News and information on Shell PLC
LONDON | Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:25pm EDT
(Reuters) – A British court ordered Royal Dutch Shell’s UK unit to pay 1.242 million pounds ($2 million) in fines and legal costs for a fire at its Bacton gas terminal in 2008 which cut more than a tenth of UK gas supply.
A leak of highly flammable hydrocarbon liquid caused the explosion and fire at a waste water plant in which nobody was killed or seriously injured only by “good fortune,” according to Britain’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
The court heard the company ignored warnings from staff before the explosion20 June 2011
Shell UK has been fined £1m plus £240,000 costs after an explosion at a gas terminal in Norfolk in 2008.
The company admitted seven safety and pollution offences following the explosion and fire at the Bacton terminal.
Ipswich Crown Court heard the company ignored warnings from staff before the explosion.
The prosecution was brought by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive.
Shell admitted breaching two Health and Safety Regulations and five areas of environmental legislation, including pollution prevention and control.
16 June 2011
The company has admitted seven safety and pollution offences following the explosion and fire at the Bacton terminal in Norfolk.
Shell UK was back at Norwich Crown Court on Thursday for a sentencing hearing expected to last two days.
The prosecution has been brought by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive.
‘Sleepwalking’
Shell has admitted breaching two Health and Safety Regulations and five areas of environmental legislation, including pollution prevention and control.
Platform researcher Lorenzo Paluello said: ‘While the British and Syrian public believe that suppressing a mass democratic uprising with tanks is problematic, Shell continues to work hand in glove with the regime.
FT.ComBy David Blair, Energy Correspondent
Published: May 29 2011 20:02
Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of working hand in glove with Syrias regime after the energy company chartered a tanker to export almost 600,000 barrels of the countrys oil. A spokesperson for Shell declined to confirm or deny the vessels arrival in Syria, saying only that the company does not comment on commercial information.Hundreds of people have been killed since popular protests against the regime began in March. The army has responded to the unrest by opening fire on unarmed demonstrators in the countrys largest cities.
By continuing its commercial relationship with Syria despite the bloodshed, critics say that Shell is complicit in Mr Assads repression. Shell continues to work hand in glove with the regime. The people of Syria rise up for freedom, but this company has placed itself firmly on the side of corrupt dictators, said Lorenzo Paluello, a researcher for Platform.
MAY 27, 2011 2:12 P.M. ET
By Iman Dawoud Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
LONDON (Dow Jones)–Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN) is coming under pressure in the Netherlands to withdraw from Syria because of the Syrian government’s violent reprisals against pro-democracy demonstrators.
Dutch non-governmental organization IKV Pax Christi is lobbying for Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN) to cease all activities in Syria. The group’s director, Jan Gruiters, will meet with Shell Netherlands President Dick Benschop next month, after the group protested outside Shell headquarters in The Hague, the group’s spokesperson said Thursday.
A Shell pesticide factoryFor a decade or more, beginning in 1977, Shell produced organochlorine pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin etc.) and other pesticides at a plant located near Pauli?nia, about 125 kilometres north-west of Sa?o 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.
After negotiations starting in 1993, in 1995 Shell sold the Pauli?nia facility to the companies American Cyanimid and BASF. A sales condition was that Shell would assume legal responsibility for the pollution at the site. In 2000, BASF took full ownership of the facility.79 In 2002, BASF shut it down the facility after a ban by the Brazilian Ministry of Labour, in view of existing contamination and serious risks to human health.
Aleya Begum 23 May 2011 11:44 GMT
The Petroleum Safety Authority said today its investigation of the incident identified several serious breaches of the regulations.
The non-conformities are related to inadequate management, inadequate risk assessment, inadequate well barriers, inadequate well barrier sketches, inadequate well control, and inadequate daily reporting of drilling and well activities, said the PSA.
The incident occurred during a wireline operation to replace a gas lift valve in well 6407/9-A-01. The operation resulted in the subsurface safety valve becoming stuck in the Xmas tree, blocking the upper mast valve, and leaving only one barrier against a potential leak.
LONDONRoyal 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 incident occurred Dec. 4, 2010 on Norway’s Draugen field, which produces around 50,000 barrels of oil a day, the PSA said on its website Monday. An operation to replace a subsurface gas valve went wrong, the device became stuck inside and blocked the operation of another piece of machinery called a Christmas Tree, which sits atop the wellhead, it said.
upstreamonline: In-depth revision ordered at Brent Charlie following major gas leaksROB WATTS London 06 May 2011 01:53 GMT
The HSE has told Shell to submit a revised safety case for the Brent Charlie platform after gas was detected on its topsides following leaks on 12 January this year and 27 September 2010, Upstream can reveal.
