Posts Tagged ‘Motiva’

For whatever reason inside me, something compels me to continue revisiting the post made by Uncle Tom

By John Donovan

The following is a self-explanatory email I sent earlier today to Robert (Bob) Pease, President & Chief Executive Officer of Motiva Enterprises LLC, which is jointly owned by a subsidiary of Saudi Aramco and Shell.

From the Motiva Website:

Formed in 1998, Motiva Enterprises LLC operates primarily in the eastern and southern United States. Its operations include nearly 7,700 Shell-branded gasoline stations, three refineries with a combined capacity of 740,000 barrels per day, and ownership interest in 41 refined product storage terminals with an aggregate storage capacity of approximately 19.8 million barrels.

MY EMAIL TO MR BOB PEASE

Dear Mr Pease

I am writing to you in your capacity as President and Chief Executive of Motiva Enterprises LLC.

You may be aware of the fact that the website royaldutchshellplc.com is serving as a public platform for stakeholders in Shell/Motiva refineries who have made allegations against Mr Tom Purves, your Vice President for Downstream Manufacturing on The Gulf Coast.

Allegations of rampant cronyism and much worse have been made against Mr Purves and his alleged “henchman”, including Mr Jeff Funkhouser and Mr Forrest Lauher.

I have sent emails to Mr Purves and Mr Funkhouser offering them the right of reply, promising to publish on an unedited basis, any comments they wish to make. Thus far, the invitations have not been taken up, thereby leaving serious allegations unanswered. The lack of any denial will likely give credibility to the allegations.

I would respectfully suggest that you read my emails to these gentleman and the “Shell Blog” comments accessible on this link. A quick glance through the postings over recent months might be enlightening.

There are many similarities with the Sakhalin 2 project before it came to grief with the forced takeover by Gazprom, the Russian energy giant controlled by the Putin regime.  The so called “Kremlin attack dog”, Oleg Mitvol, publicly acknowledged the pivotal role we played in those events. Mitvol turned out to be a genuine campaigner for his ideals.

Many stakeholders in the Sakhalin 2 project, including concerned contractors and employees, contacted us and posted allegations on our website about improper practices, SEIC management generally, and in particular, the Deputy Chairman of SEIC, a Shell MD, Mr David Greer. He subsequently resigned as a direct result of an internal email from him which was leaked to us.  The main difference is that Mr Greer had many supporters posting comments in his defense. I cannot recall any contributor trying to defend Mr Purves.

I note that in the USA market Shell is in bed with another unsavory regime, this time the Saudi Royal family, who have already drawn Royal Dutch Shell into what has been described as the *Scandal Of The Century”.  We have posted declassified UK government documents revealing Shell’s money laundering role in the Al Yamamah/ BAE Systems “oil for arms” deal. The power of the Saudi regime is such, that it ordered UK PM Tony Blair to stop an investigation by the UK Serious Fraud Office into the multibillion dollar corruption scandal on the grounds of national security. Blair did as he was told.

Returning to current events, it seems to me that if your company sticks by Mr Purves and his associates, then your company should provide legal support to protect their reputation and the reputation of Shell/Motiva.

In the interests of transparency, this email and any correspondence flowing from it, will be published in its entirety on our website.

Best Regards

John Donovan

shellmotiva.com

*Ironically a similar description was used in relation to the Royal Dutch Shell reserves securities fraud revealed in 2004.

cc.

Mr. Tom Purves, Shell/Motiva VP for Downstream Manufacturing on The Gulf Coast.

Mr. Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc

Mr. Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc

Dear Mr Funkhouser

You may have seen the email I sent yesterday to Tom Purves inviting him to provide for unedited publication on our website, his response to the serious allegations leveled against him by contributors to our Shell Blog facility.

As you are probably aware, you have also been a target for some equally serious allegations.

Leaving to one side abusive comments and rumors, here is a list of some of the main allegations: -

1. You have helped to create a climate of fear by bullying Motivia employees, brandishing a knife on one occasion when allegedly threatening to gut employees like a fish.

2. You have been the subject of at least two DUI charges.

3. You treat employees who are not part of your inner circle with contempt.

4. You have been described as being unethical and corrupt.

5. You have been allegedly promoted and remain at the company solely because of a special relationship with Tom Purves, allegedly involving joint ownership of a property.

If this is all a work of fiction, please feel free to say so.

If you check with Shell lawyers, you will discover that you cannot count on Shell to intervene to protect the reputation of its senior managers and executives.

This may be because Shell is frightened what we might do in retaliation. As unlikely as this may seem, it is a fact gleaned from a legally privileged and Confidential Shell internal email released to us under the UK equivalent of freedom of information law.

Basically Shell set up a crisis reaction team to try to counter our activities.

Shell admits in the email that it is “on the back foot”… in “handling the Donovans”…

Extract:

Would one blanket statement response be more effective than several rebuttals? Should we be more forthright about the site and our views on it? What might happen (leafleting in the past)?

There was some macho content:

“…demonstration that we won’t tolerate the Donovan’s approach unchallenged any longer?”

However, since the email is over two years old, we assume fear of reprisal (Shell management did not like our leaflets being distributed outside their UK and Netherlands HQ offices every week day), won out over anger. Shell senior management continue to hide in their bunkers with hard hats on leaving others alone, unprotected, to receive incoming fire from postings on our website.

I would have thought that at the very least Shell/Motiva should offer to cover legal costs for Shell employees/managers/executives/officials to take action to protect their reputations if any wish to dispute published accusations.

Since no such support is apparently forthcoming, you may be well-advised to consider whether to take up our invitation of a right to reply whenever allegations are made against you on our website. If you do, your comments will, as promised, be published unedited. This offer applies to any Shell/Motiva employee whose integrity is impugned by any posting on our site.

Yours sincerely

John Donovan

Royal Dutch Shell and BP played pivotal roles in the “oil for arms” deal said to be the biggest scandal in history. We have published evidence including declassified documents revealing details of the top secret agreements involving the UK government, BAE Systems, Shell, BP, and members of the Saudi Royal family. The US Justice Department investigation is highly sensitive and the outcome potentially explosive for Shell in view of its close relationship with the state owned oil company Saudi Aramco, involving joint ventures in the USA under the Shell/Motiva umbrella.

The comments below were supplied by a contributor to our Shell Blog who posts under the name of “Jo Blow”. The contributors name and email address have been supplied. When comments are of this quality, we will publish them as articles.

By Jo Blow

I am happy to see the activity and posts that continue to populate this site, some I agree with fully, some I see as having merit although the message is mired in a barrage of pointless bashing of all staff folks.

First I would like to comment on Paddy’s most recent posting, very insightful, and well written, I agree with you on many of your points, however I do not believe Shell will divest its entire downstream refining business.  I do believe the portfolio will look very different in the near future.  I believe you will see a large push within Shell/Motiva to focus on its larger most complex facilities, these facilities are best positioned on the surface to weather the times ahead in the oil industry.  I say on the surface because any business arm that resides in the middle or the end of any supply chain oriented business must be cost competitive.  Lets face it folks, in downstream we still are subject to market price for our feedstock, this in itself tells us that in order to be competitive we have to work our magic at competitive cost to be able to then sell our finished products (again at a market price) for a profit.  So even a large complex facility will have no position in the portfolio if it can not accomplish this.  I think this next point is the one most missed among many in the downstream businesses. As a large integrated oil company, exploration and production of crude is the future that drives the desire to have a downstream business. Pay attention to the word “Desire”, having a downstream business is not a necessity, upstream can simply market its feedstock on the open market and still fare well.

Now lets focus on what all of this means, The current measures for cost cutting are not evil or misguided strategy wise, sadly it is fact of our very existence that we must become more cost competitive to ensure survival.  Keep in mind folks the enormity of the capital budgets across Shell/Motiva, a large portion of this is in the downstream business, but the majority is in E&P which is the way it is supposed to be.  To fund this in a sour market environment is difficult, now add in the worlds financial markets are also soured, now it becomes near impossible to fund this large of an investment program. But fund it is what Shell/Motiva must do.

