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!
In a front page lead story in the Financial Times, our site was properly credited with breaking news of the restructuring plans of Peter Voser.
FROM OUR ARCHIVE: EXTRACT FROM A RELATED EMAIL MESSAGE SENT BY JOHN DONOVAN TO OVER 400 SENIOR SHELL EXECUTIVES
Congratulations!
I am writing to offer our best wishes on your appointment/new title, as announced on our website royaldutchshellplc.com within the lists of Shell senior executive appointments we published on 22 June and 3 August.
The unauthorised publication of leaked Shell confidential information on our site has become a news event in its own right, regularly reported by The Wall Street Journal and other news organisations.
Our insider sources know that we will protect anonymity. If you ever feel the need to supply information, please contact me and I will advise on setting up secure communications.
SHELL BLOG
Comments posted by Shell employees on our “Shell Blog” have been quoted in many news articles.
If you want to keep in touch with uncensored grassroots opinion of Shell stakeholders, I would strongly recommend regular visits to the facility, as the comments are often insightful and reflect all shades of opinion. Why not post your own views? You can do so anonymously. What do you think about Shell executives being forced to reapply for their jobs? What do you make of the callous comment by Peter Voser that asking staff to reapply had been “an interesting exercise“?
You are also welcome to supply Shell related articles for unedited publication under your own name. We have published numerous articles on this basis from eminent Shell retirees, Shell executive Paddy Briggs, Shell International HSE Group Auditor, Bill Campbell, and Royal Dutch Shell Global Chief Petroleum Engineer, Iain Percival.
The Shell Blog has replaced “Tell Shell”, the official Shell Internet forum for open and lively debate, “temporarily suspended” (permanently) after we exposed the secret censorship of postings considered too open and too lively.
Shell General Counsel Richard Wiseman (now RDS Plc Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer) confirmed to us in an email dated 11 November 2005 Shell’s censorship of Tell Shell postings.
In the same email, Mr Wiseman stated:
The extraordinary tolerance shown to your internet activities ought to demonstrate better than anything else the fact that we are uninterested in, and unmoved by, your current activities
Richard Wiseman subsequently, at his own initiative, sent us an updated photograph of himself to display on our website (left).
In a further development revealing the truth, as opposed to the spin, we found out from documents obtained under the Data Protection Act that Shell set up a team in an attempt to counter our activities. The relevant internal email exposes the hostility towards us and the fact that it is is held in check by fear of reprisal on our part. If you find this difficult to believe, read the email.
So much for being uninterested and unmoved!
Update: Richard Wiseman retired from Shell in March 2011.
Printed below is an article by Tony Allwright, a retired Irish Shell EP manager. (SOURCE ARTICLE)
26 November 2011
Protests – overwhelmingly unfounded and politically unchallenged –
have trebled the cost of developing Ireland’s offshore Corrib gasfield.
This huge “political risk” will deter further such investments for a generation.
Many years ago, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a Dutch company with an Irish name, Shell Teoranta BV, whose raison d’être was to seek and hopefully find oil offshore Ireland (“Teoranta” is Irish for ““Limited”). It drilled a number of wells – for example, on 19th December 1979, the Irish Times featured a photo of a jack-up rig drilling an exploration well just offshore Dublin – but to no avail. All the holes were dry. Concluding that Ireland was a lost cause, Shell Teoranta packed its bags and shut up shop, though not before claiming a huge write-off from the Dutch taxpayer for all its futile Irish expenditure, a provision of Netherlands law which explains why Shell Teoranta was registered there. Shell reckoned it had better uses for its shareholders’ money than to fritter it away on the ultra-long-shots of Irish exploration.
Fast forward a few decades and Enterprise Oil, a significant independent British oil company though not in the same league as the majors, disproved Shell’s pessimism by discovering, in 1996, a small-to-medium sized gas field offshore Mayo, which it called Corrib. Containing natural gas reserves eventually calculated to be around one TCF, ie a trillion cubic feet (equivalent to the energy of about 170 million barrels of oil), it lay 3,000 metres below the seabed in waters 350 metres deep some 83km off the north west coast of Ireland. Notwithstanding that weather and sea conditions are among Europe’s wildest, and that Ireland possesses the barest of offshore oilfield infrastructure, the economics were nevertheless positive – albeit marginally so – thanks largely to the improved (from the oil industry’s standpoint) contract terms promulgated in 1987 by Energy Minister Ray Burke.
Enterprise Oil had never before attempted such a demanding project. Yet in the year 2000 it decided to go ahead with bringing Corrib’s hydrocarbons ashore anyway, quickly busying itself with organizing finance, drawing up engineering plans and ordering equipment. Yet its inexperience manifested itself early on and remained long undetected when it failed to discuss in any detail its plans with the local people, listen to their concerns and secure their enthusiastic support. This is an elementary but vital step in the project process that the international oil industry has learnt the hard way over many decades.
The world-wide eruption of protests in 1995 at Shell’s environmentally sound decision to sink the North Sea platform Brent Spar in the far Atlantic was one of that company’s bitterest lessons. This reputational catastrophe showed in starkest terms that it was no longer sufficient for the industry to be right; it must convince those who might be affected (even if only emotionally) by its plans that it is right. Even Greenpeace eventually acknowledged that Shell’s original plan would have had minimal ecological impact – Brent Spar had been comprehensively voided of all toxic material and there is anyway little life on the Atlantic seabed at a depth of 2½ kilometers. Shell realised that its prior philosophy of “Trust me” must be replaced by one of “Show me”.
