One of Shell’s Amazon carbon offsets projects raises serious human rights concerns

Indigenous peoples claim and reportedly live in different parts of the Cordillera Azul National Park

David Hill Dec 15

The last six months or so have been uncharacteristically bruising for oil and gas company Royal Dutch Shell, at least as far as its public profile is concerned. Not only did a court in The Netherlands rule in May that it must cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by the end of 2030 compared with 2019 levels, but then in August the Dutch advertising watchdog concluded that the company should abandon its campaign promoting “carbon neutral” driving. In late October the UK’s Channel 4 broadcast “Joe Lycett vs the Oil Giant”, which included the British comedian impersonating Shell’s CEO Ben van Beurden and defecating out of his mouth, and then the very next day journalists from SourceMaterial, Greenpeace’s Unearthed team and Bloomberg published investigations into the “Drive Carbon Neutral” campaign. read more

By Micheal Kaufman on Dec 2, 2015

Environmentalists are winning the race against energy companies, as the world tries to adopt environmental-friendlier ways of energy generation. World leaders from over 19 countries and prominent personalities such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are at the UN Climate Summit in Paris, which has been ongoing from November 30 and will continue until December 11.

Energy Companies Coming in Front

The growing concern over global warming and rising temperatures has lined up global energy companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, BP plc. (ADR) (NYSE:BP) and Total SA (ADR) (NYSE:TOT). These companies have recently teamed up to support climate change and asked authorities to consider a carbon tax. read more

Nov 6 2015, 16:59 ET | By: Carl Surran, SA News Editor

Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A, RDS.B) unveils a $1.3B carbon capture storage project for Alberta, but says future efforts to curb greenhouse gases will continue to need financial support from governments.

Shell CEO Ben van Beurden says carbon capture and storage projects need a $60-$80 price for carbon dioxide to justify building them, more than 5x the current price of C$15/ton (US$11.27) in Alberta.

Shell’s Quest facility will extract 1M tons of the gas from its Scotford refinery each year, and the carbon dioxide will be injected into an underground saline formation ~50 miles from the plant – it is the first in North America to store CO2 in a deep saline formation. read more

“President Obama is the first world leader to reject a project because of its effect on the climate,” said Bill McKibben, founder of the activist group 350.org, which led the campaign against the pipeline. “That gives him new stature as an environmental leader, and it eloquently confirms the five years and millions of hours of work that people of every kind put into this fight.”

By CORAL DAVENPORT: NOV. 6, 2015

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced on Friday that he had rejected the request from a Canadian company to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline, ending a seven-year review that had become a symbol of the debate over his climate policies.

Mr. Obama’s denial of the proposed 1,179-mile pipeline, which would have carried 800,000 barrels a day of carbon-heavy petroleum from the Canadian oil sands to the Gulf Coast, comes as he seeks to build an ambitious legacy on climate change. read more

Mr. Schneiderman’s decision to scrutinize the fossil fuel companies may well open a new legal front in the climate change battle. The Exxon inquiry might expand further to encompass other oil companies…

By JUSTIN GILLIS and CLIFFORD KRAUSS: NOV. 5, 2015

The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.

According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.

The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research. read more

By: MICHEAL KAUFMAN: Published: Jun 1, 2015

Major oil exploration and production companies in Europe are coming together to seek the United Nations’ support for the first time, in putting forward a plan that will apply brakes to global warming.

As pressure mounts on oil companies over concerns of climate change, company executives have moved to hold direct talks with government officials ahead of a UN meeting, scheduled to take place in December this year in Paris, the Financial Times (FT) reported on Sunday. read more

“These emails reveal that the Science Museum is a significant cog in Shell’s propaganda machine…” 

Terry Macalister: Sunday 31 May 2015 

“These emails reveal that the Science Museum is a significant cog in Shell’s propaganda machine,” said Chris Garrard, from the anti-oil sponsorship campaign group BP or not BP?

FULL ARTICLE

WASHINGTON Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:49pm EST

(Reuters) – In a rare move, oil major Shell on Thursday backed a resolution proposed by activist investors to force the company to recognize climate change risks by improving its transparency.

Shell’s executive vice president of investor relations JJ Traynor said the company would urge shareholders to vote for the resolution at the annual general meeting in May.

The announcement coincided with Shell saying Thursday that it would cut $15 billion in spending but continue to drill in Alaska’s Arctic.

The resolution was filed by the Aiming for A coalition of UK investors representing close to £200 billion ($300 billion) in assets and calls on Shell to disclose additional information in five areas related to climate change in its annual reporting from 2016. read more

Four of these experts were from Shell, a prominent member of history’s top 90 polluters. Shell was also paying the costs. Its logo was everywhere, cuddling alongside National Geographic’s. The event was hijacked by Shell…

Extracts from an article by Assaad W. Razzouk published by The Ecologist

The annual UN Climate Talks ended on Sunday in Lima, Peru. In case you were wondering, nothing happened.

