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?

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

FEBRUARY 9, 2012

By David Winning

Royal Dutch Shell is getting serious in its pursuit of a piece of Papua New Guinea’s oil and gas wealth.

Around six months after signing a strategic alliance with Papua New Guinea’s state oil company, the Anglo-Dutch oil major is setting up a representative office in the impoverished Southeast Asian nation.

Shell’s strategic alliance with Petromin, signed Aug. 18, includes a joint study of major basins in Papua New Guinea with the potential to contain big oil and gas deposits. The study is due to be completed this year, and could be a springboard for Petromin and Shell to participate in projects together.

“The opening of the office affirms Shell’s interest to invest in Papua New Guinea and offers opportunities for us to work more closely with our partner, Petromin,” Ton Ten Have, Shell’s Vice President Commercial Asia, said in a prepared statement.

According to a BP study, Papua New Guinea had 15.6 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves of natural gas at the end of 2010. That figure likely underestimates the true resource as Papua New Guinea has been lightly explored up to now.

“We welcome the increased presence of Shell and believe it will further facilitate our close cooperation for future opportunities in Papua New Guinea,” said Joshua Kalinoe, Petromin’s managing director. “Together with Petromin, Shell will help Papua New Guinea realise the full potential of its energy resources.”

Shell’s move comes as several companies look to bring in partners on projects in Papua New Guinea.

InterOil said Sept. 30 it had mandated Macquarie Capital, Morgan Stanley and UBS to find a strategic partner for its proposed multibillion dollar Gulf LNG project. Citing a person familiar with the situation, Deal Journal Australia reported Feb. 7 that Korea Gas is in talks to form a consortium with Mitsui and Japan Petroleum Exploration to join InterOil’s project.

Separately, Canada’s Talisman Energy last year appointed Sydney-based advisory RFC Corporate Finance to find an investor for four licenses in the forelands of western Papua New Guinea, which contain a mix of gas discoveries and exploration targets.

ASX-listed Oil Search also opened a data room on its offshore gas fields in the Gulf of Papua in the final quarter of 2011, and has already held preliminary talks with international companies with LNG expertise.

Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @WSJAustralia

SOURCE ARTICLE

James Gill is the Garda Sergeant who allegedly made a bizarre threat relating to a Shell Corrib protestor: “Give me your name and address or I’ll rape you.”

The Irish Times -- Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Protester to appeal defamation ruling

ÁINE RYAN

A CORRIB gas protester who was recently successfully pursued for defamation by a retired garda has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Fisherman Pat O’Donnell, known locally as The Chief, claims Circuit Court Judge Margaret Heneghan “could be perceived to be biased” in her ruling, because she attended a Co Mayo secondary school for a time in the 1970s with retired Garda sergeant James Gill.

Mr Gill policed the Corrib protests for a number of years and sat on its monitoring committee.

In December Mr Gill was awarded €33,000 damages by Judge Heneghan at Castlebar Circuit Court after he took a defamation case against Mr O’Donnell.

He claimed Mr O’Donnell had accused him, within earshot of protesters and gardaí, of stealing diesel and smuggling tyres, during a protest at Ballinaboy on November 3rd, 2006.

Mr O’Donnell denied the allegations, claiming he was referring to diesel for his boats that had been stolen from a pier in 1997 or 1998.

He told the court he was annoyed that there were up to 200 gardaí policing the protest and “said something about working for Shell when you can’t police the community”.

His counsel, Leo Mulrooney, argued there were significant discrepancies between what Mr Gill said and the Garda videotape.

Garda witnesses had corroborated the uttering of the offending words to the court.

Mr Gill, who was station sergeant at Bangor Erris, north Mayo, policed the controversial protest over a number of years. He retired last November after almost 34 years in the force.

Judge Heneghan noted she had been told all the plaintiff wanted was an apology, but it was not forthcoming.

“I am satisfied that these words were spoken by Pat O’Donnell and were intended to mean that Mr Gill was dishonest,” she said.

Last month High Court judge, Mr Justice Michael Peart, refused leave to take an ex parte judicial review of the case.

The judicial review was applied for, on behalf of Mr O’Donnell, by Michael P O’Higgins SC and Leo Mulrooney, instructed by solicitor Alan Gannon.

