Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts under ‘Archive’

Old stories and anti-Shell propaganda

By John Donovan

A regular contributor to our “Shell Blog” recently criticized the mix of postings on this website.

“LondonLad” said:

I am afraid that there clearly is very little news (i.e. aspects of Shell’s work) for the Donovan’s to rant on about recently. A great deal is re-printed as though it’s new but is merely old stories and anti-Shell propoganda that is old history.

Since we have over many years built an archive of over 28,000 articles, documents and advertising relating to Shell stretching back to the 1920′s, including Shell internal documents and communications, we have a wealth of information to draw on in providing related historical context to current news events.

Seems to be a winning formula given the increased traffic – 2,545,430 million hits and 1,513,016 million page views in January 2012.

ALL Royal Dutch Shell news, positive and negative, is accessible on this website.

The advertisement displayed was published in The Scotsman on 31 December 1923.

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL HISTORY OF TAX AVOIDANCE

By John Donovan

The oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has a long history as a participant in what the Guardian has aptly described as “the murky world of corporate tax avoidance.”

In February 2009, the Guardian newspaper published an article under the headline: “Offshore – and out of reach to the Revenue

Extracts

The Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell, although it is still a British plc operating under UK company law, has shifted its trademarks to Switzerland and its main tax residence to the Netherlands.

Shell, meanwhile, has shifted ownership rights of its iconic scallop-shell roadside sign out of London to a third low-tax regime in Switzerland. It was part of a carefully planned merger of its UK and Dutch arms, which enabled the oil giant to keep many operations from the grip of the British tax authorities. For tax purposes, Royal Dutch Shell plc is now resident in the Netherlands. The company told us that the brand shift to the tax haven canton of Zug was not for tax avoidance, but for “entirely commercial” reasons. “There has been no impact on the Shell brand in the UK,” the company said. It added that there would now be “more effective and consistent management of the Shell trademarks”.

Another article on the same subject was published on the same day by the Guardian under the headline: “TAX GAP

Extract

Ownership of the iconic scallop sign which appears on thousands of Shell petrol station forecourts has migrated to a Swiss tax haven.

The Anglo-Dutch oil giant which made $50bn (£35bn) in pre-tax profits in 2007, shifted its main tax-residence to the more benign climate of Holland after the merger of its twin UK and Netherlands arms in 2005.

Shell simultaneously moved the ownership of its immensely valuable brands. Legal ownership of the trademarks now belongs to a subsidiary set up in the low-tax canton of Zug, which is entitled to charge royalties for their use to other Shell companies.

The rights were shifted in February 2005 to Shell Brands International AG, a holding company registered in the former Alpine village of Baar, now part of a mini-conurbation joined to Zug itself.

The canton hosts about 18,000 companies, mostly foreign entities set up to take advantage of corporate tax rates as low as 8%, with personal tax for expatriate executives at a similarly enticing level.

This means that, legally speaking, Shell is now simultaneously a British public company, tax-resident in Amsterdam, whose brands are Swiss.

Shell says: “Shell Brands International paid Shell UK Ltd for certain trademarks. This payment was subject to corporation tax on capital gains in the UK. In the future, royalties are payable for the use of the trademark by UK companies”.

In fact, no tax was paid on the sale, because Shell was able to set it against other tax losses.

The Guardian also referred to Shell’s tax avoidance in its subsequent article: “Holding the UK’s major corporations to account

Extracts

Our innovative online database helped shed light on the murky world of corporate tax avoidance

The series revealed the tax stratagems of many of Britain’s corporate household names. It documented brands shifted offshore by Diageo, Shell, and drug companies AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline.

Royal Dutch Shell was also mentioned in an article published in January 2011 by “This is Money”, under the headline: “Revealed: Tax havens of the top 20 UK companies

Extract

Shell has 47 offshore subsidiaries, mainly in Bermuda, although the company said that its holding group, Royal Dutch Shell, is based in the Hague and not British tax-resident.

There is nothing new about Shell tax avoidance. The following is an extract from from pages 78 & 79 of the book “Patents for Hitler” by Guenter Reimann published in 1942.