Shell, which took the decision itself to close the platform after the January incident, has been battling for some time to resolve technically complex issues related to the venting of gas from inside one the platforms huge concrete legs Column 1 (C1) and dispersing it effectively away from the platform.
May 13, 2011
The workers claim that they ended up with cancers like leukemia from exposure to benzene at the Uniroyal plant.
EAU CLAIRE (WEAU) – An oil company has reached a tentative deal to resolve claims a group of former Eau Claire Uniroyal employees filed against it and other businesses.
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.
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs: Tuesday, May 10, 2011WASHINGTON Shell Oil Company and other Shell affiliates have agreed to pay the United States $2.2 million to resolve claims that the companies violated the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying royalties owed on natural gas produced from federal leases, the Justice Department announced today. Shell Oil Company is the U.S.-based subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, a multinational oil company, and is a leading producer of oil and natural gas.
Congress has authorized federal and Indian lands to be leased for the production of natural gas in exchange for the payment of royalties on the value of the gas that is produced. Each month companies are required to report to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) the amount of royalty that is due. This settlement resolves claims by the United States that the Shell defendants improperly deducted from royalty values the cost of boosting gas up to pipeline pressures, and improperly reported processed gas as unprocessed gas to reduce royalty payments.
Tuesday, 10 May 2011: Contact: Patrick Etchart, ONRR (303) 231-3162
The agreement was reached among the Shell Defendants, the Department of the Interior through its Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), and the Department of Justice. The total payment, including interest, is $2,287,145.74.
We are required to ensure that energy companies accurately report production and pay the required royalties, said Chris Henderson, Acting Assistant Secretary for the DOIs Office of Policy, Management and Budget. We will continue to pursue any case where companies do not follow the rules.
Christine Cunningham Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Shell UK admitted seven breaches of health and safety and environmental regulations following an explosion and fire at its Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk at a hearing today at Norwich Crown Court.
The gas blast at the terminal in Paston Road happened back in February 2008.
The case was not opened and has been adjourned for a full two day hearing and sentence on June 16 and 17.
Shell admitted in count one to failing to take all measures necessary to prevent major accidents and limit the consequences to people and the environment; in a second count Shell admitted failing to ensure, as far as reaonably practicable, the health and safety and welfare at work of its employees at the Bacton site and also failing to ensure that those people not employed by Shell were not exposed to health and safety risks.
Apologies for this website being down earlier today. Our dedicated server was apparently under a denial-of-service high load attack by an unknown party. This information comes from our hosting company in Dallas. DoS attack generally involves organised efforts by a third party with malicious intent, to prevent an Internet site or service from functioning efficiently or at all, temporarily or indefinitely. Should this website disappear from the Internet as a result of legal or illegal action by a third party, please visit shellnews.net where we will post information. DoS attacks are unlawful. (some of this information is from a Wikipedia article)
The price of Brent crude oil jumped to more than $100 per barrel when the fire broke out at a water treatment plant at Bacton gas terminal in February 2008
By Rowena Mason 6:50PM GMT 02 Dec 2010
The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) told the energy giant’s UK subsidiary on Thursday that the company will be prosecuted jointly by both authorities.
The price of Brent crude oil jumped to more than $100 per barrel when the fire broke out at a water treatment plant at the terminal in February 2008.
Saturday November 6,2010
ROYAL Dutch Shell was among six companies fined a total of $237million (£146million) to end bribery investigations by the US Department of Justice and Securities & Exchange Commission.
Shell must pay a $30million criminal penalty over charges it paid $2million to a sub-contractor with the knowledge that some or all of the money would be used to bribe Nigerian officials to allow equipment into the country without paying duty. Shell, which has not admitted guilt, must pay a further $18million to repay profits and interests. Other companies fined include the offshore drilling contractor Transocean, involved in BPs Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
By Rowena Mason and Richard Blackden
Published: 8:49PM GMT 04 Nov 2010
The US Department of Justice hit the London-listed oil super-major with the penalty, after Panalpina, which was employed by Shell, agreed to plead guilty to taking bribes on behalf of its clients.