Enterprise Oil’s failure to ensure that the locals were onside over the Corrib development was a mistake with enormous long term implications, as anyone with but a passing interest in the activist Shell-to-Sea organization will be aware.
In April 2002, Shell, chastened no doubt by the voracious acquisition of the US oil companies Arco and Amoco in recent years by its arch-rival BP, splashed out £3.5 billion to buy Enterprise Oil, whose portfolio of assets fitted rather well with Shell’s.
But like someone sitting down to a lunch of two dozen luscious Gillardeau oysters, the world’s most expensive, only to discover a bad ‘un among them, Shell found itself responsible for delivering a demanding major offshore development project in Ireland, by no means a blockbuster, in the country it had with good reason foresworn twenty years earlier. Oh, and its return to Ireland meant it had to refund Shell Teoranta’s juicy rebate from the 1980s back to the Dutch taxpayer.
Nevertheless, Shell in good faith put together a team, including some Enterprise personnel, to take over the Corrib project. Drawing on its extensive experience and expertise in this type of deep water harsh environment, it reviewed the Enterprise plans and in 2003 agreed a budget of €800,000 and four years. First gas, as it is known, was expected in 2007.
So all was looking rosy. What could possibly go wrong? Well, quite a lot as it turned out. None of it technical or financial or labour-related, the classical reasons most big projects run into trouble.
Shell’s first error was not to realise that there was a potential problem with the residents in the Ballinaboy area of County Mayo where the onshore pipeline was to be laid and the gas plant built.
Understandably, families were initially fearful that gas explosions might destroy their houses or even kill them. They strongly preferred that the gas plant be located offshore (out of sight out of mind).
Enterprise Oil had done very little to explain to the residents not only the project, its robust safeguards and the virtual impossibility of the disaster scenarios they imagined, but also the benefits it was likely to bring to that relatively impoverished area in terms of employment, regeneration and reputation.
Thus a properly designed, operated and maintained pipeline simply will not fail, and speculation about failure is pointless.
Though the onshore pipeline was (initially) to run within 70 metres of some homes, as for the plant itself, it was sufficiently remote from residents’ buildings for them to be unaffected even in the highly unlikely event of a disaster.
But by the time, Shell recognised it had a problem with the locals, that problem had transformed from a rational fear to an emotional fury. With the fury came press attention, with that came international interest, with that Corrib became a cause célèbre, and an opportunity for professional objectors everywhere to vent their manufactured spleen at a wicked multinational oil company whose only desire is to destroy the lives of simple natives.
The professional objectors have on several occasions been joined by overseas protestors, including the son of Mr Saro-Wiwa. And with the inauguration in November of the left-wing Michael D Higgins as Ireland’s new president, the objectors now number the First Citizen among their supporters. Though some funds are raised via websites, it is unclear who provides the bulk of its funding, but Sinn Fein and other sinister sources have been cited. I have asked the major anti-Corrib pressure group “Shell to Sea” where it gets its money and am still awaiting a reply.
Meanwhile, from the moment Shell got involved with Corrib until the present, it has been on the back foot in trying present its side of the story to the world while simultaneously progressing the project.
I first wrote about these objections, in some detail, almost two years ago, in a piece titled “Organizational Dementia”.
The project itself has been exemplary in its technical aspects, and indeed in many ways is an industry trailblazer. Shell, and particularly Ireland, should be in the position of bragging to the world of its prowess. Ireland should be using the success of Corrib as a means to attract not just future investment in offshore (and indeed onshore) exploration and production, but also the vast, highly technical contract industry that supports such activities.
Instead, the project is conducted almost behind closed doors and talked about in whispers, in the shadow of continuous low-level but toxic protest, for fear of unleashing another round of hysterical tabloid agitation. Earlier this year, a private, low-key purely technical presentation about the project to a select group of about fifty interested engineers had to be cancelled when Shell-to-Sea got wind and threatened to disrupt the meeting and call in the media.
For Shell, all these difficulties has pushed up the price tag from €800m to €2.5 billion. But the nation is also paying a terrible cost that, both now and in the future, that no country can afford in these times of financial crisis and meltdown.
It is instructive to compare Corrib with other recent major offshore development projects. One such is Norway’s Ormen Lange, in which Shell holds 17% and recently took over the running of the field:
So Ormen Lange, by any measure a bigger more complex project even than Corrib, was delivered on budget in just 3½ years. Corrib, on the other hand, is expected to take twelve years – three times as long as originally planned – and to cost three times its original budget.
Have a look at another major construction project in an entirely different industry – aircraft construction. Boeing dreamt up its 787 Dreamliner in January 2003 and eventually delivered it in October 2011. This was 3½ years behind schedule, a big overrun, which was solely due to technical problems, apart from a two-month Boeing Machinists Strike.
Corrib’s far greater delay, by comparison, is due not to technical problems at all, nor financial ones nor labour ones. Local politics, and the way they were handled, are entirely to blame. How embarrassing is that?
The local politics boil down purely to those objections by local people, and their national and international supporters, to the onshore elements of the project, objections with only the thinnest veneer of legitimacy to start with, and none at all following substantial concessions instituted by Shell, principally
Meanwhile, for the past eight years the politicians have steadfastly looked on with, at best, bemused disinterest and without the slightest concern for Ireland’s industrial reputation. Moreover, enforcement of the law has been low on their priorities and many (including the current president) have overtly supported the activists.
So view Corrib from the standpoint of outside investors. A major, innovative project that has encountered no substantive problems in terms of technology, finance or industrial relations, is nevertheless delivered three times over budget and over time, due entirely to local impediments and the complete lack of political will to overcome them.
People will look at Ireland, and surely assign it a massive political risk of 200% to 300%.
The Corrib experience is such that there will undoubtedly be no further major investments of this nature in Ireland for at least a generation until this one has been forgotten. Even industrial investors in other heavy industries will be looking askance at Ireland and asking themselves if the favourable corporate tax rate of 12½% is really worth the enormous cost of all the political hassle it can expect from local objectors and the spinelessness of politicians.
Far better to sink your money in havens such as Somalia and Iraq where the political risk will be much less punitive than in the erstwhile Celtic Tiger.
Ireland’s chance to showpiece its technical expertise and perhaps secure for itself a permanent corner of the massive, lucrative and long-lasting offshore market for the future is gone.
Meanwhile, Shell is licking its wounds and battling on. Eventually, once natural gas finally begins to flow in 2015 (?) it will get its money back as it supplies Ireland with 60% of its gas, but it will be a long long slog.
Declaration of interest:
I worked for Shell for thirty years, though not through the Corrib period
The London Central Office of Royal Dutch Shell has been closed as a result of there being a major flood in the basement during the night of 15th November 2010. Heating, air conditioning and water supplies are all affected. The flood caused the building to be closed today and it will remain closed tomorrow. Current expectations are that Shell Centre will reopen on Thursday 18th – but this has yet to be confirmed.
VIDEO FEATURING COMMENTARY BY FORMER ROYAL DUTCH SHELL EXECUTIVE, PADDY BRIGGS
By John Donovan
In the YouTube.com video above, *Paddy Briggs quotes from the minutes of a meeting of Royal Dutch Shell Group Managing Directors held on 23 July 2003 (MARKED “MOST CONFIDENTIAL”.
“It was noted that development of the Corrib field may be delayed until 2004 as planning consent had been refused for the terminal. 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.”
The video also mentions a pivotal Shell meeting with the then Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) of Ireland. It is no secret that Berti Ahern is tainted by corruption -- see further information from Wikipedia below.
So there you have it. An Irish Prime Minister who has a track record of corruption associated with planning matters and a greedy ruthless oil giant, also with a track record of corruption. A true meeting of like minds.
This is all to be expected from a multinational which has an ethics boss, Richard Wiseman, an admitted bender of professional rules and loyal supporter of corrupt practices by predatory Shell executives preying on smaller companies. This naturally made Mr Wiseman the perfect choice for appointment as the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. A lofty position he still holds, traveling the world making anti-corruption speeches.(1) (2)
RELATED: On Friday, 22nd October 2010 at 6:15 pm, a film about the community at the centre of the Corrib Gas controversy, entitled ‘The Pipe’, will screen at the British Film Institute in Southbank – only a few hundred metres away from the headquarters of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. It was here in this building on the 22nd July 2002, that the Committee of Managing Directors of Shell met to discuss, among other things, the recent refusal of planning consent for the Corrib gas field refinery by the Irish Planning Board. The following decision taken here by the senior Shell management team would set in train a collision course between a tiny community and the Irish State, and one which would have devastating consequences for the inhabitants of the small coastal village of Rossport.
*Paddy Briggs worked for Shell for 37 years, the last 15 of which were in international brand and reputation management appointments. Today, through his BrandAware™ consultancy, he advises businesses on brand and reputation management issues. Paddy is a prolific writer and journalist, especially on his specialist business subjects and on sport. He is also one of two pensioner-elected trustees of the £13 billion Shell Contributory Pension Fund.
FROM WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE “Bertie Ahern” (22 October 2010)
Admission of undeclared payments
Ahern was criticised by the Moriarty Tribunal for signing blank cheques for the then Taoiseach Charles Haughey, without asking what those cheques were for. Ahern told the tribunal that a policy of signing blank cheques was used on the Fianna Fáil party leader’s account for reasons of “administrative convenience”.[70] In September 2006 The Irish Times printed claims allegedly leaked[71] from The Mahon Tribunal that Ahern had received money from a millionaire businessman while Minister for Finance in 1993.
The editor of The Irish Times defended the publication as being in the public interest at a hearing of the tribunal, saying that it was not a party to the Supreme Court case which restrained the Sunday Business Post from publishing leaked documents. This order was directed against the Sunday Business Post but its interim order purported to restrain all media outlets from publishing confidential material from the inquiry.
Ahern has admitted that he did receive money but said on being interviewed that:
What I got personally in my life, to be frank with you is none of your business. If I got something from somebody as a present or something like that I can use it.
What Ahern said in 1996, while in opposition:
The public are entitled to have an absolute guarantee of the financial probity and integrity of their elected representatives, their officials and above all of Ministers. They need to know that they are under financial obligations to nobody. (Dáil Éireann transcript, December 1996)
This contradiction has been criticised in editorials in both the Irish Independent[72] and The Irish Times[73]
Six days after the payments were publicised, Ahern admitted in a[74] television interview[75] that he had received two payments totalling IR£39,000 (€50,000) in 1993 and 1994. Ahern regarded the money as a loan, but he conceded that no repayments had at that time (September 2006) been made and no interest has been paid. He said that he had attempted to repay it, but that his friends would not accept repayment. He claimed that he had broken no codes -- ethical, tax, legal or otherwise.
On 28 November 2007, former NCB managing director Padraic O’Connor at the Mahon Tribunal, “directly contradicted Mr Ahern’s claims that long-standing friends gave him a loan just after Christmas 1993.”[76]
In the same interview, he also admitted to receiving a payment of £8,000 from a group of 25 businessmen in Manchester on one occasion. He claimed that this money was again unsolicited, that it was a gift and therefore not subject to tax as it had been received when abroad, and that it was paid to him after he gave an after-dinner speech at an ad hoc function. He claimed that the money was given to him as a private citizen, not to him in his then role as Minister for Finance, and that no other payments were received by him after speaking at other similar functions. The Irish Times reported on 30 September 2006 that part of this payment was actually a cheque drawn on NCB Stockbrokers, a large Irish company. A number of his benefactors have received appointments as directors of State boards.[77] Insisting that no favours had been offered or received, Ahern said:
I might have appointed somebody but I appointed them because they were friends, not because of anything they had given me.
Under the Standards in Public Office Commission’s rules,
State appointments should be made on the basis of merit, taking into account the skills, qualifications and experience of the person to be appointed.
Members of Dáil Éireann must conduct themselves[78]
in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Code of Conduct and ensure that their conduct does not bring the integrity of their office or the Dáil into serious disrepute.
In the face of negative publicity, Ahern has repaid the monies advanced to him, with 5% interest totalling €90,000.[79]
On 3 October 2006 Ahern made a 15 minute statement in Dáil Éireann defending his actions in taking loans totalling IR£39,000 (€50,000) from friends in Ireland and £8,000 (€11,800) as a gift from businessmen in Manchester in 1993 and 1994.[80][81][82] In his statement he apologised for the distress his actions had brought saying:
The bewilderment caused to the public about recent revelations has been deeply upsetting for me and others near and dear to me. To them, to the Irish people and to this house, I offer my apologies.
Confirmation of sterling cash lodgements
On 20 March 2008 at the Mahon Tribunal the disclosure,[83][84] of lodgements of £15,500 sterling into building society accounts of Ahern and his daughters was accepted as a matter of probability by Ahern’s former secretary Grainne Carruth.
Previously in her evidence, Carruth, on 19 March 2008 had said, that she had not lodged sterling for Ahern, while she accepted (as a matter of probability), a day later, that she must have lodged sterling on Ahern’s behalf based on the paperwork available although her recollection is that she never had sighting of sterling at any time.
Ahern had told the tribunal during his evidence in February 2008, that the lodgements to his and his daughters’ accounts had come from his salary as a politician.
‘No bank account’
Further questions were raised about IR£50,000 (€63,300) which he had lodged to his bank account in 1994. He claimed this was money he had saved over a substantial period of time (1987–1994) when he had had no active bank account. During this period he was Minister for Labour and subsequently Minister for Finance. He was asked by the leader of the Labour party, Pat Rabbitte whether, in the absence of a bank account, he had kept the money in a ‘sock in the hot-press’ and by Joe Higgins, the leader of the Socialist Party if he had kept the money ‘in a shoe-box’. Ahern replied that he had kept the money ‘in his own possession’.
Payment in relation to house
On 5 October 2006 further information emerged[85] in the Dáil that Ahern had bought his house in Dublin from Manchester based Irish businessman, Micheál Wall, who was at an event in Manchester in 1994 where the Taoiseach received a payment of GBP£8,000 (€11,800). This caused further tensions within the Government coalition parties.
On 10 October 2006 the Taoiseach[35] again told the Dáil that it was an ‘error of judgement’ for him to accept loans and gifts for personal purposes in the early 1990s. Ahern expanded on his apology to the Dáil of the previous week, which he described as unqualified. Ahern said there would now be a change in the ethics law requiring office holders offered a gift from friends to consult the Standards in Public Office Commission[86] and to accept their ruling.
Money from developer
Allegations had been made that he had taken IR£50,000 (€63,300) from a property developer, Owen O’Callaghan, in return for favours at this time. Ahern won a libel action against a Cork businessman, Denis “Starry” O’Brien, defending himself against this allegation. However, broadcaster Eamon Dunphy has testified in the Mahon Tribunal, that he was told by developer Owen O’Callaghan, that Ahern was taken care of to support a shopping centre development in the 1990s.[87] This follows the initial allegations, denied by Ahern and O’Callaghan, by retired developer Tom Gilmartin, that O’Callaghan told him that he had given Ahern a payment of £50,000 in 1989, and a payment of £30,000 in 1993, in connection with a development of lands at Quarryvale, west Dublin. Gilmartin further alleged being told that O’Callaghan had paid Ahern in excess of £20,000 in relation to tax designation of a site in which O’Callaghan had an interest in Athlone, the designation having been Ahern’s last act as Finance Minister before the Fianna Fáil-led Government fell in December 1994.
In March 2007, one of Ahern’s Manchester benefactors, Paddy ‘The Plasterer’ Reilly, was appointed as the Fianna Fáil Director of Elections for Ahern’s Dublin Central constituency.
In April 2007, it was alleged[88] in a statement by his former official driver, that Ahern in 1994, while Minister for Finance, took a briefcase full of cash to Manchester. This has been denied by Ahern.
While the payment details initially seemed to damage Ahern’s standing, the result of the 2007 general election indicated that the damage was minor. In April 2007, an opinion poll found that nearly half of voters believe Taoiseach Bertie Ahern still has questions to answer over the payments controversy.[89]
Payment to refurbish property managed by Celia Larkin
In May 2007, it emerged that Ahern’s then partner, Celia Larkin, received £30,000 from the businessman Micheál Wall to contribute towards the refurbishment of the house that Ahern was to buy later. Questions for Bertie.[90]
Money given to Celia Larkin
On 2 February 2008, it emerged at the Mahon Tribunal, that a house was bought by the Ahern’s former partner Celia Larkin in 1993 with money donated to Ahern’s constituency organisation in Drumcondra.[91] There was no documentation to back up this loan to Ahern’s partner or to prove around IR£30,000 in other expenditure from this account. Dublin businessman Tim Collins has denied that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern was joint holder of the so-called BT account from which Celia Larkin was loaned IR£30,000 without documentation to describe the loan agreement.[92] Tim Collins denied that the BT account referred to Bertie and Tim, even though he operated a joint account with Des Richardson known as the DT account[93]
Appearance at the Mahon Planning Tribunal
On 13 September 2007, Ahern commenced four days of testimony under oath at the Mahon Tribunal. On 13 September, Ahern admitted that he had not cooperated with the Mahon planning tribunal. Counsel stated that information supplied “did not encompass all of the material questions that had been asked of you” to which Ahern replied “I accept that, yes”.[94][95] On 14 September 2007, inconsistencies in Ahern’s statements to the Tribunal emerged, after he changed his story on the infamous IR£25,000 dig-outs.[96] On 21 September 2007 Ahern again changed his story and said he could not remember key events at the centre of the current controversy.[97]
Tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon said there were “significant gaps in the money trail provided by Mr Ahern which “would have made it impossible for the tribunal to follow the trail”.[98]
Judge Gerald Keyes accused Mr Ahern of having no recollection of buying stg£30,000 in the early 1990s.[99]
Judge Mary Faherty accused Mr Ahern of giving polar opposite accounts of why he withdrew IR£50,000 from AIB, O’Connell St in January 1995.[100]
On 24 September there were further discrepancies, memory lapses and contradictions to his testimony under oath[101] with Ahern agreeing with the assertions of the Tribunal that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in his statements compared to bank records and the testimony of his then partner Ms Larkin.
Ahern agreed with the Tribunal that; “It cannot be the case that Ms Larkin changed a sterling equivalent of £28,772.90 on that day, if that bank record is accurate, isn’t that correct?”.[102][103]
Journalist Vincent Browne has asserted that “Ahern’s numbers game just doesn’t add up“.[104]
Again on 20 and 21 December 2007, Ahern spent two further days under questioning by the Mahon tribunal about his finances in the 1990s.[105] In January 2008, it was revealed that Ahern was in discussion with the Revenue Commissioners about his liability for tax on the sums received in Manchester and on his tax clearance status as declared in 2002, before details of the Manchester payments were revealed.[106][107] Opposition leader Enda Kenny has said that, it is not acceptable to have a Taoiseach who cannot declare compliance with the tax codes.[108]
On 12 February 2008, it emerged[109] that the Mahon tribunal had not all of the information provided to it, that Ahern indicated in the Dáil, that he had provided to the tribunal. Ahern has taken a High Court action to prevent the Mahon Tribunal from addressing and questioning him on the information, that he released in the Dáil in 2006.[110] The total value of lodgements and other transactions that have to date been queried by the Mahon tribunal in its public inquiries into the finances of the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, exceeds £452,800. The lodgements and transactions occurred between 1988 and 1997, although the vast bulk of the money was lodged in the period to 1995.[111]
On 4 June 2008, Ahern admitted that he knew about sterling lodgements before his secretary’s testimony,[112] but said to laughter at his Tribunal appearance on that day that those lodgements were from horse racing betting-winnings.[113]
Tax Clearance Certificate
In mid-January 2008 it emerged in the press,[114] reportedly as leaks from parties to the Mahon tribunal, that Ahern will not be in a position to present a Tax Clearance Certificate to the Dáil, as is required under Ethics’ legislation. This certificate is issued by the Revenue Commissioners, to persons who have shown themselves to be tax compliant. It is a legal requirement that this certificate be presented to a Dáil committee by 31 January 2008 by those elected to the Dáil. In the absence of this, a certificate stating that Ahern is in negotiation with the Revenue Commissioners will suffice. An inability to declare tax compliance by a prominent individual, while highly embarrassing will suffice temporarily until Revenue either issue a tax compliance certificate or refuse it.
The issue of compliance is serious and is an offence to make a false declaration.
The Standards in Public Office Bill also makes provision for tax clearance requirements for persons elected to the Oireachtas, and others. Persons elected will be required to make a statutory declaration of tax compliance, and the making of a false declaration will be an offence. They will also have to produce a tax clearance certificate. There will, therefore, be considerable policing of tax compliance of members.[115]
The Standards in Public Office Commission has been asked to investigate the Taoiseach’s declaration of tax compliance after the 2002 General Election.[116]
Ahern’s inability to furnish the tax clearance certificate has led to further calls for Ahern’s resignation. He is also the only member of the Oireachtas not to have a tax clearance certificate[108] On 14 January 2008 while on a visit to South Africa, Ahern accused Enda Kenny, leader of the opposition of telling[117] a “bare-faced lie” about Ahern’s tax situation. Ahern and Fianna Fáil’s response has not addressed the issue, but has attacked the leaking of Ahern’s tax affairs so as to attempt to enable the non-compliance issue to be ignored. Labour party leader “Mr Gilmore joined the offensive over the weekend, saying the Taoiseach was now providing at least four different versions of his personal finances and was unable to get a tax clearance certificate.”[118] As of 2010 Ahern has still not been able to provide a tax clearance certificate.[citation needed]
Ahern admitted to the Mahon Tribunal on 21 February 2008, for the first time, that he did not pay tax on substantial payments that he received when Minister for Finance in the 1990s.[119]
It is understandable that, as you report, many artists and green groups are protesting against arts institutions receiving sponsorship from BP – but it is important to describe what such corporate charitable donations are – and what they are not. They are not in any way ever a meaningful contributor in a company’s overall obligations to its stakeholders. The amounts are collectively too small and the selection of recipients is far too random for the largesse to be anything than incidental in the context of a big company’s finances.
While some companies might seek to suggest that donations to good causes are part of their commitment to “corporate social responsibility” the public is unlikely to be fooled – you cannot buy yourself a good reputation or build brand approval by making such gifts. In reality one of the main reasons that big companies donate to arts institutions is to buy their directors privileged access to events, such as to premium seats at the opera house. For the arts institution it is a harmless and valuable source of funds to pander to the vanities of a few corporate fat cats. No wonder they are rallying round BP at the moment.
…stimulates following comments on Shell Blog from retired senior Shell staff
MUSAINT on Jun 12th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Paddy, I cannot fully support your comments concerning those made by Obama over the BP oil spill. Certainly BP have a less than acceptable safety record which needs to be immediately addressed. However, I believe that Obama is using this spill as an ideal way to deflect the problems he has in America and his very low support ratings from the voters there. (Bad news is Good news when it is used to hide major political problems.) What I sincerely hope is that Transocean and Cameron-Hydril also start to get their long overdue bashing from Obama and the American public.
IMPORTANT CORRECTION IN RELATION TO THE POSTING BY “MUSAINT”
(CORRECTION SUPPLIED BY GE OIL & GAS)
Please note that:
1. The blowout preventer (BOP) and controls for the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico were not manufactured by Hydril.
2. Cameron International is an entirely separate company and entity to Hydril (which is part of the Drilling & Production business within GE Oil & Gas).
Iain Percival on Jun 12th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Paddy – I also cannot agree with all of what you write. BP has a serious case to answer; 11 deaths and extensive marine pollution is a dreadful situation. However, the whipping up of anti BRITISH Petroleum (excuse me, I believe the company’s registered name is BP) hysteria does Obama and the US no credit at all. In the aftermath of the 167 deaths caused by US Oil company Occidental in the North Sea in the 1980′s there were no calls by Mrs Thatcher to place a boot on Oxy’s neck or to vilify Armand Hammer as a mass murderer. In fact, although Oxy was found guilty of gross negligence in maintenance and safety procedures at the public enquiry no legal action was taken against any of the company’s officers – in contrast to the shrill utterances of members of the US administration and government. At the time, Mrs Thatcher had enough political problems of her own (including a rise of populist nationalist sentiment in Scotland) but she chose not to use the tragic event to divert attention by flaying a US company and its CEO in public. Recently, we have all seen the outcome of the Bhopal trial of local former Union Carbide company officials – not a single US citizen amongst them. The deaths of anywhere between 4000 & 15000 individuals and the continued leakage of around 400 tons of toxic chemicals into the ground water warrants no hand wringing in US political circles. It would appear that bad stuff occurring to non US companies, environments or citizens is measured by a different yard stick. To paraphrase the “low punch” observation made by the Guardian’s John Vidal on BP ” If industrial accidents occur in a developing country, say off the east coast of Scotland or in India, the US media would probably ignore it, some government officials may mutter some platitudes in public and in general conspire to escape starting a clean-up for ever.” I regret to note that Obama is no different inspite of what we were all led to believe a year or more ago. In this matter he displays the all American traits of an excess on Hype, Hypocrisy and hyperbole and a deficit of honesty and humility. Boris Johnson and many others are absolutely right in voicing concern.
COMMENTS END
The following information, links and photograph of Iain Percival are all sourced from the Internet. They were not supplied or suggested by him.
Iain Recognised for Mentoring Work
Shell retiree and former Group Chief Petroleum Engineer, Iain Percival, took the award for Outstanding Individual Achievement at the Energy Industry (EI) Annual Awards, for his work mentoring a number of young professionals, both in Shell and other organisations.
Iain is currently spending time with students and staff at RGU and the University of Aberdeen, and visits schools in his home area of the north of Scotland. Iain retired from Shell in 2006 after 33 years of service.
