Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts from ‘October, 2011’

The Arctic and the Lessons of the Gulf

A version of this editorial appeared in print on October 21, 2011, on page A34 of the New York edition

The Interior Department has been inching closer to approving Royal Dutch Shell’s ambitious plans to drill for what are believed to be huge deposits of oil in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska. In August, it approved an exploratory drilling plan for the Beaufort Sea, and two weeks ago it upheld the validity of leases in the neighboring Chukchi Sea that had been challenged by environmental groups.

The Interior Department and Shell both insist that they have learned the lessons of the disastrous BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico. They must prove it. The Interior Department has written tough new regulations governing drilling, including requirements for subsea containment systems to plug a runaway well.

Before issuing final permits to drill, the government must insist that Shell test such a system and verify that it can operate in Arctic conditions. The company must also have on hand a rig capable of drilling a relief well, as well as the equipment — skimmers, booms and other equipment — to clean up any oil that escapes.

The stakes here are undeniably huge. Shell has already paid nearly $4 billion to acquire leases in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Estimates of the recoverable reserves range as high as 30 billion barrels of oil, the equivalent of more than four years’ worth of annual oil consumption in this country. The cost of a mistake would also be huge. Arctic waters provide nutrients for large fish populations, extensive habitat for wildlife and sustenance for native peoples.

The Arctic presents an extremely forbidding environment, with sea ice, howling winds and stormy conditions that will make drilling difficult and any cleanup far more complicated than it was in the warm and relatively benign waters of the gulf. Shell says it knows all this. It has agreed to drill only in warmer months and notes that these will be shallow wells, drilled at an average of 150 feet instead of 5,000 feet (the depth of the BP’s Macondo well), making a blowout easier to reach and contain.

Yet much remains to be done. The containment system, for instance, is in what Shell calls the “fabrication” stage. The Interior Department obviously has to insist that this and other equipment actually exists.

A 2008 report by the United States Geological Survey produced a mean estimate of 90 billion barrels for the waters north of the Arctic Circle. Some of these waters are international, some belong to other nations like Russia. As global warming opens up sea lanes, the opportunities for drilling, shipping and commerce will grow. So, too, will the risks of grave environmental damage. Unless the United States makes smart decisions about drilling in American waters others are unlikely to do any better.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Dutch officials wade into Niger Delta crisis

Tuesday, 18 October 2011 00:00 From Kelvin Ebiri, Rotterdam

TOP officials of the Dutch government at the weekend kept on the front burner efforts to bring lasting stability to the Niger Delta.

The position of the government was articulated by Dutch parliamentarians and a representative of the country’s Foreign Affairs Ministry in charge of the Horn of Africa, East and West Africa.

A Dutch parliamentarian, Sharon Gesthuizen, specifically tasked Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) to clean up oil spill in all contaminated sites in the Niger Delta. Shell admitted that oil spill in the Niger Delta was wrong and it would do its best to remediate areas affected.

Gesthuizen who led a Dutch parliamentarian delegation to Nigeria in February, made the call during a conference organised by the Niger Delta Campaign (HNDC) with the theme, “Success and challenges of the Nigerian government amnesty programme: The role of international community” held in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The lawmaker said her Socialist Party would press for environmental and human right laws that would force Dutch multinational companies like Shell to adhere to strict international standard wherever they operate.

She observed that the Netherlands government had over the years not paid adequate attention to the situation in Nigeria, particularly in the Niger Delta where she said people were living in abject poverty in the midst of abundant natural resources.

She recalled that during her last visit to Nigeria she witnessed gas flaring, environmental pollution, oil theft, uneducated children and was detained by men of the Joint Task Force (JTF).

Gesthuizen accused the oil companies and Nigerian government officials of culpability for crisis in the Niger Delta and charged Shell as a Dutch company to clean up the environment and listen to the sincere yearnings of the people for development.

Shell’s Strategy Relations Manager, Barnaby Briggs, said the company recognised the tragedy of oil in Nigeria and that it had made mistakes in the past.