So what does all of this mean, well.. when you examine costs within the downstream business, your biggest opportunities to lower costs are in your non-energy cash costs or NECC.  Salaries and Wages are one of your largest categories within NECC along with catalysts and chemicals.  Now most of us understand that there is not much you can do with catalyst and chemicals, but there is plenty of options with Salaries and Wages and none of these are pleasurable to work with.  I can tell you that I would love to be back at work and not facing the uncertain future that I now find myself in. But if you ask me “Do I think the cost cutting efforts are necessary?” then I will tell you unequivocally yes.  My beef is not with the fact that the business found it necessary to embark on these cost cutting measures, sadly they are a fact of life.  My argument is in the method employed to achieve the cuts.  I firmly believe that the current measures are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction, they won’t deliver a sustainable cost structure going forward.  At some sites, the manner the staff cuts were conducted will sadly have long ranging effects on the efficiency of the site, while other sites will fare much better.  Fundamentally the folks that get things done are the Operators and Craftsmen that day in and day out operate and maintain the facilities.  When Management jumps out and begins to steer the ship in a different direction with little education and communication to the folks that accomplish the results, the negative impact created is large and long lasting.

Now just for giggles I am gonna tell you my predictions for the Americas Downstream Refining portfolio, don’t take them to the bank I’m just some Jo Blow.  Deer Park, Port Arthur, Scotford, and Martinez will definitely survive in the portfolio, Convent and Puget have a chance at survival but no more.  Norco, Mobile, Montreal, Sarnia, and Buenes Aries will not survive.  If Convent survives it will be the Saudis who save it. Puget is a smooth running facility and its future is mostly dependant on what strategy for the Pacific Northwest is decided.  The bad news here is for the people, I don’t think there are many at any of these sites will dispute in terms of compensation and benefits how good they have it, sure there will be those that do, and to them let me say this.  I am actively searching for a job since my disgraceful exit from my site, and I am not seeing benefits packages and compensation structure with those that have expressed interest in my resume anywhere near what I have and will soon lose with Shell/Motiva.  For those that do not make the cut in the portfolio, your future will be determined by one of the independents like Valero, Western Refining, Frontier, etc.  For those folks at the sites that do survive, be cautioned.  In my opinion the staff cuts are not over, and the changes have just begun.

Now for my last comment, and this is in no means intended to be offensive.  Motivaman, at times I enjoy your post’s and agree with your positions, but at times you group me with people I have no place with.  I am and soon won’t be Staff, I am proud of this accomplishment despite being disposed of like I was.  I remain proud because I will and many others will always know the truth.  I have no shame in the job that I did for this company, I gave a 110% each day and did what I felt was fair and right at all times.  It is true there are bad apples out there, but not all staff people are bad people.  Regarding the life saving rules, I agree with the creation of them, personally I don’t agree with the position the company has taken on how to manage them.  Management by “Ease” is ineffective in my opinion.  I don’t believe in the absoluteness of violate and your fired.  I believe there are different degrees of severity and so much black and white in any case that you have to investigate and determine intent, and many other factors before determining to terminate someone.  Now, I do believe if the precedent has been set then violators of the rules must be held accountable and dealt with according to precedent.  I guess what I am trying to say here Motivaman, is don’t detract from the validity of your message by wading into a pointless barrage of negative comments.  When your message is just and true it will survive without that.  I say this with the intention of respect and the hope that you do not take offence.

Many Thanks,
Jo Blow

Motiva, a joint venture between Saudi Aramco and Shell, in March announced the project’s completion would be delayed by two years to 2012, leading to speculation it would be canceled altogether as the recession continues to crush U.S. demand for motor fuels.

Motiva Port Arthur’s General Manager Todd Monette is transferring, effective April 1, from his current position into a corporate assignment within Shell’s Downstream Global Manufacturing group…

Motiva Enterprises is delaying by more than a year the target date for completing a $7 billion expansion of its Port Arthur refinery due to poor market conditions, a company spokesman said today. Motiva, a joint venture between Shell Oil and Saudi Refining Inc., had planned to finish the project by late 2010, but now is aiming for the first quarter of 2012, Motiva spokesman Stan Mays said today.

On 19 January disturbing rumours over the Motiva Plant expansion in Port Arthur Texas were brought to our attention. Motiva Enterprises LLC is jointly owned by Saudi Refining and Shell.

According to Verna Rutherford of Motiva, changes are being implemented to assure tighter control of costs on the $7 billion refinery expansion project that began December 2007. Demand for Motiva’s products is down, and with lower demand, margins are also down, making tight cost control essential.