News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Posted in: BP, Business Principles, Litigation, Oil Company Profits, Oil Price Fixing, Oil Prices, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Statoil, United States.
Tagged: BP · Litigation · Oil Price Manipulation · Price fixing · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Statoil
Outsider: Working and living offshore is not the most satisfying experience, and there is no doubt that in spite of drugs testing and termination of people failing urine tests, there are people who seek respite from the rig environment by using substances that are illegal in some jurisdictions. The most effective way to stop this is to permit small quantities of alcohol as was the case in the past.
Relieved: With regard to the 'drugs' comments, I don't know about any of you folks, but I wouldn't want to be working the big rigs with people who were shooting up on their 'off time'. The oil field is no place for people who do drugs. These people put others at risk of serious injury or death.
Outsider: I'm not familiar with the rules, but Shell is a Dutch company
Elmer Fud: What kind of a company includes in its safety rules something like: "No drugs at work", in a jurisdiction where any narcotic substance is against the law. What is that supposed to mean, something like: "It's OK if you do drugs, just don't do them at work"? Ridiculous! And yes, Shell employees are definitely afraid to speak up, restricted by the fear of loosing their jobs.
Anon: A goed post Elmer. We has many bully's in management and people survey results show that staff are to scared to speak against them or of the bad work and money wasting in the scare of their careers. We has dictators and control freaks at the high level. The change will come soon now we have the dutch CEP and people will get shown the doors. It is the Houston cowboys as also the HQ EVP and VPs to blame
MOLE: Why was SARNIA (Canada) REFINERY Manager recently fired?
Elmer Fud: Shell’s history from its early days and until now is incredibly controversial, to say the least. Shell’s reputation, therefore, is very negative. Negative to the point, where the general public will never anymore associate Shell with anything positive and worthy of their respect. The general public will not ever again ingratiate in their minds and hearts the entity that calls itself Shell, no matter what it does on the public arena. Shell is after changing the public opinion about itself. As yet another instrument of revamping its reputation, Shell sees influencing its employees, so as to turn them into good ambassadors of Shell. In their desire to create proper ambassadorship, the managers of Shell become blind and prohibitive towards true talent among Shell's ranks. There are plenty of Shell’s employees, if not majority, who are irresponsible, lazy, disrespectful and arrogant. There are plenty of Shell’s managers, if not majority, who are disrespectful, abusive and manipulative towards their junior-in-rank colleagues and each other, although they will exert every effort to hide those predominant and really obvious traits. However, all those individuals somehow always end up receiving encouragement and avoiding responsibility for their wrong-doings. There are other negative tendencies in the attitude of Shell’s managers: unjustly biased attitude towards newcomers, lacking fair judgment - punish the innocent and reward those, who did not contribute to success, perceive all subordinates as equally incompetent and negligent regardless of their true abilities. Shell makes a mistake, if it believes it can influence its reputation through its employees in one way or the other. Trying to inspire ambassadorship among Shell’s employees is a waste of resources. Trying to reanimate or create new positive corporate citizen image and reputation under the old “Shell” name, logo, and everything that associates with it, is a gross waste of resources, and of investors’ money. The image of Shell is so negative, that even its employees laugh at it openly. The general public will never ingratiate Shell. It is surprising, how Shell investors are not opposing this. However, Shell is a huge conglomerate that does poses all the things necessary to operate in the industry: the capital, the hardware, the know-how, the intellectual potential. Therefore, Shell is still around. If Shell thinks it deserves to be around, then it definitely needs to change its image-salvaging policy. Shell really wants to manipulate the public opinion, it has to stop trying to salvage or reanimate the old image of Shell. Instead the enterprise has to recreate itself under new fresh image and insignia, absolutely not connected to the old one: not by name, not by logo, not even by association to particular individuals, insofar as the legislation in the field would permit such a move. And make sure the newly established entity, under new logo, name and image, does well with the public from there on out. Why waste the resources, when you can just rebrand and work under name, which no one associates with anything at all from the start? A bit of time and the new name will stand for affordable good-quality products in consumer heads. Is this not what is after? Maybe it is cheaper to waste resources on revamping old image and hope the negative reputation will die as generations become history, then it is to rebrand. It’s a mystery… There is a video documentary on partisan movement on the territories of former Soviet Union during WWII. It featured some footage of the Soviet partisans destroying a Nazi train carrying supplies to the Nazi army in Russia. A number of carriages were fuel-tanks. Guess what insignia had been on the tanks? - Big letters: “S H E L L”. Today, 70 years after WWII, In Russia the masses and the public opinion are still successfully manipulated by the state, using the idea of something: “… oh, those are Nazis, hate them, annihilate them, they do not deserve to exist per definition...” I bet you could feed any lie to Russians under the sauce of: ”It’s a Nazi” Just as Russia will hate the German Nazi of WWII forever, so will the image of Shell remain forever negative in the eyes of the general public. Let’s allow Shell to do the thinking. Let’s Shell!
Observer: I agree that blood letting of US staff needs to happen. I believe that between now and the end of the year you will see quite some changes. Hang in there and be a little patient (however difficult it is). The Shell dinosaur (big body with small head) moves slowly but it does move...
Observer: Saw the comment on Matthias Bichsel and Twister. Anybody who knows basic facts knows this is nonsense. Twister was developed in late 1990s when Matthias was in PDOman.
Zik Gbemre: To LondonLad: Dear “LondonLad”, we wonder why you are trying to personalize the subject issue of discuss in your response. And it is also surprisingly that you are not using your real name to make comments on sensitive issues. If you are really sure of what you saying, then you should be bold enough to use your real identity. Your claim that “SNEPCO has no link to Warri area” clearly shows that you are either being fed with the wrong information, or you are simply not in touch with the ‘reality’ on ground and oblivious of the true state of affairs on the subject matter. You can call Warri whatever you like, but it is big oil giants like Shell (in collaboration/cooperation with domestic government) that are responsible for the greater percentage of economic and environmental atrocities that have contributed to making Warri what it is today; it is these same issues that stakeholders like us are trying to ‘address’ with our advocacies. Also, it is the oil and gas wealth from places like Warri and the Niger Delta region (spanning over five decades) that have contributed to the ‘glamorous’ Shell Head offices in all the places you mentioned like London, New York and what have you. We do not expect you to understand this, since reading a fact-filled article like the one we posted on this issue, is too much for you to finish reading and comprehend. Our letter on SNEPCO relocation is for ‘serious-minded’ individuals that actually know the issues being discussed and they have something meaningful to contribute towards making the needed change. From you response below, it is clear you are completely out of this picture. Our advocacies on some of the issues we raise here, including that on Ogoniland, is not so much so to illicit responses from those concerned, but for relevant stakeholders concerned and for the world to be aware of some of the anomalies going on in the Nigerian extractive industry, which the Nigerian past and present government have not helped in addressing. Even when the response desired is not there or does not come, we are still not deterred from DOING WHAT IS RIGHT and SPEAKING OUT; trusting that one day, things will change for the better and for the good of the common man in Nigeria whose life and living standard is adversely affected by the issues raised.