The story of the secret Oil International would not be complete without referring to Liechtenstein, Europe’s mystery state. Liechtenstein, with its capital, Vaduz, is the most remarkable country in war-time Europe. Situated in Central Europe, almost encircled by the Third Reich, it is the only place in the old world where people feel safe, with unprotected frontiers, with only a few policemen maintaining internal order-in short, an idyllic country. How did it escape Hitler’s armies? With a population of only 12,000, it could never have tried to defend its national existence. But we must not forget that the administration of this tiny state offered hospitality to corporations which sought a neutral centre for private empires, free from the struggle of national states and from taxation. This little country in war-torn Europe had been selected by I. G., by Standard Oil, and also by Shell as one of the centres for the super-national world empires. Its only apparent function is to enable private world empires or large corporations to escape from the risks of war and also from taxation.

From our archives: Viewpoint: Sex, drugs and natural gas royalties

The inspector general found an e-mail from some dork at Shell Pipeline to a woman in the federal royalty office, asking her to join him at a tailgate party before a Houston Texans football game: “Have you and the girls meet at my place at 6 a.m. for bubble baths…

baltimoresun.com

Viewpoint: Sex, drugs and natural gas royalties

By Carl Hiaasen
September 17, 2008

People always say the Bush administration is in bed with the oil companies, but it turns out to be literally true.

According to the Interior Department, some government officials in charge of collecting oil and gas royalties smoked pot, snorted cocaine and had sex with employees of big energy firms.

Meanwhile, the rest of us were getting screwed at the gas pump.

Three reports delivered last week to Congress portray “a culture of ethical failure” in which employees of the federal Minerals Management Service often accepted gifts from oil and gas interests, steered lucrative contracts to cronies and partied hard with those with whom they did business on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer.

The MMS collects about $10 billion annually in royalties from energy companies that drill offshore and on federally owned lands. Beside the IRS, it’s one of the biggest sources of government revenue.

During the Bush years, the agency has faced harsh criticism for failing to vigorously pursue millions of dollars in outstanding or potential royalties. One controversial program, called royalty-in-kind, allows energy companies to pay the government in gas and oil instead of dollars.

According to the inspector general’s report, the royalty-in-kind office of the MMS was rife with “substance abuse and promiscuity.” Certain fun-loving employees were known as the “MMS Chicks” by energy firm employees, who would generously invite the women to lively social events.

Oil and gas companies named in the reports are Chevron, Hess, Shell Pipeline and Gary-Williams Energy. They paid for MMS workers to attend PGA golf tournaments, professional baseball and football games, ski trips, a Toby Keith concert, paintball-shooting events and “treasure hunts,” whatever that means.

The inspector general found an e-mail from some dork at Shell Pipeline to a woman in the federal royalty office, asking her to join him at a tailgate party before a Houston Texansfootball game: “Have you and the girls meet at my place at 6 a.m. for bubble baths and final prep. Just kidding.”

This stuff would be a whole lot funnier if the country’s energy policy weren’t a disaster and gas weren’t $4 a gallon. The Republicans’ renewed lust to open more offshore leases might not bring down the price of crude, but it would keep the good times rolling at the Interior Department.

Apparently the plan is to tailgate our way to energy independence.

Interestingly, while at least a dozen former and current MMS employees were named in the reports, the Bush Justice Department has chosen to go after only one, Jimmy W. Mayberry.

Last month, he pleaded guilty to a felony conflict-of-interest charge for arranging a juicy consulting contract for himself, as sort of a retirement gift.

The woman who helped Mr. Mayberry hatch this scam was Lucy Q. Denett, then the associate director of minerals revenue management. She’s also married to Paul Denett, who until recently was the top procurement honcho in the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Mrs. Denett has retired from the Interior Department for personal reasons and won’t be prosecuted. She told investigators she’d made a “very poor” decision by helping her pal Mr. Mayberry rig the consulting contract. No kidding.

Another Bush hack who likely will escape punishment in the scandal is Gregory W. Smith, former program director of the royalty-in-kind office. The inspector general said that Mr. Smith wrongly used his government position to market a private tech-services firm to gas and oil companies, and that the firm paid him $30,000.

Mr. Smith, now working for a Denver oil company, has refused to publicly discuss the allegations.

The report also accuses him of taking gifts from energy industry representatives, having sex with two of his subordinates and buying cocaine on several occasions from his secretary and her boyfriend.

Who says that being a bureaucrat is dull work?

Such colorful revelations shed some light on the mysterious energy task force assembled by Vice President Dick Cheney at the president’s direction, shortly after he took office.

