News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Nor would Van der Veer give me a straight answer to another straight question: “Is there any investment you would not make on ethical grounds?” I asked this six times. He was unable to furnish me with an example.
Click to continue reading “It will take more than goodwill and greenwash to save the biosphere”
Fortune, along with the CSR consulting firms AccountAbility, Csrnetwork and Asset4, came to the conclusion that BP and Royal Dutch Shell were among the top ten most “accountable” large companies on the planet. Of all the do-gooder companies of recent years, why exactly are these hydro-carbon greenwashing giants worthy of such admiration?
Shell’s sleight of hand was to use the much-abused word “sustainability” to imply a green agenda when what it was really on about was keeping a sustainable flow of fuel out of its forecourt pumps. The ASA cried foul.
Click to continue reading “Shell’s greenwash sleight of hand”
John Barry: We know that the C02 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up measurably in recent years. We also know that it’s not what’s happened so far that is the problem. It’s what’s going to happen over the next 100 years if we don’t start to manage the problem.
That’s John Barry with Shell. He leads one of Shell’s efforts to manage carbon dioxide emissions – thought to be changing Earth’s climate. He spoke of carbon dioxide capture and storage.
John Barry: Carbon dioxide capture and storage is one of the technologies that offers the most promise for making a difference to CO2 emissions in the short to medium term – I’m thinking 10 or 20 years. A hundred years out, maybe there will be technologies we haven’t thought of today.
He said the best hope of capturing CO2 is at what he called point sources.
John Barry: Think of oil refineries in my own business. They use a lot of energy to make the fuel we use to drive our vehicles. You actually have a hope of capturing that CO2 at the point source, using some sort of a chemical technology to capture the carbon dioxide and take it to a point where you can store it safely, deep underground.
So the idea is to filter the carbon out of the exhaust from a power plant with a chemical before it reaches the smokestack. The CO2 gas is then sent via pipeline under thousands of feet underground or below the sea floor, in a sense back where it came from. Or the carbon can be captured before anything is burned in newer plants that first convert coal into a gas, where the CO2 is more easily separated out. Either way, Barry is hopeful about carbon capture and storage.
John Barry: That’s potentially one of the most promising technologies, because about a third of the emissions today are coming from things like power stations, where this sort of technology might be applicable and might make a radical difference to the CO2 emissions from those power stations.
Barry said Shell is in an early stage of rolling out full scale projects after proving each part of the technology over many years, and spoke of efforts underway in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.
He also pointed to the FutureGen in the US and the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants as efforts underway now to build coal-fueled, near-zero emissions power plants.
John Barry: We’ve done some calculations, and we think that rolling out carbon capture and storage, from about 2020 onwards on a large scale, will avoid about 230 gigatonnes, or 230 billion tonnes.
That’s close to eight years worth of CO2 emissions at today’s levels.
This podcast was made possible in part by Shell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
Our thanks to:
John Barry
Shell International
Exploration and Production
Vice President for Unconventional Oil and Enhanced Oil Recovery
Written by JORGE SALAZAR, DEBORAH BYRD
AN EARTHSKY EXTENDED PODCAST 29 June 08
Listen or download (to the right) to hear this 12-minute presentation
.
Image credit: Greg Foley
Jan van der Eijk is Chief Technology Officer for Shell. He spoke with EarthSky’s Jorge Salazar about what he called the ‘three hard truths’ of meeting the world’s energy needs.
To subscribe to this and other free science podcasts, visit the subscribe pageat earthsky.org.
This podcast was made possible in part by Shell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
“I think the unconventionals will play a major role in the world’s energy future. I think they have to,” said physicist Harold Vinegar of Royal Dutch Shell.
Those “unconventionals” are reserves of oil that can’t be easily pumped to the surface. Dr. Vinegar spoke of their potential for the coming century with EarthSky’s Jorge Salazar – and about a new way to recover unconventional oil by drilling holes and placing heaters underground.
This podcast was made possible in part by Shell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
Carl Mesters is an internationally recognized chemist and Chief Scientist for Chemistry and Catalysis for Shell.
Masters spoke with EarthSky’s Jorge Salazar from his office in the Netherlands, about creating synthetic fuels from natural gas. This process is known as gas-to-liquids technology.
To subscribe to this and other free science podcasts, visit the subscribe page at earthsky.org.
This podcast was made possible in part byShell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
Expert Lee Schipper describes transportation in the years ahead as “a gradual shift toward people and goods needing to go less distance to enable us to lead enriched lives.”
In this Clear Voices for Science podcast, Schipper speaks to EarthSky’s Lindsay Patterson about the way we humans move around now – and how that might change as the 21st century progresses.
Now a Visiting Scholar at Berkeley, Schipper is a former director of research for EMBARQ – the World Resources Institute Center for Sustainable Transport.
This podcast was made possible in part by Shell – encouraging dialog on the energy challenge.
http://www.earthsky.org/clear-voices/52705/john-barry-on-carbon-capture-and-storage
It is the second time in a year that Shell has found itself falling foul of the ASA’s mounting concern, and follows an ASA ruling in December on a Shell poster showing flowers rather than smoke coming out of factory chimneys which arguably forced the pace. And it is indicative of Smith’s determination to move against misleading green advertising. “That was clearly a misleading claim.”
Click to continue reading “Reputation of Shell as a repeat greenwash offender”
Peter Foster, Financial Post
This week, petroleum giant Royal Dutch Shell had its knuckles rapped by the U. K.’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) over claims that its Canadian oil sands operations were “sustainable.” There is a certain rich irony in Shell being hoist by its own environmental petard. The company’s former CEO, Sir Philip Watts, once claimed that Shell’s commitment to sustainable development and corporate social responsibility were what elevated it above its rivals. That was before he was thrown out of the company for cooking the books.
For years, Shell has been kowtowing to the environmental movement, and has featured a rogues’ gallery of board members and executives who ranged between green radicalism and abject appeasement. Typically, as it groveled to defend itself in the ASA case, it quoted a report by the World Wildlife Fund, the very organization that had challenged its ad in the first place. One can’t help conjuring up the image of a dog licking the hand of its vivisectionist.
The first Shell chairman to go conspicuously native was Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, who was to be seen cavorting with environmental radicals in that anti-corporate snuff flick, The Corporation. Sir Mark also got himself involved in promoting poverty-inducing alternative energy projects in the third world, and was fingered by The Economist as a leading sell-out to CSR.
Then came Lord Oxburgh, an academic geologist who was appointed non-executive chairman and proceeded to rail against markets, preach environmental doom and gloom, and express deep faith in wise and expansive government: the useful idiots’ trifecta. The true Knight of Hypocrisy was the above mentioned Sir Philip Watts, who perpetually bleated about the need to earn a “licence to operate” from “stakeholders” such as the WWF, but neglected to tell the truth to shareholders. Meanwhile he wasn’t just any old hypocrite; he was the chairman of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, the Round Table of useful idiocy.
Executives at Shell’s Canadian operations have also shown gung ho support for suicidal policies. When Nicholas Stern, author of an appallingly skewed report for the UK government on the economics of climate change, came to Toronto to speak, he was introduced, and lavishly praised, by Clive Mather, the head of Shell Canada.
Sir Philip Watts claimed that sustainable development had become “central to how we do business.” But this week’s ruling indicates that Shell doesn’t actually understand what sustainability means. But then nobody does.
The ASA case was based on an ad in the Financial Times to coincide with the release of Shell’s 2007 financial results. There Shell declared that “the challenge of the 21st century is to meet the growing need for energy in ways that are not only profitable but sustainable. As our 2007 results show, we’re investing heavily in new technology and assets to safeguard the interests of our shareholders and future generations.”
Seems pretty unobjectionable, but the ASA concluded that the ad didn’t meet its standards with respect to two of the examples given: the oil sands and its Port Arthur refinery.
The ASA relied for its assessment of the oil sands on a report by Canada’s National Energy Board that noted that oil sands development has considerable social and environmental impacts. This is hardly a surprise, but the important point is just how considerable compared with the related benefits?
The ASA also objected to Shell’s use of the word sustainable because it contravened British government rules against “vague or ambiguous” language in environmental advertising. It concluded that “Because ‘sustainable’ was an ambiguous term, and because we had not seen data that showed how Shell was effectively managing carbon emissions from its oil sands projects in order to limit climate change, we concluded that on this point the ad was misleading.”
But the ASA report makes major assumptions. The first is that since Shell’s oil sands are big, in the boreal forest, use a lot of water, and emit a substantial portion of Canada’s anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then they are somehow unsustainable. More profouondly — and controversially — the ASA suggests that Shell could somehow affect the climate by curbing its greenhouse gas emissions, which is nonsense.
The oil sands have been a focus of a concerted attack by environmentalists for some time, who have concentrated a good deal of their efforts in the UK. A signal of their success was a stunningly ill-informed editorial in The Times of London earlier this year that described oil sands activity as a “filthy habit” and called on the next U. S. president to clamp down on imports of oil sands oil.
On the bright side, however, this decision might stop companies from flaunting the “S” word which, as has often been stressed in this space, is both operationally meaningless and politically subversive.
LONDON — Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA) violated industry rules by claiming in a newspaper ad that two oil projects in Canada and the United States involved sustainable forms of energy, Britain’s advertising watchdog ruled Wednesday.
Click to continue reading “U.K. ad watchdog forces Shell to pull ‘green’ newspaper ad”
: 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.
: 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.
: 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.
: It is easy to figure out who Witchy Woman is (LC). She has an "ax to grind" and is using this forum
: @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.
: To - an observer of Shell Shell has been delivering on its deliverables - why would you paint Voser as some one who is not??
: 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.
: 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??
: 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.
: 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.
Shell Blog RSS Feed