Panalpina, a major Swiss freight and logistics company, must pay $82m in fines after admitting to paying bribes to customs officials in at least seven countries including Nigeria, Brazil and Russia between 2002 and 2007.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DySF-3b2D0
By John Donovan
In the YouTube.com video above, *Paddy Briggs quotes from the minutes of a meeting of Royal Dutch Shell Group Managing Directors held on 23 July 2003 (MARKED “MOST CONFIDENTIAL”.
“It was noted that development of the Corrib field may be delayed until 2004 as planning consent had been refused for the terminal. The Committee queried whether the Group had sufficiently well placed contacts with the Irish government and regulators. Paul Skinner undertook to explore this issue further in consultation with the Country Chairman in Ireland.”
COMMENT RECEIVED FROM USAWikipedia/Wikimedia is a non-profit organization/foundation. From their website they claim to be a 501(3c) corporation. As such it enjoys tax-exempt status here in the States.
If for profit businesses are contributing to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is in turn sponsoring informational web pages on those businesses, which are nothing less than sanitized advertisements for those businesses, then the Wikipedia organization may be violating the terms of its non-profit tax-exempt charter and US law.
Given that businesses have found a clever way to ‘get around the rules’ and sanitize their Wiki pages for image and commercial promotional purposes it behooves Wikipedia to separate out the web pages of operating for profit businesses /organizations from the rest of their data base. This could become their ‘commercial’ data base for business propaganda for which they could charge an annual fee and corporations control what went on their pages.
COMMENT FROM A FORMER SHELL EMPLOYEE (A RELIABLE SOURCE KNOWN TO US) WHO RETAINS CONTACT WITH SHELL INSIDERSI am curious. Did this dust up with Wikipedia occur just after you notified RD Shell of your article about the US Dept. of Defense confirming that Shell was the object of a Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) counter-intelligence operation because of their (alleged) attempts to gain unlawful access to highly classified military technology, including technology related to the design/fabrication of nuclear weapons?
(Or perhaps it was caused by the recent dredging up of the story of their less than responsible manufacturing and distribution history of highly toxic and long lived pesticides, etc. Maybe it was both.)
Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources to have its own article. Blog sites criticizing large corporations are like teeth, we all have a mouthful. This article should have borne in mind that Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, it is an encyclopedia.–?IanMacM? (talk to me) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
By John Donovan
Shortly thereafter the following message was inserted on to my Wikipedia User page…
This was instant retribution by persons/parties unknown in response to me exercising my right to freedom of expression/freedom of speech. An absolute disgrace.
Yesterday evening I received a message from the founder of MyWikiBiz which goes a long way to confirming that my concerns about Wikipedia articles relating to businesses being wide open to manipulation, so they end up being little more than adverts, are well-founded. This is true in respect of the Wikipedia article about Royal Dutch Shell. My own website, with publishes ALL news articles about Shell, negative and positive in nature, provides a much more accurate picture of Shell than the sanitized heavily censored Wikipedia articles.
Royal Dutch Shell management is obsessed with my Wikipedia editing/contributions. Among the documents Shell has been legally obliged to supply to me are several Shell internal documents and emails, some marked confidential, which discussed my editing on Wikipedia and the possible impact on shareholders and students. There was also discussion about the risk of Shell being caught if it tried to edit the material.
OCTOBER 12, 2010, 6:07 A.M. ET
LONDON (Dow Jones)–Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN) has already raised oil production from Iraq’s Majnoon field to 70,000 barrels a day, from 45,000 barrels a day previously, the company’s Chief Executive Peter Voser said Tuesday.
The risk of operating in Iraq has increased in recent months, but operations are still going well, he said. The production increase required “relatively little investment because infrastructure is already there,” he said.
NOT IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE: WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS "A THIRD LAW SUIT" WAS IN FACT THE FOURTH. SHELL PAID ALL LEGAL COSTS AND JOHN DONOVAN RECEIVED A SECRET PAYMENT AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE TRIAL JUDGE. THE PAYMENT MADE BY SHELL TO THE SOLICITORS ACTING FOR JOHN DONOVAN WAS APPROVED BY SHELL CHAIRMAN, MARK MOODY-STUART, THE HUSBAND OF JUDY MOODY-STUART, WHO HAD PERSONALLY INTERVENED IN THE SAGA. SHELL SETTLED SEVEN COURT ACTIONS INCLUDING TWO FOR LIBEL BROUGHT BY THE DONOVANS. SHELL ALSO LOST THE WIPO ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST ALFRED DONOVAN BY SHELL INTERNATIONAL. SHELL HAS NOT WON A SINGLE CASE AGAINST THE DONOVANS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Revision as of 19:16, 24 December 2007
On 7 November 2007 The Guardian published an article under the headline [3] The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that a Shell advertisement featuring flower heads emerging from refinery chimneys implying the oil giant used its waste carbon dioxide to grow flowers, breached ASA rules.
The energy multi-national Royal Dutch Shell, has faced campaigning activity on its safety record and Health and Safety working practices, particularly in relation to its North Sea platforms, following the tragic death of only two offshore workers after a gas leak on its Brent Bravo platform on 11 September 2003.
There have been concerns over Royal Dutch Shell over environmental and health and safety related issues as well as in respect of its businesses practices and priorities.
LATEST: There was no evidence anyone was actually misled when Shell claimed its petrol was "designed to take you further" despite only increasing efficiency by less than 1 percent, the judge who dismissed the case against the oil company said.
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. 
Caracas, Saturday August 21,2010
SAO PAULO A Brazilian court has ordered the local units of Basf SE and Royal Dutch Shell Plc to pay 1.1 billion reais ($628 million) to cover the cost of medical treatment and compensation for former workers made ill by toxic substances.
The sentence, which can be appealed, was handed down by Judge Maria Ines Correa de Cerqueira Cesar of the labor court in Paulinia, Sao Paulo state, where a pesticide plant operated between 1977-2002.
The judge ordered the companies to pay the cost of medical treatment for all of plants former workers, as well as for the children of employees or contractors who were born during or after the time their parents worked at the factory.
AUGUST 21, 2010
A Brazilian court has fined the local units of Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSA.LN) and BASF SE (BASFY, BAS.XE) a total of BRL1.1 billion ($654 million) in compensation and medical costs to workers who were harmed by contamination at an agricultural chemicals plant in Paulinia, Sao Paulo, the O Estado de Sao Paulo newspaper reported on Saturday.
Studies in the area around the Paulinia unit showed the presence of heavy metals in soil and subterranean water, according to Estado.
By Laura Price – Aug 20, 2010 1:18 PM GMT+0100
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.Basf SA and Shell do Brasil will also have to pay 64,500 reais in damages to each former worker and any children born during or after their service at the plant, according to an e- mailed statement from the Paulinia Labor Court yesterday. The payments cover medical treatment, exams and individual damages.
Shell and Basf have five days, starting yesterday, to publish a statement on the decision on Brazils two largest television networks, according to the court. Former workers at the Paulinia plant then have 90 days to present health documents. Basf plans to appeal the decision, according to a spokeswoman.
Published on 20 August 2010 – 12:30pm
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.
The court ruled that both companies should help pay for the treatment of the physical and mental health problems suffered by the workers and their families. Over 1000 plaintiffs are expected to benefit from the verdict, which covers treatment of the workers’ children born during or after their period of employment at the factory.
By Thom Weidlich – Aug 4, 2010 8:16 PM GMT+0100
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 Yorks Long Island alleging contamination of water with a gasoline additive.
The companies and the plaintiffs, including water districts and the towns of Southampton, East Hampton and Huntington, filed notice today of their motion to dismiss the lawsuits. The suits, part of larger litigation over methyl tertiary butyl ether, were brought by 23 Long Island districts, said Marc Bern, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, who said the pacts financial terms were confidential. The total amount was $42 million, according to a person familiar with the settlement.
A court ordered Total to pay the largest sum of £6.2m for its involvement in the blast at Buncefield five years ago – Europe’s largest ever fire outside a war zone. It caused £1bn of damage, injured 43 people and forced 2,000 residents to be evacuated from their homes near the site in Hertfordshire.
Hertfordshire Oil Storage, Total’s joint venture with Chevron that controlled the depot, was separately fined £2.45m.
“We fully accept our responsibilities for the events that took place and recognise the devastating consequences that the incident had on the surrounding communities and businesses,” said Lee Young, Total UK’s head of legal and company secretary.
The Deepwater Horizon oil rig ablaze in the Gulf of Mexico. Photograph: Gerald Herbert/AP
BP and other oil companies operating in the North Sea have been warned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) that they are failing to operate rigs and other offshore equipment to appropriate standards, documents show.
The “improvement notices” from the offshore regulator come amid speculation that accident statistics covering the past 12 months show a marked increase in problems over a year earlier.