Mr. Cheney has stubbornly refused to tell American taxpayers what was decided or who participated in these important meetings, though it’s known that many major players were involved, including those geniuses at Enron.

No wonder the vice president is so secretive about what took place. Obviously, these weren’t serious policy meetings; they were toga parties, with Mr. Cheney dressed up as Bluto from Animal House.

In their wildest dreams, the boys from big oil couldn’t have imagined how much fun the next eight years would be – sex, drugs and “treasure hunts.”

Party on, dudes. Drill your brains out.

Carl Hiaasen is a columnist for The Miami Herald.

From our archives: $2.2 million Shell settlement for knowingly underpaying royalties

Royal Dutch Shell evasion of royalties:

“(Shell Defendants) have agreed to pay the United States $2.2 million plus interest to resolve claims that the companies violated the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying royalties owed on natural gas…”

Tuesday, 10 May 2011: Contact: Patrick Etchart, ONRR (303) 231-3162

WASHINGTON–(ENEWSPF)–May 10, 2011. Shell Oil Company, Shell Offshore Inc., Shell Frontier Oil & Gas Inc., and Shell Western Exploration and Production (Shell Defendants) have agreed to pay the United States $2.2 million plus interest to resolve claims that the companies violated the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying royalties owed on natural gas produced from Federal leases, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Department of Justice announced today.

The agreement was reached among the Shell Defendants, the Department of the Interior through its Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), and the Department of Justice. The total payment, including interest, is $2,287,145.74.

“We are required to ensure that energy companies accurately report production and pay the required royalties,” said Chris Henderson, Acting Assistant Secretary for the DOI’s Office of Policy, Management and Budget. “We will continue to pursue any case where companies do not follow the rules.”

“Natural gas is a non-renewable resource. When the United States allows companies to remove gas from public lands that belong to all of us, we must require those companies to pay all of the royalties they owe, because those funds support important federal programs from which we all benefit,” said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. “Through cases like this, we are keeping our commitment to protect public lands and the valuable resources they contain.”

The Office of Natural Resources Revenue, part of the DOI’s Office of Policy, Management and Budget (PMB), is responsible for collecting and disbursing royalties from energy production that occurs onshore on Federal and American Indian lands, and offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf. Each month, companies are required to report to ONRR the value of the natural gas produced from the Federal leases and to pay a percentage of the reported value as royalties.

The settlement announced today resolves claims that Shell underpaid royalties for natural gas production on Federal leases.

The settlement with Shell arises from a lawsuit filed by Harrold Wright under the Federal False Claims Act. Under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the Act, private citizens may file actions on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. Because Mr. Wright is deceased, his heirs will receive $572,000 as part of their share of the $2.2 million settlement.

According to Henderson, the Shell settlement follows several other agreements with other energy companies in recent years that have returned approximately $230 million to the Federal Government.

The investigation and settlement of these matters were jointly handled by the Justice Department’s Civil Division and the Department of the Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue, with assistance from the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General, and Office of the Solicitor.

SOURCE ARTICLE

From our archives: Plaintiffs win $66 million from Shell Oil

Royal Dutch Shell evasion of royalties: Plaintiffs win $66 million from Shell Oil after making the mistake of relying on Shell’s “honesty and integrity”:

“Shell told us [in 1995] that if we didn’t want to accept a nuisance value settlement, they would drag the case out and my clients would be dead before they ever got the money,” said Calvert. “They ended up being partly right.”

Sat May 17, 2008

NEWSOK.COM: Shell weighs appeal in royalty case

By Jack Money

Shell Oil Co. is weighing an appeal of a $66 million verdict this month by a Stephens County jury in a royalties payment case, company officials said Friday.

The verdict stems from a case where five women claimed they were owed royalties that had not been paid since the early 1970s.

Background to case

The royalties involved a well on a 20-acre lease in a 640-acre unit between Ardmore and Duncan. The area is one of old production, in which more than 100 wells have been drilled.

The original agreement, executed in 1927, gave W.F. Daiber and P.C. Dings 25 percent interest in the well, with the remainder going to the original operating interest owner, Wilt Franklin Petroleum.

In 1948, the well’s operating interest changed hands, ending up with Shell Oil Co., which held the interest until 1985 when a Shell subsidiary sold the interest to Maynard Oil Co.