Briggs said Shell was striving hard to clean up polluted oil spill sites, but noted that it had been extremely difficult working in the Niger Delta.

He pledged Shell’s support for the amnesty programme, which has led to increase in oil production, which once plummeted to 700,000 barrels per day. Nigeria currently produces about 2.4 million per day.

HNDC President, Sunny Ofehe, explained that the conference was organised because of the importance of sustenance of peace in the Niger Delta due to its strategic role in the global energy supply.

The representative of the Dutch Foreign Affairs Ministry in charge of Horn of Africa, East and West Africa, Michiel Bierkens, said his country in collaboration with other European Union countries would hold a roundtable dialogue with the Nigerian government officials on the way forward for the amnesty programme.

The former President of the Ijaw Youth Council, Chris Ekiyor, appealed to the Dutch government to assist the amnesty committee locate certified vocational institutes where ex-militants could be trained.

He also called for the lifting of the travel advice on Nigeria and granting of visa to ex-militants that the government planned to train in Europe.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Will Malcolm Brinded be attending the funeral of his friend Gaddafi?

COMMENTS FROM A ROYAL DUTCH SHELL RETIREE ON CURRENT NEWS STORIES

Interested in the report on this leak they are trying to stop in Athabasca…

Oilsands leak turned mine to pond

Few people probably realise this is a nightmare and very likely unstoppable until the whole aquifer runs out of energy. Compare it with a blow-out.  I think it is a major mishap but have no other info then what I read in the article.

And the oilwells in Sakhalin going to sand is a disaster of great magnitude.

6 Oil Wells On Sakhalin Go Offline

With winter starting they presumably cannot re-enter the wells and try to fix it. It also shows the original design was flawed. I bet that even those atheist Russians (and the secular Shell folk as well)  are praying the same will not happen on the gaswells because then they really are f*cked!

Finally, will Malcolm Brinded be attending the funeral of his friend Gaddafi, or is Shell’s focus solely on its slick switch of allegiance to the new government?

Shell execs in Tripoli discuss Libya return


Looking to strike it rich for oil in offshore Ireland

After the Government granted 12 firms permission to look for oil and gas around Ireland this week, Peter Flanagan and Donal O’Donovan ask if the next big oil field is really on our doorstep

Thursday October 20 2011

IRELAND has watched for years as neighbours in the UK and Norway reaped the benefits of staggering oil strikes in the North Sea.

This week, efforts to emulate that success here stepped up a gear when the Government granted licences to 12 companies from four countries to search for hydrocarbons off the west coast.

Five of the winning companies — Ireland‘s Providence Resources and San Leon Energy, and the UK’s Chrysaor, Serica Energy and Sosina Exploration — already have a presence in Ireland; while the other seven licence winners — Canadian firm Antrim Energy, Bluestack Energy and Petrel Resources from Ireland, the UK’s Europa Oil & Gas, Two Seas Oil & Gas and First Oil Expro, as well as Spanish firm Repsol Exploration — are new to Irish waters, although another arm of Repsol recently announced it was entering into another licence off Ireland with Providence.

In all, 13 new licences were granted as companies search far and wide for new reserves.

Oil prices

High oil prices look to be here to stay as the fear that we may be reaching “peak oil” seems to get worse every year.

Russia has already staked its claim to the Arctic’s natural resources, while the mantra of “drill baby, drill” — usually in the Alaskan wilderness, a protected nature reserve — has been taken up by right-wing politicians in the United States as a solution to the country’s dependence on “foreign oil”.

Given this sort of geopolitical climate, it is no surprise there was a record number of applications for licences to explore off Ireland this year.

If the exploration works, and it is commercially viable to produce oil off Ireland, the rewards could be enormous. But how viable is Ireland as a centre for oil production, and how will the country benefit if private companies are going to take most of the profits?

The history of exploration around Ireland is a chequered one, to say the least. In nearly half a century, almost 200 wells have been drilled around Ireland but only one field — Kinsale — has been a commercial success while Corrib’s problems have been well documented.

In truth, a variety of factors have played against sustained development around the island. Most of the areas of interest for explorers — and the focus of the licences issued this week — are about 200km off the west coast in what is known as the “Atlantic Margin”.