On 25 January 2008, Carl Mortished, World Business Editor of The Times newspaper wrote an article headlined: Shell chief fears oil shortage in seven years in which he described the site as an independent website that monitors the company.
According to a Reuters article: “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.” On 30 July 2004, The New York Times published a related article under the headline: Shell to Pay $150 Million In Settlement On Reserves. The last paragraph turned to a different subject, stating Separately, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission said on Thursday that Shell’s energy trading unit, Coral Energy Resources, had agreed to pay $30 million to settle accusations that it submitted false price data to publishers. The case is part of the commission’s industry-wide investigation into suspected manipulation of the energy markets. The previous day, 29 July 2004, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission released a press statement headlined: CORAL ENERGY PAYS $30 MILLION TO SETTLE U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION CHARGES OF ATTEMPTED MANIPULATION AND FALSE REPORTING. The opening paragraph said: The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today the issuance of an administrative order (order) initiating and simultaneously settling charges of false reporting and attempted manipulation of natural gas transactions by Coral Energy Resources, L.P. (Coral).” The findings in the order included from at least January 2000 through September 2002, Coral reported false, misleading or knowingly inaccurate natural gas trading information, including price and volume information, to certain price reporting firms such as Inside FERCs Gas Market Report, and Natural Gas Intelligence and that Coral attempted to manipulate natural gas prices by delivering trade information to the price reporting firms with the intent to affect the market price of natural gas. The order finds that Coral reported information about trades that never occurred, altered price and volume information for certain trades, and failed to report some actual trades, all with the intent to affect the market price of natural gas.
Shell is obsessed with our online activities, not only in relation to our website, but also my role as a Wikipedian originating and editing articles relating to Shell.
I have noticed a suspicious correlation between Shell’s internal fretting about how to edit my Wikipedia contributions without being caught and editing undertaken during the same time period by Shell partisan contributors hiding behind pseudonyms
Article by John Donovan
As prominent critics of Royal Dutch Shell, it is invaluable for us to know what the company is saying, thinking and plotting about us.
The inside information comes mainly from Shell itself, which is obliged under the UK Data Protection Act to supply us on request with Shell documents and communications in which our names are mentioned.
As a result, despite redaction of some information by Shell lawyers, we have a wealth of evidence, confirming that contrary to the impression it would like to project, Shell is obsessed with our online activities, not only in relation to our website, but also my role as a Wikipedian originating and editing articles relating to Shell.
In 2006, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found Shell guilty of intentional fraud and concealment, awarding Atallah $1.65 million in compensatory damages, Gwire said, who added that the jury also found that Shell had acted with "oppression, malice or fraud", clearing the way for the jury to award punitive damages.
Since the contamination was discovered almost four months ago, most of the 275 homeowners in the Carousel tract have signed on to a lawsuit against Shell Oil. The Carousel development is north of Lomita Boulevard, between Marbella and Panama avenues.
OAKLAND, Calif. -- After finding "hundreds of environmental violations" at Shell gas stations statewide, California attorney general Edmund G. Brown Jr. said that his office has secured a $19.5 million judgment against the oil company and its affiliates, which will ensure compliance with the state's hazardous waste and underground fuel storage laws.
By Cassandra Sweet, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Nov 6, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO -(Dow Jones)- A California court has ordered gasoline stations owned by units of Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSB, RDSB.LN) to pay California agencies $19.5 million for violating the state’s hazardous?waste and underground fuel storage laws, the state attorney general said Friday.
The ruling adopts a settlement reached in September between Attorney General Jerry Brown and Shell Oil Products Co. LLC, Equillon Enterprises LLC, and TMR Co., formerly Texaco Refining & Marketing Inc.
* California AG investigated 1,000 Shell gasoline stations
* Shell failed to maintain gasoline tanks properly -AG
* Shell admits no liability, pleased to reach settlement
OAKLAND, Calif., Nov 6 (Reuters) – California was awarded $19.5 million in a settlement against Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s (RDSa.L) U.S. unit for not storing fuel properly at filling stations in the state, Attorney General Jerry Brown said on Friday.
“Shell Oil company disregarded the state’s underground fuel storage and hazardous waste laws, committing hundreds of environmental violations at its gasoline stations across California,” Brown said in a statement.
November 6, 2009
Shell Oil Co. will pay $19.5 million in civil penalties and fees to settle a state complaint involving hundreds of environmental violations at its California gas stations.
