Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts Tagged ‘Ann Pickard Shell’

SHELL ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FREEDOM OF SPEECH: SPIN VS. REALITY

By Alfred and John Donovan

Our outspoken friend, the former employee of Shell Oil USA, has raised the question of why Shell has not sued us for libel. Extracts from an article we published in February 2006 are informative on the subject. Since then, Shell was legally obliged to supply us with internal documents including one indicating that Shell decided long ago that it will never take legal action against us. Perhaps this is over concern about what Shell describes as “internal laundry” being aired in open court.

As will be seen, the attitude of Shell to free speech is unclear and seems to depend on whether they can sue in a country such as Malaysia, which has a corrupt judiciary.

With regard to its comments about Ken Saro-Wiwa, in June of this year Shell settled for $15.5 million a claim in the USA courts accusing the company of involvement in his murder.

THE HYPE & SPIN

THE RIGHTS OF NOBEL LAUREATE *KEN SARO-WIWA TO FREELY HOLD AND AIR HIS VIEWS (ABOUT SHELL):

EXTRACTS FROM Shell.com website:

“We did, however, speak out both publicly and privately about human rights issues on a number of occasions. For instance, during the trial of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogonis, we publicly stated that the accused had a right to a fair legal process. Before the trial, we said Ken Saro-Wiwa had a right to freely hold and air his views.”

THE RIGHTS OF ALFRED DONOVAN TO EXPRESS HIS OPINIONS (ABOUT SHELL)

FROM SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED LEGAL SUBMISSION TO THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION REGARDING THE WEBSITE OF ALFRED DONOVAN: 18 MAY 2005

“The Complainant and the Group it represents have been aware of the site since the beginning and whilst they would not endorse or agree with many of the comments made by the Respondent on the website, they have taken the view that the Respondent is entitled to express his opinions and to use the Internet as a medium for doing so.”

SHELL’S SUPPORT FOR THE UN UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (FROM THE SHELL DOCUMENT - BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS: A MANAGEMENT PRIMER: © Shell International Petroleum Company (SIPC) 1998)

“We have also lent our support to international declarations and standards that were developed to foster human rights, including the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights…”

3.12. So what does all this mean for Shell companies and the individuals within those companies?

The Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies supports the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

(The document republishes the entire text of The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights or UDHR – reproduced in full on pages 27-31)

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

2.1 What Are Human Rights?

The key document providing an answer to this question is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR consists of a preamble
and thirty articles, which list both “civil and political rights” (such as the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture, freedom of conscience

ENTRACTS FROM SHELL DOCUMENTS ENDS

THE REALITY i.e. WHAT SHELL MANAGEMENT DOES AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IT SAYS

EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively obtained a HIGH COURT INJUNCTION and RESTRAINING ORDER against a former employee, Dr John Huong, a Malaysian who, driven by his conscience, blew the whistle on Shell management misdeeds including the fabrication of hydrocarbon reserves and health and safely issues which put Shell employee lives at risk. The sole purpose of the draconian litigation against this unemployed Malaysian, who was sidelined, humiliated and ultimately sacked for speaking the truth, was to prevent him exercising HIS RIGHTS to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression following his wrongful dismissal.

We also have evidence that Shell has succeeded in using the action against Dr Huong to frighten former Shell Malaysian employees from speaking out against the injustices heaped upon them by Shell. Several hundred of them, many elderly, sick, and dying, recently won a retirement funds case against Shell when a Judge ruled that Shell had acted “unlawfully” in making inappropriate deductions. Shell is however ruthlessly dragging out the case by appealing the judgment based on a legal loophole relating to time limits.

In June 2005 Shell had five Irishman – now known as the “Rossport Five”, jailed for 3 months for engaging in an entirely peaceful campaign against the Corrib pipeline project on entirely valid health and safety grounds. They were released after thousands of Irish people engaged in street protests in response to such oppressive behaviour by an arrogant multinational giant whose actions are dictated by a bungling management drunk on power and corrupted by greed.

This scandal ridden company has a reputation for incompetence, misjudgement and dishonesty (and as indicated above) blatant ruthlessness towards some Shell employees. Led by a CEO, Jeroen van der Veer, himself facing fraud allegations in the US courts, Shell has recently demonstrated breathtaking arrogance by indulging itself in a fleet of luxury jets. This is at a time when according to The Sunday Times, other multinationals are getting rid of their executive planes. It seems that the rights of some Shell employees – its ego driven bosses – are more important than others.

Thus the reality of Shell management actions is totally at odds with their Spin & Hype.

* Ken Saro-Wiwa was hanged by the evil Nigerian military regime which was closely associated with Shell at that time. Sir Philip Watts is being sued in connection with allegations that while head of Shell in Nigeria he personally helped to create and arm a 1400 strong private spy force. Furthermore, Shell has admitted that an undercover agent working for them carried out operations in Nigeria. His cover story involved making a film in Nigeria called “Business as Usual: the Arrogance of Power”, during which he interviewed friends of Ken Saro-Wiwa. Shell’s spy, German-born Manfred Schlickenrieder, engaged in espionage missions involving deception, sabotage, betrayal and intelligence gathering. Schlickenrieder was known by the code name Camus and had worked for the German foreign intelligence service gathering information about terrorist groups, including the Red Army Faction.

How such activities are compatible with Shell’s supposed commitment to ethical trading, human rights and its STATEMENT OF GENERAL BUSINESS PRINCIPLES is beyond my comprehension. The right of Ken Saro-Wiwa to the most basic human right of all – the right to live – was taken away from him in the most terrible circumstances.

Allegations against Royal Dutch Shell: Truth is not libel

COMMENTS FROM A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF SHELL OIL USA

Read your comments about Shell not suing Bill Campbell for libel. Obviously, they have not done so because they could not win. Truth is not libel.

One might ask why RD Shell has not sued you for libel. You have accused them publicly of all manner of nefarious undertaking. As I recall, you recently even accused them of engaging in espionage against a sovereign government and military ally of the United Kingdom, the United States. Yet not a word out of RD Shell management. Why? Obviously, this particular allegation must probably be true as well. In the US that is a crime that has no statute of limitations and carries with it a life sentence, without possibility of parole, by the way, when the object of such endeavors are nuclear weapons design secrets.

And now all the Wiki-leaks disclosures about RD Shell’s ‘shadow government’ in Nigeria that Shell management is furiously trying to deny. Who could they sue for libel on this disclosure? Their own VP, Ms. Ann Pickard? The US State Dept.? Or the fellow who broke the story?

I bet Ms. Pickard’s career is now ‘toast’, however. Loose lips ….. One wonders how much that ‘blunder’ is going to cost Shell. That depends upon how effective their ‘shadow government’ is, I suppose.

All of this ‘truth’ this must be very frustrating for RD Shell management and their army of glorified, blood sucking ambulance chasers.

Nigeria rejects criticism of new oil policy

Financial Times

By Tom Burgis in Abuja

Published: February 24 2010 16:13 | Last updated: February 24 2010 16:13

Nigeria on Wednesday hit back at claims by Royal Dutch Shell and other foreign groups that planned reforms threaten $50bn of investment and the country’s status as Africa’s biggest energy producer.

Pedro Van Meurs, a veteran designer of fiscal systems for oil producers who is working as an influential consultant to the government on the legislation, warned that dire warnings voiced a day earlier by Ann Pickard, Shell’s outgoing Africa chief, and other executives, should not be heeded.

Shell’s long relationship with Nigeria has been as lucrative for the Anglo-Dutch group as it has been fraught. Ms Pickard insisted that the company had no intention of pulling out despite its misgivings.

FULL FT ARTICLE (SUBSCRIPTION)

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.

Shell’s operations in Angola are worthy of discussion…

Comments from our sources on recent statements about Shell’s operations in Angola made by it’s Executive VP for sub-Saharan Africa, Ann Pickard (Right).

Shell’s exit from Angola was not a success story and it throws a slightly different light on Ann Pickard’s remarks in Nigeria.

Her comment about Angola’s production exceeding that of Nigeria sounds like an attack on Bichsel et al who pulled Shell out of Angola a few years ago. It is Brinded and (especially) Bichsel who threw the Angola opportunity away.

I remember our explorers bid for some blocks and got all of the crap while the others found big fields. And what we sold off turned out to be much better than expected.

Shell had the opportunity to obtain block 17, but decided that the huge structure visible on the seismic was too big to be an oilfield. It was in fact the Girassol field, and Elf (now Total) got it!

Shell pulled out of Block 16 (where they were operator), selling out to CNR who in turn sold it to Maersk (who have recently made major discoveries in the block.

Shell sold their interest in Block 18 (operated by BP) to the Chinese. It is currently producing very large amounts of oil…

Basically the whole Angola story is proof of the inability of Shell to find oil. You cannot find oil and gas via a strictly controlled process whereby after ticking all the standard boxes you have a big field. One needs top professionals in their fields and surely they should be guided by some simple processes so you don’t overlook something critical. But it is the professionals that do it. And they have mostly left or are kicked out.

Because professionals are difficult people, they may say things that managers do not want to hear…

Angola’s Oil Exploration/Production Blocks January 2005