Posts Tagged ‘Litigation’

POSTING ON SHELL BLOG BY “SirPhil” ON 31 Jan 2012

“Having read that the former RBS-CEO, Fred Goodwin, has been stripped of his knighthood by UK authorities. Makes you wonder if and when Sir Phil Watts will stripped of his one. No doubt Phil’s selfish behaviour at the helm of Shell did more harm to the industry and private investors than Fred.”

RELATED ARTICLES

Memos expose Shell’s years of lying

EXTRACT: The correspondence between Mr Watts and Mr Van de Vijver began in June 2001 when Mr Van de Vijver took over as head of exploration and production. He was promoted after Sir Philip was made chief executive partly because of his success with reserves. The two engaged in a “pointed dialogue”, with Mr van de Vijver complaining Shell had overbooked reserves throughout the 1990s.

‘It happened on my watch. I am determined to fix it’

EXTRACT: Shell chairman Sir Philip Watts is resisting pressure to quit following the oil giant’s devaluation of its reserves.

Royal Dutch Shell still diddling its shareholders

EXTRACT: What a mad world we are in when the person most responsible for the fraud, Sir Phillip Watts KCMG, escaped with a severance/pension package of $18.5 million and also managed to retain his title and his Order of St Michael and St George, a British order of chivalry founded in 1818.

FSA Interrogation of Sir Philip Watts following resignation in disgrace as Shell Group Chairman

EXTRACT:

Transcript of Financial Services Authority Interview with Sir Philip Watts: 24 June 2004

Samantha Griffin for the FSA to Sir Philip:

“You are not under arrest and are free to leave any time. The interview is being conducted under caution. That is to say you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in Court. Anything you say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?”

Link for searchable Transcript of Financial Services Authority Interview with Sir Philip Watts: 24 June 2004: 75 pages – every page marked “CONFIDENTIAL”

Peter Voser, another Royal Dutch Shell CEO tainted by scandal

EXTRACT:

by John Donovan of royaldutchshellplc.com

Soon after Sir Philip Watts was escorted by security guards from the Shell Centre in humiliation and disgrace as a result of his leading role in the Royal Dutch Shell securities fraud, Shell directors appointed Jeroen van der Veer to replace him.

This was despite the fact that van der Veer and fellow Royal Dutch Shell Group Managing Director, Malcolm Brinded, “only narrowly avoided being sacked over their role in the oil giant’s reserves scandal.” Both had signed Form 20F Declarations submitted to the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission containing materially false information. Both were subsequently co-defendants in a U.S. class action lawsuit settled by Shell in which Royal Dutch Shell, as part of the multi-million dollar settlement, made a range of commitments about future governance of the oil giant.

THE SADISTIC SACKING OF SHELL CHIEF EXECUTIVE WALTER VAN DE VIJVER

EXTRACT: He resigned as a result of the cumulative assault, shocked, humiliated and disgusted at the shabby inhuman treatment he received from his colleagues.

The court was used once before in a similar case launched in 2007 against Royal Dutch Shell, when investors resolved their claims for €316 million with the oil giant.

(January 25, 2012)  –  The first class action lawsuit settlement to be approved for shareholders based outside the United States, since the Supreme Court tightened rules about international investors seeking redress through its legal system in 2010, has thrown a lifeline to asset owners suspicious of corporate fraud.

A case brought by international pension schemes, endowments and other large investors against Swiss reinsurer Converium Holding (now Scor Holding (Switzerland)), was settled out of court with damages of over $58 million being approved for distribution by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal last week.

The court was used once before in a similar case launched in 2007 against Royal Dutch Shell, when investors resolved their claims for €316 million with the oil giant.

FULL ARTICLE

”SPACE, VISION AND STRATEGY”: Sir Philip Watts, disgraced Shell Group Chairman who once donned a space suit at a meeting in Maastricht, Netherlands, in 1998 to pump up his troops. Subsequently a defendant in various US class action law suits arising from his role in reserves fraud ,which cost Shell shareholders almost $1 billion in lawsuits and fines. Sir Philip was rewarded with a reported $18 million pension pot/settlement for destroying Shell’s reputation.