Phillips Petroleum struck oil there as long ago as 1978 but the low oil price for most of the ’80s and ’90s, as well as logistical difficulties — the nearest hub for exploration is Aberdeen — have counted against developing the area. Many of those negative factors have now been overcome, however.

Energy Minister Pat Rabbitte said there could be up to 50 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) around Ireland, but while one report estimated there were 10 billion BOEPD “yet to be found”, we really have no idea how much oil there is and, until exploring is done, we won’t know.

Most of the Atlantic Margin play involves drilling in deep water — up to 2,000 metres — in the middle of the Atlantic. These are not hospitable conditions at the best of times and present unique, and costly, challenges to drilling.

Market sources estimate the cost of exploring a single licence could run to $175m (€126m), with no guarantee oil will be found. When oil was between $7 and $10 in the early ’80s, it was simply not worthwhile to pursue it.

Viable drilling

With an oil price of close to $100 now the norm, however, drilling has become economically viable. As well as that, North Sea oil appears to have peaked and instability in the Middle East makes a country with a stable political environment like Ireland more attractive for prospecting.

“[The record number of applications for licences this year] probably reflects in part the flexible nature of the options but also the worldwide trawl that is under way by the industry for new oil and gas basins that can be developed,” says Davy Stockbrokers‘ Job Langbroek.

The other big change has come in technology. Advances in surveying equipment allow prospectors to estimate underwater reserves with much greater accuracy than before, and at lower cost.

These changes have attracted the likes of Providence Resources, which is the biggest player in the offshore Ireland space. As well as out and out prospecting, the company is going back over old discoveries and prospects, with new technology and modern geological techniques.

Apart from the economic and technology developments, the confidence in Ireland as an oil producer also comes from good results elsewhere in the Atlantic.

In the south, Tullow Oil has struck black gold with the massive Jubilee Oil Field off the west coast of Africa, and only last month the Irish-led company announced it had discovered oil off the coast of French Guiana on the east coast of South America.

That discovery helped re-inforce the “Atlantic Mirror” theory, which suggests large reserves of hydrocarbons are available on both sides of the Atlantic.

Reserves

In the North Atlantic, the Labrador Coast off Canada has huge proven oil fields. Therefore, the Mirror theory suggests, there should be large reserves on the eastern side of the ocean — right where Ireland is.

Another attraction of the Atlantic Margin is the quality of oil available. The international standard is Brent Crude.

When reporters say oil rose to, say, $105 a barrel yesterday, they are referring to the price of pure Brent. If a field produces oil with a lot of impurities, such as waxiness or high sulphur content, then the producer will get less for it.

Atlantic Margin oil, in particular that from the massive Porcupine basin — an area about three times the size of Ireland — is believed to be very close to Brent, with an especially low sulphur content making it very attractive to prospectors.

If that is the case, however, why weren’t the “supermajors”, as the biggest oil companies in the world are known, involved in this year’s round of Atlantic licences?

The lack of applications from an Exxon or a Chevron-Texaco has been taken in some quarters as evidence of a lack of credibility in Ireland as a drilling site, but the well documented problems at Corrib may well have made high-profile companies think twice before moving into Ireland, says Mr Langbroek.

In any case, Repsol is a top-tier firm with interests around the world. Exxon, while not involved in this round, bought into Providence’s Dunquin Prospect off the Kerry coast in 2006 and drilling will take place there by 2013 at the latest. Mr Langbroek believed the licensing round was “a solid success and compares very well with previous rounds”.

“It is quite usual in the industry for smaller companies to act as pathfinders and idea generators for the larger companies. If these companies can generate targets, the larger companies will ultimately follow,” he added.

If explorers do start producing large quantities of oil here over the next few years, how would Ireland benefit?

There have been calls from Socialist TD Joe Higgins and others for the Government to create a national exploration company so we can keep the profits from natural resources ourselves, but could the Government afford to put up to $175m (€126m) into a hole in the ground? Mr Rabbitte is adamant it can’t.

