|
Shell Litigation New York Times: “Shell Oil Shareholders Awarded $110 Million”13 December 1990 New York Times: “Shell Settles Dumping Suit for $3 Million”: 9 February 1995 New York Times: “New Settlement In Plumbing Suit“: 9 November 1995 New York Times: “SHELL SETTLES ROYALTIES CASE FOR $33.5 MILLION”: 21 March 2002 Dow Jones Article: US Court Ruling Paves For Shell Settlement To Proceed: 19 November 2007 (The ruling was first obtained by Shell critics’ WebsiteRoyaldutchshellplc.com, which has posted 2,000 pages of extracts from the case.) NPCA scored a victory for industry with a California Superior Courts tentative decision which rules against Shell Oil in favor of the State of California and intervenor NPCA. The courts conclusion was fatal to Shells case because Shell failed to present any evidence under the relevant standard. Plaintiff Shell Oil brought this action (Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US vs. California State Board of Equalization and California Department of Health Services) in 2005 seeking a refund of the $3,910,359.10 in Child Lead Poisoning Prevention Act fees assessed against Shell in 2002. NPCA successfully intervened in the suit in order to oppose Shells demand that the allocation be changed to place virtually the entire financial burden of the program on the coatings industry. In particular, in weighing the credibility of the evidence, the Court specifically found that the correspondence and evidence established that the key Shell experts had a predetermined mindset of the results of the study, prior to engaging in any research. allAfrica.com: South Africa: Apartheid Victims to Sue Multinationals: 13 May 2008 Cape Town Victims of apartheid who are suing 23 leading multinational corporations in American courts on the grounds that the companies collaborated with the policy have been given clearance to take their case forward. The United States Supreme Court issued an order in Washington, DC, on Monday affirming a decision by a lower court, the effect of which is to allow the case to go ahead. Khulumani said its case targetted the multinationals “for having aided and abetted the perpetration of gross human rights violations in South Africa under apartheid by equipping and financing the apartheid government’s military and security agencies.” It said all the defendants had operations in apartheid South Africa, and it was seeking damages for “specific violations of internationally recognized human rights norms… by the apartheid government following the United Nations’ classification of apartheid as a crime against humanity.” It named the defendants in the case as: Barclay National Bank Ltd., British Petroleum, PLC, Chevrontexaco Corporation, Chevrontexaco Global Energy, Inc., Citigroup, Inc., Commerzbank, Credit Suisse Group, Daimlerchrysler AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Dresdner Bank AG, Exxonmobil Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Fujitsu, Ltd., General Motors Corporations, International Business Machines Corp., J.P. Morgan Chase, Shell Oil Company, UBS AG, AEG Daimler-Benz Industrie, Fluor Corporation, Rheinmetall Group AG, Rio Tinto Group and Total-Fina-Elf. The Times of Zambia: US firms to pay for apartheid: 14 May 2008 Millions of South Africans are eligible to join a class-action lawsuit against US-based multinational corporations accused of aiding and abetting the apartheid government. This follows a ruling by the US Supreme Court on Monday, which upheld a lower courts decision to allow a civil case to proceed. The civil case against major multinationals includes a damages claim and two class-action suits under the US Alien Tort Claims Act, an 18th century law that allows foreigners to sue in US courts. The case has been hailed as a potential catalyst in advancing international human rights law. Among the companies that face litigation are IBM, BP, Credit Suisse, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Exxonmobil , Ford Motor, General Motors and Shell. A probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission is also under way, it said. In its annual report with the SEC, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said it was contacted in July by the Department of Justice regarding its use of a unit of Panalpina World Transport Ltd., a Swiss-based shipping and logistics-management company. Shell said in the filling the Justice Department was looking at potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as a result of such use. Shell declined to comment beyond the filings Wednesday. Baltimore Sun: Class action settlements may aid in repairing leaky pipes: 5 September 2008 USAToday: NYC trial date for claims against Shell: 9 October 2008 Times Herald: Coweta files suit against Shell Oil Company: 23 October 2008 (Connected to New Settlement in Plumbing Suit?) Reuters: Environmentalists, Nigerians plan to sue Shell: 5 November 2008 Wall Street Journal: Chevron Case Weighs Extent of Overseas Liability: 1 December 2008 Shell Oil Company Limestone Township $26 million settlement: December 2007 KANKAKEE CLASS ACTION: Limestone Class Action: December 2008 |
|
Shell Safety Houston firms facing pipeline fines, penalties: Friday 29 June 2001 EXTRACTS And Houston-based Equilon Pipeline Co. was slapped last week with $10 million in state and federal environmental fines for the 1999 rupture of a gasoline pipeline in Bellingham, Wash., resulting in three fatalities. Equilon also faces a $3 million fine issued last year by the DOT — the largest penalty ever proposed against a pipeline operator in the history of the federal pipeline safety program. The El Paso penalty is the largest ever proposed against a natural gas pipeline operator. Equilon, a joint venture of Texaco and Royal Dutch/Shell, was majority owner of Olympic Pipeline Co, operator of the Bellingham pipeline at the time of the accident. Since then, BP has taken control of Olympic Pipeline. Both El Paso and Equilon were charged with violating numerous safety requirements in the operation of their respective pipelines. Equilon told the state it was not operating the pipeline at the time of the rupture but had simply loaned Olympic several employees, including Equilon’s president, three vice presidents and the head of environmental compliance. Reuters: Shell Washington refinery cited for safety violations: 25 June 2008 HOUSTON, June 25 (Reuters) – Washington state’s Department of Labor & Industries said on Wednesday it found 23 serious safety and health violations at Shell Oil Co’s 145,000 barrel per day (bpd) refinery in Anacortes, Washington. Shell said it was weighing a possible appeal of the agency’s citation, which could lead to fines totaling $109,600. Among the serious violations found at the Shell Anacortes refinery were failures to identify and control hazards that could lead to releases of highly hazardous chemicals and deficiencies in the development of mechanical integrity programs, the Labor & Industries Department said. Seattle Times: Safety violations to cost Shell: 26 June 2008 Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries on Wednesday fined Shell