Mr Justice Peart told the court on January 23rd that, in his view, there was not a perceived bias and that the case did not reach the threshold of arguablility.

Moreover, he said he did not regard that the personal connections between the judge and the former garda were capable of amounting to objective bias when weighed against the judicial oath.

Counsel for Mr O’Donnell argued if his client had known that the judge and Mr Gill had attended the same school, he would have applied for the judge to excuse herself from the case.

Documents submitted to Mr Justice Peart stated that Judge Heneghan attended Jesus and Mary Secondary School, Gortnor Abbey, Crossmolina, from 1972 until 1977 and that Mr Gill attended the school to repeat his Leaving Certificate in the academic year 1976-1977.

The documents also stated that both the judge and Mr Gill attended a school reunion in the Dolphin Hotel in Crossmolina in 1997.

On January 27th, counsel for Mr O’Donnell lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court. When contacted both Mr O’Donnell and his solicitor, Alan Gannon, declined to comment.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Comment by John Donovan

According to information already published on the Internet:

1. James Gill is the Garda Sergeant who allegedly made a bizarre threat relating to a Corrib protestor: “Give me your name and address or I’ll rape you.”

2. It is also alleged that he probably has the longest and most involved history of any of the Gardaí that have policed the Corrib Gas Project, which included sitting on Shell’s Project Monitoring Committee for 5 years. It is further alleged that his brother’s firm was employed by Shell.

Concern about alleged bias would no doubt be heightened if the sister of James Gill personally knew the circuit court judge in question, Margaret Henegha? Perhaps the judge would be prepared to confirm or deny that she spent 5 years in boarding school with the sister of James Gill?

By Yuliya Fedorinova – Feb 8, 2012 4:53 AM GMT

Sakhalin Energy, Russia’s liquefied natural-gas producer, increased its revenue by $1 billion last year after raising prices, Vedomosti reported today, citing Chief Executive Officer Andrey Galayev.

The project may break even as soon as this spring rather than in 2013 or 2014, as initially planned, Galayev told the Moscow-based newspaper.

OAO Gazprom has a 50 percent stake in Sakhalin Energy.

To contact the reporter on this story: Yuliya Fedorinova in Moscow at yfedorinova@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Viljoen at jviljoen@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAKED EMAILS LOST SHELL BILLIONS ON SAKHALIN-2

Shell $22 billion Sakhalin-2 Project devastated by insider leaks: 10 July 2007

Sakhalin Pep Talk From ‘Old Blood and Guts’: By Max Delany, Moscow Times 9/6/07

(Extract: Greer’s memo, which was leaked to an anti-Shell web site, Royaldutchshellplc.com, appears to show the pressure that he and his fellow managers have been under, as it talks of “the risk of becoming a team that doesn’t want to fight and lacks confidence in its own ability.”)

David Greer, Deputy CEO of Sakhalin Energy resigns in disgrace: 21 June 2007

Published February 07, 2012 Dow Jones Newswires

SOURCE ARTICLE

By Ladane Nasseri – Feb 6, 2012 4:10 PM GMT

Iranian Oil Minister Rostam Qasemi has ordered five European companies, including Royal Dutch Shell Plc, to be put on a blacklist for failing to meet their commitments in the nation’s refinery projects, Mehr reported.

Shell and UOP LLC, a unit of U.S.-based Honeywell International Inc., were among the companies named in the report published today by the state-run news agency.

Qasemi “ordered the National Iranian Oil Products Refining and Distribution Co. to halt foreign purchases of license in the country’s refinery projects at a time of increasing sanctions and lack of commitment of foreign companies,” according to the news agency.

‘These companies will have no role in the future in Iran’s oil and gas industries,” Mehr said, citing the refiner.

Iran is in conflict with western countries over accusations that it is using its nuclear program as a cover for developing weapons, a charge the government denies. European Union foreign ministers agreed on Jan. 23 to ban Iranian crude oil imports starting in July and freeze the assets of the country’s central bank, measures that come in addition to previous United Nations, U.S. and EU sanctions.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ladane Nasseri in Dubai at lnasseri@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew J. Barden at barden@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES

Weaning Royal Dutch Shell off Iranian Oil

Royal Dutch Shell Iranian treachery: 20 November 2010

Royal Dutch Shell trading with the enemy, Iran: 30 October 2010

By LAURENCE ILIFF

MEXICO CITY—Mexican oil company Petroleos Mexicanos has filed a motion to add ConocoPhillips and subsidiaries of Royal Dutch Shell PLC to a 2010 suit in U.S. federal court that seeks damages against companies that had allegedly purchased natural-gas condensate that Pemex said was stolen from its operations in northern Mexico.

In a proposed amended suit that was attached to the motion, Pemex, as the state-owned company is known, said it doesn’t allege that either company “acted with intent or knowledge or that it was part of any conspiracy,” but it does allege that they are liable for “transactions involving the stolen property of Mexico.”

ConocoPhillips didn’t immediately comment Thursday. Shell said it had been notified about the suit, but declined to comment per company policy. Pemex didn’t immediately issue a statement on its latest filing.

The motion to amend the suit to add the additional companies was filed at the Southern District Court of Texas in Houston last week.

In the proposed amended suit, Pemex alleges ConocoPhillips purchased an estimated $35 million in stolen condensate from two other companies after the fuel had been “laundered” through resales to hide its origin.

The plaintiff in the original suit is the exploration and production division of Pemex, or PEP for its Spanish-language initials, which operates natural-gas operations in northern Mexico. Pemex added additional defendants to the original suit last year, bringing the total at that time to more than a dozen.

Last year’s suit followed a criminal investigation by U.S. authorities into a cross-border smuggling scheme that has resulted in the conviction of at least five people since late 2008.

Pemex said in its original suit it believes organized-crime groups have stolen more than $300 million in condensate since 2006 by robbing storage facilities and hijacking tanker trucks.

Petroleum condensates, like propane and butane, are byproducts of the production of natural gas. Pemex doesn’t typically sell the condensate, but instead uses it in its own oil refineries.

—Angel Gonzalez and Chad Bray contributed to this article.

Write to Laurence Iliff at laurence.iliff@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

Comment: this also occurred in the 1980′s at Shell’s Dutch subsidiary, NAM, where large volumes of condensate produced from the Groningen “dry” gas field were sold and used as diesel fuel in road vehicles. It was only after an investigation by the authorities into the use of untaxed road fuel that NAM “discovered” their loss.

Introduction by John Donovan

It seems timely, in view of recent postings on our Shell Blog, to republish an article about Shell CEO Peter Voser authored by retired Royal Dutch Shell Executive, Paddy Briggs (right). It was first published on 27 July 2009. Paddy is currently a Member Nominated Trustee of the Shell Contributory Pension Fund.

On a Swiss roll…

By Paddy Briggs

Here’s the story. You are a Swiss accountant with a proven record of ruthlessness and synthetic business acumen. You are comfortable with numbers – that’s what you do – but you know little about the minutiae of the oil business. How can you be – you are not an “oil man” you are a “dollars man”. By guile, good fortune and the Peter Principle you find yourself at the helm of one of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies. You know that you will struggle with the difficult things – like creating an organisation that finds, develops, transports, refines and markets hydrocarbons. You know nothing at all about the oil and gas chain from exploration to consumption. You’ve never really worked in it – other than seeing spreadsheets which show you how much it costs. But you are now in charge. So what you do is retreat to the familiar world of numbers. That world where there is certainty – where something that costs “$100m” is only supportable if an adequate ROACE is assured. And where, even though future earnings are always, by definition, unpredictable you find a way of getting bogus certainty where there is none. By appointing more accountants and listening to them.

And then there is the term over which you plan to steer the business. Everyone knows that the genetics of the oil business are very long term. To find oil (which costs money) and to develop that oil (which costs more) is within the special competences of Shell – always has been. But to harvest the oil and the gas and to generate the income streams you have to be patient. But how can you be patient if you want to show how macho and “profit-focused” you are? Cut, cut, cut. It’s what I do. And immediately the bottom line benefits. Never mind that in five or ten years we won’t have any new discoveries. Never mind that in a decade or so the reserves cupboard will be bare. I’ll be on a seven figure pension by then like Mark and Phil and Jeroen before me. Ha!