“We don’t have the investment capacity to do it ourselves but the tax-take is very significant,” he said when he made this week’s announcement.

Ireland’s tax regime for oil exploration is far more favourable to companies, compared with our closest neighbours. The lower tax has been controversial over the years but the Government insists it reflects the realities for the industry here.

Tax rates

If firms do succeed in getting oil ashore, they will pay a standard 25pc tax, with a maximum 40pc tax rate on the most profitable wells, a rate set in 2007. The rules are being reviewed by an all-party Oireachtas Committee.

In any case, it will be some time before companies, and Ireland, start to reap the benefits from the licences granted on Monday. Tullow struck oil off Africa in 2007 in conditions similar to here. From that point, it took four years before the field was producing oil commercially.

Monday’s announcement was the latest significant move in a calculated gamble that has been decades in the making. The next moves will happen far from the eyes of the public, in the boardrooms of The City and Wall Street as the winners raise capital to finance exploration, and in the murky and bitterly cold waters of the North Atlantic.

It will be some time before Ireland can report a staggering oil strike to match its near neighbours.

FULL ARTICLE

Allegations against ‘Ogoni Leader’ Ledum Mitee

Allegations against “Ogoni Leader” Ledum Mitee

Dear Mr. Ledum Mitee,

When would you stop deceiving yourself, the less informed in Ogoni and the world concerning the Ogoni struggle?

Ordinarily, it would not be a problem to make comments such as those credited to you in respect of the Kiobel, et al v. Shell, in the current VOA article: “Ogoni Leader Welcomes U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Shell Case

You were informed of the Wiwa, et al v., and Kiobel v. Shell case (the former, in which I am involved), but you lied to and dogged the lawyers when they traveled to Nigeria/Lagos for deposition. Lawyers are wondering what kind of leader you are, that claimed to have been a principal witness tortured by the Nigerian govt. and Shell, yet refused to join in these suits.

You also may not have contributed to the Bodo case in London, but were the first to comment as though you meant well.

You keep making claims shamelessly as if you’re an active leader doing his best. Are you not a lawyer; when would you lead Ogoni to court against $hell; or a mere dream on my end that you one day may? Yes, it is!

Please, stop the lies or deceit; the world know you’re lying and didn’t play any role in these cases yet you claimed you’d first hand experience regarding torture in jail. Stop now!

Sincerely,

Ben Ikari.

3148272874.

COMMENT BY JOHN DONOVAN: MR LEDUM MITEE IS WELCOME TO SUPPLY A RESPONSE FOR PUBLICATION HERE.

What does Shell case mean for Chevron?

Published: Oct. 19, 2011 at 8:36 AM

NEW YORK, Oct. 19 (UPI) — Officials were divided on how a U.S. Supreme Court decision to hear a case against Shell filed by Nigerians reflects on Chevron’s legal issues in Ecuador.

The Supreme Court announced Monday it would hear a case filed by 12 Nigerians who claim Royal Dutch Shell is responsible for human rights violations in the Niger Delta in the 1990s.

Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer, told the Platts news service that ruling could have ramifications for a legal case against Chevron’s activity in Ecuador.

Plaintiffs in Ecuador blame Texaco, which later merged into Chevron, for environmental contamination and adverse health effects tied to operations in the country’s rainforests from 1972-90. Chevron points to a 1998 agreement between Texaco and Ecuador that absolves of it liability in the case.

Gheit said Chevron might have to rethink its position in light of the Supreme Court decision.

“If you open the case for Shell, you have to open it for Ecuador,” he was quoted as saying.

But Chevron spokesman Kent Robertson told the news service the legal connection wasn’t so clear cut.

“Chevron is being sued under Ecuadorian law, not U.S. law,” he said. “I’m not sure I see how a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of which way it goes, would have any influence over Ecuador’s courts.”

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

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell ads banned over fuel claims

19 October 2011

Shell has been criticised for exaggerating a promotion for cost-cutting fuels.

The company has been banned from using two of its adverts which promote a money-saving fuel because they have been ruled to be misleading.

A direct mailing advert, sent in March, said Shell scientists had developed a regular fuel to help consumers save money.

It said: “Their latest fuels – Shell FuelSave Unleaded and Diesel – are designed to help you save fuel and money. These advanced fuels each have a special formula enriched with Shell Efficiency Improver combined with a special detergent package – designed to improve your fuel economy from the very first fill.”

The advert featured a man dressed up in a laboratory coat holding a full one-litre measuring glass with the promise that customers could save up to one litre per tank at no extra cost.

The second advert, broadcast on the radio in April, told consumers that Shell could help them save fuel and money.

Three complainants challenged these claims because they believed that the adverts exaggerated the benefits available.

Shell argued that its tests showed that both the unleaded and diesel fuels achieved a 2% saving more than 10% of the time.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld the claims and said the adverts must not appear or be broadcast again in their current form.

Its judgment said: “The ASA noted that the ads stated that fuel savings ‘may vary according to vehicle’, but we considered that the claim in the ads that consumers could save up to one litre per tank at no extra cost implied that the saving would be applicable to all or most vehicles.”

SOURCE

RELATED ARTICLES:

Shell FuelSave wakens memories of Formula Shell debacle

Shell Greenwash Section (and misleading advertising)

Environmental Leader: Shell Catches Flak Over Green Ad, Releases Sustainability Report: 8 May 2007

New York Times: Shell and ‘Flower Power’: 31 May 2007

The Independent: Inside Story: Advertising environmentalism – Is it just greenwash?: 31 March 2008 (GREENWASH)

HEADLINE ON SHELL ADVERT POSTER: DON’T THROW ANYTHING AWAY THERE IS NO WAY

They say: Shell’s “Don’t throw anything away – there is no away” campaign features an ad with a cartoon oil refinery emitting flowers, accompanied by the claim that Shell uses its waste CO2 to grow flowers, and waste sulphur to make concrete.

Behind the greenwash: It turned out that Shell only recycled 0.325 per cent of its CO2 emissions in this way, and barely more of its waste sulphur. In November, the ASA welcomed Shell’s assurance that the ad would no longer be used. Shell is less keen to tell us all about its project to extract oil from the Canadian tar – just about the most climate-wrecking form of fossil fuel extraction one could imagine.

Telegraph.co.uk: Record complaints over ‘greenwashing‘: 25 April 2008

EXTRACTS

Lord Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the ASA, said it was one of the fastest-growing areas of complaint and now formed a significant part of the watchdog’s role.

We have come across quite a number where claims are exaggerated or misleading or, in some cases, severely exaggerated.”

A number of the complaints against national and international advertisers were upheld, including Ryanair and Toyota, with Shell identified as one of the worst offenders.

It placed a series of newspaper adverts featuring an oil refinery with flowers emerging from the chimneys and the claim “we use our waste CO2 to grow flowers”.

However, Friends of the Earth complained that it implied most or all emissions were used, whereas the true figure was just 0.325 per cent of its CO2 output. The ASA upheld the complaint.

“This is an extreme example but what they were doing was taking their bit of good environmental practice and making a big claim about themselves and their products,” said Lord Smith, the former culture secretary.

Where a complaint is upheld the ASA can force the offender to change an advert or withdraw it altogether, which could result in a company losing a multimillion pound advertising campaign while gaining a mountain of bad publicity.

“Any misleading in advertising is bad for the consumer and not particularly helpful for the company because they will be found out,” said Lord Smith.

“I suspect Shell are somewhat embarrassed by their ‘we grow flowers’ claim because it’s such a ridiculous claim.”

Environmental Leader: Advertising Watchdog Sees Big Jump In Green Ad Complaints: 5 May 2008

Daily Telegraph: Shell adverts ‘misled’ consumers over environmental claims: 12 August 2008

Calgary Herald: WWF targets oilsands after court rules Shell ad is misleading: 13 August 2008

Campaign Magazine (BRAND REPUBLIC): Shell ad banned over ‘greenwashing’ claims: 13 August 2008

Financial Times: Complaint upheld over Shell advert: 13 August 2008

The ASA will announce today that it has upheld a complaint against Shell by WWF, the environmental charity, about the oil company’s claims that oil sands in Canada were a “sustainable” energy source.

Shell’s Canadian oil sands projects have proven controversial because they require much more energy and water than in traditional extraction and refining.

The ASA ruling says: “Because ‘sustainable’ was an ambiguous term, and because we had not seen data that showed how Shell was effectively managing carbon emissions from its oil sands projects in order to limit climate change, we concluded that on this point the ad was misleading.”

Under the ruling Shell cannot reproduce the advertisement, which appeared just once, in the Financial Times in February this year.

Shell said in a statement: “We accept the adjudication of the ASA.” It declined to comment on how many of

its advertisements contain claims about its environmental credentials, nor whether it would moderate the use of such terms in future marketing campaigns.

The Guardian: Shell rapped by ASA for ‘greenwash’ advert: 13 August 2008

Oil company’s claim that its work in Alberta’s tar sands was ‘sustainable’ is branded ‘misleading’ by Advertising Standards Authority.

The Guardian: WWF advert attacks Shell’s claims: 13 August 2008

The Independent: Shell rebuked for ‘greenwash’ over ad for polluting oil project: 13 August 2008

Environmental Leader: ASA: Shell Environmental Claims Violate Advertising Rules: 14 August 2008

The Independent: Time for multi-dimensional communication with oil companies: 15August 2008

For the second time in the last couple of years the Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell has found itself at the heart of the debate about greenwash in advertising.

In 2007 Shell ads suggested rather bizarrely that it had been using its waste CO2 emissions to grow flowers: the ad was condemned by the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). One year later another Shell ad has been banned. This time for suggesting that the company’s Canadian oil sand extraction operation was sustainable. Shell does not appear to have learnt its lesson.

Financial Post (Canada): Sustaina-bull: 16 August 2008

This week, petroleum giant Royal Dutch Shell had its knuckles rapped by the U. K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) over claims that its Canadian oil sands operations were “sustainable.” There is a certain rich irony in Shell being hoist by its own environmental petard. The company’s former CEO, Sir Philip Watts, once claimed that Shell’s commitment to sustainable development and corporate social responsibility were what elevated it above its rivals. That was before he was thrown out of the company for cooking the books.

For years, Shell has been kowtowing to the environmental movement, and has featured a rogues’ gallery of board members and executives who ranged between green radicalism and abject appeasement. Typically, as it groveled to defend itself in the ASA case, it quoted a report by the World Wildlife Fund, the very organization that had challenged its ad in the first place. One can’t help conjuring up the image of a dog licking the hand of its vivisectionist.

Blogger News Network: The origins of Shell’s “Greenwash” were back in 1997: 16 August 2008

The Guardian: Climate controls: The chairman of the ASA on the problems of greenwash…: 18 August 2008

EnvironmentalLeader: Shell Criticized for Manipulating Environmental Audit Report: 2 September 2008

Calgard Herald: Shell to pull ‘greenwash’ ad on Canadian oilsands projects: 24 September 2008

The ASA upheld a high-profile complaint against Royal Dutch Shell for an ad that ran, just once, in the Financial Times in February, claiming that oil sands in Canada’s wilderness were a “sustainable” energy source.

The Guardian: The great green swindle: 23 October 2008

The Guardian: It will take more than goodwill and greenwash to save the biosphere: 6 January 2009

AlterNet: Monbiot Grills Shell Oil CEO: Is There Any Investment You Would Not Make on Ethical Grounds?: 8 January 2009

The Wall Street Journal: Shell’s Green Ads Take New Tack: 2 February 2009

The Times: Advertising regulators get tough over “greenwash”: 3 February 2009

Environmental Leader: Shell Accused of Greenwashing, Again: 4 February 2009

Convenience Store News: Green Shell Ads Stress Innovations to Increase Oil Supply: 4 February 2009

Financial Times: Emissions disclosure study puts Shell bottom of the big oil class: 16 March 2009

The Guardian: Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels: 17 March 2009