Oil $109,600 for multiple safety violations in its Anacortes refinery. The refinery, the second largest of the four major facilities that supply the Puget Sound region with gasoline and other petroleum products, was cited for 23 violations ranging from inadequately instructing operators on how to deal with emergencies to faulty inspections. Shell, a unit of Anglo-Dutch oil conglomerate Royal Dutch Shell, is reviewing the citation, said Shell spokesman Brian Sibley. Shutting down the operation is “highly unlikely,” he said. Royal Dutch Shell PLC is heading up a test venture in Hawaii to turn oil-rich algae into fuel. If the process is found commercially viable, the Anglo-Dutch conglomerate could build algae-processing plants elsewhere. Bloomberg: Nigerian Oil Pipe Fire Extinguished, 6 Workers Died, Shell Says: 17 November 2008 BBC News: Gas firms fined over worker death: 26 November 2008 (Both Shell and AMEC admitted breaching health and safety rules and were each fined £150,000 plus £41,500 in costs at Norwich Crown Court.) FT article: Shell deaths higher than other western groups: 30 November 2008 (Royal Dutch Shell last year suffered more workforce deaths than any other large western oil company, with a rate of fatalities twice as high as BPs.) upstreamonline: Shell death toll ‘higher than peers’ : 01 December 2008 (Last week Shell and service player Amec were each fined £150,000 ($230,000) after an Amec worker died during operations at Clipper.) The Times-Picayune: Last weekend’s helicopter crash shakes up offshore workers: 10 January 2009 Reuters: Shell gets tough on costs as oil prices bite: 30 January 2009 (Royal Dutch Shell has intensified its cost-cutting efforts in response to the collapse in oil prices and also plans to step up efforts to improve what it said was a “mixed” safety record. Brinded said Shell had a dreadful start to this year after 10 contractors and one third party were killed in three incidents. ) International Herald Tribune: Shell gets tough on costs as oil prices bite: 30 January 2009 Reuters: Oil industry cost, job cuts may hit safety, skills: 3 February 2009 The Herald: They know what they have to do: launch the life rafts and get out‘: 19 February 2009 (In July 2002, a Sikorsky S76 helicopter was ferrying personnel between a platform and a drilling rig, both owned by Shell, when it ditched about 25 miles north-east of Great Yarmouth, killing all 11 on board. It is understood the aircraft remained afloat after ditching. In March 1991, six men were killed when a Sikorsky S61N struck a crane on a Shell oil platform and plunged into the sea 116 miles east of Lerwick in Shetland.) The Press and Journal: Alarm over hundreds of offshore incidents: 4 March 2009 |
|
Shell Price Fixing New York Times: Suit by Reserve Oil Charges Violations: 23 September 1977 (Reported legal proceedings had been instituted against General Atomic and its owners, Gulf Oil Corporation and Scallop Nuclear Inc., part of the Royal/Dutch Shell Group. The complex lawsuit involving various companies related to alleged price fixing of uranium as part of a secret cartel. The article stated that General Atomic was at one time marketing an advanced form of nuclear reactor, one of which was already on line in Colorado.) Time Magazine: The Uranium Cartels Fallout: 21 November 1977 (reported on the alleged cartel price fixing of uranium case being heard by Judge Edwin Felter. EXTRACT: By a quirk of jurisdiction, Felter is presiding over one of the largest and most complex corporate lawsuits ever filed in an American court-a $2 billion-plus action by a New Mexico uranium mining company, United Nuclear Corp., against General Atomic Co., a 50%-owned subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corp., for fraud, coercion and breaches of the nations antitrust laws. Royal Dutch Shell owned the other 50% of General Atomic.) New York Times: Key Ruling Expected Soon In Uranium Antitrust Suit: 2 January 1978 (reported: Judge Felter is trying a $2.27 billion damage suit against the General Atomic Corporation of San Diego by the United Nuclear Corporation, a uranium mining company with large holdings in Mexico. Gulf and a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch-Shell Group are equal partners in General Atomic. The article said that Gulf had conceded that its Canadian subsidiary had been involved in a uranium cartel.) New York Times: General Atomic Seeking Removal of Judge in Suit Against Gulf Oil: 9 January 1978 (reported that General Atomic had petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court in an attempt to have Judge Felter removed from hearing the cartel case on the grounds that he was prejudiced.) New York Times: Nuclear Protest in South Carolina Ends in 3rd Day With Arrest of 250: 2 May 1978 (article reporting an anti-nuclear protest at the Barnwell, S.C. nuclear waste reprocessing plant in which Royal Dutch Shell Group was a partner. About 250 protestors were arrested. Extract: Eventually the venture, operated jointly by Allied Chemical, Gulf Oil, and Royal Dutch Shell Group, was to process waste material from nuclear power plants along the Eastern Seaboard. Time Magazine: Gulf Oils Painful Surgery: 12 June 1978 (Article about Gulf Oil under the headline Gulf Oils Painful Surgery. It said in relation to Shell, General Atomic, a joint Gulf-Royal Dutch/Shell venture, pulled out of the production of high-temperature nuclear gas reactors after heavy losses. Article also mentioned the cartel litigation. EXTRACTS: “Gulf is also enmeshed in a web of lawsuits growing out of allegations that it secretly participated in a worldwide cartel to manipulate supplies and raise the price of uranium. Last week the company pleaded no contest in the U.S. Governments case growing out of the cartel arrangement .) New York Times: The Great Uranium Flap: 9 July 1978 (Further report of the litigation over an alleged cartel. The article stated: Everyone agrees there was a cartel; whether it did anything illegal is in dispute. The Royal Dutch Shell Group was named in the article as being an owner of General Atomic. The uranium price fixing was described by one participant in the litigation as one of the massive rip-offs of all times New York Times: Gulf Pact Set With Scallop: 19 March 1979 (The first paragraph stated: The Gulf Oil Corporation said it had reached an agreement with Scallop Nuclear Inc., a unit of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, under which the uranium supply and light water reactor fuel fabrication activities of the General Atomic Company would be operated for the account and benefit of Gulf Oil. Gulf and Scallop jointly own General Atomic.) New York Times: United Nuclear Wins Court Round: 3 September 1980 (Extracts: “The New Mexico Supreme Court has upheld a lower court decision voiding any obligation by the United Nuclear Corporation to deliver nearly $1 billion worth of uranium to the General Atomic Company.” “The case – the largest in the history of the state – arose out of agreements in the early 1970s that called for U.N.C. to deliver 27 million pounds of uranium to General Atomic, which is a joint