Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Examples of Shell’s Environmental Track Record

Examples of Shell’s Environmental Track Record

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: Shell’s “Don’t 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 Shell’s 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 watchdog’s 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”.

“I suspect Shell are somewhat embarrassed by their ‘we grow flowers’ claim because it’s 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 Shell’s 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 company’s 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

Financial Times: Emissions disclosure study puts Shell bottom of the big oil class: 16 March 2009

The Guardian: Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels: 17 March 2009

Reuters: Shell goes cold on wind, solar, hydrogen energy: 17 March 2009

The Guardian: Shell’s subtle switch from renewables to the murky world of ‘alternative’ energy: 18 March 2009

The Times: Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment: 18 March 2009

The Guardian: Shoppers need clear labels to put a stop to ‘greenwash’: 23 March 2009

Financial Times: Clampdown on greenwash: 25 March 2009

The Guardian: Greenwash: Shell betrays ‘new energy future’ promises: 26 March 2009

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.

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.

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.

New York Times: “Shell Loses Suit on Cleanup Cost” (Rocky Mountain Arsenal): 20 Dec 1988

New York Times: “Wide Impact Expected In Shell Pollution Case” (Rocky Mountain Arsenal): 21 December 1988

The Independent (front page story) Government’s green agency invests millions in companies that pollute: 7 January 2003

Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute: August 2005

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: SHELL AND MOTIVA AGREE TO PAY $1.2 MILLION FINE: 25 January 2007

WWN: Shell Pays $1.2 Million Fine for Contaminating Water In New Jersey: 1 February 2007

The Guardian: Shell hires Bush’s environmental adviser: 5 February 2007

New York Times: Settlement for Coral Power: 15 November 2003

Environmental Leader: Shell Sued Over Texas Refinery Emissions: 8 Jan 2008

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Shell Chemical fined $166,530: 28 January 2008

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Shell Chemical LP and Shell Oil Company fined $345,744 Deer Park Refinery unauthorized emissions: 2 April 2008

TheTelegraph.com: Two refiners settle with Hartford residents: 17 July 2008

The Times-Picayune: Protesters call for Shell to pay La. $362 million: 20 August 2008

Carrying signs in a driving rainstorm demanding that Shell Oil Co. “fix the coast you broke,” about 25 environmental activists on Tuesday attempted to deliver a bill for $362 million to the corporation’s New Orleans headquarters.

Environmental Leader: Shell Criticized for Manipulating Environmental Audit Report: 2 September 2008

Contra Costa Times: Shell pays fine for 2006 spill: 25 September 2008

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: SOUTH AFRICA: Community takes on big polluters: 26 September 2008

The Guardian: Reviled firms lead responsibility list: 28 October 2008

Seattle Times: Shell to clean up 83 gas stations in W Wash: 18 November 2008

Department of Ecology News Release: Shell-Ecology multi-site cleanup agreement is state’s first: 18 November 2008

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Shell Chemical fined $345,744: 19 November 2008

The Guardian: Shell fined £18,000 for polluting ground waters in Grimsby: 26 November 2008

Radio New Zealand “Shell fights Commerce Commission action”:18 December 2008

New Zealand Herald: Watchdog says Shell Fuel ads misleading: (Front Page Story) 18 December 2008

New Zealand Herald: Watchdog says Shell fuel ads misleading: (Internet Version) 18 December 2008

New Zealand Herald: Open Letter from Shell to all New Zealanders: 18 December 2008

AlterNet: “Shell Monbiot Grills Shell Oil CEO: Is There Any Investment You Would Not Make on Ethical Grounds?: 8 Jan 2009

Environmental Protection Agency: Shell to Pay $1 Million Penalty, Enhance Pollution Controls for Clean Water Act Violations in Puerto Rico: 12 January 2009

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Chevron Phillips fined $168,416 and Shell Chemical fined $166,530: 28 January 2009

TheTelegraph.com: Shell to check for benzene: 20 February 2009

(Groundwater contamination: “A total of 8,400 gallons of benzene leaked from an underground pipeline that was used by Wood River Refinery while it was owned and operated by Shell Oil Co.”)

New York Times: Supreme Court considers who gets the tab for toxic cleanups: 24 February 2009

Environmental impact of Oil Sands Extraction

Daily Express: ENERGY FIRMS THREATEN POOR – OXFAM: 6 October 2008

United States Environmental Protection Agency: Shell to Pay $1 Million Penalty, Enhance Pollution Controls for Clean Water Act Violations in Puerto Rico: 12 January 2009

(Related Article: Washington Post: Obama compares oil sands to coal: 17 February 2009)

Convenience Store News: Ethanol Lawsuit Proceeds against Oil Companies: 4 March 2009

Daily Express Dirty Dozen List Most Energy-Inefficient London buildings: Shell Centre at No 5: 11 March 2009

FT: Emissions disclosure study puts Shell bottom of the big oil class: 16 March 2009

RPT-Shell agrees to settle TX refinery pollution suit: 23 April 2009

Houston Chronicle: Shell will pay millions to settle air pollution suit: 23 April 2009

New York Times: Shell Settles Air Pollution Suit: 23 April 2009

The Dallas Morning News: EPA echoes activists in challenging Texas’ air pollution permits, practices, commission: 23 June 2009

Public interest groups have sued Texas companies under the federal Clean Air Act to force pollution cuts that neither the state nor the EPA had achieved. In one such case, Environment Texas and the Sierra Club sued Shell’s massive refinery and chemical complex in Deer Park, near Houston, in early 2008.

Despite Shell’s state permits, the environmental groups found more than 1,000 occasions from 2003-06 when emissions exceeded hourly limits, which are meant to protect the public from acute, short-term harm.

On three dates, records showed, Shell emitted more toxic compounds in a single day than its permits allowed in an entire year.

EPA cites Shell Yubacoa for second water pollution violation: 8 Sept 2009

The federal environmental regulator’s latest complaint against the firm followed a $1.025 million fine that Shell Chemical Yabucoa paid in May for similar violations. EPA said that fine stemmed from a Dec. 31, 2008, report indicated that two or three of Shell Chemical Yubacoa’s diffuser ports were blocked by sand.

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

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

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; [email protected] (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.

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.

BP, Chevron, Shell Settle Gasoline-Additive Pollution Cases on Long Island: By Bloomberg 4 August 2010

Extract

BP Plc, Chevron Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc units were among dozens of energy companies that agreed to pay $42 million to settle claims brought by communities on New York’s Long Island alleging contamination of water with a gasoline additive.

Multi-million euro fine for Shell and BASF: By Radio Netherlands Worldwide: 20 August 2010

Extract

A Brazilian court has ordered Shell Brasil and international chemical giant BASF to pay a total of 490 million euros in fines and damages in connection with the exposure of workers at a Sao Paulo factory to toxic substances, Brazilian media report. Workers suffered health problems including high blood pressure and cancer. The factory, founded by Shell in 1977 and later taken over by BASF, was closed down in 2002.

Shell, Basf Ordered to Pay $354 Million in Brazil Plant Contamination Case: Bloomberg 20 August 2010

Extract

The Brazilian units of Basf SE and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. were fined a total of 622 million reais ($354 million) after former workers suffered health problems because of contamination at a plant in Paulinia, Sao Paulo state, from the 1970s to 2002.

Brazil Court Fines Shell, BASF $654M For Toxic Leaks- Report: The Wall Street Journal 21 August 2010

Extract

BASF said the ruling was “absurd,” as the contamination was “caused and acknowledged by Shell,” according to the report.

Brazil Court Fines Shell, Basf for Making Workers Sick: Herald Tribune 21 August 2010

Extract

The plant was built in 1977 by Shell… Dozens of former employees of the plant have been diagnosed with prostate, thyroid and other types of cancer, circulatory, liver and intestinal illnesses, as well as infertility and sexual impotence, the statement added.

