Difference between revisions of "Shell"

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(SW: story on Shell trial)
(SW: →‎External articles: more on Wiwa v Shell)
Line 119: Line 119:
 
*Christian, "[http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/shell-v-wiwa-20090522 Shell v. Wiwa]," Greenpeace UK, May 22, 2009.
 
*Christian, "[http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/shell-v-wiwa-20090522 Shell v. Wiwa]," Greenpeace UK, May 22, 2009.
 
*Terry Macalister, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/26/shell-human-rights-pollution Shell faces legal fight over alleged human rights abuse and pollution: Jeroen van der Veer's tenure as chief executive ends amid outcry over bonuses, environmental record and human rights abuses]," ''The Guardian'' (UK), May 26, 2009.
 
*Terry Macalister, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/26/shell-human-rights-pollution Shell faces legal fight over alleged human rights abuse and pollution: Jeroen van der Veer's tenure as chief executive ends amid outcry over bonuses, environmental record and human rights abuses]," ''The Guardian'' (UK), May 26, 2009.
 +
*Rebekah Kebede, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8565680 Shell Nigeria case may temper Big Oil policies]," Reuters, June 18, 2009.
  
  
 
[[Category:Corporations]][[category:oil industry]][[Category:Corporations Targeted by BEN Campaigns]]
 
[[Category:Corporations]][[category:oil industry]][[Category:Corporations Targeted by BEN Campaigns]]
 
[[Category:Greenwashing]]
 
[[Category:Greenwashing]]

Revision as of 16:37, 23 June 2009

Shell describes itself as "a global group of oil, gas and petrochemical companies with a broad portfolio of hydrogen, biofuels, wind and solar power interests." [1] Shell operates in "more than 140 countries and territories, employing approximately 109,000 people," according to its website (accessed February 2007). [2] Royal Dutch Shell is partner of the world's largest Public-Private Partnership (P3) N.V.Nederlandse Gasunie, together with Exxon (Esso) and the Dutch government, that captured the globalization trend in 1963. [3]

Corporate Accountability

Shell Ads Declared Greenwash

In August 2008, Shell was found guilty of misleading the public over its tar sands operations. The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that the company should not have used the word "sustainable" when describing its Canadian tar sands operations. The ASA ruled that the Shell ad had breached rules on substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.

The Shell was was from a February 2008 issue of Financial Times and accompanied Shell's financial results. The oil giant claimed that: “We invest today’s profits in tomorrow’s solutions.” Shell explained it was harnessing its technical expertise “to unlock the potential of the vast Canadian oil sands deposits”, but then added: “Continued investment in technology is one of the key ways we are able to address this challenge, and continue to secure a profitable and sustainable future.”

Shell was challenged by environmental organisation WWF. David Norman, the WWF’s director of campaigns, said: “The ASA’s decision to uphold WWF’s complaint sends a strong signal to business and industry that greenwash is unacceptable.” To celebrate its victory, WWF launched an ad campaign outside London’s Waterloo station stating “Shell can’t hide the environmental impact of their oil sand projects.” [1]

Selling solar

Shell "has quietly sold off most of its solar business," reported Terry Macalister in December 2007. In 2006, "Shell hived off its solar module production business. The division, with 600 staff and manufacturing plants in the US, Canada and Germany, went to Munich-based SolarWorld." In late 2007, Singapore's Environ Energy Global bought "Shell's photovoltaic operations in India and Sri Lanka, with more than 260 staff and 28 offices, for an undisclosed sum." Shell plans to also sell its solar operations in the Philippines and Indonesia. "Shell has however formed a manufacturing link, with Saint-Gobain, and promised to build one plant in Germany," according to Macalister.

