Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts under ‘Corruption’

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST: The Corrib Gas controversy

EXTRACTS FROM “ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST” BY LORNA SIGGINS

FROM THE FOREWORD (BY FINTAN O’TOOLE)

Though theoretically citizens in a liberal democracy, those who have stood in the way of the exploitation of the Corrib gas field by a consortium led by Shell found themselves with very little protection from their own government. Instead of seeking to negotiate a settlement on behalf of these citizens, Irish governments aligned themselves to an overwhelming extent with Shell, putting the resources of the state behind the acquisition of land and, when locals objected, mounting a policing operation that at one point included the deployment of the navy.

FROM PAGES 126 &127 (“Ahern” is a reference to Bertie Ahern, a corrupt Irish government minister who became Taoiseach)

When the issue arose again in the Dail, the following month, Ahern insisted there was nothing unethical about his discussion in September with the senior Shell executives. There were ‘no deals or arrangements’ with Shell, he insisted, adding that ‘other countries have ways and means of treating large companies, which I do not agree with. I have had a fair few meetings over the years that might border on the unethical, but I am not guilty of it in this case.’

Four years later, in November 2007, the RoyalDutchShellplc.com website run by Alfred and John Donovan – long-time critics of the multinational – published details of minutes of a meeting of Shell group managing directors on 22 and 23 July 2002. Planning refusal for the Ballinaboy gas terminal in north Mayo was discussed, according to the website, which quoted from the minutes: ‘The committee queried whether the group had sufficiently well placed contacts with the Irish government and regulators. Paul Skinner undertook to explore this issue further in consultation with the country chairman in Ireland.’

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST can be purchased on Amazon

Book Review The Mayo News 5 October 2010

RELATED ARTICLES

Shell Corrib Gas Project, Bertie Ahern and Corruption

Is there a Shell Corrib connection to the sudden resignation of Irish Premier, Bertie Ahern?

Shell Gannet Alpha platform in trouble again

By John Donovan

It seems that Shell’s Gannet Alpha platform has had another close call.

On Monday workers were evacuated and production shut down after natural gas began seeping out from under the platform.

All of the ingredients for a disastrous explosion, of the kind that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, which almost brought about the demise of BP and the explosion on Shell Brent Bravo, resulting from Shell management (Malcolm Brinded) failing to take adequate action after a safety audit exposed a “Touch F*** All” safety culture and falsification of safety records.

Printed below is a comment from a Shell North Sea Platform Safety & Maintenance Expert on the recent oil spill near the Gannet Alpha Platform.

…another example of reactive maintenance regime, i.e. allowing, through neglect, equipment to fail and then reacting to the failure rather than, as the Safety Case for Gannet prescribes, preventing failure in the first instance by application of appropriate maintenance, inspection and monitoring.

(Expert in question may be available to the media for comment)

It seems that not much has changed. Production, profits and FAT CAT bonuses take priority over the safety of offshore workers.

RELATED ARTICLES

Hypocrisy of Shell CEO Peter Voser on BP Gulf of Mexico disaster

Oil and gas spills in North Sea every week, papers reveal

Collusion between Shell and HSE in Brent Bravo cover-up

Bill Campbell quoted in Final Report on BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Gas leak evacuates Shell oil rig

Mystery of how Shell escaped Brent Bravo criminal prosecution

The Sunday Times article may go some way to illuminating the mystery of how Shell miraculously escaped criminal prosecution.

By John Donovan

An article published in Scotland by The Sunday Times may help to explain why the health and safety division of the Crown office and Procurator Fiscal Service decided not to prosecute Royal Dutch Shell for alleged criminal offences arising from an explosion on the Brent Bravo platform.

In 2005, Shell was fined a record £900,000 at Stonehaven Sheriff Court, for a series of safety failings on the platform which led to a gas leak inside the giant platform’s utility leg and the tragic deaths of two workers, Keith Moncrieff and Sean McCue.

Former Shell International HSE Group Auditor, Bill Campbell, revealed that Shell had operated a “Touch F*** All” safety culture on the platform and that safety records had been falsified. He reported this to Malcolm Brinded, the then Managing Director of Shell Expro, who failed to take proper action. This was before the explosion.