A state investigation found problems with leak detection and monitoring of underground storage tanks, as well as hazardous waste handling at Shell gas stations across the state, according to the attorney general’s office. One of the gas stations was next door to the office of the Contra Costa County hazardous materials program.
Written by Lauren Steadman
Petrochemical company Shell has been cited for violating environmental legislation for a second time in less than a year.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued both a complaint in which it proposed a penalty of $153,057 (£93,795) and a compliance order against Shell Chemical Yabucoa in Puerto Rico for disregarding the federal Clean Water Act.
Acting regional administrator George Pavlou said that the EPA will continue to hold to account anyone who violates the laws that protect the island’s waters.
For its part, the EFCC said it was probing payments made by the oil companies Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell to MER Engineering, a company owned by Mr Ibori, purportedly for hiring houseboats to oil industry workers. Chevron said it believed it had complied with anti-corruption laws, while Shell said MER was on its list of contractors but declined to say what work the company had done.
This is not a Shell website. That fact should be abundantly plain from the overall content of this home page and our sister Shell-focussed websites, including shellnazihistory.com. Click on the Disclaimer link at top of this page for more information. You Can Be Sure Shell does not endorse or approve of this website. There are no subscription charges nor do we solicit or accept donations. It is an entirely free to use website drawing attention to the negative side of Shell while also publishing positive news about the company. The Shell logo image with the white text used on this website, as per the above example, is in the public domain because its copyright has expired and its author is anonymous. It can be found on WIKIMEDIA COMMONS. Our shellenergy.website publishes Shell Energy customer complaints posted on Trustpilot where there is an ample supply. Use this link for Shell’s own website.
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.
Royal Dutch Shell conspired directly with Hitler, financed the Nazi Party, was anti-Semitic and sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis. Shell had a close relationship with the Nazis during and after the reign of Sir Henri Deterding, an ardent Nazi, and the founder and decades long leader of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. His burial ceremony, which had all the trappings of a state funeral, was held at his private estate in Mecklenburg, Germany. The spectacle (photographs below) included a funeral procession led by a horse drawn funeral hearse with senior Nazis officials and senior Royal Dutch Shell directors in attendance, Nazi salutes at the graveside, swastika banners on display and wreaths and personal tributes from Adolf Hitler and Reichsmarschall, Hermann Goring. Deterding was an honored associate and supporter of Hitler and a personal friend of Goring.
Deterding was the guest of Hitler during a four day summit meeting at Berchtesgaden. Sir Henri and Hitler both had ambitions on Russian oil fields. Only an honored personal guest would be rewarded with a private four day meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat.
IN JULY 2007, MR BILL CAMPBELL (ABOVE, A RETIRED GROUP AUDITOR OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL SENT AN EMAIL TO EVERY UK MP AND MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS: 
MORE DETAILS:
MORE DETAILS: After a solicitor acting for Shell threatened to make the litigation "drawn out and difficult" with the intention of draining the resources of a financially weaker opponent, my late father (Alfred Donovan) and I decided to mount a wide-ranging campaign as a counter-measure. We jointly founded the Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group, which nearly 15% of Shell UK retailers joined. We regularly conducted ethical surveys involving up to 1500 Shell petrol stations. All responses were opened and authenticated by an independent solicitor who supplied Affidavits confirming the results. In whole page announcements in trade magazines (examples above) we challenged Shell to commission and publish the resuits of independent research asking the same questions and offering respondents GUARANTEED anonymity. Shell never took up the invitation. Instead it asked the UK Advertising Standards Authority to investigate our Shell surveys. No problems were found. The head-cut image of Alfred Donovan appears courtesy of The Wall Street Journal. 
See our link list of over 500 articles by the FT, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Bloomberg, Forbes, Dow Jones Newswires, New York Times, CNBC etc, plus UK House of Commons Select Committee Hansard records, information on U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission website etc. all containing references to our Shell focussed websites, or our website founders Alfred and John Donovan. Includes TV documentary features in English and German, newspaper and magazine articles, radio interviews, newsletters etc. Plus academic papers, Stratfor intelligence reports and UK, U.S. and Australian state/parliamentary publications, also citing our Shell websites. Click on this link to see the entire list, all in date order with a link to an index of over 100 books also containing references to our websites and/or our activities.
John Donovan, the website owner
A head-cut image of Alfred Donovan (now deceased) appears courtesy of The Wall Street Journal.
