Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Food for thought, especially for Shell shareholders

Shell Prelude floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility – food for thought, especially for Shell shareholders…

LondonLad: You complain about me drawing attention to what will be an obvious, but until now, unspoken prime (almost sitting) target for a terrorist attack, but then add to the highlighting of this hugely expensive, gigantic floating LNG facility – a ready-made gigantic bomb, by posting your own inflammatory comment. This in turn has drawn further attention to a sensitive subject and generated yet more comment and more attention. Guess this is going to be another situation like the Arctic, where Shell will have to self-insure because it will be impossible to obtain contingency risk insurance? In conclusion, you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of doing – drawing attention to a highly vulnerable potential target for terrorist attack. (Surprised you have not mentioned the retirement of Fergie?)

Screen Shot 2013-05-09 at 09.25.27

John,
 
Thought your Shell readers might find this article interesting given the decision by Royal Dutch Shell to move ahead and develop massive floating offshore gas processing facilities.
 
US investors fear terror attack on $300B Aussie oil rigs | The Australian

May 29, 2012 – US INVESTORS fear $300 billion worth of oil and gas rigs in Australia are vulnerable to a terrorist attack – and the Australian military has …
 
It would seem to me that a couple of guys in fast Zodiac boats loaded with a half dozen or so RPG’s apiece could do major, if not catastrophic, damage to RD Shell’s planned giant floating gas processing facilities.
 
I doubt Shell will design those facilities with ‘damage control’ in mind.
 
So, is Shell going to develop its own private armed ‘coast guard/navy’ to deal with the very real threat of terrorists targeting their facilities? And if so, what will be their ‘rules of engagement’?
 
Will any institution underwrite insurance for these behemoth targets?
 
Food for thought, especially for Shell shareholders.

Related posting on Shell Blog by LondonLad 2013/05/08 

Don’t know who the idiot trouble-stirrer is who you have given highlight to viz his/her story about terrorists with zodiac boats blowing up offshore activities, but, I think he/she needs to get realistic. No, I doubt very much that RDS design for such terrorist activities – they will however plan with local authorities to help protect their installations (AS OTHER COMPANIES DO). Structural design and security for terrorists are completely different. The same action was taken by SNEPCO for their Bonga platform and so far (apart from one incident) it has worked. If companies designed for terrorist activities then the $/bbl price would be almost unaffordable, even for the subsidized Yanks. As a shareholder I am completely happy with RDS present approach. I think the unnamed contributor needs to understand the offshore business.

Comment received “From an old EP hand”

My dear Lad,

No need to re-iterate you as a shareholder are completely happy with Shell’s approach. We know. I do know the offshore business somewhat and let me tell you that a huge LNG plant is somewhat different from a huge oil plant.

I for one would not like very much to work on a floating LNG plant, even in the absence of terrorism. And we all know there are a great many idiots in the world who have some score to settle. It is that much easier to cause havoc on a gasplant than on an oil plant. So the article about scared US investors is not all that silly.

Posting on Shell Blog by “Relieved” – the author of the article

LondonLad: My, but you have a nasty attitude towards bearers of unpleasant news. Were you one of those ‘shoot the messenger’ types when you worked for RDS ?? If investors are worried then the issue is something RD Shell management needs to address, not ignored. Investors aren’t experts in the offshore oil business and if they aren’t convinced those facilities are secure investments they won’t back them. So, RD Shell needs to do some convincing and educating. But just between you, me and the fencepost, those big 500,000 tonne proposed ships are going to be inviting targets. Perhaps too inviting. Don’t want to get surprised, do we ?? And we most certainly don’t want to have any industrial accidents either. Remember RDS has the worst industrial safety record of all the majors. I think RDS investors have a right to question policy and ask questions. It is their money, after all, not yours that is at risk.

Screen Shot 2013-05-08 at 22.44.17One final comment – Do you remember what a couple of thugs in zodiacs filled with several hundred kilo’s of high explosives did to the USS Cole about 10 years ago ?? As I recall, it cost the USN about $500 million to repair that ship, and they were lucky it didn’t sink. Think about it, buddy. Convince Shell’s investors they have nothing to be concerned about.