Iain remarked, “It is an honour I appreciate but of course I do derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from my activities.”
Shell’s latest corporate advertisement followed by candid commentary/analysis by Paddy Briggs (right)…
LET’S DELIVER ENERGY
FOR A CHANGING WORLD. LET’S GO
Today’s consumers are smarter than ever about energy. Naturally they want it to heat, cool and light their homes, get them to work, and power their mobile phones. But they are also keen to help build an energy system that sustains the lives of future generations. They want their energy to come from cleaner sources. They want to get the most out of every drop. And they want to see positive results now.
At Shell, we’re listening. Consumers’ raised expectations inspire us to come up with ever more innovative products and services.
Take the quest for cleaner air in our cities. We have created a fuel oil, which can cut soot emissions from factories by up to 75%. That should help people breathe a little easier.
Customers at our service stations want to play their part, too. They want fuels that are more efficient. We’ve responded with new blends that help drivers save fuel with every fill-up. And we’re working with transport companies, combining the latest fuels and lubricants with satellite technology to reduce fuel consumption.
Low-carbon biofuels are another way to meet rising expectations. They can help reduce emissions from road transport right now. We’re already the world’s largest distributor of biofuels and are pursuing plans for large-scale production.
We’re also working with technical partners to develop future biofuels from non-food sources, like crop residue and even algae.
Of course, our customers’ horizons stretch beyond transport to more responsible living, whether through cleaner electricity or more energy-efficient homes and offices.
That’s why we are boosting production of cleaner-burning natural gas, which emits less than half the carbon dioxide of coal when used to generate electricity. And why we are investing in vital technology to capture emissions from power plants and other industrial sites and store it safely underground.
Despite all this change, one thing remains the same. After more than a century, our customers still expect reliable and affordable energy every day. With global energy demand set to double by mid-century, that will be a challenge. But together with our partners we will continue unlocking energy from hard-to-reach places like frozen Siberia and delivering it to customers around the world.
At Shell, we’re grateful to have millions of customers asking for better energy. They demand as much of us as we ask of ourselves.
Commentary
In its latest corporate advertisement (above), expensively placed in some influential publications like “The Economist”, Shell claims to be “listening”. We have heard this claim before of course and we should treat it with some scepticism – Shell pulled its online feedback forum “Tell Shell” some years ago – presumably because of the virulence of the criticism on it. But no matter – let’s take this latest request for feedback at face value and offer some.
The dark arts of advertising are notoriously ” economical with the actualite” – but I would guess that nobody really minds a bit of hype and “accentuating the positive” – where would copywriting be without the need to put a brand’s products or services in the most favourable light? But there are limits – the need to be “Legal, decent, honest and truthful” is required of any advertiser and the rules say that your ads shouldn’t mislead, lie or even tell half-truths.
So in the context of the need to be at least credible in your ads, and at best transparently truthful, how should we judge Shell’s latest offering? Remember we are talking big bucks here – not principally to the ad agency for preparing the ad and writing the copy but definitely to the media for running it. A few hundred thousand dollars at least – and possibly much more. Has Shell’s budget been wisely spent?
The first paragraph claims that “Today’s consumers are smarter than ever about energy”. It goes on to say that these consumers are “also keen to help build an energy system that sustains the lives of future generations”. How many consumers (that’s you and me folks) speak in anything like these terms? I don’t know what an “energy system” is – and I worked in the industry for nearly forty years. I doubt that my neighbours would have a clue what it is either. Presumably somebody can define the term “energy system” – but there’s little point in using such opaque language in an ad – even in “The Economist”!
So that first paragraph is at best patronising and trite and at worst gobbledegook. But the second paragraph is far worse. The claim is that “Consumers’ raised expectations inspire us to come up with ever more innovative products and services”. The conceit of this statement is breathtaking. It purports to suggest (a) That Shell is innovative and (b) That innovation is consumer led. Now lets be charitable and agree that Shell can indeed be innovative. Virtually all of this innovation comes from the upstream – and impressive some of it is as well. But there is no way that this highly technological activity can be seen as consumer driven. Then in the following paragraph we get mention of a low soot fuel oil for factories. In Britain, which is where this ad appears, a tiny minority of factories burn fuel oil – most of them switched to cheaper and more environmentally friendly natural gas years ago. Not too many people will be breathing any easier as a result of this innovation!
So what about the “service stations” (paragraph 4) – a curious and old-fashioned term by the way. They mean petrol stations I think. Here we are told that customers want “fuels that are more efficient”. Well yes – but not if they have to pay through the nose for them. The “new blends” that are referred to (presumably like V-Power) cost a premium, which negates any efficiency savings. Most motorists want cheap petrol – and there’s not much of a promise about this in the ad. If V-Power and its like really saved money through efficiency don’t you think that Shell would give us the data to prove the case?
The statements about “Low carbon biofuels” (paragraph 5 and 6) are another utterly misleading bit of hype. It is no doubt true that Shell is a big player in these products – but there is nothing much new about them. The Brazilians have run some of their cars on biofuels for a generation or more but in the UK they are virtually non-existent – and will remain so unless governments create a tax regime which make them viable. Some chance!