Mr Campbell later courageously provided evidence, which resulted in Grampian Police conducting a long investigation into related alleged bribery and corruption of HSE officials by Shell. The police passed the case file to the Procurator Fiscal Service for a decision on whether to prosecute.

Mr Campbell was surprised when the Procurator Fiscal Service announced that it had dropped the case because there was insufficient evidence to justify a criminal prosecution. He was even more surprised to discover that NO witnesses were ever interviewed from the list he had provided to the Police. Neither witnesses from Shell or HSE.  Or indeed, the independent witnesses who could have provided corroboration.

Mr Campbell still maintains that there is an abundance of evidence provided by Shell employees and by HSE as a result of their internal investigation and through information released under the Freedom of Information Act. He remains utterly baffled why witness statements were not requested from the Procurator Fiscal by Crown Counsel.

The Sunday Times article may go some way to illuminating the mystery of how Shell miraculously escaped criminal prosecution.

It is alleged that Scottish prosecutors cherry-pick the easiest “slam dunk” cases. This would explain a 99% success rate. They allegedly do not pursue health and safety cases which are “slightly more difficult”.

Bill Campbell handed over a wealth of evidence, but for some reason, it was not properly followed up by the Procurator Fiscal, leaving Mr Campbell and apparently Grampion Police, mystified by the outcome.

The Sunday Times 5 February 2012

Lord advocate ‘takes only easy health and safety cases’

SCOTLAND’S top prosecutor has been accused of inflating the conviction rate in health and safety proceedings by only targeting so-called “slam dunk” cases where success is almost guaranteed.

Lord advocate Frank Mulholland has defended the claims which have been raised at Westminster, insisting every case placed before him will be taken on, regardless of difficulty.

Since the health and safety division of the Crown office and Procurator Fiscal Service was set up in 2009, 77 of the 78 completed cases have resulted in convictions – a success rate of 99%.

However, while appearing before the Commons Scottish affairs committee, he was accused by chairman Ian Davidson of cherry-picking the easiest cases.

The Scottish Labour MP asked whether, given the number of fatalities and reported serious accidents in Scotland, he thought he was taking on enough prosecutions.

Davidson said: “There’s a chance they are not pursuing the cases which are slightly more difficult. So paradoxically, this is one situation where having a lower success rate is possibly better.

“Our initial suspicion is they are restrained in terms of manpower and therefore they are only pursuing prosecution in those cases which we describe as slam dunk. That would worry us quite a bit.

“If they are not being passed on to him, the question is whether they are being filtered out at an earlier stage in the process before they get to him. It may be that those who are passing them on to him are taking too cautious a view of what might be prosecutable.”

He added: “We have been worried for some time about the high rate of health and safety-related deaths and serious injuries in Scotland. There are more people in agriculture, quarrying, construction, but that didn’t explain all of it.

“If someone is getting a 1Wlo success rate with prosecutions, then it potentially means they are only taking ones where they are.absolutely certain of a success. Our concern is that there is a filter which removes difficult cases.”

There has been a number of high-profile health and safety prosecutions in Scotland in recent years, including the Stockline Plastics explosion in Glasgow’s Maryhill in 2004 which claimed nine lives.

Operators ICL Plastics and ICL Tech were fined £400,0000 after admitting four charges. The High Court in Glasgow, heard that the leaking pipework that caused the explosion could have been replaced for just £405.

Utility firm Transco was fined a record £15m after being convicted on a charge arising from an explosion which killed four people. Andrew and Janette Findlay and their children Stacey, 13, and Daryl, 11, died in the explosion in Larkhall, South Lanarkshire, in December 1999.

Transco was found guilty after a six-month trial in Edinburgh of breaching health and safety laws.

A Crown Office spokesman rejected the suggestions.

He said: “If we have sufficient admissible, credible and reliable evidence, and it is in the public interest to prosecute, then we will prosecute.

“The excellent record of the health and safety division is due solely to the diligence and expertise of our prosecutors, who work extremely hard to secure guilty pleas and convictions in the most complex of cases.

“The lord advocate made the committee aware that 219 eases had been reported to the health and safety division since its inception. Of those, 78 have been prosecuted and 77 have resulted in convictions. There are 116 live cases under consideration for which no decision has been taken.

“Ten cases have resulted in a Fatal Accident Inquiry. No proceedings have been taken in 15 cases. In six of those cases proceedings could not have been taken because the company was no longer trading.