Posting by Maura on Shell Blog May 9th, 2013 at 00:56

LondonLad – to include ‘The same action was taken by SNEPCO fro their Bonga platform and so far (apart from one incident) it has worked’ in a comment can only be described as either pathetic or hilarious! Ever hear the maxim that some only have to get ‘lucky’ once …

Posting by John Donovan

LondonLad: You complain about me drawing attention to what will be an obvious, but until now, unspoken prime (almost sitting) target for a terrorist attack, but then add to the highlighting of this hugely expensive, gigantic floating LNG facility – a ready-made gigantic bomb, by posting your own inflammatory comment. This in turn has drawn further attention to a sensitive subject and generated yet more comment and more attention. Guess this is going to be another situation like the Arctic, where Shell will have to self-insure because it will be impossible to obtain contingency risk insurance? In conclusion, you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of doing – drawing attention to a highly vulnerable potential target for terrorist attack. (Surprised you have not mentioned the retirement of Fergie?)

Response posted by LondonLad

To the Donovans and “Maura” I think you miss the point. No oil company can fully protect any offshore facility for 100% security and safety. This tabloid story merely highlights what I have said about this website on many occasions – yes, many facts quoted BUT far too much fiction for my liking (perhaps not for the anti-Shell brigade though). And, if Shell did have the SAS to protect a facility? Then guess what this website would no doubt blame Shell for an overkill etc. etc. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The Bonga comparison is fact Maura not fiction as you attempt to make out. As for your comments “Relieved” they merely highlight your attempt to blame Shell for everything they do. As stated and asked many times to you : (1) were you given early retirement from Shell ? hence your “problem” with the company; (2) did you complain upwards within Shell with all these negative comments / concerns which you state Shell had when you were working for them? The old “Twaddle Master” seems to have reinvented himself under the guise of “Relieved” – welcome back!

P.S. The King is Dead, Long Live the King

Reply by John Donovan

LondonLad: Fiction? What fiction? You make a blanket condemnation, but provide no examples – not one – of what you are describing as “fiction”.

Posting on Shell Blog by “Relieved” on May 10th, 2013 at 15:47 

LondonLad: Me thinks you were an ex-Shell manager. Your lack of objectivity (i.e., brain washing) and immaturity give you away. This discussion about potential terrorist activity directed towards RDS’s proposed floating processing plants is not irrelevant given the concern of RDS’s investors and insurers. FYI – a 1 tonne charge of high explosive detonated under the keel of such a ship would undoubtedly break its back, causing it to tear apart and sink. That is how modern torpedoes work. Like it or not these ships are going to be very vulnerable targets, and RDS will need to plan and prepare for ‘hostile activity’ directed at them. It is only prudent. RDS should consult with the RN and SAS about such matters.

Posting by LondonLad on 2013/05/10 at 18:51

There are far too many “add-ons” and innuendos trying to pull Shell into a story (the tabloid approach as I’ve stated on many occasions). A very good example is that of this terrorist story viz offshore facilities. Hey, what about a refinery viz terrorists in the UK or USA; hey what about a large office in the world viz terrorists; hey what about a major golfing event viz terrorists – the list goes on and on. All can be woven into the name of Shell (and other oil companies for that matter). Get my point yet? No probably not as the Donovans and “Relieved” are fixated with trying to sling mud at Shell at every opportunity. By the way “Relieved” you still refuse to answer some of my basic questions, which are simple to answer. As Donovan has stated many times he merely wants to hold Shell to its Business Principles etc. – a very noble cause indeed; all I want to do is make sure these attacks on this website are based on fact NOT innuendos and half-baked stories.

Reply by John Donovan

Not quite the same as the major golf event or large office building. In this instance there is no need to smuggle in a huge bomb or hijack a plane. All that is needed is a relatively small explosive device, or a speedboat suicide attack, as per the USS Cole, to ignite a ready-made gigantic potential bomb. All that’s missing from the billion dollar Prelude vessel is a large target painted on each side. As to your self-appointed role on this website, you are as always very welcome, especially as US Citizen has absconded.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: