There is a common pattern here - greed mendacity, selfishness and, most culpable of all, stupefying ignorance. Add to this a meanness of sprit - no wonder many of us in the Shell afterlife feel that we don’t know the company at all any more.

A GREEDY OIL GIANT TOO MEAN AND RUTHLESS TO EVEN MAINTAIN SERVICEABILITY AND SAFETY OF NORTH SEA OIL PLATFORM LIFEBOATS…

Today six “supermajors”—Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, and the French Total—dominate the world oil market.

In July 2007, the One World Trust, an independent research organisation associated with the UK Houses of Parliament and the United Nations, said in an “Accountability in Action” newsletter: “As The Royal Dutch Shell plc website shows, a gripe site can have a profound impact on global organisations”. The newsletter went on to say: “The site has not only cost Shell billions of dollars in Russia… “even Shell insiders unhappy with the company use it”.

“…as a commentator on brand and reputation management I find Shell’s mismatch between rhetoric and reality a continuing and monstrous disgrace.”

It’s not the most elegant phrase to use but it seems appropriate – come on Shell “Cut the crap”.

“Mere days after reporting first-quarter profits of £4bn, Shell has shown its true colours in what can only be described as a PR disaster for the company, and further proof that its media-friendly ‘greenspeak’ is both dishonest and irresponsible.”

In 2004, Shell’s U.S. gas and power trading arm Coral Energy paid $30 million to settle charges it reported fake natural gas trades

Reuters: Shell, BP win big from volatile energy markets

Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:17am EDT
By Alex Lawler

LONDON, April 29 (Reuters) - A lucrative ride on the rollercoaster energy markets helped add to the big increases in profit that BP Plc (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research) posted on Tuesday.

BP beat forecasts with a 48 percent leap in first-quarter profit to $6.6 billion, while Shell said earnings rose 12 percent to a record $7.8 billion. BP said a few unusual items flattered its results.

“We had a very good quarter from trading operations,” said BP spokesman David Nicholas. “The contribution was something like $400 million above what you would generally see.”

BP has a reputation as the industry’s top trading firm, an image that dates back to the early 1980s when it led an industry shift to help create the spot oil market — the trading of oil for immediate delivery. Shell, long regarded as more conservative, said it also earned more from trading in the quarter, without giving a precise figure.

“I think we had good trading results,” Shell’s Chief Financial Officer Peter Voser said on a conference call. “It is up, but it is not in a big way up for us.”

Crude oil prices at a record high near $120 a barrel, round-the-clock trading and the appeal of oil to a broader mix of investors highlight the potential for traders to win or lose millions in minutes.

While trading has boosted profit in the last few months, it has also brought BP and Shell under the scrutiny of regulators.

In 2004, Shell’s U.S. gas and power trading arm Coral Energy paid $30 million to settle charges it reported fake natural gas trades. Coral did not admit or deny wrongdoing.

BP last year agreed to pay up $303 million to settle charges that it attempted to corner the U.S. propane market in 2004.

(Reporting by Alex Lawler; editing by William Hardy)

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSL2986702220080429

My only comment on the statement that quote “Brinded has a track record of turning a blind eye to corrupt management and has the blood on his hands of Shell offshore workers that lost their lives in a preventable accident on the Brent Bravo production platform” was that he was in fact the corrupt Manager (Director) and the 1999 major audit atypically pointed the finger at him as the main catalyst for the demise witnessed in that organisation.

Contenders for the tarnished Royal Dutch Shell crown

By John Donovan

The Financial Times published an article on Saturday revealing Shell’s intention to make “one-off retention payments to three Shell executive directors”, Malcolm Brinded, Peter Voser and Linda Cook; the three candidates vying to succeed Jeroen van der Veer when he retires in June next year.

Financial Times Article

Not an inspiring trio

Brinded has a track record of turning a blind eye to corrupt management and has the blood on his hands of Shell offshore workers that lost their lives in a preventable accident on the Brent Bravo production platform for which Shell admitted responsibility and paid a record breaking fine. Brinded failed to take adequate action after a “Touch Fuck All” safety culture was exposed in a safety audit led by Shell International HSE Group Auditor, Bill Campbell.

Peter Voser, the Chief Financial Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, is up to his neck in the UBS Bank scandal. He is a member of the blundering board of directors’s accused of serious wrongdoing, including misrepresentation and alleged fraud.

Linda Cook along with disgraced former Shell executive directors Sir Phil Watts and Walter van de Vijver, was part of a Shell management team which misled investors over the volume of Shell’s reserves. The securities fraud and the resultant scandal cost Shell shareholders $850 million in fines, class action settlements and legal costs. We have documents confirming her personal involvement in important presentations which contained materially false information.

A former Shell executive, Paddy Briggs, has already made the following comment about the proposed retention payments:

We shouldn’t be surprised by the “retention payments” story but my God how offensive it is that these already hugely overpaid people get more gold whilst the Shell Pensioner community has to be satisfied with the minimum that the company can legally get away with. The poorer Pensioners have been hit by the abolition of the 10% tax rate and by real inflation that far exceeds the RPI. Not that our mega-Rich (and soon to be even richer) leaders could give a damn.

Mr Briggs recently resigned from the Shell Pensioners Association on a point of principle because Shell management refused to make a once off payment to Shell pensioners hard hit by rising living costs, due in part to the increasing cost of oil. This is ironic bearing in mind that Shell is embroiled in the sinister events in Nigeria generating record high oil prices at the gas pump. As we have previously pointed out, Shell has a commercial relationship with the gangs attacking Shell infrastructure including pipelines. These attacks occur at a sufficient frequency to repeatedly crimp oil supply, thereby driving up global oil prices. There are articles published every day citing the attacks as being a contributory factor to high oil prices.

Is Shell capable of such skulduggery? The answer is yes, it has a track record of sinister activities and unethical trading, including being a “repeat offender” in setting up illegal cartels. It has been fined on that basis.

Wikipedia Article

Within the last few days, Shell has been accused of being a participant in more unlawful price-fixing, this time in respect of the sale of cigarettes.

And it already has a history of engaging in skulduggery in Nigeria.

http://www.e-ir.info/?p=399 

Wikipedia Article

We are also talking about a company making massive profits but which has failed to ensure that lifeboats on a Shell North Sea platform were properly maintained. Once again profits were put before the safety of Shell employees.

upstreamonline.com article

On the one hand Shell is intent on heaping huge retention payments funded from multibillion dollar profits on three fat cat executive directors of questionable integrity, all indemnified to the hilt against claims for any misdeeds, apparently including fraud, while refusing to make a once off payment to Shell pensioners and failing to spend enough money to maintain the safety of lifeboat’s serving Shell offshore employees.

What would be the most appropriate word to describe this situation: Wicked? Evil? Obscene? Take your pick.

I feel confident these matters will be raised at the forthcoming Shell AGM.

Background information about our website.

As the operators of a well known website www.royaldutchshellplc.com described by the Financial Times as being “anti-Shell”, we have an unusual perspective on issues relating to the Royal Dutch Shell Group.

Because the domain name is the precise dotcom domain name for Royal Dutch Shell Plc we receive all manner of correspondence intended for Shell, including job applications and terrorist threats. Shell unsuccessfully tried to seize the domain name in 2005 but lost the case on a unanimous verdict. 

http://shell2004.com/week22/shell_wages_legal_fight_over_web2june05.htm

As another Wall Street Journal recently stated, the site is regularly used by Shell whistleblowers.

http://shellnews.net/images/wsj17march08002.jpg

Insider information and confidential Shell documents and internal communications are leaked to us on a regular basis. Information we have put into the public domain. The One World Trust, an independent research organisation affiliated to the United Nations and the UK Houses of Parliament, has indicated that our activities have had a profound impact on Shell costing the multinational billions of dollars.

http://www.oneworldtrust.org/?display=accnewsjul07

Shell advert that the ASA has upheld a complaint about

Daily Telegraph: Record complaints over ‘greenwashing’

By Graham Tibbetts
Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 25/04/2008

Record numbers of complaints have been levelled at major businesses who “severely exaggerate” their environmental credentials, the advertising watchdog will say next week.

Airlines, oil companies and car manufacturers have all been censured for adopting the practice known as “greenwash” to cash in on consumers’ growing ecological concerns.

In 2007 the number of environment-related complaints more than doubled from fewer than 150 in 2006 to well over 300, according to the Advertising Standards Authority which is due to publish its annual report on Wednesday.

Lord Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the ASA, said it was one of the fastest-growing areas of complaint and now formed a significant part of the watchdog’s role.

“Because environmental issues - climate change in particular - are coming very strongly to the top of the political agenda, a lot of companies are thinking ‘This is clearly a matter of public concern - let’s see if it will help us sell our products’,” he said in an interview with The Telegraph.

“What we are seeing are claims about being carbon neutral, zero carbon emissions and use of words like ’sustainable’, ‘organic’, ‘100 per cent recycled’ or ‘greenest car in its class’.

“We have come across quite a number where claims are exaggerated or misleading or, in some cases, severely exaggerated.”

A number of the complaints against national and international advertisers were upheld, including Ryanair and Toyota, with Shell identified as one of the worst offenders.

It placed a series of newspaper adverts featuring an oil refinery with flowers emerging from the chimneys and the claim “we use our waste CO2 to grow flowers”.

However, Friends of the Earth complained that it implied most or all emissions were used, whereas the true figure was just 0.325 per cent of its CO2 output. The ASA upheld the complaint.

“This is an extreme example but what they were doing was taking their bit of good environmental practice and making a big claim about themselves and their products,” said Lord Smith, the former culture secretary.

Where a complaint is upheld the ASA can force the offender to change an advert or withdraw it altogether, which could result in a company losing a multimillion pound advertising campaign while gaining a mountain of bad publicity.

“Any misleading in advertising is bad for the consumer and not particularly helpful for the company because they will be found out,” said Lord Smith.

“I suspect Shell are somewhat embarrassed by their ‘we grow flowers’ claim because it’s such a ridiculous claim.”

He admitted that dealing with environmental complaints was “breaking new ground”, which meant having to deal with them on a case by case basis.

However, in June the ASA will bring all parties round the table to develop a framework for future ecological advertising.

“We are hoping that by having a serious discussion with advertising experts, companies and environmental organisations we will be able to head off some of the growing problems by putting some proper guidance in place,” said Lord Smith.

“Companies are obviously keen to find new messages that will help them sell their products. I have no objection to them doing that provided they are doing it truthfully and don’t exaggerate.”

Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth’s political director, said: “Mounting concern about green issues has persuaded many businesses to take real action to reduce their environmental impact.

“Unfortunately too many companies have responded by making misleading claims about their activities. Industry must respond to the huge environmental threats that the planet faces. But this must be through a genuine commitment to protecting the planet, and not by trying to fool the public with advertising ‘greenwash’.”

Environmental complaints upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority

Shell
Picture in newspapers of oil refinery with flowers in chimneys, alongside text: “We use our waste CO2 to grow flowers.” Only 0.325 per cent of their emissions were used to grow flowers.

Toyota
TV ad claimed “what if all cars were like the Prius; with its hybrid…technology it emits up to one tonne less CO2 per year”. Car comparisons were “not suitable” and data were based on average US driving distances, which are far greater than British ones.

Ryanair
Newspaper ads stated: “Aviation accounts for just 2 per cent of CO2 emissions.” Although global figure is 2 per cent, the British figure is 5.5 per cent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/25/eagreen125.xml