“In another five cases proceedings could not have been taken because there was insufficient evidence in law.”

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmscotaf/uc1344-vii/uc134401.htm

Prison terms for corruption in oil and gas contracts

Photo shows Sakhalin II, Russia’s first liquified natural gas project. Courtesy of Gazprom.

Hi John,

I case you haven’t seen it, looks like there has been a corruption conviction involving Sakhalin II.  Although the story below does not mention Sakhalin II by its exact name, the story says the project “is one of the largest integrated oil and gas projects in the world and involves the exploration and development of several different oil and gas fields in the Sea of Okhotsk off Sakhalin Island (part of the Russian Federation).”

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/45943

That is how Sakhalin Energy describes the project, so I am sure its Sakhalin II!

Prison terms for corruption in oil and gas contracts

31 January 2012

Prison sentences have been handed down in a case where corrupt payments were obtained for passing on confidential procurement information to bidding suppliers.  The contracts related to a series of high-value oil and gas engineering projects between 2001 and 2009 in Iran, Egypt, Russia, Singapore and Abu Dhabi

The sentences are:

  • Andrew Rybak (d.o.b. 28/03/56) of Newbury, Berkshire.  Five years’ imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently.
  • Ronald Saunders (d.o.b. 01/02/47) of Hook, Hampshire.  Three years and six months’ imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently,
  • Philip Hammond (d.o.b. 11/06/54) of Brussels, Belgium.  Three years’ imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently.
  • Barry Smith (d.o.b. 19/04/40) of Hindhead, Hampshire.  Twelve months’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of 18 months and 300 hours of unpaid work.

In addition Rybak and Hammond were also disqualified from acting as company directors for a period of ten years.

Confiscation actions are to be undertaken against the first three defendants.

The case, codenamed Operation Navigator, was tried at Southwark Crown Court, where the defendants were found guilty on 25 January.

In passing sentence today, HHJ Deborah Taylor, addressing Rybak, Saunders, Hammond and Smith said, All this was done without the slightest regard for the interests of others.  Your activities in connection with these conspiracies had little, if anything, to do with the interests of those engaged with the project, but were parasitic, leeching money for your benefit.

Commenting on the sentences, SFO Director Richard Alderman said, “Demanding backhanders in exchange for confidential and advantageous information saps business and is completely unacceptable to society.  Hopefully these sentences will ring out the message loud and clear that the criminal justice system will do all it can to combat wrong-doing like this.”

Outline

The investigation began in April 2008 as a joint operation between the Serious Fraud Office and the City of London Police.  It was triggered by allegations relating to a project in Singapore, but it soon became apparent to the investigators that a number of other projects were also tainted by corruption.

The confidential information corruptly supplied to bidders was held by companies that undertook procurement for the projects.  Saunders and Rybak, who were engaged as agency workers by the procurement companies, abused their access to this information.  They indicated to suppliers who were bidding for the contracts that information could be made available if they agreed to pay for it.  Disguised as “consultancy services”, the illicit payments were shared out amongst the co-conspirators.

The contracts related to these projects (indicating defendants involved);

a)      Styrene Monomer Project, Iran.  (Rybak, Saunders and Hammond)

b)      QASR Gas Gathering Project, Egypt.  (Rybak and Saunders)

c)      Sakhalin Island Project, Russian Federation. (Rybak, Saunders and Hammond)

d)      Singapore Parallel Train Project.  (Rybak and Hammond)

e)      Hydrogen Power Project, Abu Dhabi.  (Rybak, Saunders, Hammond and Smith)

Summaries of the contracts and assistance provided by the procurement companies to the SFO are contained in our press release of 25 January.

Notes for editors:

  1. Charging of defendants.  See press release 22 October 2010.
  2. The fifth defendant, Robert Storey, was tried in relation to the Abu Dhabi project only but the jury could reach no verdict.
  3. Another suspect (a UK national) is resident in the Philippines and it has not been possible, thus far, to bring him to trial in the UK.
  4. The Serious Fraud Office is a government department responsible for investigating and prosecuting serious and complex fraud.  The SFO is headed by the Director (Richard Alderman) who exercises powers under the superintendence of the Attorney General. These powers are derived from the Criminal Justice Act (1987).

Serious Fraud Office, Elm House, 10-16 Elm Street, London, WC1X 0BJ
Press Office tel: 020 7239 7000 7004 or mobile: 0796 655 8903
Main switchboard tel: 020 7239 7272
SFO Confidential hotline for whistleblowers 020 729 7388
press.office@sfo.gsi.gov.uk – or via – www.sfo.gov.uk

EXTRACT FROM THE SFO PRESS RELEASE

Sakhalin Island Project. This is one of the largest integrated oil and gas projects in the world and involves the exploration and development of several different oil and gas fields in the Sea of Okhotsk off Sakhalin Island (part of the Russian Federation). Fluor Ltd, a company in Farnborough, managed the procurement process for this project. A number of separate packages were investigated in detail, including: air compressors, oil pumps, generator sets, gas turbines, equipment to treat fuel gas, oily water treatment and large bore pipes. These packages were worth over £17 million. Saunders and another man were engaged as contractors by Fluor Limited between 2006 and 2008. Again, Rybak and Hammond received confidential information from the insiders which they sold on to bidding companies. Some payments of around £357,000 and US$229,000, were made from successful bidders, which were then distributed between the defendants.

Brunei Inks Production, Investment Pact With Royal Dutch Shell

The fruits of a $500,000 Brunei dollar wedding gift (bribe) given by Shell to the corrupt Brunei Royal Family…?

Wednesday, 25 January 2012 06:44
Borneo Bulletin

The Hague, Netherlands – The Government of His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam and Royal Dutch Shell Ltd (RDS) as the shareholders of Brunei Shell Petroleum Co Sdn Bhd (BSP) signed the production and investment agreement on Jan 23, 2012 at RDS headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands.

Signing on behalf of the Brunei Government was the Minister of Energy at the Prime Minister’s Office, Pehin Datu Singamanteri Col (Rtd) Dato Seri Setia (Dr) Awg Hj Mohammad Yasmin bin Hj Umar, and for Royal Dutch Shell, Dato Seri Laila Jasa Peter Voser, Chief Executive Officer and Ken Mamoch, BSP Managing Director. The agreement set out between the Brunei Government and Shell focuses on the mechanisms to support, sustain and increase the production of oil and gas by BSP.

It will form an integral part of future investment decisions undertaken by Shell in BSP, in relation to BSP’s entire project portfolio, including further exploration, development and production in areas under existing concession agreements.

This deal also builds on the relationship that the government and Shell have cemented for the last 80 years, and will endeavour to further strengthen it for the next 25 years.

The signing ceremony also coincided with a working visit to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands led by the Minister of Energy at the PMO and a delegation comprising Permanent Secretary and Deputy Permanent Secretary from the Energy Department of the Prime Minister’s Office and other senior officials from the Energy Department and Brunei Shell Petroleum.

The delegates visited Shell offices, private sector companies and educational institutions in Aberdeen and The Hague to gain firsthand updates on technology, competency and local business developments.

–Courtesy of Borneo Bulletin

SOURCE ARTICLE

ARTICLES ABOUT THE $5 MILLION BRUNEI ROYAL WEDDING

The $5m royal wedding: “…sponsored by local companies, including the oil and gas firms Brunei Shell…”: The Independent 10 September 2004

Shell Rewards Employees (*Bribes and scandal in Brunei?): Brudirect.com

Will the Prince Turn Pauper? (*$500,000 Shell bribe was given to this corrupt family): Wall Street Journal article published March 2008

Brunei Shell contributes $500,000 for royal wedding ceremonies: Brunei-online.com: August 2004

Hostile website domain names

Shell in their sights …. Royal Dutch Shell online critics John and Alfred Donovan outside the Shell Centre in London October 2009. Photograph: Graham Turner for Guardian newspaper article

By John Donovan

An article published in the Financial Times on 12 January 2012 reported that the Blackstone Group has been using a brand protection firm MarkMonitor to quietly register “hostile web domain names in an attempt to head off online criticism…

The domain names registered predictably include blackstonesucks.com.

MarkMonitor declined to comment or deny that Blackstone is a client, but claimed that “defensive registration” is very common with major brands.

According to MarkMonitor: “Every business needs to protect their brand online. Powerful brands are valuable assets that are particularly vulnerable in the digital world.”

The concern is over what a related article has described as “brand-bashers“.

The website hereisthecity said in another related article: “Firms that are at the center of any form of controversy or, face possible public ire, often protect themselves in this way.”

A Reuters article on the same subject contains a quote from Blackstone spokesman, Peter Rose who claims: “This is a routine defensive move to protect ourselves. Any company that is in the public eye will take similar measures.

Unfortunately for Royal Dutch Shell, when it tried in 2005 to register the top level domain name for the merged company – Royal Dutch Shell Plc as a defensive measure – it found that its most prominent long-term online critics had beaten them to the .com registration.

In June 2006, Shell appointed a digital agency with experience in turning around corporate reputations. The headline is self-explanatory: “Shell seeks agency for online makeover“. The brief issued by Shell web communications division in The Hague, included online branding.

Despite Shell’s best efforts, Royaldutchshellplc.com has become the effective “gripe” site in the world and has genuinely cost Shell billions of dollars. Sounds like a wild claim, but it is a provable fact.

Shell unsuccessfully attempted to seize the domain name.

Our subsequent activities have been so damaging to Shell that it set up a global operation spying on our website and its own employees. This was an unsuccessful effort to stop Shell insider information from being leaked to us.

There have been numerous media articles relating to our website. A search for “royaldutchshellplc.com” on ft.com reveals a list of articles, the majority based on information about Shell leaked to us and passed to the FT.

Some articles on this subject

Blackstone turns hostile on website names

Top Firm Takes Action Against ‘Suckers’

Some related articles about our online activities…

Prospect Magazine: Rise of the Gripe Site

The Guardian: 92-year-old’s website leaves oil giant Shell-shocked


CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

PDF VERSION OF GUARDIAN ARTICLE

The Sunday Times: Two men and a website mount vendetta against Shell


Tainted ‘symbiotic partnership’ between Brunei regime and Shell

His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei meeting Malcolm (TFA) Brinded, Shell’s Executive Director, Upstream International.

By John Donovan

On Sunday 1 January, the Borneo Bulletin published a gushing article under the headline “Oil & Gas continues to shower Brunei with benefits, opportunities“.

It described a claimed lovefest relationship between Royal Dutch Shell and the Brunei Royal family, which the Sultan of Brunei has summed up as: “the extraordinary symbiotic partnership between the Sultanate and the global oil giant… Royal Dutch Shell…

The so called symbiotic relationship is between a scandal-tainted Brunei royal family and a scandal-tainted oil giant, which attracted international attention when it gave a $500,000 gift for a lavish Brunei royal wedding in September 2004. Many would view such a large sum as a bribe.

The relationship between Shell and the Sultanate has not been as deliriously happy as the article suggests. It was for some time mired in acrimony regarding the controversial subject of Brunei hydrocarbon reserves, which featured prominently in a massive securities fraud surrounding Shell, that came to light early in 2004. The huge wedding gift may have been designed to placate the regime.

Confirmation of the lengthy acrimonious debate between Shell and the Brunei regime on the reserves issue and related accusations made by the regime against Shell, can be found on page 43 of a sworn 965 page video taped deposition by Royal Dutch Shell Group Reserves Auditor, Anton Barendregt.

The Brunei reserves manipulations, designed to defraud Shell shareholders, also featured prominently in an independent report prepared by Davis Polk & Wardell for the Shell Group Audit Committee, and in reports issued by (1) the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission which fined Shell $120 million for securities fraud and (2) the UK Financial Services Authority, which found Shell guilty of “Market Abuse” and issued a fine of £17 million pounds.

The news of the scandal made global headlines and resulted in the forced resignations of Royal Dutch Shell Group Chairman Sir Philip Watts, and his executive director colleagues, Walter van de Vijver and Judith Boyton. Shell also settled several major class action lawsuits.

In February 2010, news broke of a series of massive fraud investigations against more than 10 senior oil company officials” of Brunei Shell Petroleum (BSP). Some officials had already been dismissed and others suspended as a result of the fraud probe by the Brunei Anti Corruption Bureau.

Strange how none of these sordid events were mentioned in the love fest article published on 1 January 2012.

MORE ARTICLES ABOUT THE $5 MILLION BRUNEI ROYAL WEDDING

The $5m royal wedding: “…sponsored by local companies, including the oil and gas firms Brunei Shell…”: The Independent 10 September 2004

Shell Rewards Employees (*Bribes and scandal in Brunei?): Brudirect.com

Will the Prince Turn Pauper? (*$500,000 Shell bribe was given to this corrupt family): Wall Street Journal article published March 2008

Brunei Shell contributes $500,000 for royal wedding ceremonies: Brunei-online.com: August 2004


Sale Of Oil Block OPL 245 By Malabu To Shell & Agip

Letter Of Complaint Regarding Sale Of Oil Block OPL 245 By Malabu To Shell & Agip

December 11, 2011

By Ademola Williams

Dear Sirs: On the 7th of December 2011 various news papers internationally and local published a report that Royal Dutch Shell and Eni said on Wednesday they have bought the prospective Nigerian deep offshore oil block OPL 245: these reports were given to all the various news outlets by Shell and ENI (Agips parent company), Shell, Eni buy Nigeria’s controversial OPL 245

As a concerned Nigerian, I urge the House Committee on Upstream Petroleum, to investigate the approval of the above Oil license and sale to Shell & Agip by DPR and the Ministry of Petroleum; and consider the transfer of ownership to Shell and Agip as illegal; in addition to revert the said oil block to its previous status and only allow such oil block to be sold to parties who fit the requirement of the oil blocks initial license. Which says that no foreign company can directly or indirectly buy more than 40% of the oil block.

The Oil block was sold to Shell & Agip by Malabu oil and Gas Ltd. the original license holder of OPL 245 for the sum of $1.3 billion USD plus a signatory Bonus of $210 million USD. The issue at hand is that OPL 245 is an oil block first issued to Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd in 1998 under the indigenisation program to boost local participation in the oil and gas industry.  The Block was later issued a 2005 PSC still under the indigenisation program; please read the attached out of court settlement document made by the Ministry of Petroleum Resources dated 2nd December 2006.

Over the years several oil licenses have been issued under the indigenisation program to various local oil companies, all those companies had to comply with the rules of the license. In the above case why should an exemption be given to Malabu, Shell and Agip by DPR and the Petroleum Ministry? Why if Malabu wanted to sell shares in the oil block they did not comply with the license and sell only 40% of the interest? Also why did DPR on this case feel it was necessary and in the interest of Nigeria to change the license and allow the sale of 100% of the oil block to two Multinational oil companies, one (Shell) who is being investigated in its participation in the Killing of people in the Niger Delta? I am also aware that the President appointed a new head at DPR who was a Vice President of Shell International, is this not a gross conflict of interest?

I assert as a Nigerian that Malabu, Shell and Agip including the Government of Nigeria should play by the rules of the game. If not why should other companies holding oil blocks under the indigenous program not be allowed to change their licenses? Further I for see huge legal problems in future where other companies will take the government to court and also request damages in the 100`s of millions for not allowing them to change their licenses as was allowed in the OPL 245 situation.

I kindly request the House to investigate the sale of this OPL 245 License by the Ministry of Petroleum Resources & DPR and also freeze all funds transferred by the buyers. This transaction also smells of gross corruption which possibly includes bribery by all parties involved. Does the Nigerian Government have the conscience to do the right thing?

SOURCE: SAHARA REPORTERS

RELATED ARTICLES

Secret saga behind a 9 billion barrel block in Nigeria

Shell, Eni buy huge Nigeria offshore oil block-Shell

Shell Rakes in $488m from Sale of 2 Oil Blocks

Shell Sells Oil Stakes in Nigeria

Most or All Kiobel v. Shell Plaintiffs Are American Citizens

Graphic from the Guardian article “Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil

Dear Editor,

Please run article clarifying the location of Ogoni people in Kiobel v. Shell. This issue was brought up in one recent publication of Nov. 17, 2011, posted or culled to your credible and number one globally read and researched-based Website.

THE ARTICLE: How Suing Shell Could Backfire on Human Rights Activists

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ben Ikari.

ARTICLE

I read with interest a publication by Reuters that is published on this esteemed Website: Royaldutchshellplc.com and dated November 17, 2011. As recorded on paragraph nine, lines six and seven. According to Maria LaHood, “Indigenous Ogoni people, most of whom probably live in  villages in rural Nigeria, are challenging one of the most powerful entities in the world.”

Although LaHood meant no harm but well. I wish to state categorically clear for the records that  all members of the  indigenous Ogoni nationality challenging $hell in the Kiobel, et al v. Royal Dutch Shell case, before the United States Supreme Court (USSC) are currently living in the United States of America, though these crimes were committed against them in Ogoni. Most or all of these plaintiffs have been in the United States for more than 12 years.

In short, most if not all of the plaintiffs are American citizens who are law abiding and are actively involved in the socioeconomic and political development of this great country. Meanwhile, one impression the Reuters report I wish to correct, is that the Ogoni movement, MOSOP is a political movement. Another is that this case, which has lasted for 9 years (2002 to 2011) has been ongoing for 15 years.

To remove all doubts, MOSOP is a nongovernmental, nonpolitical, and nonreligious, but cultural, human rights and environmental grassroots organization. Also, the population count of Ogoni, by the report, of  500,000 is not the current figure, rather a 1963 census head count. Ogoni is currently about 2 million people.

Having said the above, it is true as LaHood is credited that “corporations don’t like it.” That is, the fact that Ogonis who came from far away Africa are now in America challenging their misdeeds. This is something that was unheard of decades back…the world is changing fast as these corporations can see. And that international human rights, including, aiding and abetting, torture and genocide, even environmental oilnocide are changing the way we think or do things-governmental operations and business, especially.

Though “they don’t want to be held accountable for how they behave in developing countries,” said LaHood. They have no option but act responsibly or be held accountable for their actions or behavior in these ethnic groups they have been conspiring with national governments to extinct.

Consequently, those analyzing the Kiobel case should therefore endeavor to treat these issues not as affecting some remote Ogonis in Africa, rather as Ogoni-Americans or American-Ogonis demonstrating what those similarly situated went through at home. The common denominator should not be who are those filing this suit?

It should rather, be whether a multinational corporation, $hell known, for its numerous atrocious and unethical business practices for profit, is complicit with the evidence, in the crimes of aiding and abetting. Whether it is liable for torture, wrongful death, arbitrary arrest and detention, among other charges-especially as they fall within the scope of U.S. Alien Tort Statute (ATS) of 1789.

The discussions of the very honorable legal mind Paul Hoffman, attorney for plaintiffs, who also argued Sosa before the Supreme Court, Kyleen Hartman, Chime’ne Keitner and Deirdre Lapin, are sound and relevant, informational and directional to the issues at stake. These are issues that are not new to American courts as Paquete Habana v. United States, Sosa v.  Alvarez-Machain, and Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc. shows.

Those who may support deadly corporate methods, so long as oil and other products or goods and services are coming into the Western world for better life may do so to trivializing international corporate crimes against defenseless peoples. One thing I know is clear, is if the owners and employees of these corporations and their supporters were on the receiving end like Ogonis and other oppressed.

If they have a place such as America and other Western countries with such laws prohibiting and seeking justice for victims against these companies.  Or if those corporations from other countries with substantial business presence, such as $hell are also held liable as a way of curbing the fragrant violation of human rights elsewhere with impunity. They will not hesitate applying such laws wherever they could be found. So this case and maybe others that may be ongoing and those that may emerge should be seen with jurisprudential and humane eyes.

Because “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” according to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the need to show sympathy to those living where some of the good things that helps make life better in the west came from. And because laws such as Alien Tort Statute or Act addresses violations of the “law of nations,” which kiobel depends and Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Shell succeeded with. Because who wears the shoes know where they hurt.

It is hoped that reporters and commentators who have been doing incredible job reporting and analyzing Kiobel and Wiwa v. Shell, respectively will do so with justice as the baseline and not whether the Ogoni plaintiffs are in Ogoni, Africa, because they are not.

As mentioned inter alia, most if not all of the bold and brave soldiers of freedom, fundamental human rights and justice, are citizens of the United States of America working hard to sending a clear message to would- be violators. That is, the days of corporate immunity in egregious crimes outside the west (crimes they will not commit at home) are gone.

Finally, can we imagine the recent UNEP report on Ogoni, an environmental catastrophe or time-bomb $hell in collaboration with the Nigerian government wanted to hide? A crime revealed by Ken Saro-Wiwa, who was killed for not withdrawing his campaign against the company. And how $hell is cleaning the valleys in Britain, its home country where it also prospects for oil and the better treatment it gives the Shetlanders, who are also in Britain! Enough environmental racism causing the deaths of innocent Ogonis?

$hell and any corporation involved in these crimes thinking they will hide under the cloak of corporations as individuals or private entities within domestic legal system, should know henceforth that they shall be held accountable if in violation of the law of nations as legal  tradition or precedent in America has also shown.

No corporate liability will be tantamount to more corporate and states’ torture (aiding and abetting) and genocide among other egregious crimes with which $hell is charged. As conscious world citizens, we must not let $hell and others kill again, as we hold them accountable!

Blair’s ‘deal in the desert’ with Gadaffi paved the way for Shell and BP contracts

The release happened after Blair’s notorious “deal in the desert” with Muammar Gadaffi paving the way for multi- million-pound oil contracts with Shell and BP.

(Saif al-Islam Gadaffi – above right)

THE SUNDAY TIMES

Headline: Gadaffi son may spill British secrets

Sunday 20 November 2011

Marie Colvin and Dipesh Gadher

THE London-educated Saif al-Islam Gadaffi, 39, always denied that he played an active role in politics, but he holds the key to the secrets of his father’s despotic regime.

His trial could prove deeply embarrassing if he chooses to reveal details of his once-cosy relations with British politicians including Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, the former business secretary.

Mohammed al-Alagi, Libya’s interim justice minister, said yesterday that Gadaffi will be placed on trial in Libya and faces the death penalty.

With little to lose, Gadaffi may decide from his desert prison in Zintan to spill the beans on business deals and political promises made to the regime over the past decade.

Blair, who was described by Gadaffi Jr as a close personal friend of the family, may face searching questions if Gadaffi goes ahead and reveals the secrets of their deals including oil contracts and the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber.

Gadaffi was his fathers point man on the settlement of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 which killed 270 people. His detailed knowledge of the negotiations that involved British diplomats and Musa Kusa,his father’s chief of intelligence, could prove explosive. The questions of who knew what, and who did what, have never been answered.

Abdurrahim el-Keib, Libya’s new prime minister, is expected to decide on Gadaffi’s fate this week and favours a trial in Libya rather than at the Inter- national Criminal Court in the Hague where he is wanted for crimes against humanity. He said last night: “We assure Libyans and the world that he will receive a fair trial.

The International Criminal court said its chief prosecutor will go to Libya within a week to discuss his prosecution.

Last night Gadaffi denied earlier reports that he had offered to give himself up to the Hague court. “It’s all lies. I have never been in touch with them,” he said.

David Cameron welcomed his capture. It is a great achievement for the Libyan people and must now become a victory for international justice too,” he said. Blair, Prince Andrew, Mandelson and the Rothschild banking family are among those who could be cited by Gadaffi in court.

They were among Establishment figures who courted him in the belief that Libya would pursue a reformist agenda while lucrative business contracts were on the agenda. Among the secrets he could unlock are the machinations that may have gone on under the former Labour government ahead of the release of Megrahi

Gadaffi Jr greeted Megrahi’s flight from Glasgow to Tripoli when he was freed by the Scottish authorities on “humanitarian” grounds in August 2009.

Megrahi is still alive even though doctors claimed he would die within three months from cancer.

The release happened after Blair’s notorious “deal in the desert” with Muammar Gadaffi paving the way for multi-million-pound oil contracts with Shell and BP.

Gadaffi Jr claimed that the former prime minister acted as a consultant to the Libyan Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund. Blair vehemently denies this. However, he has visited Libya at least six times since leaving office.

Five meetings with Muammar Gadaffi took place in the 14-month period prior to Megrahi’s release. On at least two occasions Blair flew on a private jet paid for by Gadaffi. But he denies influencing the Scottish government’s decision to free the Lockerbie bomber.

Just a week before Megrahi’s release, Mandelson discussed his case with Gadaffi Jr while on holiday at a villa in Corfu owned by the Rothschilds.

Mandelson later met Gadaffi at a shooting party at Waddesdon Manor in Buckinghamshire, the Rothschild family seat.

Gadaffi’s revelations could also prove embarrassing for the French: he boasted that he had funded Nicolas Sarkozy’s 2007 presidential campaign.

Gadaffi Jr could turn the tables on Labour, Editorial. Page 24