Descendants of Daiber and Dings continued receiving royalties throughout that time. But they claim they were told in 1994 by an informant that check stubs provided by Shell had not been accurate since the early 1970s, and later that Maynard had not corrected the problem.

Until being contacted by an informant, the plaintiffs — three daughters of Ed Galt, members of the P.C. Dings Trust, and two great-nieces of W.F. Daiber, did not realize they were owed money, their attorney, Randy Calvert, said.

The plaintiffs asked Maynard, which asked Shell about the informant’s claim but were unable to get any answers to their questions, prompting them to file the case in 1995. Calvertsaid Shell has admitted in writing to Maynard it was wrong, but still chose not to pay the owed funds. Maynard, meanwhile, settled its part of the case for an undisclosed amount.

What were the results?

The verdict awards the plaintiffs about $13 million for owed interest payments of about $1 million, plus interest, and $53 million in punitive damages. Calvert said his clients were relying on Shell, then Maynard’s, honesty and integrity.

“When someone gets a statement from an oil company, it is very difficult to discover if something has been concealed or hidden,” he said. “So, there is a certain amount of trust required by the system, and Shell breached that trust.”

Calvert said it appears from case documents that royalty owners in at least one other, nearby lease were shorted royalties as well.

A Shell spokesman said Friday the company disagreed with the jury’s verdict.

“We have solid grounds for an appeal,” said Kelly Coone op de Weegh, a senior communications adviser for Shell Exploration and Production.

ENDS

RELATED ARTICLES

Shell Oil weighs appeal of $66M verdict: 17 May 2008

Duncan Banner Daily Newspaper: Foreman explains $66 million verdict: 30 May 2008

Verdicts & Settlements January 13, 2009: Shell Oil to pay $66M to royalty owners: 13 January 2009

Extract

It took nearly four decades, but an Oklahoma jury ordered Shell Oil Co. to pay $66 million to five royalty owners (several of them deceased) for their share of a lucrative oil well dug in the early-1970s. The payments will go to two families who owned the land where Shell drilled for oil but were never informed when the company struck a huge reserve and built a well on the land in 1973.

Time was not an ally for plaintiffs’ attorney Randy Calvert, given that it took 20 years for his clients to even realize there was a well. Once they finally filed a complaint in 1995, Shell and then-lease owner Maynard Oil Co. switched counsel and dragged their feet on the case.

“Shell told us [in 1995] that if we didn’t want to accept a nuisance value settlement, they would drag the case out and my clients would be dead before they ever got the money,” said Calvert. “They ended up being partly right.”

Maynard Oil Co. settled prior to trial for a confidential amount, leaving Shell Oil as the sole defendant at trial.

From our archives: SHELL SETTLES ROYALTIES CASE FOR $33.5 MILLION

Royal Dutch Shell evasion of royalties

Published: March 21, 2002

The Royal Dutch/Shell Group paid $33.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the State of Alabama claiming more royalties from natural gas Shell produced in state waters, a lawyer representing Alabama said.

Shell Oil, the United States unit of Royal Dutch/Shell, was sued in June 1999 for underpaying royalties as far back as 1991 for gas from Mobile Bay, said Richard Dorman of Cunningham, Bounds, Yance, Crowder & Brown.

Alabama got $27.1 million in the settlement. The remaining $6.4 million went for lawyers’ fees and expenses.

”Shell and the state have been working for a number of years to resolve their differences on certain mineral lease provisions,” Shell Oil said. Shell Oil denied wrongdoing.

SOURCE ARTICLE

From our archives: U.S. unions urge boycott of Shell to fight apartheid

The unions contend Royal Dutch/Shell, the world’s second largest multinational company in terms of sales, employs black slave labor in South Africa’s Rietspruit coal mine…

Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Date: January 19, 1986
Author: Barry Cronin
Section: SUNDAY NEWS
Edition: FIVE STAR SPORTS FINAL
Page: 55

A coalition of labor unions has called on Americans to boycott products sold by the Shell Oil Co., a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/ Shell Group, which has extensive oil, coal and chemical operations in South Africa.

The unions contend Royal Dutch/Shell, the world’s second largest multinational company in terms of sales, employs black slave labor in South Africa’s Rietspruit coal mine, of which it owns 50 percent with a South African firm.

“We hope this boycott will encourage Shell to disinvest in South Africa as part of the broad effort to pressure the South African regime to help bring about an end to the apartheid system,” said Owen Bieber, president of the United Auto Workers and chairman of the AFL-CIO’s Ad Hoc Committee on South Africa.

A spokesman for Shell Oil in Houston said the boycott is “unfortunate and misplaced” and that it will hurt American workers associated with Shell products.

The unions say their boycott is aimed not at individual merchants who happen to sell Shell products, but only Shell products themselves. Union leaders are asking the public to cut up their Shell credit cards and not buy Shell goods.

Copyright 1986, 1996 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.

Alaska polar bears given ‘critical habitat’

25 November 2010

The US has designated a “critical habitat” for polar bears living on Alaska’s disappearing sea ice.

The area – twice the size of the United Kingdom – has been set aside to help stave off the danger of extinction, the US Fish and Wildlife Service said.

The territory includes locations where oil and gas companies want to drill.

Environmentalists hope the designation will make it more difficult for companies to get permits to operate in the region.

“This critical habitat designation enables us to work with federal partners to ensure their actions within its boundaries do not harm polar bear populations,” said Tom Strickland, assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks.

Any proposed economic activity in the area, which covers 187,000 sq miles (almost 500,000 sq km) must now be weighed against its impact on the polar bear population, Mr Strickland said in a statement.

Most of the designated habitat is sea ice and includes some of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, where the oil company Shell wants to drill.

Shell was due to start drilling in the Arctic earlier this year, until the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico brought the plans to a temporary halt. It is now aiming to start drilling in 2011.

Environmentalists welcomed the move.

“Now we need the Obama administration to actually make it mean something so we can write the bear’s recovery plan – not its obituary,” said Kassie Siegel from the Center for Biological Diversity.

Ms Siegel urged the US government to impose a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in bear habitat areas.

Environmentalists also want the polar bear to be listed as an endangered species. Currently the US interior department describes them as “threatened” or likely to become endangered because the sea ice on which they live and hunt is melting.

SOURCE

Persistence: Shell applies again for offshore permit

Daily News – Miner
newsminer.com

10 October 2010

Editorial

Shell isn’t giving up easily on its investment in oil fields off Alaska’s coastline. Last week, the oil company once again applied to federal officials for a permit to drill an exploratory well in the Beaufort Sea — this time in the summer of 2011. It’s in Alaska’s interest that the process works this time and the company gains the necessary permission slips.

Shell’s efforts to drill exploratory wells on its Beaufort Sea offshore leases have been stymied for several years by court cases and administrative delays. It secured a significant victory in court this spring, with a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld Shell’s exploration plans for both the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

Then the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico blew out and took Shell’s plans for this season with it.

In the wake of that explosion, Shell voluntarily strengthened its plans for dealing with any oil release from its proposed exploratory wells in the Arctic. It has committed to have a containment system on hand that would capture oil from a blowout, for example. Such a system was absent in the Gulf well disaster and, once it was built, didn’t work in the mile-deep waters.

Water in the Beaufort Sea is relatively shallow — most of it is less than 100 feet. So the challenges created by extreme water pressure aren’t present. Also, the geology of the ocean bed off the arctic coast makes blowouts less likely, as state officials have explained.

Still, opponents of drilling continue to attack every step in the process, and they find some cracks. In July, for example, a U.S. District Court judge stopped any further work in the Chukchi Sea because the government hadn’t analyzed a few aspects of a lease sale well enough to satisfy federal law.

All this argument has a huge cost. Some of Shell’s offshore leases in the Arctic are halfway through their 10-year lives. Time is running short to find the oil that Alaska needs to stave off continued declines in the trans-Alaska pipeline and the state’s income. The seas off our northern coastline are among the more promising places to find that oil.

The cold, remote water and the ice that floats on it create challenges for the safe development of those fields, without a doubt. But that concern in itself cannot defeat the company’s rights.

Congress has made the judgment these areas be leased. Shell alone estimated last spring it had spent $3.5 billion on its Alaska offshore operations. Unless Congress wants to turn our oceans into parks and pay back the billions in lease fees, the process must give Shell and other companies a fair chance to safely explore and extract what they find.

Copyright 2010 Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. All rights reserved.
RELATED ARTICLES

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

There have been concerns over Royal Dutch Shell over environmental and health and safety related issues as well as in respect of its businesses practices and priorities.

Click to continue reading “Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell”