air they breathe smells of oil, gas and other pollutants. People complain of breathing problems and skin lesions – and yet neither the government nor the oil companies monitor the human impacts of oil pollution”.

Shell’s spill data

Shell experiences some 150 to 200 oil spills each year12, spread out over the Niger Delta and affecting several communities.

According to Shell, the volume of oil spilled from Shell-installations in the Niger Delta has been increasing over the years: − In the period 1989-1994 (six years), SPDC recorded a total of 37,000 barrels of oil spilled. Shell attributed 72% of this volume to ageing facilities and operational failures, and 28% to sabotage.

− Over the period 1999-2004 (six years), Shell’s spillage totalled around 169,000 barrels. Shell attributed 63% of this volume to sabotage/theft by third parties and 27% to its own operational failures.

− Over the period 2005-2010 (six years), the total spillage amounted to 299,000 barrels. Shell claims that 72% of the spillage was due to sabotage/theft by third parties.

Over the years, Shell has been using some other figures. For example, during 2009 the company stated that some 85% of the volumes of oil spilled was caused by sabotage/theft. Sometimes Shell related this percentage to 2008, sometimes it would not specify the time period. It was not until May 2010 that Shell in Nigeria revealed that its updated data for the year 2008 showed that 48% of the volume was caused by sabotage/theft.

Probably due to ongoing public pressure, in 2011 Shell has started to publicly register all the spills that have occurred in the Niger Delta, including photographs and the report by the Joint Investigation Team. The Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is the team that visits the site, after a leak occurs. The team comprises government agencies, SPDC and representatives of impacted communities. It determines the spread, the volume and the cause of the spill. During 2008 and 2009, SPDC spilled more than 100,000 barrels of oil.19 During 2010 (27,580 barrels) and 2011 so far (around 6,000 barrels as of 28 April), the volume has decreased. This can partly be explained by the amnesty given to militants in Bayelsa State and Delta State in late 2009. Since then, explosions of pipelines have decreased drastically.

Oil spill data Shell challenged

In January 2011, Amnesty International and Friends of the Earth International filed a complaint against Shell at the Dutch and UK National Contact Points dealing with the OECD Guidelines. They claim that Shell’s misleading and incomplete reporting about oil spills in the Niger Delta constitutes a breach of the OECD Guidelines, specifically Sections III (Disclosure) and VII (Consumer Interests) as well as Section V (Environment). The complainants state that the oil spill investigation system – on which Shell bases its data – is totally lacking in independence. Both organisations found that in many cases oil companies have significant influence on determining the official cause of a spill. The complainants also allege that Shell, in several communications, has used misleading figures (70%, 85%, 90% and 98%) to attribute pollution and contamination to sabotage. According to Amnesty International and Friends of the Earth International, the implications of Shell’s repeated claims are both serious and negative for the communities of the Niger Delta. Firstly, when spills are classified as the result of sabotage Shell has no liability or responsibility with respect to compensation for damage done to people or their livelihoods. Secondly, these figures have tended to be used by Shell to deflect attention away from legitimate criticism of its own environmental and human rights impact in the Niger Delta and as such to mislead key stakeholders – including consumers of Shell’s products and investors in the company.

The OECD Guidelines are meant for multinational enterprises that are based in OECD member countries, accession candidate countries and enhanced engagement countries, and/or with activities in these countries. The United Kingdom and the Netherlands are OECD member countries; Nigeria is not present in any of the country categories mentioned above.22 The OECD guidelines cover standards on labour rights, human rights, the environment, consumer protection, and corruption.23 National Contact Points (NCPs) handle the complaints from organizations and individuals concerning alleged violations of the guidelines. At the end of mediation between the bringer of a complaint and the defendant company, the NCP may publish a final statement with its conclusion on the alleged violation of the OECD Guidelines. It used to take a few years before NCPs would come to a final statement. Recently, however, NCPs have promised to speed up their process.

Pending court case in the Netherlands

In November 2008 and May 2009, four Nigerian citizens and Friends of the Earth Netherlands/Nigeria filed a civil lawsuit against Shell in a Dutch court. The plaintiffs in the “People of Nigeria versus Shell” lawsuit accuse Shell of negligence with regard to the prevention and proper clean-up of oil spills. The four Nigerians, farmers and fishers, reside from the villages of Goi, Oruma and Ikot Ada Udo in the Niger Delta. Oil from Shell-installations has leaked onto their fields and into their fish ponds. The plaintiffs want Shell to prevent any spills in the future and to clean up the remainder of the pollution. They want to fish and farm once again.

It is the first time that a Dutch company’s liability for pollution overseas is asserted in a Dutch court. The following Shell-companies were summoned: Royal Dutch Shell plc (head quartered in the Netherlands); Shell’s subsidiary in Nigeria; the predecessors of Royal Dutch Shell (Koninklijke Olie BV en Shell Transport and Trading). In May 2009, Shell stated that its subsidiary in Nigeria is a Nigerian company, and thus not required to appear before a Dutch court. There was a court session on this matter. In December 2009 and February 2010, the court dismissed Shell’s arguments that the Dutch court would not be authorised to rule on its Nigerian subsidiary. The plaintiffs had overcome the first hurdle in this groundbreaking case. Presently pending is the issue on Shell’s exhibition of evidence papers. Much information in relation to the oil spills that occurred near Goi, Oruma and Ikot Ada Udo resides within Shell. Already in May 2008, the lawyer representing the farmers and Friends of the Earth had asked Shell to disclose these evidence papers. Some papers were handed over by Shell, and many papers were not. Therefore, in March 2010 the lawyer asked the court to force disclosure of the evidence papers by Shell. Shell replied by saying that there are several formal reasons why it can’t or won’t hand over the evidence papers, and that it might appeal a decision by the court on this matter. On 19 May 2011, the court session will take place, with a decision expected in summer 2011. Most probably at the beginning of 2012 the court will finally be able to focus on the core issue: has Shell been negligent with regard to the oil spills?

Shell’s double standard

Asset integrity work is a term for improving the quality of the pipelines, well-heads, flowlines, flowstations and terminals to get the oil out of the ground and export it. In 2007, the managing director of SPDC, Basil Omiyi, was quite clear about the integrity of SPDC’s assets: “We do (…) have a substantial backlog of asset integrity work to reduce spills and flaring.” There have been a few attempts to get to know more about the (poor) status of Shell’s assets to reduce spills, and its plans for improvement.

In 2004, questioned by the NGO Christian Aid, a Shell Vice-President admitted that the overall picture of the age and condition of SPDC’s pipelines was incomplete. He promised improvements in transparency.27 These promises have not been met.

December 2007, Olav Ljosne, Shell’s former Regional Director Communications Africa, replied to an e-mail by U.S. professor Richard Steiner: “The Asset Integrity Reviews are internal Shell operating documents designed to provide information on the state of our assets and improvements that are necessary – and are regarded as strictly confidential and business sensitive.”

Late 2010, Professor Steiner concluded in a report that Shell Nigeria continues to operate well below internationally recognized standards to prevent and control pipeline oil spills. It has not employed the best available technology and practices that it uses elsewhere in the world – a double standard. The author stated that, while the injured environment in the Gulf of Mexico (due to the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in April-July 2010) stands to receive substantial funding and government attention, such environmental damage in the Niger Delta is left largely unattended. Clearly this constitutes another double standard, the author proceeds, and far greater attention needs to be paid to the chronic long-term damage from oil and gas operations in the Niger Delta.

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

THE COMPLETE 73 PAGE REPORT (with reference sources)

CANBERRA, Australia, June 7 (UPI) — Australia’s liquefied natural gas industry is on course for a “golden age,” with the sector posed to boost the country’s economy by $38.5 billion by 2020, the International Energy Agency said.

IEA’s “Are We Entering a Golden Age of Gas?” report unveiled Monday forecasts global use of gas to increase by more than 50 percent from 2010-35.

“We think Australia will play a crucial role in the golden age of gas. It could be a golden age for Australia’s LNG industry,” IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, the lead author of the report, told The Australian newspaper.

By around 2020, Birol said, Australian LNG production could increase threefold.

The latest figures indicate that Australia exported $7.71 billion worth of natural gas in 2009. In 2010, it was the fourth largest LNG exporter after Qatar, Indonesia and Malaysia.

The push to develop long-term supplies of LNG in Australia has sparked more than $214 billion worth of LNG projects.

IEA says Australia’s key customers would be Asian countries, with China leading the pack, followed by India.

In its high-gas scenario, IEA predicts China’s natural gas demand alone to rise from about the level of Germany’s in 2010 to that of the entire European Union in 2035.

“Australian gas would be directed to meet new energy demand and, especially in the coastal part of China, to replace the coal currently transported over long distances from the interior of China,” Birol said.

Projects such as Western Australia’s Gorgon represent the backbone of Australian LNG supply, IEA says. A joint venture between Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Shell in Australia, Gorgon has supply contracts from China and India totaling $64 billion in advance of production slated for 2014.

Chevron, Japan’s Inpex and Perth’s Woodside Petroleum are also close to signing multibillion-dollar LNG development deals in Australia.

Shell upstream international Executive Director Malcolm Brinded said government studies indicate there are 140 trillion cubic feet of stranded gas in Australian water yet to be developed, The Australian reports.

Over the next 10 years, Shell plans to spend $32 billion-$54 billion on Australian LNG projects, he said.

Last month, Shell announced final approval for Prelude, a colossal floating LNG plant to be built 124 miles off the northern coast of Western Australia. The first shipment of gas from the 1,601-foot-long Prelude is slated for 2017.

While Shell didn’t disclose figures, the project is costing an estimated $12.6 billion.

Commenting on Shell’s Prelude, Frank Harris, head of global LNG consulting at Wood Mackenzie told the Financial Times: “This is another final investment decision in Australia and adds to the debate as to whether the country will ultimately overtake Qatar as the world’s biggest producer of LNG.”

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

SOURCE ARTICLE