Reuters: Shell goes cold on wind, solar, hydrogen energy: 17 March 2009

The Guardian: Shell’s subtle switch from renewables to the murky world of ‘alternative’ energy: 18 March 2009

The Times: Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment: 18 March 2009

The Guardian: Shoppers need clear labels to put a stop to ‘greenwash’: 23 March 2009

Financial Times: Clampdown on greenwash: 25 March 2009

The Guardian: Greenwash: Shell betrays ‘new energy future’ promises: 26 March 2009

Case against Shell dismissed: stuff.co.nz 6 September 2010

Shell shock: Energy giant censured for ‘fracking’ ads:6 July 2011 Mail & Guardian

Shell ‘disappointed’ by ruling on fracking ads: 7 July 2011
Extract

Extract

There was no evidence anyone was actually misled when Shell claimed its petrol was “designed to take you further” despite only increasing efficiency by less than 1 percent, the judge who dismissed the case against the oil company said.

Extracts

Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell was ordered on Wednesday to withdraw claims about controversial shale gas drilling in an advertisement carried in several South African newspapers.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the company had made claims that were unsubstantiated and likely to mislead, in a complaint brought by a lobby group that is fighting a bid by Shell to explore for gas deposits.

Advertising Standards Authority orders the multinational to withdraw “unsubstantiated” and “misleading” claims it made in a series of full-page print advertisements

Shell Chairman: Floating LNG Is A Game Changer For Offshore Gas

By James Herron

Published October 18, 2011| Dow Jones Newswires

PARIS -(Dow Jones)- Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s (RDSA, RDSB, RDSA.LN, RDSB.LN) new technology to produce liquefied natural gas aboard floating vessels will prove to be a game changer for the offshore gas industry, said the company’s Chairman, Jorma Ollila Tuesday.

“This game-changing technology will substantially reduce the cost and environmental footprint of developing offshore gas fields,” Ollila said at the International Energy Agency’s Ministerial Meeting in Paris.

“There is no need for long pipelines, for platforms to pump the gas to shore, for dredging, jetty construction or onshore development,” all of which add costs to gas projects, he said.

Shell plans to use the first floating LNG plant to develop the Prelude gas fields 200 kilometres off the coast of Australia. This project demonstrates that floating LNG opens up potential oil and gas reserves formerly regarded as too expensive to produce, said Martin Ferguson, Australia’s Minister for Resources and Energy.

Floating LNG will become an important contributor to Australia’s economic well being, Ferguson said.

Copyright © 2011 Dow Jones Newswires

SOURCE ARTICLE

Ogoni Leader Welcomes U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Shell Case

Movement for Survival of Ogoni People president Ledum Mitee says the court’s decision sends a message that Shell must be held to account

James Butty

The president of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People [MOSOP] said his group welcomes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear a dispute between the Ogoni people and Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company.

The high court justices agreed Monday to hear a federal appeal by a group of Nigerians who alleged that shell was complicit in torture, wrongful deaths and other human rights abuses committed by Nigerian authorities against environmental campaigners during the 1990s.

MOSOP President Ledum Mitee said the decision sends the right message that Shell must be held to account.

“It is quite a refreshing news coming at this time, and I think it sends the right message that clearly, even though there have been delays in getting there, but at least we can see light at the end of the tunnel that someday Shell will be held to account,” he said.

Mitee said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision also comes at an opportune time, especially as the Ogoni people prepare to commemorate the anniversary of the death of writer and human rights activist, Ken Saro-Wiwa, has been executed in Nigeria despite worldwide pleas for clemency.

Nigeria’s military rulers in 1995 ordered the execution of Saro-Wiwa and eight other dissidents after being found guilty of involvement in four murders.

Saro-Wiwa said at his trial that the case was designed to prevent members of his tribe, the Ogoni, from stopping pollution of their homeland and getting a fair share of oil profits.

“In the next three weeks or so we will be talking about the anniversary of the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other Ogoni martyrs, and one of the things he [Saro-Wiwa] said was that the day of Shell will come where they will be held to account. And so coming at this time is quite a refreshing and encouraging news for us,” he said.