Shell tentative settlement of workers lawsuit alleging benzene exposure: WEAU News: 13 May 2011

Extract

Attorney Mike Brose, who is among the lawyers representing the former workers, says Shell reached the tentative agreement. He says the workers claim that they ended up with cancers like leukemia from exposure to benzene at the Uniroyal plant. It was used as a solvent in the rubber-making process.

Norway Raps Shell for Risking Oil Leak: 23 May 2011: The Wall Street Journal

Extract

LONDON—Royal Dutch Shell PLC has been rapped by Norway’s Petroleum Safety Authority for a maintenance error on an oil well that had “major accident potential” and risked an oil leak.

The failure of all barriers to hydrocarbon flow from a well is very serious. An out-of-control well caused the explosion that destroyed the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig last year, resulting in a three-month oil spill from a BP PLC well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Royal Dutch Shell Denial of Brazilian pesticide diseases: 23 May 2011 Friends of the Earth Netherlands

Extract

For a decade or more, beginning in 1977, Shell produced organochlorine pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin etc.) and other pesticides at a plant located near Paulínia, about 125 kilometres north-west of São Paulo, Brazil. The plant covered approximately 40 hectares.78 Due to its severe health impacts, by 1990 the use of aldrin and dieldrin was totally banned in the USA and Brazil.

Banana labourers sue Shell over pesticide harm: 20 June 2011: The I newspaper

Extract

Banana labourers in Latin America who claim they were left infertile and crippled by exposure to a dangerous pesticide have filed lawsuits against their former employers and chemical manufacturers, including the British-Dutch oil giant Shell.

Benzene Contamination Fears in Roxana Illinois: 22 June 2011: CBS St Louis

Extracts

ROXANA, IL (KMOX) – Twenty-five years later, the Village of Roxana Illinois is being tested for known Benzene contamination. In 19-86 nearly nine-thousand gallons of Benzene leaked into the ground from a Shell Refinery pipeline. Connoco Phillips now runs the refinery, but Shell is still assuming the responsibility.

They say some Roxana residents have developed different types of Cancer, including Acute Myelogenous (AML) Leukemia,  associated with Benzene exposure. Some of the town’s people have already filed suit.

Oil and gas spills in North Sea every week, papers reveal: 5 July 2011: The Guardian

Shell shock: Energy giant censured for ‘fracking’ ads:6 July 2011 Mail & Guardian

Extracts

Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell was ordered on Wednesday to withdraw claims about controversial shale gas drilling in an advertisement carried in several South African newspapers.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the company had made claims that were unsubstantiated and likely to mislead, in a complaint brought by a lobby group that is fighting a bid by Shell to explore for gas deposits.

WWF slams Shell reef drilling plans: 8 July 2011: News24

Another leukemia patient sues Shell, BP: 24 July 2011: TheTelegraph.com:

The complaint alleges that Shell has known about the dangers of benzene causing cancer for decades, but publicly minimized and hid those dangers.

Shell accepts liability for two oil spills in Nigeria: 3 August 2011: The Guardian

Shell faces a bill of hundreds of millions of dollars after accepting full liability for two massive oil spills that devastated a Nigerian community of 69,000 people and may take at least 20 years to clean up.

Shell admits liability for huge oil spills in Niger delta: 4 August 2011: The Independent

Oil company Shell could be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars after accepting responsibility for two devastating oil spills in Nigeria’s Ogoniland region.

Oil in Nigeria: a history of spills, fines and fights for rights: 3 August 2011: The Guardian

On Wednesday Shell admitted liability for two massive oil spills in Nigeria. Ever since oil was discovered in the country in 1956, it has been a source of strife

MOSOP Feels Vindicated by Shell Company’s Spill Admission: 5 August 2011:Voice of America

“We feel completely vindicated, and the only regret is that it took a court in the United Kingdom to get Shell to admit its culpability in oil spills that we already knew that they were culpable for,” Mitee said.