venture of the Gulf Oil Corporation and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. Arguing that General Atomic was part of an international cartel that was trying to corner the uranium market, U.N.C. sued to have those contracts overturned. In 1978, a New Mexico state court rendered a default judgment against General Atomic on the ground that the company refused to supply certain information during the discovery process.”) New York Times: Exxon and Gulf End Uranium Suit: 8 May 1981 (Reported the settlement of a uranium contract lawsuit between Exxon Corporation and Gulf Oil Corporation relating to the alleged uranium cartel. The price of the uranium was revised as part of the settlement. EXTRACTS: Gulf later assigned the contract to the General Atomic Company, a partnership of Gulf and Scallop Nuclear, which was to receive the uranium. Litigation began in early 1978, when Exxon declared the agreement null and void because of Gulfs alleged participation in an international uranium cartel, Exxon said.”) New York Times: Gulf to Obtain General Atomic: 22 December 1981 (Reported that Gulf Oil Corporation would become the full owner of the General Atomic Company, a partnership of Gulf and Royal Dutch/Shell Groups Scallop Nuclear Inc., under a tentative agreement between the partners. The article reported that Gulf would take over Scallops high temperature, gas-cooled reactor program, its fusion program and the special products division.) New York Times: “Shell to Pay $180 Million” (Price fixing case): 3 Jan 1987 New York Times: “California Oil Price-Fixing Case Settled”: 17 August 1991 New York Times: Settlement for Coral Power: 15 November 2003 Bloomberg: Shell, Unipetrol, Bayer Are Sued Over Rubber Cartel (Update2): 20 May 2008 May 20 (Bloomberg) — Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., the second- largest U.S. tiremaker, and 25 other companies sued Unipetrol AS, units of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Bayer AG, and as many as 20 others over an alleged rubber cartel in Europe. Unipetrol and units of Shell, Dow Chemical Co., Eni SpA and Trade-Stomil Sp were fined a total of 519 million euros ($813 million) in a 2006 European Union antitrust case over material used to make tires and shoes. The companies are appealing. The Times: Supermarkets and tobacco firm are fined £173m for price fixing: 12 July 2008 Asda and Somerfield have admitted fixing the price of cigarettes and overcharging customers under a secret deal with the manufacturer of brands including Benson & Hedges and Silk Cut. The Office of Fair Trading said that a total of £173.3 million in fines and costs had been agreed in one of the biggest settlements of its kind. Other firms that admitted colluding in the pricing scam include the owner of Threshers, the off-licence chain, and One Stop convenience stores, which must contribute towards the settlement. But the lions share of the fine £93 million will be paid by Gallaher, owned by Japan Tobacco. Other accused firms are fighting the allegations. These are Imperial Tobacco, which owns the Embassy, John Player and Golden Virginia brands, Tesco, Morrisons, Safeway (now taken over by Morrisons), the Co-op and Shell, for its petrol station stores. If they are found guilty of collusion they face serious penalties under the Competition Act. Reuters: EU fines “paraffin mafia” wax makers’ cartel: 1 October 2008 The Times: Paraffin mafia comes unstuck after 676m fines: 2 October 2008 Guardian: ‘Paraffin mafia’ firms given £500m fines for price-fixing: 2 October 2008 Financial Times: Brussels fines paraffin wax cartel: 2 October 2008 The Wall Street Journal: Wax Price-Fixing Is Alleged: 2 October 2008 Occupational Health & Safety: Merit Energy and Shell to lower emissions after clean air violations: 4 October 2008 Financial Post (Canada): GREECE FINES BP, SHELL $80M FOR PRICE-FIXING: 26 November 2008 ChannelNewsAsia: Greece fines BP, Shell for price-fixing: 26 November 2008 International Herald Tribune: Greece: BP, Shell fined for competition breaches: 25 November 2008 Bloomberg: Chevron, Total, Exxon, Shell Fined on Air France Fuel: price fixing cartel: 4 Dec 2008 (Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Chevron fined 41.1 million euros ($52 million) by the French antitrust authority for fixing the price of fuel for certain Air France-KLM Group flights.) |
|
Assorted New York Times: Fining Shell, U.N. Concludes That Tanker Carried Iraq Oil: 26 April 2000 (IRAQ SANCTIONS BUSTING) EXTRACTS: A Russian tanker chartered by one of the world’s largest oil companies, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, was carrying Iraqi oil on April 5 in violation of the international embargo against Iraq when it was stopped by American sailors, American and company officials said today. The United Nations has fined the company $2 million, after determining that some of the 78,000 metric tons of oil aboard the tanker came from Iraq. The tanker, the Akademik Pustovoit, was boarded by American-led naval forces in the Persian Gulf three weeks ago. Having traced the oil to Iraq, United Nations officials stopped short of seizing the cargo and will allow Royal Dutch/Shell to load the oil onto other ships. Royal Dutch/Shell has maintained that the tanker carried only Iranian oil, loaded at the port in Bandar Mahshur. But the Pentagon’s spokesman, Kenneth H. Bacon, said today that tests on the cargo determined that 20 percent was from Iraq. A spokeswoman for Royal Dutch/ Shell, Kate Hill, said the company agreed to pay the fine, even though its officials had not been shown evidence proving that the oil was Iraqi, because of the value of the entire shipment. ”It was a very valuable cargo,” Ms. Hill said in an interview from the company’s headquarters in London. She did not specify the value of the entire cargo, but Pentagon officials said the $2 million fine was based on the market value of the percentage of the cargo that was Iraqi. Ms. Hill said the company did not knowingly violate the embargo when it bought the oil, which was bound for Singapore. The Times: A word in your Shell-like – it’s all gibberish: 5 January 2008 Wall Street Journal: Shell will outsource jobs as part of cost shake-up: 12 January 2008 Wall Street Journal: Shell Investigated for Corruption By Department of Justice, SEC: 26 March 2008 EXTRACTS LONDON — The U.S. Department of Justice is examining corruption allegations in the use of a freight-forwarding firm by Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the company said in regulatory filing published last week Reuters: Shell, BP win big from volatile energy markets: 29 April 2008 EXTRACT While trading has boosted profit in the last few months, it has also brought BP and Shell under the scrutiny of regulators. In 2004, Shell’s U.S. gas and power trading arm Coral Energy paid $30 million to settle charges it reported fake natural gas trades. Coral did not admit or deny wrongdoing. The Times of Zambia: US firms to pay for apartheid: 14 May 2008 Millions of South Africans are eligible to join a class-action lawsuit against US-based multinational corporations accused of aiding and abetting the apartheid government. This follows a ruling by the US Supreme Court on Monday, which upheld a lower courts decision to allow a civil case to proceed. The civil case against major multinationals includes a damages claim and two class-action suits under the US Alien Tort Claims Act, an 18th century law that allows foreigners to sue in US courts. The case has been hailed as a potential catalyst in advancing international human rights law. Among the companies that face litigation are IBM, BP, Credit Suisse, Daimler, Deutsche Bank, Exxonmobil , Ford Motor, General Motors and Shell. Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Bad gas causes local cars to stall: 26 May 2008 Two Safeway gas stations were shut down Sunday evening after contaminated gas filled at least nine vehicles, causing them to break down on a day of record gas prices statewide. The Safeway gas station in Maple Valley had gas mixed with water, and company spokeswoman Cherie Myers said the contaminated fuel came about 5 p.m. from Shell. “When they called the refinery, Shell said, ‘Yes, they have contaminated fuel,’ ” Myers said. “But we were able to get rentals for customers.” Brian Sibley, a spokesman for Shell Puget Sound Refinery in Anacortes, said the refinery was not shut down and that he believed the contaminated fuel was delivered from Harbor Island. Addis Fortune: Shell Ethiopia Employees Demonstrate: 28 July 2008 Employees of Shell Ethiopia demonstrated at the gate of their head office on July 23, 2008, expressing disappointment with the decision by Shell to sell its interests in Ethiopia to OilLibya. They have threatened to strike, demanding much better treatment from the oil franchise. theage.com.au: Downer joins Eddington at ‘spy’ company: 14 October 2008 theage.com.au: Eddington quits British intelligence firm over ‘conflict’: 15 October 2008 Guardian: The National Theatre should clean up its act and ditch Shell: 8 January 2009 TampaBay.com/St PerFlorida’s troubled state pension fund dumped $1 billion “prohibited” stocks (Iran): 25 January 2009 The Bakersfield Californian: Californian exclusive: State investigating Shell over refinery trouble: 27 January 2009 SUNDAY MONITOR: Shell Uganda caught with unmarked fuel: 8 February 2009 BusinessInquirer.net: Shell owes P21B in taxes BOC: 10 February 2009 Covalence Ethical Ranking 2008: Press Release: 20 January 2009 (Contains link to detailed results) |
|
Reuters syndicated articles “Shell gets tough on costs as oil prices bite” published on 30 January 2009 “Shell eyes Mideast growth, to cut some jobs” published on 9 February 2009 Shell to stall hires, and get “ruthless” on contractors published on 12 February 2009 |
|
WWF Evidence submitted in 2008 to House of Commons Select Committee quoting from a John Donovan Sakhalin II article published on royaldutchshellplc.com (1): The UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT Hansard Archives Research Uncorrected Evidence: 20 June 2008 (2): Memorandum submitted by WWF to inquiry by House of Commons Select Committee: Quotes Sakhalin II corruption allegations from royaldutchshellplc.com article: 20 June 2008 (3): House of Commons Environmental Audit – Minutes of Evidence ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 October 2008 (RELATED LINK IS IMMEDIATELY BELOW) (4) www.parliament.uk: Evidence submitted by WWF to Select Committee on Environmental Audit: Evidence submitted 20 June 2008: (SAKHALIN II BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Allegations have been made by a whistleblower of inappropriate relationships between SEIC management and its contractors, in particular Starstroi and its subcontractor SU4.[22]) |
|
Sakhalin Evidence Boston Globe: The Russian power play on oil, natural gas reserves: 23 August 2008 (In one of the most blatant instances, Shell Oil was forced to yield control of its operations off Sakhalin Island in exchange for a payment of $7.4 billion from state-dominated Gazprom. Most outside analysts estimate that Shells share was worth $15 billion to $17 billion.) The Observer: Shell comes under fire for role in Sakhalin audit: 31 August 2008 BusinessGreen.com: Shell accused of manipulating environmental report: 1 September 2008 Environmental Leader: Shell Criticized for Manipulating Environmental Audit Report: 2 September 2008 Ethical Corporation: Shells Sakhalin influence: October 2008 |
|
Shell Greenwash Section (and misleading advertising) Environmental Leader: Shell Catches Flak Over Green Ad, Releases Sustainability Report: 8 May 2007 New York Times: Shell and Flower Power: 31 May 2007 The Independent: Inside Story: Advertising environmentalism – Is it just greenwash?: 31 March 2008 (GREENWASH) HEADLINE ON SHELL ADVERT POSTER: DON’T THROW ANYTHING AWAY THERE IS NO WAY They say: Shells Dont throw anything away there is no away campaign features an ad with a cartoon oil refinery emitting flowers, accompanied by the claim that Shell uses its waste CO2 to grow flowers, and waste sulphur to make concrete. Behind the greenwash: It turned out that Shell only recycled 0.325 per cent of its CO2 emissions in this way, and barely more of its waste sulphur. In November, the ASA welcomed Shells assurance that the ad would no longer be used. Shell is less keen to tell us all about its project to extract oil from the Canadian tar just about the most climate-wrecking form of fossil fuel extraction one could imagine. Telegraph.co.uk: Record complaints over ‘greenwashing‘: 25 April 2008 EXTRACTS Lord Smith of Finsbury, chairman of the ASA, said it was one of the fastest-growing areas of complaint and now formed a significant part of the watchdogs role. We have come across quite a number where claims are exaggerated or misleading or, in some cases, severely exaggerated. A number of the complaints against national and international advertisers were upheld, including Ryanair and Toyota, with Shell identified as one of the worst offenders. It placed a series of newspaper adverts featuring an oil refinery with flowers emerging from the chimneys and the claim we use our waste CO2 to grow flowers. However, Friends of the Earth complained that it implied most or all emissions were used, whereas the true figure was just 0.325 per cent of its CO2 output. The ASA upheld the complaint. This is an extreme example but what they were doing was taking their bit of good environmental practice and making a big claim about themselves and their products, said Lord Smith, the former culture secretary. Where a complaint is upheld the ASA can force the offender to change an advert or withdraw it altogether, which could result in a company losing a multimillion pound advertising campaign while gaining a mountain of bad publicity. Any misleading in advertising is bad for the consumer and not particularly helpful for the company because they will be found out, said Lord Smith. I suspect Shell are somewhat embarrassed by their we grow flowers claim because its such a ridiculous claim. Environmental Leader: Advertising Watchdog Sees Big Jump In Green Ad Complaints: 5 May 2008 Daily Telegraph: Shell adverts misled consumers over environmental claims: 12 August 2008 Calgary Herald: WWF targets oilsands after court rules Shell ad is misleading: 13 August 2008 Campaign Magazine (BRAND REPUBLIC): Shell ad banned over ‘greenwashing’ claims: 13 August 2008 Financial Times: Complaint upheld over Shell advert: 13 August 2008 The ASA will announce today that it has upheld a complaint against Shell by WWF, the environmental charity, about the oil company’s claims that oil sands in Canada were a “sustainable” energy source. Shell’s Canadian oil sands projects have proven controversial because they require much more energy and water than in traditional extraction and refining. The ASA ruling says: “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.” Under the ruling Shell cannot reproduce the advertisement, which appeared just once, in the Financial Times in February this year. Shell said in a statement: “We accept the adjudication of the ASA.” It declined to comment on how many of its advertisements contain claims about its environmental credentials, nor whether it would moderate the use of such terms in future marketing campaigns. The Guardian: Shell rapped by ASA for ‘greenwash’ advert: 13 August 2008 Oil company’s claim that its work in Alberta’s tar sands was ‘sustainable’ is branded ‘misleading’ by Advertising Standards Authority. The Guardian: WWF advert attacks Shells claims: 13 August 2008 The Independent: Shell rebuked for greenwash over ad for polluting oil project: 13 August 2008 Environmental Leader: ASA: Shell Environmental Claims Violate Advertising Rules: 14 August 2008 The Independent: Time for multi-dimensional communication with oil companies: 15August 2008 For the second time in the last couple of years the Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell has found itself at the heart of the debate about greenwash in advertising. In 2007 Shell ads suggested rather bizarrely that it had been using its waste CO2 emissions to grow flowers: the ad was condemned by the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). One year later another Shell ad has been banned. This time for suggesting that the companys Canadian oil sand extraction operation was sustainable. Shell does not appear to have learnt its lesson. Financial Post (Canada): Sustaina-bull: 16 August 2008 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. Blogger News Network: The origins of Shell’s “Greenwash” were back in 1997: 16 August 2008 The Guardian: Climate controls: The chairman of the ASA on the problems of greenwash…: 18 August 2008 EnvironmentalLeader: Shell Criticized for Manipulating Environmental Audit Report: 2 September 2008 Calgard Herald: Shell to pull ‘greenwash’ ad on Canadian oilsands projects: 24 September 2008 The ASA upheld a high-profile complaint against Royal Dutch Shell for an ad that ran, just once, in the Financial Times in February, claiming that oil sands in Canada’s wilderness were a “sustainable” energy source. The Guardian: The great green swindle: 23 October 2008 The Guardian: It will take more than goodwill and greenwash to save the biosphere: 6 January 2009 AlterNet: Monbiot Grills Shell Oil CEO: Is There Any Investment You Would Not Make on Ethical Grounds?: 8 January 2009 The Wall Street Journal: Shell’s Green Ads Take New Tack: 2 February 2009 The Times: Advertising regulators get tough over “greenwash”: 3 February 2009 Environmental Leader: Shell Accused of Greenwashing, Again: 4 February 2009 Convenience Store News: Green Shell Ads Stress Innovations to Increase Oil Supply: 4 February 2009 |
|
Alleged Tax Avoidance The Guardian: Shell: 3 February 2009 The Guardian: Offshore – and out of reach to the Revenue: 3 February 2009 |
|
Royal Dutch Shell Adolf Hitler / Nazi Connection Time.com: “Co-ordination”: 17 April 1933 (While still in Nazi good graces he went to London” called according to rumor by Sir Henri Deterding who was currying favor with Adolf Hitler in the hope of winning oil contracts for Royal Dutch-Shell.) New York Times: “REICH OIL MONOPOLY SOUGHT BY DETERDING”: 26 October 1934 (LONDON, Oct. 25.-It is reported confidentially from Berlin that the object of Sir Henry Deterdings recent visit to Chancellor Hitler at Berchtesgaden, where he stayed for four days, was to discuss the conditions for granting a monopoly to the Royal Dutch and Shell Companies of petrol distribution in Germany for a long period of years.) New York Times: Powerful Henri Deterding, Who Rivals Standard Oil: 12 June 1938 (A Left-Wing Historian Surveys the Life and Activities of The Petroleum Baron THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD: The Life of Sir Henri Deterding.) Time Magazine: Ruddy Old Gent: THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD: THE LIFE OF SIR HENRI DETERDINGGlyn RobertsCovici-Friede ($3): 27 June 1938 (“Author Roberts thinks his backing of Hitler and his admiration for Mussolini are based on his hatred of Communism, which was born of frustration when he lost the oil of the Caucasus. And his second wife was a White Russian, his third a German.”) Time Magazine: Royal Dutch knight: 13 February 1939 (He backed Hitler in Germany, added a German residence to his English, Dutch and Swiss homes.) New York Times: Herman Rauschning’s Talks With Hitler: 18 February 1940 (“…Henri Deterding had told Hitler that Mexico had the laziest population in the world, and rich prizes for Germany to grasp.”) New York Times: Propaganda Success in Britain Vaunted by Rosenberg to Hitler: 10 January 1946 (“NUREMBERG, Germany, Jan. 9- One of Alfred Rosenberg’s reports to Adolf Hitler on his work in winning friends for nazism in foreign countries came to light today”: Later Extract: ‘Rosenburg also told Hitler that “a firmer bond” had also been established between Rosenberg’s British division and Sir Henri Deterding, the oil magnate, and his associates’) The Seven Sisters: By Anthony Sampson: 1975 (He died six months before the outbreak of war: memorial services were held in all Shell offices in Germany and Hitler and Goering both sent wreaths to the funeral on his estate.) The Prize: By Daniel Yergin: Published 1992 New York Times: Review/Television; The Epic Of Oil, Catalyst Of Conflict : 11 January 1993 (“It concentrates especially on the unlikely partnership, out of which was born Royal Dutch Shell, between Marcus Samuel, the Jew from the East End of London who became the Lord Mayor of London, and Henri Deterding, the dashing Dutch oil man who turned into a Nazi supporter in his old age.”) A Century In Oil: By Stephen Howarth: 1997 SKY NEWS: ADOLF HITLER AND ROYAL DUTCH SHELL: December 2008 SKY NEWS: ADOLF HITLER AND ROYAL DUTCH SHELL (Expanded): JAN 2009 USAToday: Royal Dutch Shell, Tom Cruise, YouTube and Hitler: (More than 60 years after the demise of Nazi Germany, people apparently remain fascinated by the evil deeds of Adolf Hitler and his equally evil henchmen. The new movie Valkyrie tells the story of the well-documented bomb plot against Hitler. ) Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com: Royal Dutch Shell and the Nazi (updated with report of 4 day meeting between Deterding and Hitler): 5 January 2009 |
|
Corrib Gas Project Irish Times: Mayo family complains over Shell surveillance: 14 July 2008 EXTRACTS A NORTH Mayo family has made a formal complaint to the Garda about constant surveillance of their movements by security staff attached to the Corrib gas project. Colm Henry, resident of Glengad, says that he and his grandchildren have been filmed by security staff with video cameras every time they walk across family land to a local beach. Shell EP Ireland has confirmed that surveillance is taking place in Glengad, landfall for the Corrib gas pipeline, but has denied that any film of the children exists. Shell EP Ireland says the security personnel do not turn on their cameras until an incident has happened, or they believe an incident is “going to take place”. The company’s external affairs manager, John Egan, said at the weekend the surveillance was needed because of “criminal activity” close to the point where the gas will come ashore. He said that since April there had been six serious incidents involving the burning of nets which had been erected by the company on a cliff to prevent sand-martins nesting there during construction work. The MayoNews: Family tormented by surveillance: 15 July 2008 Irish Times: Corrib security company’s alleged surveillance ‘a civil matter’: 17 July 2008 The Mayo News: Priests Shell claims: 22 July 2008 A PARISH PRIEST in north Mayo claims he has been monitored by Shells extensive security arrangements at a location where work on the controversial project is ongoing. Irish Times: RNLI denies Shell donation will compromise service: 4 February 2009 |
|
Shell Nuclear Secrets (Articles File) New York Times: DUTCH ANNOUNCE URANIUM PROCESS: 1 March 1968 (Article said Royal Dutch Shell had refused to comment on reports that Shell, Philips Electronics and the Werkspoor Company of Amsterdam were all in discussions with the Dutch Government on a prototype ultra-centrifuge based nuclear reactor. According to the article: Dutch political sources said the reason for the secrecy was the extreme sensitivity of the nuclear-proliferation issue. They said the centrifuge process presented the possibility that even small nations could manufacture weapons in factories so small than planes or satellites could not distinguish them from normal industrial plants.) New York Times: Shell Group Joins Gulf in Nuclear Unit: 5 June 1973 (Article reported on a joint venture between Gulf Oil Corporation and companies of the Royal Dutch Shell Group designed to exploit advanced nuclear reactor technology. New York Times: GULF OIL TO DIVEST A LIGHT-WATER UNIT: 4 December 1973 (Article reported that after consultation with its partner in the nuclear business, Scallop Nuclear, Inc., a Royal Dutch-Shell Group company, Gulf planned to divest its lightwater reactor fuel fabrication operations of a wholly owned subsidiary company. Gulf said the action would permit the partnership to concentrate on the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor and the reprocessing of light-water reactor fuel.) New York Times: Gulf Oil’s Directors Approve Record 1974 Capital Budget: 18 December 1973 (Extract: Gulf and Shell Nuclear, Ltd., a company of the Royal Dutch Shell Group, said it had completed arrangements to establish two joint ventures in the nuclear power industry. The ventures will be the General Atomic Company, for activities in the United States, and General Atomic International, for activities outside the United States. New York Times: Shell Loses $290-Million In Joint Nuclear Venture: 19 April 1975 (Extract: General Atomic is mainly engaged in the design, development, manufacture and marketing of the high temperature gas-cooled reactor and its associated fuel. New York Times: VENTURE IS HALTED BY GULF AND SHELL: 25 October 1975 (Reported that General Atomic was quitting production of high-temperature nuclear gas reactors. New York Times: Four Big Electric Utilities Have Joined Dispute Over Future Uranium Supply: 2 March 1976 (reported on litigation in state and federal Court in New Mexico involving charges of alleged fraud and misconduct on the part of Gulf Oil and the General Atomic Company, a joint venture owned by the Gulf Oil Corporation and the Scallop nuclear unit of the Royal Dutch Shell Group.) New York Times: Amid Confusion, A Primer On Nuclear Energy Policy: 9 April 1977 (reported on Carter Administrations nuclear energy plans. Article discussed Shells expected withdrawal from a plant at Barnwell, S.C. designed to reprocess used fuel from nuclear reactors and turn by-product uranium into a solid. Article posed the question Is most of the worlds plutonium created in power plants? The answer being that most of it was being produced in reactors such as Windscale in Britain, specially designed to turn out plutonium for weapons. New York Times: TOO HOT TO HANDLE: 10 April 1977 (Article covered contamination, technical and other issues associated with the sensitive and controversial subject of recycling nuclear fuel. The article mentioned that the $250 million plant built at Barnwell S.C. by Allied General Electric Nuclear Services, in which General Atomic was a joint owner, had not been granted a license to operate and faced considerable opposition.) New York Times: Suit by Reserve Oil Charges Violations: 23 September 1977 (Reported legal proceedings had been instituted against General Atomic and its owners, Gulf Oil Corporation and Scallop Nuclear Inc., part of the Royal/Dutch Shell Group. The complex lawsuit involving various companies related to alleged price fixing of uranium as part of a secret cartel. The article stated that General Atomic was at one time marketing an advanced form of nuclear reactor, one of which was already on line in Colorado.) Time Magazine: The Uranium Cartels Fallout: 21 November 1977 (reported on the alleged cartel price fixing of uranium case being heard by Judge Edwin Felter. EXTRACT: By a quirk of jurisdiction, Felter is presiding over one of the largest and most complex corporate lawsuits ever filed in an American court-a $2 billion-plus action by a New Mexico uranium mining company, United Nuclear Corp., against General Atomic Co., a 50%-owned subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corp., for fraud, coercion and breaches of the nations antitrust laws. Royal Dutch Shell owned the other 50% of General Atomic.) New York Times: Key Ruling Expected Soon In Uranium Antitrust Suit: 2 January 1978 (reported: Judge Felter is trying a $2.27 billion damage suit against the General Atomic Corporation of San Diego by the United Nuclear Corporation, a uranium mining company with large holdings in Mexico. Gulf and a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch-Shell Group are equal partners in General Atomic. The article said that Gulf had conceded that its Canadian subsidiary had been involved in a uranium cartel.) New York Times: General Atomic Seeking Removal of Judge in Suit Against Gulf Oil: 9 January 1978 (reported that General Atomic had petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court in an attempt to have Judge Felter removed from hearing the cartel case on the grounds that he was