A Shell spokesperson said that solar "was not bringing in any profit for us there so we transferred it to another operator. The buyer will be able to take it to the next level." [2]

2007 controversy with Broadwater, ACORN

Newsday reports on a successful cooptation tactic involving Shell Oil's natural gas venture Broadwater Energy and the group ACORN: "Amid its ongoing effort to garner community support for its controversial offshore natural gas terminal, Broadwater Energy yesterday announced a 10-year, $10-million initiative to fund the weatherizing of more than 2,000 houses in low-income parts of Nassau and Suffolk counties. Critics of the proposed offshore terminal blasted the idea as a naked attempt to buy friends for a project about which they have raised a host of environmental and economic objections. ... The program would be administered by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN... But outspoken Broadwater critic Adrienne Esposito ... called the program 'a bribe to bring good public relations points. A lot of money doesn't make Broadwater a better project.' ... Partnerships with third parties who have some community credibility is a common strategy in advancing controversial projects, according to [CMD's] Sheldon Rampton [who said] 'I think the community ought to look carefully at what they're getting themselves into. Would [Broadwater parent] Shell Oil be doing this project if they weren't planning to build the natural gas terminal?' " [4]

Repositioning after 1995

Following the execution of Nigerian environmentalist and Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) leader Ken Saro-Wiwa, and its attempt to dump the Brent Spar oil platform in the ocean, Shell appointed a dozen people to oversee its image overhaul. A decade later, Simon Longstaff, one of Shell's twelve and the director of Sydney's St. James Ethical Centre, lashed out at Shell. "The process we went through was thorough and exhaustive, but what concerned me was seeing the marketing arm of the company turn it into a PR exercise as soon as we had finished," he said.

"It was a process that should have happened slowly and been led from the top for real change to occur. Leveraging it for advertising and then having the process betrayed by the man at the top sent a very confused message to everyone in the company that wanted real change." Longstaff's comments echo critiques of Shell's operations in Nigeria and apartheid South Africa. [5]

Rebel disruption in Nigeria

The Royal Dutch Shell oil company "has evacuated four oil facilities in Nigeria in response to a sudden intensification in the militia violence which plagues the western delta," Simon Freeman reported in the January 16, 2006, Times Online (UK).

"The withdrawal of 326 staff and contract workers from the remote flow stations in the swampy region comes after the centres were shut down following a bomb attack on the pipeline linking them to the main export terminal last week," Freeman wrote, and the "evacuation will delay repairs to the pipe which carries 106,000 barrels a day, around 10 per cent of Shell's oil output from Nigeria. The move has raised fears that international companies may permanently quit the turbulent delta area if the Government, a key Western oil ally, fails to rein in the militias."

Driving around (some of) the world

"In a bid to underline its 'green' credentials, Shell is currently sending a fleet of Volkswagen Golfs in [Around the World in 80 Days' protagonist Phileas] Fogg's footsteps, on an expedition 'around the world in 50 fill-ups'," reports The Independent. The goal is "to win a place in the Guinness Book of Records for circumnavigating the globe in the most fuel-efficient manner possible," using "Shell's specially customized vehicles." However, unlike Fogg, Shell's journey will avoid Africa. Guy Adams writes, "Shell has a - shall we say? - dodgy record in those parts, as a result of its ongoing operations in Nigeria." Environmental, social and human rights concerns - including the 1995 murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa - have resulted in Shell boycotts. Shell spokespeople have called Nigeria the company's "worst public relations nightmare," according to the Multinational Monitor. But the company insists that its "strange itinerary" is simply due to "difficulties taking all the cars through customs" in Africa. [6]

Shell on tour

"As an industry, we have not done a good job about educating people and talking about how gas prices are set," explained Shell's senior media relations specialist, Darci Sinclair. So, over the next two years, Shell "will send its senior leaders on a 50-city 'tour'," reported PR Week in June 2006. Shell president John Hofmeister and other executives will hold "one-on-one and group meetings, receptions, speeches, and other events with local chambers of commerce, rotary clubs, educational institutions, media members, environmental groups, government officials, Shell employees themselves, and others." The goal is to reach 10,000 people in total, in cities including Dallas, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Seattle, Charlotte and Honolulu. Like other oil companies and the industry group American Petroleum Institute, Shell is trying to counter "windfall profit" tax proposals and public anger at high oil prices . [7]

In May 2007, USA Today described one of Shell's "tour" stops, in Richmond, Virginia. The small, invite-only audience ranged "from supportive state politicians to deeply skeptical environmentalists," and was "selected by Shell's public relations agency, Burson-Marsteller." At the event, Shell president John Hofmeister "deftly field[ed] even the most pointed questions," commending but then passing on one environmentalist's challenge to support higher automobile fuel economy standards. Hofmeister frequently alluded to "the need to tap into offshore oil reservoirs." Shell wants to drill off Virginia's southern coast, but the idea "remains controversial and requires congressional approval." [8]

As part of the PR tour, Shell's Hofmeister will speak at the University of Delaware (Newark, Delaware) on May 7, 2008. His topic is "achieving energy security through sound public policy," and is part of a university lecture series titled, "Boiling Point: International Politics of Climate Change." [3]

Fudging oil reserves

In March 2004, the controversy over the exaggeration of the oil and gas reserves of Shell resulted in the resignation of the then chairman, Philip Watts, and Walter van de Vijver, who was responsible for exploration and production. In an attempt to manage the crisis Shell hired the Brunswick Group to help it manage the crisis. "Brunswick has recently come on board, but we don't really say much more about what they do," Corrigan told PR Week.

PR Week also reported that for several years Shell had - and continued to - use the London-based Finsbury to handle financial PR for the company and was also advising on managing the crisis on the overstated reserves. [9]

Opposition in Ireland

Shell has met with stiff opposition to its plans for a gas refinery in the west of Ireland's County Mayo. [4] Project opponents point out the extraordinary changes in the law that allow Shell, StatoilHydro and Marathon Oil to be gifted a gas field off the northwest coast, with no obligation to sell the gas in Ireland.[5] Strong local opposition to the project has been met with unprecedented police repression.[6] Work on the project continues.

Political contributions

Shell gave $71,500 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election cycle through its political action committee (PAC) - 14% to Democrats and 86% to Republicans. [7]

Lobbying and Political contributions

Shell is one of the largest energy company contributors to both Republican and Democratic candidates for Congress. These contributions total $120,400 to the 110th US Congress (as of the third quarter), the largest of which has been to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). Senator Stevens, for his part, has consistently voted with the oil industry on energy, war and climate bills.[10]

Contributions like this from fossil fuel companies to members of Congress are often seen as a political barrier to pursuing clean energy.

More information on oil industry contributions to Congress can be found at FollowtheOilMoney.org, created by the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Oil Change International.

The company spent $2,428,696 for lobbying in 2006. $340,000 went to two outside lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists.[8]

Executive committee

From Shell's website (accessed February 16, 2007): [11]

Contact information

Website: http://www.shell.com

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. Martin Hickman Shell rebuked for 'greenwash' over ad for polluting oil project, The Independent, August 13, 2008.
  2. Terry Macallister, "Big Oil lets sun set on renewables: Shell has quietly shed most of its solar power, while BP is buying into dirty tar sands," The Guardian (UK), December 11, 2007.
  3. Press release, "Politics of climate change focus of spring lecture series," University of Delaware, January 11, 2008.
  4. Shell to Sea website, accessed June 2008.
  5. Center for Public Inquiry, The Great Corrib Gas Controversy", November 2005.
  6. Global Community Monitor, "Report of an International Fact Finding Delegation to County Mayo, Ireland, February 23-27, 2007", Global Community Monitor website, 2007, accessed June 2008.
  7. 2006 PAC Summary Data, Open Secrets, accessed July 2007.
  8. Shell Oil lobbying expenses, Open Secrets.

External resources

External articles