The seventh paragraph about “customers’ horizons” is just poor copywriting and is virtually meaningless. It’s an unsubstantiated claim – hardly surprising as it is hollow and patronising. It leads on to the next paragraph where the implicit claim is that Shell’s driver for the expansion of its Gas sector is in some way environmental and that it is driven by these “customer horizons”. The real reason for Shell’s drive to boost its production of natural gas is because this sector is growing and is profitable – good business in other words. Yes it is cleaner than coal – but Shell has no influence at all on utilities’ decisions to build Power stations that run on Gas rather than coal. True Shell can supply the gas, at a price, if the utility makes that decision but the determiners of the decision are primarily governments and local authorities – they are the ones one should thank for the resultant cleaner air – not Shell!
The penultimate paragraph is platitudinous and one again trite. If you asked them my guess is that many consumers would be very disturbed about some of the side effects of Shell’s ambition to “…continue unlocking energy from hard-to-reach places”. The Tar Sands of Canada is just one example of where this ambition is, to say the least, controversial!
Shell is not a bad company – although it does some indefensible things at times. But it does itself no service by running advertisements which claim distinctiveness when little exists, claim to have a unique understanding of consumers without any evidence being provided and lapse into self-congratulatory and highly selective hype.
ENDS
Paddy Briggs worked for Shell for 37 years during the last fifteen of which he was responsible for Brand management in a number of appointments. He was the winner of the “Shell/Economist” writing prize (internal) in 2001. In October 2009 Paddy was elected by the 33,000 Shell Pensioners in the UK to be one of the two Pensioner elected Trustees of the Shell Contributory Pension Fund. Paddy runs the brand consultancy BrandAware ™ .and writes and speaks on brand and reputation matters. He is active as a director of training courses on brand and reputation management.
Illustration of 94 year old Alfred Donovan, founder of royaldutchshellplc.com, displayed courtesy of The Wall Street Journal. DISCLAIMER: This is not a Shell website nor is it endorsed by or affiliated with Shell. It is recommended internally by Shell far above what our own group internal comms puts out.
GoldenTriangle Watchman: With all of this money spent on the CEP expansion, it has been built on an old electrical infrastructure. I guess no one is counting how many times you read about a "short" electrical outage at the plant. Tom Purves and the Motiva leadership know exactly why this is happening and how to fix it. They don't want to pay for it. They have been given the project and have turned it down at least twice. Meanwhile, we just keep having outages. Going ot be interesting when both refineries come down in the future.
Outsider: LondonLad: the lack of stories concerning Shell should be welcomed, if it implies that Shell are cleaning up their act, perhaps due in part to the efforts of the Donovans.
LondonLad: US Observer, surely almost all (NOT all)contributors to this website have an axe to grind against Shell, particularly those who have a perception that they have been screwed by Shell in times gone by. As for Itchy Woman, she clearly has a femanistic / burn-the-bra approach to work in Shell. AND I would like to add that once again an old old article (from someone who has an axe to grind against Shell) has to be republished due to lack of news against Shell (I refer to Briggs 2009 article). COMMENT BY JOHN D. Would it not be fairer to say that everyone posting on this blog, including you, has an axe to grind. It is easy enough to look back over your contributions and reach a conclusion.
US Observer: It is easy to figure out who Witchy Woman is (LC). She has an "ax to grind" and is using this forum
an observer of Shell: @uscitizen
Voser is a competent and amicable chap. You claim Shell has delivered on its deliverables. Let me tell you everyone delivers on their deliverable.... But joking apart, look at the promises over the years and how well Shell has delivered on these promises. Their trackrecord is not very good over the last 15 years or so. They are a good money making machine. And sofar they have delivered on their constant or increasing dividend payments. Sometimes by increasing their debt but they have done it. A nice high oilprice has helped, don't you agree??
So my only observation was that his 'promise' to extend North Sea fields is quite opposite their activities in this area. And they have promised this before and done the opposite. It was a nice promise to build a new and expensive office in Aberdeen, more jobs for the UK and more activity and extending of production. Just check back what they have done.
And predicting future productionlevels by Shell in general and Brinded in particular is nothing but a sick joke.
uscitizen: To - an observer of Shell
Shell has been delivering on its deliverables - why would you paint Voser as some one who is not??
uscitizen: This was not a personal attack now was it Witchy one??
#133 Witchy woman
on May 8th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Marvin Odum who probably has the worst safety record in Shell goes for a diversity vote and someone who has no safety experience to replace the VP of safety he just fired. Clear message where his priorities lie.
uscitizen: Witchy Woman - you blase me for personal attacks???? That is so rich! I am defending people that are attacked if you had not noticed - and yes I do slam the folks who are throwing garbage out! Live with it!! Enjoy your retirement! Shell has a good retirement package in the US dont they??
uscitizen: I feel the value of your posts is also minimal, just a complainer. PS - here is where you bash Denise - remember - or do we need to question your integrity the way folks question Shell leaders??
Witchy woman
on Dec 7th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
In GOM we thought that hurricane season was done. Why is Hurricane Denise causing so much damage then? Like all Hurricanes though they move on the professionals are left to pick up the pieces.
COMMENT ON VOSER: According to the Independent article posted today the boss of Shell is telling us all not to get too emotional about fracking. Has he not seen the confirmation that fracking causes earthquakes? You have cited the Reuters article. There are others including coverage of a fracking earthquake in Blackpool England. I have to conclude that Voser is a fracking idiot.
Introduction by John Donovan
Shell Blog RSS Feed