prejudiced.) New York Times: Nuclear Protest in South Carolina Ends in 3rd Day With Arrest of 250: 2 May 1978 (article reporting an anti-nuclear protest at the Barnwell, S.C. nuclear waste reprocessing plant in which Royal Dutch Shell Group was a partner. About 250 protestors were arrested. Extract: Eventually the venture, operated jointly by Allied Chemical, Gulf Oil, and Royal Dutch Shell Group, was to process waste material from nuclear power plants along the Eastern Seaboard. Time Magazine: Gulf Oils Painful Surgery: 12 June 1978 (Article about Gulf Oil under the headline Gulf Oils Painful Surgery. It said in relation to Shell, General Atomic, a joint Gulf-Royal Dutch/Shell venture, pulled out of the production of high-temperature nuclear gas reactors after heavy losses. Article also mentioned the cartel litigation. EXTRACTS: “Gulf is also enmeshed in a web of lawsuits growing out of allegations that it secretly participated in a worldwide cartel to manipulate supplies and raise the price of uranium. Last week the company pleaded no contest in the U.S. Governments case growing out of the cartel arrangement .) New York Times: The Great Uranium Flap: 9 July 1978 (Further report of the litigation over an alleged cartel. The article stated: Everyone agrees there was a cartel; whether it did anything illegal is in dispute. The Royal Dutch Shell Group was named in the article as being an owner of General Atomic. The uranium price fixing was described by one participant in the litigation as one of the massive rip-offs of all times New York Times: Gulf Pact Set With Scallop: 19 March 1979 (The first paragraph stated: The Gulf Oil Corporation said it had reached an agreement with Scallop Nuclear Inc., a unit of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, under which the uranium supply and light water reactor fuel fabrication activities of the General Atomic Company would be operated for the account and benefit of Gulf Oil. Gulf and Scallop jointly own General Atomic.) New York Times: United Nuclear Wins Court Round: 3 September 1980 (Extracts: “The New Mexico Supreme Court has upheld a lower court decision voiding any obligation by the United Nuclear Corporation to deliver nearly $1 billion worth of uranium to the General Atomic Company.” “The case – the largest in the history of the state – arose out of agreements in the early 1970s that called for U.N.C. to deliver 27 million pounds of uranium to General Atomic, which is a joint venture of the Gulf Oil Corporation and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. Arguing that General Atomic was part of an international cartel that was trying to corner the uranium market, U.N.C. sued to have those contracts overturned. In 1978, a New Mexico state court rendered a default judgment against General Atomic on the ground that the company refused to supply certain information during the discovery process.”) New York Times: Exxon and Gulf End Uranium Suit: 8 May 1981 (Reported the settlement of a uranium contract lawsuit between Exxon Corporation and Gulf Oil Corporation relating to the alleged uranium cartel. The price of the uranium was revised as part of the settlement. EXTRACTS: Gulf later assigned the contract to the General Atomic Company, a partnership of Gulf and Scallop Nuclear, which was to receive the uranium. Litigation began in early 1978, when Exxon declared the agreement null and void because of Gulfs alleged participation in an international uranium cartel, Exxon said.”) New York Times: Gulf to Obtain General Atomic: 22 December 1981 (Reported that Gulf Oil Corporation would become the full owner of the General Atomic Company, a partnership of Gulf and Royal Dutch/Shell Groups Scallop Nuclear Inc., under a tentative agreement between the partners. The article reported that Gulf would take over Scallops high temperature, gas-cooled reactor program, its fusion program and the special products division.) Royal Dutch Shell Nuclear Subterfuge 2 January 2009
|
|
STANDARD OIL DECLARES WAR ON ROYAL DUTCH SHELL: New York Times: N.Y. STANDARD OIL DECLARES WAR UPON DUTCH SHELL GROUP:16 January 1928 (The military tone continued in the sub-headlines: FIGHT TO FINISH LOOMS; Conflict already on in India and Is Expected to spread to Other World Markets; The opening paragraph of the New York Times article said: “The Standard Oil Company of New York broke a long silence in the controversy over the purchase of Russian oil products by issuing yesterday what amounts to an open declaration of war against the powerful Royal Dutch-Shell group of Europe.”: NY SO accused Royal Dutch-Shell Group of seeking a monopoly of Russias oil products and engaging in price-cutting tactics in India. The article said that Sir Henri Deterding, Managing Director of Royal Dutch Shell, had accused NY SO of purchasing stolen oil and had announced his intentions of invading the markets which have been more or less controlled by Standard of New York.) New York Times: ROYAL DUTCH READY TO BATTLE STANDARD:18 January 1928 (Extract: In language as emphatic as that in which the Standard of New York set forth its position in the Russian oil controversy, the Royal Dutch announced its intention to continue the competitive struggle that has started in the oil markets of India and which threatens to spread elsewhere. The statement repeated the allegation made by Sir Henri Deterding that NY SO was trafficking in stolen goods. The NY Times article included an Associated Press report that the price-cutting war between SO NY and Royal Dutch-Shell will continue without quarter New York Times: MOVE FOR OIL PEACE GAINS IMPETUS HERE: 7 February 1928 (Sub-headline: “Leaders in the Industry Unite to Adjust Row Between N.Y. Standard and Dutch Shell.” New York Times: STANDARD ENDS WAR WITH SHELL OIL: 3 July 1928 (reports SO NY and Royal Dutch Shell had agreed to bury their differences in relation to Russian oil products.) New York Times: SOVIET REPARATION FOR OIL FORECAST: 8 July 1928 (Sub-headline: “Wall Street Understands Standard of New York and Royal Dutch Shell Have Agreement.”: Article quoted the remarks made by Viscount Bearsted, Managing Director of the Shell Transport and Trading Company at the annual general meeting in London in which he acknowledged that the Russian question had given rise to many heated arguments which led to further misunderstandings.) New York Times: OIL INTERESTS PLAN WORLD CONFERENCE: 14 July 1928 (Reports plan by American interests for an international oil conference to prevent further overproduction. Representatives from Royal Dutch and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company – owned by the British government and later to become BP – were invited to attend the setting up of an oil cartel similar to OPEC. The publicly stated objective was an international accord on oil conservation. The end of the war between SO NY and Royal Dutch-Shell removed a block to the cartel plan.) New York Times: TEAGLE OFF TO DEAL WITH SOVIET ON OIL: 2 August 1928 (The war between SO NY and Royal Dutch Shell was over without either protagonist emerging as a clear winner. The conflict had ended in a draw.)
|
|
Groundwater MTBE contamination settlements Wall Street Journal: Oil Firms Settle Claims In MTBE Leak Cases: 8 May 2008 About a dozen of the nation’s largest oil companies agreed to pay $423 million in cash to settle litigation with 153 public water providers in 17 states that sued over groundwater contaminated by the gasoline additive MTBE. The companies also agreed to pay cleanup costs that arise in the next 30 years. Terms of the deal were submitted for court approval Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York. The companies in the settlement include BP America Inc., a unit of BP PLC; Chevron Corp.; ConocoPhillips; Shell Oil Co., an arm of Royal Dutch Shell PLC; Marathon Oil Corp.; Citgo Petroleum Corp.; Sunoco Inc.; and Valero Energy Corp. Bloomberg: Chevron, 11 Oil Firms Pay $423 Million in MTBE Suits: 8 May 2008 Chevron Corp., BP Plc and about 10 other oil companies tentatively agreed to pay $423 million to settle lawsuits in 17 states over contamination claims involving the gasoline additive MTBE, once used to reduce air pollution. Estimates of the cost to treat MTBE contaminated water in the U.S. have reached $30 billion. Wells and aquifers were poisoned when the burned additive, methyl tertiary butyl ether, returned to the ground in rainwater. The plaintiffs said the firms hid data showing MTBE causes “massive” contamination. The settling companies include units of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s biggest oil company, ConocoPhillips, the second- largest U.S. refiner, Marathon Oil Corp., the fourth-largest U.S. oil company, Valero Energy Corp. and Sunoco Inc. Chevron is the second-largest U.S. oil company. BP is Europe’s second-largest oil company. New York Times: Oil Giants to Settle Water Suit: 8 May 2008 EXTRACTS The defendants that agreed to the settlement include BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Marathon Oil, Valero Energy, Citgo and Sunoco. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs, which include 153 public water systems in New York, California and 15 other states, claimed that the additive, a chemical called methyl tertiary butyl ether, or M.T.B.E., was a defective product that led to widespread contamination of groundwater. The suit contended that the chemical was used by oil companies, even though they knew of the environmental and health risks that it posed. Low levels of M.T.B.E. can make drinking water supplies unpalatable because of its offensive taste and odor, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency has also found that the compound caused cancer in laboratory rats that were exposed to high doses. Denver Business Journal: Shell, Army reach $35M Arsenal settlement with state: 29 May 2008 Shell Oil Co. and the federal government have agreed to a $35 million payout to settle the state of Colorado’s quarter-century-old lawsuit over pollution at the Army’s former Rocky Mountain Arsenal on the outskirts of Denver. An agreement in principal was announced Thursday by Gov. Bill Ritter and state Attorney General John Suthers in a news conference at the state Capitol. Under the settlement, Shell will provide $21 million in cash and land and the federal government the equivalent of $14 million, including credit for past construction of a water-treatment plant. “The funding contained in this settlement will provide long-term compensation to the citizens along the South Platte who have been affected by the natural resource damages at the arsenal,” Ritter said at the news conference. Part of the site was leased in 1952 to Shell, which for three decades made pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals there. Under the settlement, $10 million from Shell will be administered by the state’s Natural Resource Trustees for restoration projects in the arsenal area. The Denver Post: Shell, Army OK $35M arsenal-pollution settlement: 29 May 2008 Colorado’s quarter century-long legal tussle over groundwater pollution at Rocky Mountain Arsenal ended today with the announcement of a $35 million settlement. Shell Oil and the U.S. Army which produced all manner of nasty chemicals from 1942 until 1982 at the arsenal, northeast of downtown Denver have agreed to pay the state $35 million in damages for polluting groundwater at the arsenal, state Attorney General John Suthers said today. San Diego Union-Tribune: Colo. gets $35 million from Army, Shell for arsenal cleanup: 29 May 2008 Shell Oil Co., which made pesticides and other chemicals at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, will provide $21 million in cash and land under an agreement announced Thursday to settle a 25-year-old state lawsuit. The Army and the federal government are providing the rest. Thousands of birds were affected by pesticides at the site. Some 4,100 acre feet of groundwater was contaminated. Badgers and prairie dogs had to be killed because their high levels of poisoning posed a danger to bald eagles that fed on them, said Vicky Peters, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office. John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., praised the settlement agreement, saying his company was proud to be a part of it. |
This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.
EBOOK TITLE: “SIR HENRI DETERDING AND THE NAZI HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON
EBOOK TITLE: “JOHN DONOVAN, SHELL’S NIGHTMARE: MY EPIC FEUD WITH THE UNSCRUPULOUS OIL GIANT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
EBOOK TITLE: “TOXIC FACTS ABOUT SHELL REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA: HOW SHELL BECAME THE MOST HATED BRAND IN THE WORLD” – AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.
