By John Donovan

The Irish Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, has stated in response to a parliamentary question asking when product from the Corrib gas fields will be available to the consumer, that it is not possible to state a start date.

He went on to say that the construction of the onshore section of the pipeline, including the construction of a 5 km tunnel, will take about three years and “first gas cannot therefore reasonably be anticipated before 2014.”

Extrapolating from a calculation in an article published by The Irish Examiner, the Shell led Corrib gas project, plagued by controversy, including the jailing of the “Rossport Five“, is now some 9 years behind the initial target date to start generating revenues from the field.

Royal Dutch Shell seems to have under-estimated the opposition.

By John Donovan

Late yesterday evening, I sent an email to Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and to the CEO of the company, Mr Peter Voser.

The email invited comment and correction in relation to a draft article focused on Bjorn Edlund (above right), who in February 2010 retired as Executive Vice President and Head of Group Communications at Royal Dutch Shell plc.

The draft article headline and content was critical in nature.

Under the circumstances, I also sent an email to Mr Edlund with the same invitation. He provided an initial response taking up the invitation and has now provided a substantive reply from his consultancy Bjorn Edlund Consulting.

It is fair to point out that many people connected with Shell would have some trepidation about replying at all, knowing that we are widely regarded as a long-term thorn in the side of Shell, having issued several high court actions against the company since 1994. The most recent proceedings, instituted by Shell, were in 2005. The acrimony has continued for nearly two decades.

Mr Edlund did not ignore my email, or engage in any prevarication, nor did he duck the issues. All tactics used previously by some of his former colleagues.

Instead, he provided a detailed polite response, with precise information, no threats, and no conditions attached.

His reply struck me as being honest, transparent and helpful. Consequently, I have no problem in accepting that some of the information in our draft was inaccurate. That article will not be published.

Mr Edlund provided a text book example of how to convert a potential critic into an admirer.

This PR guru is worth his weight in gold.

Dr Huong was buried in multiple injunctions arising from alleged defamatory postings on our website. Shell also attempted to have him committed to prison and was apparently keen that I should become a fellow prisoner, after they gave up trying to lure my father to Malaysia.

By John Donovan

In 2004, EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group collectively took legal action against Dr John Huong (above), a former Shell production geologist who blew the whistle on the reserves scandal and other nefarious activities carried out by Shell executives in breach of the much proclaimed Shell General Business Principles.

Dr Huong was buried in multiple injunctions arising from alleged defamatory postings on our website. Shell also attempted to have him committed to prison in Malaysia and was apparently keen that I should become a fellow prisoner, after they gave up trying to lure my father to Malaysia.

An email printed below from Dr Huong to his lawyer, Trevor George De Silva, confirms that a Malaysian High Court judge dealing with the litigation told Shell that “they should sue John Donovan in the UK”.

Since that course of action was *not one Shell lawyers wished to pursue, Shell eventually, after 6 years of litigation, had to settle with Dr Huong to stop the case from going to trial. Shell lawyers had undermined their situation by engaging in criminal tampering of evidence to hide important information from the judge.

That was not the only action that perverted the course of justice.

During the course of the litigation, Shell terrorised Dr Huong to the extent that he had to use bodyguards, two of whom were present to protect him when he went to court on 15 July 2004, as stated in his email to us the same day. His house and family were also guarded as a result of sinister events including burglaries, phone tampering, surveillance and an unwelcome night-time visit from a Shell agent, which frightened Dr Huong’s children.

The then Shell Country Chairman, Jon Chadwick, was personally involved in the draconian litigation, which spectacularly backfired on Shell. Perhaps that explains his departure from Shell?

EMAIL DATED 12 February 2007

Dear Mr Trevor,

The following are some of the facts.

1. John and Alfred Donovan jointly own, operate and publish in their website on a daily basis. I also agree with the Judge that when Shell takes issues with what were and are currently published in the website, ‘they should sue John Donovan in the UK’.

2. John and Alfred Donovan are not my agent and/or servants and therefore I cannot undertake the suggestion to cooperate in checking with them an arrangement for a teleconferencing from the UK.  In the past I was trying to be helpful and cooperative with my lawyer Mr. Eric Siow to produce a draft affidavit for which Shell picked on me and served me interim ex-parte injunction which was corrected to inter-parte injunction and served on me as a surprise.

3.  Furthermore, Malaysia has diplomatic relations with UK and if shell takes issue wanting to cross examine John Donovan, an alternative way for Shell is to conduct the cross examination at the Malaysian Embassy in UK – all expenses incurred for which Shell is to pay.

4. As I have mentioned to you earlier by telephone conversation, the last submission of Shell, for example in paragraph 2 had accused me of unaccounted absence from work and for insubordination.  This is flawed and untrue because the unaccounted absence is an allegation resulting from Shell’s failure to conduct an investigation into an alleged misconduct.  In addition Shell lawyers had said that there was an insubordination, a serious misconduct, for which I was never charged at the domestic inquiry.  The case concerning misconduct is still ongoing and I cannot see how Shell lawyers can make such allegations to churn out injunctions.

5. I agree the injunctions made against me are hanging over my head for far too long amounting to human right abuses and need to be disposed off quickly so that we can begin the main trial accusing me of defaming Shell’s good name.

6. Please contact John Donovan and discuss with him what the High Court Judge require.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

RELATED ARTICLES:

Royal Dutch Shell terrorist tactics against Malaysian whistleblower

Invitation by Shell to a Malaysian jail cell

More Information, including legal documents…

*We now know from Shell internal documents the company was obliged to supply to us following an application under the UK Data Protection Act, that Shell decided long ago that it would never take legal action against our website. See Shell internal email dated 19 June 2009. Shell was concerned about the airing of “internal laundry” online. The documents also reveal sinister undercover activity against us by Shell spooks on a global basis in an effort to trace our sources.

My son John Donovan (centre), Chairman of Don Marketing, with two fellow DM directors John Chambers (left) and Roger Sotherton (right), at the launch of the UK Make Money promotion in 1983

Printed below is the background information relating to an article published by Forecourt Trader in January 1995.

By Alfred Donovan

Our High Court action in April 1994 against Shell UK Limited in respect of the Shell Make Money promotion, provides a clear example of bullying, double-dealing and deception by Shell in its dealings with our company, Don Marketing.

In June 1993, Andrew Lazenby, the Shell executive who masterminded the serial theft of intellectual property from companies disclosing proprietary information to Shell, raised the subject of Shell Make Money in conversation with us, as did his boss, David Watson. This was a promotion to which we held joint rights with Shell.

In mid November 1993, we supplied David Watson with a copy of the letter from a former Shell executive Paul King, recording the joint rights agreement between Don Marketing and Shell in respect of the Make Money scheme. Fortunately, we had retained the original Shell letter. We also wrote to David Watson to make sure that he was aware of our proposals for a Shell led multibrand loyalty promotion.

In December 1993, we received a response letter from David Watson. In addition to rejecting the notion that we had any rights to the Make Money concept, he went on to assert that the same applied to a multibrand loyalty concept he had put forward to Shell. John replied saying that there was not much point in debating the matter until such time as Shell decided that they wished to proceed. However, as a result of the claims made in writing by David Watson and comments made by David and Andrew in John’s telephone discussions with them, our suspicions were aroused that Shell was surreptitiously moving forward with Make Money.

John telephoned Andrew on 21^st February 1994 to confront him on the matter. He asked him outright whether a Make Money game was being produced. Andrew said: “the point is unfortunately John that if we wanted to do something in a years time then we’d have to get it resolved at that stage.” John replied: “Well I shall just send a short response to this letter confirming what I have already told you that I have further information…evidence”. To which Mr Lazenby replied, “Then I’ll just send a short response back to you saying I don’t believe it”. It is very difficult to deal with someone representing a multinational goliath who adopts such a cavalier and bullying attitude towards a small company.