In Lima, Shell’s top climate advisor was comfortable enough to admit that Shell enjoys its relationship with the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a shadowy shop specialised in aggressive efforts to counteract emissions reductions and regulations.

This is the same ALEC which, in the words of Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, is “literally lying” about climate science. read more

The Church Commissioners and Church of England Pensions Board have announced this week that they are in the process of co-filing shareholder resolutions on climate change at the AGMs of two of world’s biggest oil and gas companies – BP and Shell.

Church investors file shareholder resolutions at BP and Shell

By Edward Mason, Church Commissioners Head of Responsible Investment

The Church Commissioners and Church of England Pensions Board have announced this week that they are in the process of co-filing shareholder resolutions on climate change at the AGMs of two of world’s biggest oil and gas companies – BP and Shell. This is one of the ways in which the Church of England’s national investing bodies are deepening and strengthening their engagement with the businesses in which they invest on the ethical issues that are of the greatest importance to the Church. read more

by Dan Joling / Associated Press: May 16, 2012

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Environmental and Alaska Native groups on Wednesday appealed an air permit granted by the Environmental Protection Agency to a Shell Oil drilling ship that could be used this summer in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska’s northern shore.

The groups claim the Kulluk and support vessels will put harmful pollutants into the skies, adding problems to a region already beset by climate warming, and that the EPA granted the permit without consideration of all national environmental laws and regulations.

“EPA did not analyze whether the Kulluk will comply with all standards, and they relied on modeling tricks to reduce the measured impact.” Earthjustice attorney Colin O’Brien said. read more

Shell’s stance on wind power reveals a profound truth of capitalism

When pushed to choose between profit and survival, the oil giant chooses profit – irrespective of collective consequence

Andrew Simms: Tuesday 1 May 2012 15.52 BST

They couldn’t “make the numbers work”. There’s something so blithe – and enormously telling – about the excuse offered by the oil company Shell to explain why they were not investing in wind power in Britain.

Presented with an accounting fact – that, on Shell’s terms, wind power is deemed insufficiently profitable – observers are expected to automatically understand their logic, nod in agreement and move on. read more

Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:07am GMT

By Tom Bergin

LONDON, March 15 (Reuters) – Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell Plc said it was being sued for causing climate change, suggesting recent court set-backs for environmentalists had not put an end to global warming lawsuits.

The Anglo-Dutch group said in its annual report, published on Thursday, that, “Shell, together with other energy companies, has been subject to litigation regarding climate change”.

“We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are not material to Shell,” the world’s second-largest non-government controlled oil company by market value added. read more

Posted: 8/15/11 09:43 AM ET

One of the riskiest and most destructive extreme energy oil exploration projects on the planet is moving toward implementation without scientific understanding or technical preparedness — Shell’s oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean of Alaska.

On August 4, the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) conditionally approved Shell’s plan to drill up to four exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea of Arctic Alaska starting July 2012. A Los Angeles Times editorial correctly opined, “Shell Oil’s conditional permit to drill exploratory wells off Alaska should not have been granted. The hazards of drilling in such waters are in some ways worse than operating thousands of feet underwater. … It’s too early for any approval, conditional or otherwise.” Shell still needs several more permits including an air quality permit from the Environmental Protection Agency before they can do any drilling in the Arctic seabed. We must stop it. read more

From pages 32, 33 34 & 35 of “Royal Dutch Shell and its sustainability troubles” – Background report to the Erratum of Shell’s Annual Report 2010

The report is made on behalf of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands)
Author: Albert ten Kate: May 2011.

Shell: nothing wrong with fracking and unconventional gas

In its communication, Shell makes no difference between conventional and unconventional gas in terms of environmental and health risks. The company generally refers to natural gas as being cleaner-burning than coal in power plants and as being a bridge to a low-carbon energy future.

On fracking, Shell states on its website: “This is a safe and proven technique according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is now carrying out a new study into hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact. Fracturing has been used by oil and gas companies for over 60 years.” The company does not mention that there are great differences between the traditional fracking and the present high-volume fracking, that the EPA has been presently accused of hiding some severe impacts of fracking, and that the U.S. government has not been able and/or willing to monitor the booming U.S. shale gas business adequately. read more

June 24, 2011 Escalating oil prices and diminishing supplies around the world are focusing more attention than ever on the vast petroleum reserves under the Arctic seabed, and in the relatively pristine shoreline areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.The Obama administration is moving to speed up drilling where possible, but the nagging problem with a wholesale move into the Arctic is how much we don’t know about the remote, fragile region. How much more drilling can safely be accommodated?

Can polar bears survive the twin threats of shrinking sea ice and greater ship traffic? What about fish stocks and an acidifying ocean? Bowhead whales might be able to migrate around new oil platforms, but will they be stressed out by drilling noise? And what if their food supplies are shrinking as well?

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in March 2010 ordered up a report on what we don’t know, and need to know, about what is happening to the Arctic environment. This week, the answer finally arrived, in the form of a long-awaited new report from the U.S. Geological Survey on what science gaps need to be filled to safely carry on the march into one of the coldest and least-understood places on the planet. read more