Spaced out means to be confused or distracted…

REFLECTIONS OF A SHELL RETIREE

During the Mark Moody-Stuart tenure as Group Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, someone had the brainwave of setting up “hydrocarbon value creation teams”.

The foundations for the reserves scandal were laid.

The company had got (with the explicit knowledge of the top brass) into the hands of people who were only motivated by personal rewards, and who smelled their chance. None of that ‘Enterprise First’ stuff. It was ‘Me first’ and all the snouts were in the trough and nobody wanted to take their snout out of the trough. Anyone complaining or making remarks that things were not right was publicly destroyed and removed. And those with their snouts in the trough started to make promises and ever more ridiculous demands. Explicit instructions to cook the books or ‘err on the high side’ were hardly given in written form or were at least well disguised. It was said and whispered in meetings, conferences and workshops and personal discussions during the annual staff evaluation time. There were clear instructions to aim for the impossible with those stretched targets and anyone who said he could go even further or higher was handsomely rewarded with promotions or fat bonuses. Brinded was a real champion of this, he was #2 and later MD in Shell Expro and I believe they missed their business targets for 7 years in a row under his reign!

If we go back to the heady days of Phil Watts, where he did some time-travelling to the future and returned in a horrendously expensive spacesuit to tell the large audience of the self proclaimed ‘Leaders’ of Shell that he had seen the future and liked it. Presumably we are in that future now. Since as a good born again Christian he would never lie, I can only assume he compared the current state of affairs with Hell. And this is indeed better than Hell (so he must be feeling more miserable by the day as he gets older and closer to the day of the final judgement….)!

When Watts first came to power (he actually stole that job at the time with his gorilla talk and behaviour) the pigs were truly feeding. Watts started his circus with new and bigger promises every year. And then it became unsustainable and the truth came out.

We have internet, everyone knows what has happened and why it happened. Inflated reserves, massive fines, massive bad publicity which brought about the end of Anglo Dutch Shell in the form in which it had flourished for 100 years.

SONG AND DANCE

They were all singing along with this attached song!!!! Nobody spoke up. The CMD danced the Macarena. People resigned because they saw Shell was going over the cliff. And still nobody woke up.

AUDIO LINK FOR THE SONG “WE ARE ALL WINNERS”:

The Lyrics

GROWING AND WINNING (WE ARE THE WORLD)
THERE CAME A TIME
WHEN WE  HEED A CERTAIN CALL
FOR CHANGE , WE NEED TO BOND TOGETHER AS ONE

NOW WE’RE ON A JOURNEY
TO STREAMLINE THE WAY WE WORK
AND BUILD A GLOBAL ENTERPRISE

WE HAVE MOVED ON, GROWING DAY BY DAY
SHARING STRENGTHS, WE PRACTICE WHAT IS BEST
WE ARE ALL A PART OF
SHELL’S GLOBAL FAMILY
DOING WORK ALIGNED WITH EVERYONE
(Chorus)
WE ARE THE BEST
WE ARE ALL WINNERS
WE ARE THE ONE’S WHO HAVE MADE THE CHANGE
WE’VE GROWN THE BUSINESS
WE ARE SHELL’S TOMORROW
B2B, WE’RE ONE GREAT TEAM
WITH OUR SPACE, VISION AND STRATEGY
WE WILL SUCCEED

WE’LL WORK WITH OUR PEERS
CAUSE THEY’RE PART OF OUR TEAM
HAND IN HAND WE’LL BUILD THE VISION WE PLANNED

OUR HIGHEST GOAL IS TO BE THE CUSTOMER’S BEST CHOICE
FOR THE TEAM, WE MUST LEND A HELPING HAND
Repeat Chorus

WHEN TRIALS ABOUND
OUR MISSION SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE
BUT IF YOU JUST BELIEVE
THERE’S NO WAY WE WILL FALL

WELL, WELL, WELL, LET’S REALIZE
THESE TRIALS WE’LL OVERCOME
WHEN WE…..STAND TOGETHER AS ONE
Repeat Chorus

SONG THANKFULLY ENDS

Original article from which the above extracts are taken

MEMORIES OF MARK “MACARENA” MOODY-STUART

The “Rossport Five” were jailed at the specific request of the company, which had obtained compulsory purchase orders for the land in question – the first time in Irish history that such an order was granted to a private company. The five will remain in jail until they undertake not to obstruct the company. (SHELL)

The company stinks worldwide…

By John Donovan

This article focuses on an informative parliamentary debate about the Corrib Gas controversy held in the Houses of the Oireachtas, the national parliament of Ireland, on 6 October 2005. It does not appear to have been reported in any detail at the time.

Some very forthright comments were expressed about Shell.

The debate was held after the release from prison of the Rossport Five, activist landowners jailed at the specific behest of Shell. The activists held legitimate concerns on behalf of their families about health, safety, and environmental implications of the Shell led Corrib Gas Project.

Extracts from a related Guardian article: Shell meets its match in the Rossport Five

Suddenly, the issue became one of the biggest news stories of the year and, as the Irish Examiner called it, “a major public relations disaster for the Shell corporation”. The “Rossport Five” were jailed at the specific request of the company, which had obtained compulsory purchase orders for the land in question – the first time in Irish history that such an order was granted to a private company. The five will remain in jail until they undertake not to obstruct the company.

“Shell officials misjudged the situation if they thought to intimidate others by making an example of these men,” the Irish Times said. Indeed, July has seen huge rallies in support of the men in Co Mayo and in Dublin, the picketing of Shell garages nationwide, and round-the-clock blockades of the refinery construction site.

Some of the exchanges in the parliamentary debate were even more damaging to Shell and proved to be prophetic in mentioning Shell’s use of security forces against protestors in Nigeria. No doubt wondering whether such intimidatory tactics by the multinational might be imported into Ireland.

The following extracts are from the official record:

Brief extracts from opening statement by Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher)

It was a source of great regret to me that five Rossport men were committed to prison as a result of their opposition to the proposed pipeline.

The safety review of the on-shore, up-stream gas pipeline is now under way. It will be thorough and comprehensive and will be carried out by independent, internationally recognised experts.

Mr. Finucane:

I welcome the Minister of State’s statement which outlines the latest developments in regard to the Corrib onshore pipeline. Although it is quite a distance from Rossport, a public meeting on the issue was recently held in Newcastle West in County Limerick. The families of the Rossport men were represented and Dr. Mark Garavan, spokesman for the Shell to Sea campaign, spoke at length. It was an informative session and indicated how this issue has resonated with the public in that it seems a manifestation of the small man taking on a major multinational. Speakers at the meeting drew our attention to the unfavourable publicity for Shell some years ago in regard to its activities in the Ogoni region of Nigeria. It is ironic that the same company is involved in this controversy in which five people were imprisoned as a result of their stance on the proposed onshore pipeline. The action they took was a consequence of their genuine concerns.

Mr. Kenneally:

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and the opportunity to speak on this issue. When we look back on the imprisonment on those who have become known as the Rossport five we will view the matter with regret. It should not be necessary for five citizens of the State to go to prison for 94 days to vindicate what they perceive to be their rights. Regardless of the sequence of events and the legal niceties responsible for their three month stay in an Irish prison, it should not have happened here in this enlightened third millennium.

We can talk about principles and principled stands all day and discuss the relative claims for the safety of the installation and the power of multinational companies but who would favour a gas pipeline pumping unknown quantities of explosive material at unknown explosive pressure not much more than 100 yards from people’s homes? This was not just a blind protest on the part of disgruntled residents. Their arguments were logical. I cannot confirm that they were correct but they did raise reasonable doubts about safety and the appropriateness of the industry being there at all, such as the inadequacy of the soil through which the pipeline will run and several other arguments worth investigating.

I have evidence of a quantified risk assessment carried out on Shell’s behalf in Australia approximately five years ago in which there was a fundamental flaw in the design which was missed in the quantified risk assessment. Had the Government authorities in Australia not spotted the fundamental flaw an offshore rig would have been constructed and had an entirely predictable and [264]likely event happened hundreds of people could have been killed. A quantified risk assessment is done on the data supplied by the client, in this case by Shell, and it is not independent. If there is to be a safety review, it is desperately important that the first brief of the company must be to know whether this is inherently safe or whether there are margins of uncertainty because it is a unique project.

Mr. Norris:

I listened to Senator Mansergh’s contribution with great interest and in response to his last comment I would say that Shell really needs to revise its entire ethos and modus operandi. The company stinks worldwide, but we were not sufficiently aware of this fact and we have let them away with potential murder in this country. If, as Senator Mansergh also said, international business will look at what is happening here, then let them look. Let them see that Irish people and the Government have standards. It seems extraordinary that five decent, respectable people in the community were sent to jail at the instigation of Shell Oil. These men did not have to go to jail but they were pushed into that position by the company. It also seems extraordinary that they were jailed while trying to defend their own homes, welfare and possibly even their lives, which should be a constitutional imperative.

Should we feel secure because Shell is involved? I do not think so. If we look at the company’s track record internationally, we can see it is good at spin. It bought into things like National Geographic and it sponsors environmental programmes on television, while simultaneously destroying the environment in places such as Nigeria. Its modus operandi although subtly changed from Nigeria is in essence precisely the same and reveals a complete contempt for local people as long as it can get the Government on its side and its PR merchants in with the spin.

Let us consider the record in Nigeria. Shell Oil was complicit in the fact that the Nigerian Government hanged nine environmentalists for protesting peacefully in 1995. The tribunal that convicted the men was a joint effort between Shell and the Nigerian Government. These people protested because of the enormous amounts of oil spillage in their territory against which they were totally unprotected. Between 1976 and 1991 some 2,976 oil spills occurred in the Niger delta. A World Bank investigation found that the levels of hydrocarbon pollution in Ogoniland were more than 60 times the US limits. This was confirmed in 1997 by a Project Underground survey which found petroleum hydrocarbons in one Ogoni village’s water source at 360 times the limit set for the European Community. This is the respect for the environment that Shell Oil has in Nigeria.

Let us consider how Shell copes with this situation. In Nigeria as in Ireland there is a rebellious local population. Shell uses the local existing institutions to hand. In Ireland there is a complacent Government and requirements are placed on judges to make certain decisions. I do not criticise the Judiciary in that it is working with what it has. Shell contributes to the military funding in the areas where it needs to suppress the people. Shell has admitted that it has paid directly for visits to two villages in Ogoniland. These visits were as a result of a peaceful demonstration by the local inhabitants. It has also admitted purchasing weapons for the local police force which guards its facilities. Many people believe that Shell’s [268]involvement in the military aspect is much greater.

Bearing in mind that the police are partly funded by Shell Oil, a classified memorandum from a police leader in this area described his plans for “psychological tactics of displacement-wasting”. This is what Shell is doing in the west of Ireland; it is displacing the people. The memorandum further stated: “Shell operations are still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken.” It is prepared to be ruthless militarily and it is prepared to be ruthless in its involvement in the courts. Let us consider what it did in the trial of Ken Saro-Wiwa. We now know that two significant witnesses in that case were suborned by Shell with offers of money and employment in the Shell group.

I am not just some left-wing crank talking about this matter. The United Nations Special Rapporteur’s report on Nigeria published in 1998 accused both Nigeria and Shell of abusing human rights and failing to protect the environment. It condemned Shell for a “well armed security force which is intermittently employed against protestors”. This is what we are dealing with. This is the heart of darkness.

Mr. Kitt:

We should listen again to what people are saying. I hope that Shell will explain some of the issues which it is not explaining. Senator Norris made an important point regarding Shell’s involvement in Nigeria. In 1985 I was a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. We intended to visit Nigeria with a Trócaire delegation to visit the Ogoni region, but the Nigerian Government prevented us from going there, or even into Nigeria, because of our wish to go to the Ogoni region. There was no support from Shell, which I found very disappointing. While one cannot blame Shell for all the problems in the Ogoni region, the company has a case to answer with regard to environmental matters. That is one of the reasons the people in Rossport were so concerned that the pipe was coming through their area, very close to houses. They were worried about health, safety and environmental issues and knew that Shell did not have a very good track record in those areas.

RELATED ARTICLES

Corrib – Ireland’s Last Offshore Development for a Generation

SHELL TO SEA SUPPORTER BECOMES PRESIDENT OF IRELAND

‘The Pipe’ Norwegian premiere

Gardaí investigate alleged death threats to Corrib whistleblowers

By DAN JOLING, Associated Press 13 January 2012

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Royal Dutch Shell’s quest to drill exploratory wells in Arctic waters has received a boost with the affirmation that its federal air permits for the Chukchi Sea were properly granted.

The EPA Appeals Board on Thursday rejected challenges to the air permits brought by Alaska Native and conservation groups.

Shell Alaska spokesman Curtis Smith said in a formal announcement that the decision means Shell, for the first time, has usable air permits that will allow its drill ship, the Noble Discoverer, to work in the outer continental shelf off Alaska’s northwest coast in 2012.

“Achieving usable permits from the EPA is a very important step for Shell and one of the strongest indicators to date that we will be exploring our Beaufort and Chukchi leases in July,” Smith said.

Drilling is strongly opposed by conservation groups that contend oil companies cannot clean up a spill in ice-choked waters, and that the remote Chukchi and Beaufort seas are too far from ports, major airports and other infrastructure for an effective cleanup if there’s a blowout.

Earthjustice attorney Colin O’Brien, who represented groups that filed one of four air permit appeals, said it an email response to questions that the decision could be appealed in federal court, but that it was too early to speculate about potential next steps.

He said EPA took shortcuts when it issued the permits and failed to fully protect Arctic air quality as required by the Clean Air Act.

“These permits pave the way for Shell to emit thousands of tons of harmful air pollution into the pristine Arctic environment, at levels that may be harmful to nearby communities and the environment for years to come,” he said. “We are disappointed that the Environmental Appeals Board decided against us and allowed EPA’s permit decisions to stand.

A Shell subsidiary has applied to drill up to three exploratory wells in the Chukchi during the open water season this year and additional exploratory wells in 2013. The company hopes to use a second drill for exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s north coast, and awaits a decision on the appeal of its air permit.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in December approved Shell’s Chukchi drilling plan with one important stipulation. The agency said Shell must still drilling into hydrocarbon zones 38 days before sea ice is projected to engulf the drill site to make sure it has time cope with a spill or a wellhead blowout. That would cut the drilling window by about one-third.

A successful appeal of previous air permits played a part of Shell’s decision to cancel drilling for 2011. In that case, the appeals board concluded that analysis of the impact of nitrogen dioxide emissions on Alaska Native communities was too limited. The board remanded the permits to allow the agency to fix permit problems.

The appeal filed by Earthjustice contended that Shell’s new permit was based on pollution estimates that were inherently unreliable because they are based on equipment that Shell did not identify and that the EPA never intends to test.

Shell faces other hurdles before it can send its drill ships and support vessels north. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement must approve Shell’s oil spill response plan for the Chukchi.

Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

SOURCE ARTICLE

JANUARY 10, 2012, 6:10 P.M. ET

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)-Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSA.LN) Tuesday reported an emissions event caused by a leak in overhead piping at the company’s joint-venture refinery in Deer Park, Texas.

In a filing to Texas state environmental regulators, the company said the emissions were routed to the appropriate safety flare system and that refinery personnel depressured and isolated the leak from the Debenzenizer 1 column in just over 10 minutes.

The Debenzenizer and Hydrotreater 2 were listed as sources of the emissions.

It is not clear whether the event had an impact on production at the 327,000-barrels-a-day refinery that Shell Oil, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, operates in partnership with PMI Norteamerica S.A. de C.V., a subsidiary of Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex.

-By Rose Marton-Vitale; Dow Jones Newswires, 201-264-4185, rose.marton@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES

Shell Reports Release of Deadly Benzene Chemical at Deer Park Refinery

Extract: Bloomberg News has reported the release of an unknown amount of the deadly chemical benzene at its Deer Park refinery in Texas.

Shell to Pay $500,000 for Pollution in Texas

Extract: The settlement was reached after Harris County accused Shell Chemical, a unit of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, of failing to notify officials about the toxic releases

Shell reports release of sulfur dioxide at Convent Refinery

EXTRACT: LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Income performance at Motiva Enterprises LLC’s Convent refinery near Baton Rouge in Louisiana has been dismal since July 2008 and the company needs to cut costs to return to profitability, according to an internal email from part-owner Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB) which was leaked to a blog critical of the company. “We are getting our costs in line at Convent in order to become competitive in a tough business environment,” the email sent to Motiva staff by manager David Brignac said. “We are considering reductions in operator positions, but no final decisions have been made on operator staffing levels,” he writes in the email posted Friday on royaldutchshellplc.com.

Forbes: Shell refineries settle with government: Associated Press, 03.31.2010, 02:40 PM EDT

Extract: ST. ROSE, La. — Two Shell chemical companies have agreed to install $6 million in pollution reduction equipment at two petroleum refineries in Louisiana and Alabama and upgrade a terminal in Puerto Rico as part of a Clean Air Act settlement with the federal government. Shell Chemical LP and Shell Chemical Yabucoa, units of Royal Dutch Shell PLC ( RDSA – news – people ), also will pay a combined $3.3 million civil penalty to the federal government, Alabama and Louisiana.

About $193 will go to Louisiana organizations for environmental education, teacher workshops and emergency operations. The new pollution control equipment will be installed at Shell Chemical refineries in St. Rose, La., and Saraland, Ala. The settlement was announced Wednesday by the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.

NASDAQ: Shell To Pay $9.5 Million In Settling Clean Air Act Allegations: Mar 31, 2010 | 3:00PM

Extract: DOW JONES NEWSWIRES: Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSA.LN) has agreed to pay $3.5 million in penalties and spend an estimated $6 million to install pollution-reduction equipments at three U.S. refineries to reduce harmful air emissions. The equipment is intended to cut output of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by more than 1,450 tons a year at the facilities in Louisiana, Alabama and Puerto Rico. Assistant Attorney General Ignacia Moreno said the settlement is an example of businesses’ effort to comply with government environmental regulations. “We will continue to work with industry to achieve compliance under the Clean Air Act to remove harmful pollution from the air we breathe,” she added. -By Jodi Xu, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-3037; jodi.xu@dowjones.com (END) Dow Jones Newswires 03-31-101334ET Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Los Angeles Times: Shell refineries reach Clean Air Act settlements: By Associated Press March 31, 2010 | 12:02 p.m.

Extract: ST. ROSE, La. (AP) — Two Shell chemical companies have agreed to install $6 million in pollution reduction equipment at two petroleum refineries in Louisiana and Alabama and upgrade a terminal in Puerto Rico as part of a Clean Air Act settlement with the federal government. Shell Chemical LP and Shell Chemical Yabucoa, units of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, also will pay a combined $3.3 million civil penalty to the federal government, Alabama and Louisiana. About $193,000 will go to Louisiana organizations for environmental education, teacher workshops and emergency operations. The new pollution control equipment will be installed at Shell Chemical refineries in St. Rose, La., and Saraland, Ala. The settlement was announced Wednesday by the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Unauthorised venting and flaring of gas by Shell in USA

Extract: On 5 August 2003, the United States Department of Justice announced ^[19] that Shell Oil Company had agreed to pay $49 million USD “to settle claims under the False Claims Act and various administrative provisions relating to its unauthorized venting and flaring of gas…” at its Auger platform, located some 150 miles (240 km) off the coast of Louisiana and at other Shell facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. The settlement also resolved claims that Shell had failed to properly report, or pay royalties on the vented and flared gas. This was the third case settled by Shell Oil Company in the period 1999 to 2003 alleging that it had underpaid royalties owed to the United States. In 2000, Shell agreed to pay $56 million to settle claims that it undervalued gas produced from federal leases. Shell paid $110 million in 2001 to settle ^[20] US Department of Justice claims that it undervalued crude oil extracted from federal lands.

Shell Reports ‘Unplanned’ Flaring At Martinez Refinery: 26 February 2011

COMPASS: Other points of view

By PETE SLAIBY Published: January 4th, 2012

Pete Slaiby is vice president for Shell Alaska.

In her recent opinion piece (Jan. 2), Wilderness Society Arctic Program Director Lois Epstein assumes that neither Alaskans, the nation nor Shell are “ready to drill safely in the Arctic.” Ms. Epstein then dismisses decades of data that indicate otherwise and claims drilling in the Arctic would lead to a “reasonable likelihood of disaster.” The fact is, Shell and others have successfully drilled more than 35 wells in the Alaska offshore without incident — not counting the Cook Inlet wells that have helped heat Anchorage homes for over 50 years.

As previously reported, Tyler resident Kurt Floersheim filed suit against his former employer, Motiva, on April 15 in Jefferson County District Court, alleging he was laid off so that two younger men could replace him.

1/4/2012 11:59 AM By David Yates

THIS ARTICLE WAS SENT TO SHELL SOME DAYS AGO GIVING SHELL THE OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT ANY INACCURACY AND PROVIDE COMMENT IF IT WISHED TO DO SO. SHELL HAS THUS FAR NOT TAKEN UP THE INVITATION.

By John Donovan

A few months ago Shell was found guilty of discrimination towards an employee by the Dutch Commission for Equal Treatment (the CGB). The decision has ramifications for over 1,100 Royal Dutch Shell employees.

Shell Global Solutions International BV subsequently decided “after careful consideration” to flout the relevant Judgement,  which confirmed discrimination by Shell against the part-time employee in question, regarding compensation relating to public holidays.

The judgement arose from a discrimination case against Shell brought by Mr Alberto Gatti, who works four days per week for Shell, thereby receiving a 20% reduction of monthly salary compared with a full time employee. He brought the case on a point of principle. Namely, fair treatment between employees.

Shell HR argued in email correspondence, which dragged out over several months, that it was a matter of “bad luck” and “all in the game“, when a Dutch public holiday coincided with the only week day on which Mr Gatti does not work – Monday in his case. This means that Mr Gatti receives no compensatory day off in respect of Easter Monday and Whit Monday, while full time employees do.

Since over 1,100 Dutch Shell part-time employees are effected, it is an ethical issue of some importance, with a huge saving for Shell, as a result of the use of blatant discrimination.  If you do a rough calculation based on a yearly salary of 60,000 EUR and part-timers working 80%, 4 days a week, you reach a saving of more than 600,000 EUR/year.

Interested parties are invited to read the extensive email correspondence, as it provides more detail about the issues and reveals an unprofessional, and at times, surprisingly cavalier attitude on the part of Shell HR department in response to a legitimate issue raised by Mr Gatti. Its legitimacy was confirmed by the CGB judgement in his favour following court proceedings.

In a letter dated 23 September 2011, signed by Jeanine van Barlingen, NL HR Manager – Projects & Technology, Mr Gatti was notified of the decision by Shell to flout the judgement of the Dutch Equal Rights Commission.

Shell has recently informed the involved parties that is not willing to rectify its wrong doing and will not take any action to prevent such discrimination from happening again.

Perhaps due to the influence that Royal Dutch Shell has with the Dutch mainstream media, attempts to have the story published in Dutch newspapers have been to no avail, which is probably unsurprising bearing in mind that the recent offshore oil spill in Nigeria had almost no coverage in the Dutch press.

The Judgement published on the CGB website

RELATED ARTICLES

Is Royal Dutch Shell a racist company?: 25 January 2011

Age and racial discrimination alleged in Shell jobs restructuring: 7 December 2009

Is Royal Dutch Shell a racist company?: 10 December 2007

Is Royal Dutch Shell Plc adopting racist policies against its Malaysian employees?: 22 September 2005

MY EMAIL TO SHELL

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Subject: Shell flouts discrimination ruling by Dutch Equal Treatment Commission
Date: 31 December 2011 22:01:57 GMT
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Cc: hugh.mitchell@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com

Dear Mr Brandjes

Printed below is a self-explanatory draft article.

Kindly let me know by close of business on Wednesday if Shell wishes to point out any inaccuracy in relation to the stated facts and/or provide comment for publication alongside the article.

If Shell does wish to respond, kindly provide an indication of when we can reasonably expect a substantive response (there is no great urgency attached provided we know Shell will be responding).

With your permission, we continue to receive job applications and business proposals meant for Shell using the agreed latitude to sift out junk mail and deal with the remainder as we deem appropriate, including providing correct contact information, or putting parties into direct contact with you.

Best Regards for 2012
John Donovan

His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei meeting Malcolm (TFA) Brinded, Shell’s Executive Director, Upstream International.

By John Donovan

On Sunday 1 January, the Borneo Bulletin published a gushing article under the headline “Oil & Gas continues to shower Brunei with benefits, opportunities“.

It described a claimed lovefest relationship between Royal Dutch Shell and the Brunei Royal family, which the Sultan of Brunei has summed up as: “the extraordinary symbiotic partnership between the Sultanate and the global oil giant… Royal Dutch Shell…“

The so called symbiotic relationship is between a scandal-tainted Brunei royal family and a scandal-tainted oil giant, which attracted international attention when it gave a $500,000 gift for a lavish Brunei royal wedding in September 2004. Many would view such a large sum as a bribe.

The relationship between Shell and the Sultanate has not been as deliriously happy as the article suggests. It was for some time mired in acrimony regarding the controversial subject of Brunei hydrocarbon reserves, which featured prominently in a massive securities fraud surrounding Shell, that came to light early in 2004. The huge wedding gift may have been designed to placate the regime.

Confirmation of the lengthy acrimonious debate between Shell and the Brunei regime on the reserves issue and related accusations made by the regime against Shell, can be found on page 43 of a sworn 965 page video taped deposition by Royal Dutch Shell Group Reserves Auditor, Anton Barendregt.

The Brunei reserves manipulations, designed to defraud Shell shareholders, also featured prominently in an independent report prepared by Davis Polk & Wardell for the Shell Group Audit Committee, and in reports issued by (1) the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission which fined Shell $120 million for securities fraud and (2) the UK Financial Services Authority, which found Shell guilty of “Market Abuse” and issued a fine of £17 million pounds.

The news of the scandal made global headlines and resulted in the forced resignations of Royal Dutch Shell Group Chairman Sir Philip Watts, and his executive director colleagues, Walter van de Vijver and Judith Boyton. Shell also settled several major class action lawsuits.

In February 2010, news broke of a “series of massive fraud investigations against more than 10 senior oil company officials” of Brunei Shell Petroleum (BSP). Some officials had already been dismissed and others suspended as a result of the fraud probe by the Brunei Anti Corruption Bureau.

Strange how none of these sordid events were mentioned in the love fest article published on 1 January 2012.

MORE ARTICLES ABOUT THE $5 MILLION BRUNEI ROYAL WEDDING

The $5m royal wedding: “…sponsored by local companies, including the oil and gas firms Brunei Shell…”: The Independent 10 September 2004

Shell Rewards Employees (*Bribes and scandal in Brunei?): Brudirect.com

Will the Prince Turn Pauper? (*$500,000 Shell bribe was given to this corrupt family): Wall Street Journal article published March 2008

Brunei Shell contributes $500,000 for royal wedding ceremonies: Brunei-online.com: August 2004