Suspecting that Andrew was deceiving us about Shell’s plans, John contacted a reliable source. He confirmed that a Shell Make Money game was well into production in North Wales. We double-checked and received further confirmation that Andrew was deliberately deceiving us and was secretly producing a Make Money game, even though he already had the copy of a Joint Rights Agreement between Shell and Don Marketing. We had caught Mr Lazenby red-handed.

On 6th April 1994, we issued a Writ against Shell UK Limited in relation to the Make Money promotion. We had the advantage of potentially being able to issue an injunction against Shell which would have prevented them running a multimillion pounds promotion and which would also have created a huge amount of adverse publicity.

Shell subsequently made an out of Court settlement with us. We accepted their offer of £60,000 to purchase our rights to Make Money only after the solicitors then acting for Shell, Mackrell Turner Garrett, gave a 10 minute ultimatum to our solicitors on the evening of Friday 8th April 1994, threatening that Shell would switch to an alternative promotion “already at an advanced stage of development”. We subsequently deduced from the discovery documents that the alternative promotion was “Now Showing” – a Hollywood themed collection scheme that replicated our Hollywood Collection proposal. It subsequently became the subject of our third High Court claim eventually settled out of Court by Shell for £100,000. So Shell had used another of our stolen concepts to bamboozle us into accepting far less that the proper value of our rights to “Make Money”.

We now know from the discovery documents a great deal of what was going on internally at Shell during the period that we were discussing Make Money with Andrew and David.

On 15^th September 1993, one of Andrew’s assistants, Charlie Fox, sent a note to a senior Shell manager concerning “OPERATION CUPID” – the project code name for the clandestinely produced Make Money promotion. Under “Key Action” it stated “Finalise Don Marketing’s position”. On 22^nd September 1993, Charlie sent a note to David Watson headed “CUPID AND DON MARKETING”. In addition to other considerations, the note said: “Ask John Donovan whether he will consider working with Shell again in the future. If no, please put it in writing.  If yes, decide if we want to use him for cupid”.

In October 1993, David Watson wrote a note recording a conversation he had with Shell executive John Smeddle regarding the origin of the Make Money game.  Mr Smeddle advised “Tell John what we intend to do for running Make Money i.e. whether he will run it i.e. security, distribution of vouchers” (“John” being John Donovan). Another Shell document originated towards the end of 1993 had a hand-written note by an unknown author (probably David Watson) saying “But if Don Mktg suggested it, they may still have rts to it”.

Despite all of this internal discussion and recommendations, no one at Shell ever put these questions to us. The Make Money project was given to another agency, Option One. We noticed from Andrew Lazenbys diaries supplied under the discovery process that he had dinner with one of its directors, Tim Bonnet, during the crucial period. It became clear to us that Andrew was systematically siphoning off most of the Shell promotional work to Option One. They were given at least one major project for which they did not even tender. They were also involved in the Now Showing project. Mr Lazenby had a personal relationship with the directors of Option One.

We discovered from Shell discovery documents that Lazenby was prepared to engage in an illegal act on behalf of Shell. He recorded in his diary his intent to set up a personal business while at Shell and exit the company at the age of 35, presumably on the basis of building up sufficient funds in the meantime. He had an offshore bank account into which funds were paid.

Amazingly, from the discovery documents it became evident that during the period of the discussions with them about the Nintendo claim and our rights to the other proposals we had put forward, Shell was clandestinely engaged in taking forward three Don Marketing replica concepts – Make Money, the “Hollywood Collection” and the Shell led multibrand loyalty scheme. Bearing in mind that to the best of our knowledge three of the concepts had never been run before anywhere in the world, the odds against Shell developing four successive promotions, which by pure chance replicated our unique proposals, would be so great as to be beyond the realms of possibility.

We had by that time become disenchanted with Shell’s conduct, particularly the threats issued by their lawyers, who had threatened in writing to make the Nintendo litigation “drawn out and difficult”. The threat provided irrefutable evidence of their oppressive tactics against a small company. The tactics were clearly deliberately designed to drain our resources.