Lawyers representing the Bodo community of Nigeria’s Ogoniland region sued Shell in a British court. They said the oil company could pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Brazilian Indians demand Shell leave their land: Survival International: 6 Sept 2011

Extract

In a letter to the companies, the Indians warn that, ‘Since the factory began to operate, all our health has deteriorated – children, adults and animals’. The chemicals used on the sugarcane plantations are thought to be causing acute diarrhoea amongst Guarani children, and killing fish and plants.

Oil exploration under Arctic ice could cause ‘uncontrollable’ natural disaster: The Independent: 6 September 2011

Extract

Any serious oil spill in the ice of the Arctic, the “new frontier” for oil exploration, is likely to be an uncontrollable environmental disaster despoiling vast areas of the world’s most untouched ecosystem, one of the world’s leading polar scientists has told The Independent.

Shell to Pay $500,000 for Pollution in Texas: ABC News/Associated Press: 6 September 2011

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

SELECTION OF SHELL NORTH SEA OIL SPILL REPORTS IN AUGUST 2011

Don’t hide facts about oil leak: The Herald

Shell Under Fire Over Silent Tactics: Spiegel Online

Shell Withholds Information On North Sea Oil Spill: UK Progressive Magazine

Leader: Onus is on Shell to come clean on North Sea oil spill: The Scotsman

Don’t hide facts about oil leak: Herald Scotland

Shell accused of secrecy over North Sea platform oil leak
: Aberdeen Press and Journal

Shell, govt spin machine keeps lid on worst UK oil spill for decade: RT

Shell accused of playing down spill as estimate rises: Aberdeen Press and Journal

Shell needs to come fully clean: The Independent

Shell ’should have been more open about oil spill’
: Herald Scotland

Shell less than transparent about worst UK oil spill in a decade: Greenpeace

So many questions, so few answers from Shell
: The Scotsman

Shell mum on flow from oil pipeline leak: Reuters

Leader: Oil is not well where information is concerned: The Scotsman

Criticism Is Growing Over Shell’s Response to Oil Leak
: New York Times

Shell’s reputation is tarnished by North Sea oil spill: TheNewsTribune.com

Oil spill exposes Shell’s ticking timebomb: The Guardian

Oil leak is threat to Shell hope in Arctic: The Telegraph

Anger as Shell fails to answer questions about spillage: The Scotsman

Shell could face fines over Gannet oil spill: The Telegraph (Extract: Royal Dutch Shell may face a criminal investigation and hefty fines in the Scottish courts for its oil leak, which is still trickling into the North Sea.)

Dutch officials wade into Niger Delta crisis: The Guardian (Nigeria): 18 October 2011

Nigerians seek $1 billion from Shell for oil spills: AFP 21 October 2011

Free access to US court documents filed against Royal Dutch Shell claiming $1B in damages: Royaldutchshellplc.com 24 October 2011

Nigerians seek $1 bln from Shell over oil spills: Reuters: Tuesday 25 October 2011

Shell Oil Company dumped toxic chemicals into waterway for over 60 yrs: 21 Jan 2012

Cleanup of Bayou Trepagnier in Norco is complete, DEQ says: The Times-Picayune:20 Jan 2012 (The bayou was used as an outfall for the Shell Norco refinery for about 80 years before the refinery switched its outfall to the Mississippi River in 1995, according to the DEQ.)

DEQ: cleanup completed at Bayou Trepagnier: 21 Jan 2012 09:24 GMT Daily Comet Online

Shell in Talks to Settle $653 Million Brazil Contamination Penalty: Bloomberg 1 March 2012

Shell and Sunoco settle groundwater contamination lawsuit for $35 million: Bloomberg 8 November 2012

royaldutchshellplc.com and its sister websites royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellenergy.website, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net and shell2004.com are all owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia article.

0 Comments on “Examples of Shell’s Environmental Track Record”

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: