Posts Tagged ‘Fox News’

By John Donovan: 12 January 2012

The front page lead story published by the Financial Times newspaper today reports that European refiners have begun to sever links with Iran ahead of an EU meeting, which could impose a full oil embargo on the Iranian regime.

(A version of the article is also published on ft.com)

Iran is the world’s third-largest oil exporter.

Tensions and oil prices are heightened by the regimes threat to close the Strait of Hormuz.

The article reports that according to Argus Media, Royal Dutch Shell is the biggest supplier of Iranian crude.

As could be expected, Shell has been extremely sensitive about purchasing oil from the fanatical Iranian regime supplying road side bombs, which have maimed and killed many US and British soldiers, but has continued to do so. With Shell, money wins out over mere moral considerations.

On 28 October 2010, Shell CFO Simon Henry came clean after press reports on the subject and admitted that Shell has continued to trade with Iran:

“Simon Henry, Shell’s top financial official, said his company was still taking delivery of Iranian crude oil under the terms of its existing contracts with the Islamic republic.” (extract from UPI article)

The following month, November 2010, Reuters published an article which stated:

“Companies are still finding ways to buy Iranian oil. Royal Dutch Shell and some Italian and Spanish refiners buy Iranian barrels with finance coming from Chinese and Italian banks…”

Shell has in fact continued to buy oil from the Iranian regime for many years and and because of the obvious sensitivity, has on occasion used subterfuge to disguise shipping movements.

I discovered just how sensitive the issue is after sending an email in March 2007 to Bill O’Reilly at Fox News, under the innocuous subject heading “Shell’s treachery in Iran“.

As a result of making an application to Shell under the Data Protection Act, we discovered from Shell internal communications the company was compelled to supply, that my email had sent Shell into a panic on both sides of the Atlantic. This was out of concern that if the story was taken up by Fox News, it could result in a US boycott of Shell gasoline.

The internal emails also revealed anxiety over information being leaked to us:

“They are a continued source of leaks from inside Shell – if you read their on line blog you will see a lot of insider material”.

A media statement was drafted on a contingency basis.

As can be seen from the covering message, it contained the usual spin and was founded on deception:

“Greetings all – The lawyers are happy with the following response statement no changes from the draft I sent you yesterday). As discussed with xxxxxxx, we have phrased this as coming from Shell in the US, and have aimed to distance you as much as possible from what is essentially a dispute originating in the UK. Let’s hope there is no follow up and we don’t have to use anything.”

The Shell internal emails focused on our Iran initiative with Fox News, but also mentioned a surge in our activities relating to Sakhalin 2 and Shell North Sea “TFA” safety culture, as exposed by Bill Campbell, the former Group HSE Auditor of Shell International.

That same month, Shell set up an aggressive team to combat our activities. This was followed by an attempt to close down this website and the setting up of a related global spying operation targeting my family and all Shell employees, in conjunction with a US cyber intelligence unit partly staffed and funded by the FBI.

All in response to an entirely non commercial website publishing the truth about the dark side of Royal Dutch Shell, including its relationship with the Iranian regime.

RELATED

Royal Dutch Shell Iranian treachery

By Dan Springer FoxNews.com: Published November 16, 2011

An estimated 27 billion barrels of oil are sitting just off the northern coast of Alaska in waters controlled by the United States, but despite spending more than five years and $4 billion, Shell Oil Company still can’t get to it.

The company was planning to announce this week plans to move ahead with drilling three test wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas next summer, but it’s still lacking several permits and a roadmap of how to get them.

Shell doesn’t blame strict environmental protections. The company’s beef is with a seemingly endless web of legal appeals and challenges available to drilling opponents.

“We’re not disputing any of the high standards we’re being asked to work with,” said Pete Slaiby, vice president of Shell Alaska. “What’s concerning to us is the fact that there’s not any real certainty in how these processes will be met.”

The Environmental Protection Agency granted an air permit in September, but the permit is still in legal limbo because it’s been challenged a second time by Earthjustice and other environmental groups — despite the fact the closest village to the proposed drilling is 70 miles away and has a population of 245. An EPA board now must weigh in again.

“The majority of them are not thinking about America,” said Alaska’s lone congressman, Don Young, a Republican. “They’re thinking about their own little agenda.”

Young said if Alaska’s resources were tapped, the U.S. would not have to buy $400 billion worth of oil each year from overseas and consumers would not have to pay nearly $4 a gallon at the pump.

Young has introduced legislation that would strip away every federal environmental regulation and force the agencies to get Congress to reauthorize them. Environmental groups say it would be a disaster.

Earl Kingik is an Alaska Native from Point Hope, a small village near the Chukchi Sea. He says offshore drilling regulations are not strong enough, and points to the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence.

“The fishermen lost everything,” Kingik said. “I don’t want to lose everything up north. We’ve been living like this for thousands of years.”

In addition to still needing an air permit from the EPA, Shell has to clear nine other government hurdles before it can drill. The list is an alphabet soup of federal agencies and red tape.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOERME) has to sign off on Shell’s Exploration Plan. It gave conditional approval in August but needs to wait for Shell to clear other bureaucratic hurdles before granting final approval. The bureau also is considering the company’s Oil Response Plan and Application for Permit to Drill.

The U.S. Coast Guard has yet to approve Shell’s Safety/Security Zone application. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must issue Incidental Harassment Authorization, which would allow for the incidental killing of whales and seals.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has yet to issue a letter of authorization for the incidental take of protected polar bears and Pacific walrus. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers still must approve the Oil and Gas Structure, Nationwide permit.

And the EPA is still considering Shell’s Discharge Authorization and Vessel General Permit. Most of the permits have been approved by the various agencies, but they have been challenged in court, which leads to uncertainty.

Shell officials say they can move forward with some of the permits tied up in court battles, but the EPA air permit must be in hand before they can proceed. Pete Slaiby is confident the company will succeed this time.

The decision rests with the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board, a panel that hears challenges when permits are issued. In March, a three judge panel rejected Shell’s air permit ruling its calculations for how much pollution would be produced by the drilling rigs were wrong.

Environmental Appeals Board members are appointed by the EPA Secretary Lisa Jackson. All three judges on the Shell case are registered Democrats and one, Kathie Stein, was an activist attorney for the powerful Environmental Defense Fund.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Energy in America: EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans

By Dan Springer: Published April 25, 2011

Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”

Murkowski supported budget amendments that would have stripped the EPA of its oversight role in Arctic offshore drilling. The Interior Department issues air permits to oil companies working in the Gulf of Mexico.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell also said in its statement that the company had “always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Donovans…” This was to put it politely, totally untrue. Shell has often supplied us with comment for publication in respect of specific issues.

By John Donovan

Printed below is an email sent today to Mr Bill O’Reilly, presenter of The O’Reilly Factor at Fox News. It concerns Shell’s controversial plans in Iran, which will financially support the current fanatical Iranian regime.

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 15 December 2009 11:17:42 GMT
To: oreilly@foxnews.com
Subject: HOW SHELL AND ITS LAWYERS PLANNED TO DECEIVE BILL O’REILLY

Hello Mr. O’Reilly

Apologies that this email is not short and pithy. The subject is deadly serious and deserves proper explanation. Shell managers and lawyers on two continents plotted to deceive you over the background context of me bringing to your attention, the oil giants plans to do business with the fanatical regime in Iran, which supplies munitions that kill and maim our brave soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am sure you are well aware that the high and mighty tremble when they learn of any interest by you in their affairs. I have proof that this also applies to the multinational giant that Forbes says is the worlds largest company, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

On 19 March 2007 I sent an email to you which I also published on my website, royaldutchshellplc.com. The subject: “Shell’s Treachery in Iran”. There was no reply and I thought no more about it.

On November 30, 2009, Shell supplied me with internal documents it was compelled to provide in accordance with an application I made under the UK Data Protection law.

Although names of relevant individuals – including yours – have been redacted by Shell, otherwise the content is intact and due to the incompetence we have come to expect from its lawyers, they neglected to delete your name from one page.  I was surprised to discover from Shell email correspondence with Fox News that your team had taken up the matter with Shell. The related Shell internal email correspondence is even more revealing.

As you can see from the repetitive fragmented correspondence (Fox News 1 & 2, basically Shell was panicking about the prospect of you taking up my suggestion that you should launch a campaign for Americans to boycott Shell. The oil giant was concerned at what the public reaction would be if you picked up the story and “how it may effect Shell’s assets and personnel“. There was also concern about the impact on a 50 city tour being undertaken by the then President of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister. They were frightened that the story would gain traction if you took it up.

Shell managers and lawyers carried out research then prepared a contingency response statement designed to distance Shell in the USA from our “dispute” with Shell and create the impression that the response statement was from Shell in the USA, not from Shell Europe i.e. not from Royal Dutch Shell HQ. In other words, the contingency response statement was deliberately designed to deceive you and your viewers.

Though Shell’s trepidation over the “Shell’s Treachery in Iran” story being picked up by you is evident from the internal email correspondence, the carefully prepared Shell statement containing erroneous background information, conspicuously does not even mention Iran. It is referred to as “this case”.

Shell is frightened of you Mr O’Reilly, but is still prepared to engage in spin and deception to protect its ambitions in Iran, even though the Iranian regime is developing nuclear weapons, threatens to destroy Israel, is arming Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban in Afghanistan; all in line with its fanatical determination to confront “the Great Satan”.  I hope this makes you extremely angry.

Shell briefly appeared to distance itself from Iran, but this was another PR illusion conjured up for short term consumption. In fact Shell offices are operational in Iran and on 7 December 2009 a news report announced that Iran is finalizing talks with Shell for its participation in a multibillion dollar Liquefied Natural Gas Venture.

Opposition to Shell’s plans in Iraq continue in the USA. The state of Maryland announced last month that it has divested $38.3 million from Shell. In October, U.S. Congressmen warned Shell it could be banned from the U.S. However, because of the global financial meltdown since I sent my March 2007 email to you, what is going on behind the scenes in relation to Shell and Iran has largely escaped the attention of ordinary Americans. Drivers continue in their millions to purchase Shell gas unaware that they are ploughing funds into a company which, despite threatened US sanctions, is intent on trading with and therefore financially supporting the current Iranian regime, America’s most dangerous and implacable enemy.

Concern over the deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan from weapons supplied by the Iranians continues. Time Magazine published an article on 28 October 2009 reporting that October was “the deadliest month of the eight-year war when the death of eight more U.S. troops took the month’s death toll to 53.” The article says that according to U.S. intelligence: “Taliban develops increasingly deadly weapons — with Iran’s help…”

The Time article goes on to say:

Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this year that “Iran has both long-term strategic and short-term tactical interests in Afghanistan and is not content with merely maintaining the status quo.” Its desire to undermine “Western influence in Afghanistan” had led it to provide “select Afghan insurgents with lethal aid,” he said.

Consequently, the points I made in my email to you in March 2007 remain valid and pressing. I hope you will ask your staff to look into this again, armed with the knowledge that Shell is prepared to deliberately deceive you.

This is a company that will deal with the devil to fuel its unquenchable thirst for oil and gas.

Shell saved Hitler and the Nazi party. A Director General of Shell, Sir Henri Deterding, spent four days as a guest of Hitler at Berchtesgaden (the Eagle’s Nest). His objective was to obtain a monopoly for petrol distribution in Germany. He also encouraged Hitler to invade Russia, as Shell had ambitions on Russian oil fields.  More recently, Shell funded the corrupt Nigerian dictator, General Sani Abacha, during Shell’s plunder and pollution of the Niger Delta. It is now doing business with Gaddafi in Libya despite the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.

Securing access to oil and gas, as always, has a much higher priority for Shell fat cat executives than any moral consideration, including the deaths of American and British soldiers who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight terrorism, with thousands of others receiving terrible physical and psychological injuries.

Shell is a hypocritical company, which claims to work within a set of core business principles including openness, integrity and honesty, while secretly spying on its own employees on a global basis. The internal documents released to me revealed this fact and that Royal Dutch Shell Plc, a foreign owned company, has used the global hub of anti cyber-crime – the U.S. National Cyber-Forensics & Training Alliance in Pittsburgh, largely funded and staffed by the FBI, to assist in a spying operation trying to trace whistleblowers leaking information to us. The emails include an extraordinary endorsement of our website by Shell which they sent to Fox News, never anticipating that it would fall into our hands.

For the record, we have no “dispute” with Shell, but are simply campaigning for the company to act in accordance with its own claimed ethical code, which in our view is designed to trick ethical investment funds into investing in an unethical immoral company.

In this connection, please note that there was no mention in the Shell emails flying back and forth about the moral issues involved in Shell effectively providing financial support to the fanatical Iranian regime.

I am still trawling through the documents supplied by Shell and will let you know if I come across more relevant information.

Background information about our website:

92-year-old’s website leaves oil giant Shell-shocked

Two men and a website mount vendetta against an oil giant

The bottom line is that Shell was concerned about this story “blowing up”. I am more concerned about Iranian supplied munitions blowing up and killing and maiming our brave soldiers. I sincerely hope you will take up this important cause.

Best regards from two elderly but devoted fans

Alfred & John Donovan