Andrew Lazenby had apparently learned nothing from his role in producing the flawed Nintendo themed game. On 17^th May 1994, when Shell launched the Make Money game, we were astonished to discover that the game was insecure to the extent that potentially, staff at participating sites could pick out all of the envelopes containing the winning half notes. Shell was well aware that there is no foolproof way to prevent dishonest staff from submitting claims using friends’ addresses.

We notified David Pirret (Shell’s General Manager at the time) and Shell Managing Director, David Varney.

On 19^th May 1994, Shell took up our invitation to attend a meeting at the Fleet Street offices of our solicitors where we promised to demonstrate the insecurity of the new game. We did so in the presence of our solicitor, Richard Woodman.

Three people represented Shell at the demonstration; Peter Whyte of Shell Retail; Alan Williams from Shell’s Legal Division, and Nigel Rowley from Mackrell Turner Garrett. John Donovan and Roger Sotherton represented Don Marketing. They correctly identified the type of half note concealed in 7 out of the first 10 envelopes and then guaranteed a 100% success rate for all subsequent envelopes. They achieved this feat without opening the envelopes. Shell’s representatives did not take up the offer to continue with the demonstration. Our subsequent offer to identify the flaws in the security of the Make Money envelopes was declined by Shell’s lawyers because, as they indicated in a letter, “Shell could see no advantage in knowing.”

Despite knowing that the game was totally insecure, and that as a consequence, dishonest forecourt staff could identify and remove all winning game pieces before they were given to drivers, Shell run the game for its full promotional period. So much for Royal Dutch Shell Business Principles. Shell senior executives involved in these events, including Malcolm Brinded, David Pirret and Tim Hannagan, remain at Shell.

John Donovan displays Shell Singapore “Make Money” POS display – a multi-national promotion devised and supplied by Don Marketing. The same promotion was also conducted in the UK and in Ireland. Photograph from Marketing Magazine article “Games people play“, 18 September 1986

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS: January 13, 2012

A Royal Dutch Shell vessel surveying for oil reserves in the Arctic in preparation for drilling. Photo: Shell Oil

Royal Dutch Shell has been on a six-year crusade to drill in Arctic waters off Alaska’s coast, and has spent about $4 billion on the effort so far without drilling a single well.

But the company took one more bureaucratic baby step forward this week toward drilling in the Chukchi Sea later this year. An appeals board of the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday rejected four challenges brought by Alaska Native entities and environmental groups like Earthjustice to block Clean Air Act permits covering airborne emissions from industrial operations.

Opponents argued that nitrogen dioxide emissions from drilling would pollute the air of Native communities, but the appeals board concluded that the evidence presented was not robust enough to support the claim.

Nonetheless, Shell faces more hurdles, including a possible appeal of the decision to the federal courts.

But since delays in the air-permitting process was a principal reason Shell did not drill last year, Shell executives have expressed cautious satisfaction with the new ruling..

Four weeks ago the company received conditional federal approval to drill six exploratory wells in Arctic waters, but environmentalists say they will press on with their appeals. They argue a spill in freezing waters would be a disaster for endangered wildlife and challenging to clean up because of the region’s harsh climate, ice cover on the water, strong winds and long seasonal darkness.

“We look forward to continued progress on the permitting front and remain committed to working with regulators and stakeholders to achieve all of the permits necessary to drill in 2012,” Shell said in an optimistic statement late Thursday.

Eric Jorgensen, an Earthjustice lawyer, said: “We’re disappointed. The E.P.A. cut corners in issuing the permit and we don’t believe it complies with the Clean Air Act.”

As for an appeal, he said, “We’re looking at all options.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

By DAN JOLING, Associated Press 13 January 2012

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Royal Dutch Shell’s quest to drill exploratory wells in Arctic waters has received a boost with the affirmation that its federal air permits for the Chukchi Sea were properly granted.

The EPA Appeals Board on Thursday rejected challenges to the air permits brought by Alaska Native and conservation groups.

Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith said in a formal announcement that the decision means Shell, for the first time, has usable air permits that will allow its drill ship, the Noble Discoverer, to work in the outer continental shelf off Alaska’s northwest coast in 2012.

“Achieving usable permits from the EPA is a very important step for Shell and one of the strongest indicators to date that we will be exploring our Beaufort and Chukchi leases in July,” Smith said.

Drilling is strongly opposed by conservation groups that contend oil companies cannot clean up a spill in ice-choked waters, and that the remote Chukchi and Beaufort seas are too far from ports, major airports and other infrastructure for an effective cleanup if there’s a blowout.

Earthjustice attorney Colin O’Brien, who represented groups that filed one of four air permit appeals, said it an email response to questions that the decision could be appealed in federal court, but that it was too early to speculate about potential next steps.

He said EPA took shortcuts when it issued the permits and failed to fully protect Arctic air quality as required by the Clean Air Act.

“These permits pave the way for Shell to emit thousands of tons of harmful air pollution into the pristine Arctic environment, at levels that may be harmful to nearby communities and the environment for years to come,” he said. “We are disappointed that the Environmental Appeals Board decided against us and allowed EPA’s permit decisions to stand.

A Shell subsidiary has applied to drill up to three exploratory wells in the Chukchi during the open water season this year and additional exploratory wells in 2013. The company hopes to use a second drill for exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s north coast, and awaits a decision on the appeal of its air permit.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in December approved Shell’s Chukchi drilling plan with one important stipulation. The agency said Shell must still drilling into hydrocarbon zones 38 days before sea ice is projected to engulf the drill site to make sure it has time cope with a spill or a wellhead blowout. That would cut the drilling window by about one-third.

A successful appeal of previous air permits played a part of Shell’s decision to cancel drilling for 2011. In that case, the appeals board concluded that analysis of the impact of nitrogen dioxide emissions on Alaska Native communities was too limited. The board remanded the permits to allow the agency to fix permit problems.

The appeal filed by Earthjustice contended that Shell’s new permit was based on pollution estimates that were inherently unreliable because they are based on equipment that Shell did not identify and that the EPA never intends to test.

Shell faces other hurdles before it can send its drill ships and support vessels north. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement must approve Shell’s oil spill response plan for the Chukchi.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

SOURCE ARTICLE

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”

JANUARY 10, 2012, 6:10 P.M. ET

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)-Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSA.LN) Tuesday reported an emissions event caused by a leak in overhead piping at the company’s joint-venture refinery in Deer Park, Texas.

In a filing to Texas state environmental regulators, the company said the emissions were routed to the appropriate safety flare system and that refinery personnel depressured and isolated the leak from the Debenzenizer 1 column in just over 10 minutes.

The Debenzenizer and Hydrotreater 2 were listed as sources of the emissions.

It is not clear whether the event had an impact on production at the 327,000-barrels-a-day refinery that Shell Oil, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, operates in partnership with PMI Norteamerica S.A. de C.V., a subsidiary of Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex.

-By Rose Marton-Vitale; Dow Jones Newswires, 201-264-4185, rose.marton@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES

Shell Reports Release of Deadly Benzene Chemical at Deer Park Refinery

Extract: Bloomberg News has reported the release of an unknown amount of the deadly chemical benzene at its Deer Park refinery in Texas.

Shell to Pay $500,000 for Pollution in Texas

Extract: The settlement was reached after Harris County accused Shell Chemical, a unit of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, of failing to notify officials about the toxic releases

Shell reports release of sulfur dioxide at Convent Refinery

EXTRACT: LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Income performance at Motiva Enterprises LLC’s Convent refinery near Baton Rouge in Louisiana has been dismal since July 2008 and the company needs to cut costs to return to profitability, according to an internal email from part-owner Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB) which was leaked to a blog critical of the company. “We are getting our costs in line at Convent in order to become competitive in a tough business environment,” the email sent to Motiva staff by manager David Brignac said. “We are considering reductions in operator positions, but no final decisions have been made on operator staffing levels,” he writes in the email posted Friday on royaldutchshellplc.com.

Forbes: Shell refineries settle with government: Associated Press, 03.31.2010, 02:40 PM EDT

Extract: ST. ROSE, La. — Two Shell chemical companies have agreed to install $6 million in pollution reduction equipment at two petroleum refineries in Louisiana and Alabama and upgrade a terminal in Puerto Rico as part of a Clean Air Act settlement with the federal government. Shell Chemical LP and Shell Chemical Yabucoa, units of Royal Dutch Shell PLC ( RDSA – news – people ), also will pay a combined $3.3 million civil penalty to the federal government, Alabama and Louisiana.

About $193 will go to Louisiana organizations for environmental education, teacher workshops and emergency operations. The new pollution control equipment will be installed at Shell Chemical refineries in St. Rose, La., and Saraland, Ala. The settlement was announced Wednesday by the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.

NASDAQ: Shell To Pay $9.5 Million In Settling Clean Air Act Allegations: Mar 31, 2010 | 3:00PM

Extract: DOW JONES NEWSWIRES: Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSA.LN) has agreed to pay $3.5 million in penalties and spend an estimated $6 million to install pollution-reduction equipments at three U.S. refineries to reduce harmful air emissions. The equipment is intended to cut output of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by more than 1,450 tons a year at the facilities in Louisiana, Alabama and Puerto Rico. Assistant Attorney General Ignacia Moreno said the settlement is an example of businesses’ effort to comply with government environmental regulations. “We will continue to work with industry to achieve compliance under the Clean Air Act to remove harmful pollution from the air we breathe,” she added. -By Jodi Xu, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-3037; jodi.xu@dowjones.com (END) Dow Jones Newswires 03-31-101334ET Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Los Angeles Times: Shell refineries reach Clean Air Act settlements: By Associated Press March 31, 2010 | 12:02 p.m.

Extract: ST. ROSE, La. (AP) — Two Shell chemical companies have agreed to install $6 million in pollution reduction equipment at two petroleum refineries in Louisiana and Alabama and upgrade a terminal in Puerto Rico as part of a Clean Air Act settlement with the federal government. Shell Chemical LP and Shell Chemical Yabucoa, units of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, also will pay a combined $3.3 million civil penalty to the federal government, Alabama and Louisiana. About $193,000 will go to Louisiana organizations for environmental education, teacher workshops and emergency operations. The new pollution control equipment will be installed at Shell Chemical refineries in St. Rose, La., and Saraland, Ala. The settlement was announced Wednesday by the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Unauthorised venting and flaring of gas by Shell in USA

Extract: On 5 August 2003, the United States Department of Justice announced ^[19] that Shell Oil Company had agreed to pay $49 million USD “to settle claims under the False Claims Act and various administrative provisions relating to its unauthorized venting and flaring of gas…” at its Auger platform, located some 150 miles (240 km) off the coast of Louisiana and at other Shell facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. The settlement also resolved claims that Shell had failed to properly report, or pay royalties on the vented and flared gas. This was the third case settled by Shell Oil Company in the period 1999 to 2003 alleging that it had underpaid royalties owed to the United States. In 2000, Shell agreed to pay $56 million to settle claims that it undervalued gas produced from federal leases. Shell paid $110 million in 2001 to settle ^[20] US Department of Justice claims that it undervalued crude oil extracted from federal lands.

Shell Reports ‘Unplanned’ Flaring At Martinez Refinery: 26 February 2011

Hearing on Shell plea set Jan. 17

Philippine Daily Inquirer: Monday, January 9th, 2012

The Court of Appeals has calendared for hearing a pending petition of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. questioning a Manila regional trial court’s resolution that ordered the Big Three oil companies to open their books of account to government audit amid allegations of price fixing.

In setting the hearing for Jan. 17, the appellate court cited the “far-reaching effects to the public” of Shell’s petition that seeks to void the April 27, 2009, order of Manila RTC Branch 26 Judge Silvino Pampilo.

“Considering the importance of the issues involved, its far-reaching effects on the public…this court deems it necessary to set the case hearing,” read a two-page resolution penned by Presiding Justice Andres Reyes.