Mitee said the Ogoni people’s only wish is for Royal Dutch Shell to be made to pay whatever damages are due the Ogoni people for the degradation of their environment.

He expressed regrets that successive Nigerian governments have failed to listen to the non-violent voices of the Ogoni people.

“Recently the United Nations environmental program released a report in which government asked to commit themselves to do certain things to at least clean up the Ogoni environment. But as I speak nothing has been heard from the government,” he said.

Shell has denied all allegations, including that it enlisted the help of the Nigerian armed forces to suppress resistance to oil exploration in Ogoni land.

Mitee said Shell’s continued denial can only prolong the Ogoni people’s agony.

SOURCE ARTICLE

SCOTUS to decide if corps. liable for torturing aliens, citizens

THOMSON REUTERS

Alison Frankel

10/17/2011

Almost as soon as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded last year in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum that corporations are not liable in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort Statute for abetting overseas atrocities, the ruling looked like U.S. Supreme Court bait. As I’ve reported, the D.C. Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Seventh Circuit have all come to the opposite conclusion about corporate liability under the ATS. The only question was which ATS case the high court would choose as the vehicle for deciding whether corporations can be sued for helping foreign governments violate international human-rights law.

We got the answer Monday: The Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari by the Nigerian plaintiffs in Kiobel, who accused Shell of working with the Nigerian government in a deadly military crackdown on protests against oil exploration. That’s great news for Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman & Harrison, who has been the lead appellate counsel for Alien Tort plaintiffs in cases across the federal circuits. “I’m pretty happy about it,” Hoffman told me Monday. On the losing side of the Supreme Court’s cert grant is Rowan Wilson of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, who had asked the Justices to let stand the Second Circuit’s exoneration of Shell. Wilson declined my request for comment.

But there’s more to Monday’s grant than meets the eye. The Court said it would hear Kiobel in connection with a case called Mohamad v. Rajoub, which involves the Torture Victims Prevention Act. Although both the cases pose the question of whether defendants other than individuals (Shell in the Kiobel case; the Palestinian Authority in the Mohamad case) are responsible in U.S. courts for overseas atrocities, there are also some significant differences. The ATS, which dates all the way back to 1789, has a murky legislative history and was almost never invoked until the 1980s, when it became fashionable to use it to claim violations of international law. The TVPA, on the other hand, was passed in 1991 to protect U.S. citizens in an age of global terrorism.

The two laws are often invoked together in cases involving claims of atrocities against both U.S. and foreign victims. And unlike most courts ruling on corporate liability under the ATS, according to Hoffman, judges have, in the main, found corporations are not liable under the TVPA. But Hoffman, who told me he was involved in drafting the Torture Victims law, said that Congress explicitly left intact the scope of the Alien Tort Statute in drafting the newer law. Robert Tolchin of the Berkman Law Office, who represents the victim in the Torture Victim case the Court has accepted, said the TVPA was supposed to extend to U.S. citizens the rights non-U.S. citizens have under the Alien Tort Statute, so it never made sense to absolve corporations (or in his case the Palestinian Authority) from liability under either law.

Hoffman is nevertheless expecting Shell to argue that the same strictures courts have found to apply to corporate liability under the Torture Victims law should also apply to the ATS. Hoffman said he’s ready for that argument: “The D.C. Circuit rejected it. Almost everywhere it’s been considered, it’s been rejected.” For his part, Tolchin told me he’ll argue that Congress never intended to limit the TVPA to individual defendants.

Hoffman said the Supreme Court made a wise decision to take both cases at the same time, to clarify the corporate scope of both laws once and for all. “I feel pretty strongly that Kiobel is just completely off base,” he said. “But the good thing is that we’ll know by June whether Kiobel is an outlier or whether there’s something there [for defendants].”

I left a message with Laura Ferguson of Miller & Chevalier, who represents the defendants in the Mohamad case, but didn’t hear back.

(Reporting by Alison Frankel)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal

(Adds comment by Robert Tolchin)

SOURCE ARTICLE