The Court of Appeals said that conducting a formal inquiry on the matter would allow it to “make a more judicious evaluation of the pending incidents in the present action.”

In his order, Pampilo had granted a petition by the Social Justice Society (SJS) and directed Pilipinas Shell, Petron Corp. and Chevron Philippines Inc. to allow the government to scrutinize their books of account.

SJS and various sectors had accused the three major oil firms of forming a cartel and manipulating the prices of oil products which had skyrocketed. Marlon Ramos

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED

Shell Price Fixing

Sir Henri Deterding, the Dutch oil baron, built the Royal Dutch Shell group on oil price fixing and cartel activity. The Glyn Roberts biography of Sir Henri contains several references to what is described as Sir Henri’s “moralizing references to honest trading” and to “sound business principles”. Deterding was in fact a hypocrite who, as the dictatorial leader of Shell, became an important financial supporter of Hitler and Nazi Germany, partly in a quest to build a cartel position in synthetic gasoline with Shell’s notorious cartel partner, I.G. Farben. Sir Henri was also intent on securing during his face-to-face discussions with Hitler, a monopoly for Royal Dutch and Shell Companies in respect of petrol distribution in Germany.

Shell price fixing and market manipulation activity has continued through the decades.

New York Times: “Shell to Pay $180 Million” (Price fixing case): 3 Jan 1987

New York Times: “California Oil Price-Fixing Case Settled”: 17 August 1991

New York Times: Settlement for Coral Power: 15 November 2003

Bloomberg: Shell, Unipetrol, Bayer Are Sued Over Rubber Cartel (Update2): 20 May 2008

May 20 (Bloomberg) — Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., the second- largest U.S. tiremaker, and 25 other companies sued Unipetrol AS, units of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Bayer AG, and as many as 20 others over an alleged rubber cartel in Europe.

Unipetrol and units of Shell, Dow Chemical Co., Eni SpA and Trade-Stomil Sp were fined a total of 519 million euros ($813 million) in a 2006 European Union antitrust case over material used to make tires and shoes. The companies are appealing.

Reuters: EU fines “paraffin mafia” wax makers’ cartel: 1 October 2008

The Times: ‘Paraffin mafia’ comes unstuck after €676m fines: 2 October 2008

Guardian: ‘Paraffin mafia’ firms given £500m fines for price-fixing: 2 October 2008

Financial Times: Brussels fines paraffin wax cartel: 2 October 2008

The Wall Street Journal: Wax Price-Fixing Is Alleged: 2 October 2008

Financial Post (Canada): GREECE FINES BP, SHELL $80M FOR PRICE-FIXING: 26 November 2008

ChannelNewsAsia: Greece fines BP, Shell for price-fixing: 26 November 2008

International Herald Tribune: Greece: BP, Shell fined for competition breaches: 25 November 2008

Bloomberg: Chevron, Total, Exxon, Shell Fined on Air France Fuel: price fixing cartel: 4 Dec 2008 (Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Chevron fined 41.1 million euros ($52 million) by the French antitrust authority for fixing the price of fuel for certain Air France-KLM Group flights.)

Shell, Dow lose court challenge to EU antitrust fine: 13 July 2011: Reuters

Extracts

(Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) and Dow Chemical (DOW.N) lost a court appeal on Wednesday against a fine levied by EU regulators five years ago for taking part in a cartel…

…the Court upheld the 160.88 million euro fine on the Royal Dutch Shell group.

Shell involvement in uranium price fixing cartel

NEWS HEADLINES FILE FOR ROYAL DUTCH SHELL RESERVES FRAUD (MARKET ABUSE)

POSTING ON SHELL BLOG ON 6 JANUARY 2012 BY “DUTCHDUDE”

I am ashamed by the conduct of Shell HR in the Anti Discrimination case.

As a company we should honour these issues.

The mentioned HR rep (Van Barlingen) in the article did much more damage to Shell’s reputation by her cold reply and non-action.

I truly hope that senior HR management will overrule this decision and decide in favour of Mr Gatti.