Talk:Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Removal of positives

I have added back two positive sections about Shell - "LiveWIRE" and the "Shell whistleblower helpline" deleted by "Stephen Parnell" some months ago. He has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in editing and expanding the information about Royal Dutch Shell and does what he believes to be correct and fair. When he first started editing the Royal Dutch Shell article I suspected that he was working for Shell. It is therefore ironic that he is now being attacked for allegedly being biased in favour of Shell. I do not believe that he is biased one way or the other as far as Shell is concerned. However in my humble opinion Stephen is dogmatic and does not have any regard for the input and opinions of other contributors. I am a long term critic of Shell but believe that for the sake of balance, the positives as well as the negatives should be covered in the entry. LiveWIRE is a worthwhile and successful scheme encouraging and supporting business start-ups by young people. I am less sure about the merit of the whistleblower programme but it does seem to be a positive and important step by Shell. Others can make a judgement on whether it should be included. User JohnaDonovan. 09.50, 6 February 2007.

Almost this entire article was a giant negative. I'm not surprised, of course. However, it was most unfortunate that when I added positives, Stephen Parnell felt free to either cut them out or spin them. Lets look at what he did.

  • Instead of being in a "positives" section, he changed it to a "response to criticisms" section. First off, despite that being a transparent attempt to make it look like anything good that the company does simply must be to spin something bad that they did, it's not correct. When was it that Shell was getting some sort of horrible criticism about their GLBT rights? Is that some mysterios attempt at spin, their enacting of policies that got them an 85% HRC rating? What about Carrol's active opposition to the Iraq oilfields selloff?
  • Omitted the details that favor Shell the most -- for example, making no mention whatsoever of the fact that Shell actively encourages governments to regulate carbon emissions. Compare this to Exxon-Mobil who funds global warming skeptics. I could have gone into this a lot more; Shell, for example, is largely the reason that GCC broke up. Then Stephen, in a finishing blow, omitted all mention of Shell's work on carbon sequestration.
  • Focused instead on one-sided reviews (on the main Shell article, I had to add in this review from the Sierra Club's site -- and it's hardly the only one out there), and pointing out that Shell uses their renewables business in their advertising. Well, of course they use it in their advertizing. What do you expect them to advertise? They all sell pretty much the same product.

This is imbalanced. It takes an already biased article and throws it off the charts. Do you see me digging into the negatives section, and trying to spin them to be pro-Shell?** No? Then don't do the opposite. However, as for the blog ref, I'll go replace it with a firsthand source. Thanks for pointing out that was one of your complaints. -- Rei 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • **: I certainly could. For example, even the articles linked to point out that the Nigeria situation isn't so clear-cut. Many of the leaks are from locals tapping into pipelines ("bunkering" -- check out Conflict in the Niger Delta), armed bands occupied Shell facilities at times, etc. Read "The Operating Environment" here[1] for interesting bits of trivia, such as the fact that that year, they had their pipelines tapped 88 times and were attacked 78 times. Also, 68% of the volume of oil spilled was from sabotage (pg 10). But, I'll leave you alone to spin your negatives (so long as there are no significant factual errors) as long as you treat me the same. -- Rei 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, I went ahead and added your percentages info and "greenwash" complaint to the positives section. -- Rei 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And another thing: I just went to the BP page, and what the heck? Where's its mile long criticisms page? Are the indigenous people of the Amazon and the environment of Alaska somehow less important than Nigeria? It gets one accusation of greenwashing and then a litany of how good it is, while here I'm hardly even allowed to report a single positive? God damn, they have an effective PR campaign.  :P

The facts are pretty simple: Shell and BP *are* among the more progressive of the oil giants, and while pennywise, and even potentially initially viewed as loss-leaders, their renewables businesses are among the biggest in the world. That stated, as you'd expect from an oil company, they've both accumulated a long list of problems, working in hostile regions while producing the vast quantities of environmentally-damaging chemicals that world markets gobble up. It's important to present things as they are -- and fairly, for God's sake. -- Rei 00:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section in relation to litigation in Malaysia between Shell and 399 former employees known as Team A who won their case in 2004. Shell appealed and the litigation is still in progress. I will try to find some more recent newspaper reports so that the information in the section is as up to date as possible. User: Johnadonovan 10.13, 24 February 2007.

I would like to point out that there is no supporting evidence given in respect of the three long paragraphs about Formula Shell. I do personally recall the controversy, but I have been unable to find any citations which could be included to verify what is stated by the author of the Formula Shell contribution. User: Johnadonovan. 22.22, 24 February 2007.

[edit] Formula Shell

John, I can confirm that the paragraph on Formula Shell is substantially correct as written. I remember it well!! PaddyBriggs 11:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] “Issues” a bit of a weasel word!

In her recent column in “The Spectator” Dot Wordsworth wrote “2006 was the year of issues, when the word problem gave way to “issues around” things”. I know what she means. This Wiki entry, and the link on the main Shell page, purport to describe issues and to be balanced by having both negative and positive ones talked about.

The problem with this is that whilst it is reasonable to list and elaborate on those important problems that Shell has encountered over the years it is far more problematic to list and describe positives. Shell has been in business for 100 years this year (and I worked for the corporation for a third of that time!). Over those 100 years I would argue that most of what Shell has done has been pretty positive. So to list just seven positives here is hugely selective and arbitrary.

I absolutely agree that the entry needs to be balanced and not biased but I think that the way to do this is to list the relatively small number of problems (already quite well done) and then write about how Shell has sought to deal with these problems. This would entail changing the title of the entry from the euphemistic “Issues” to “Problems”. At the same time the main entry can be used to include more of Shell’s many successes over the years (possibly including one or two of the “Positive issues” from this entry).

I am happy to have a go at doing the redrafts necessary and I think that I have the knowledge and experience to do this. But I don’t want to get into an edit war with anyone so I am posting this proposal for comment first before I get into the task. PaddyBriggs 13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible way forward. It is a bit arbitrary whether this article was titled reputation issues or "criticism of" but having this title means we should try to get some sort of balanced discussion (including long term shareholder return and stuff which is part of reputation. I don't think there is much risk of an edit war. --BozMo talk 09:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Paddy, I doubt if there is anyone better qualified to redraft the article in the way you suggest. It would be a further improvement if all of the sections could be placed into date or alphabetical order as it seems to be in random order at the moment. Johnadonovan 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Friends: I have now made the changes flagged in my suggestion and hope that wikipedians will be happy with it. I have tried hard not to lose substantive "positive" points about Shell (which are now on the main Royal Dutch Shell entry. I hope that I haven't gone too far! PaddyBriggs 15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainability / Ethics

Someone has added the following paragraph under the above heading: -

Management and Ethics S.A., a company that specializes in studies in sustainability and ethics, is one of the few firms that releases an annual report of the world's most sustainable and ethical oil companies. The score for a company is the sum of their compliance with various standards (SEC, Sarbanes-Oxley, national laws, Dow Jones Sustainability Index, Global Compact, GRI, ILO, OSHA, ISO, IUCN, etc) with all weightings being equal (one point). As of 2007, Shell has topped their list for the fourth consecutive year.[2] Their corporate social responsibility score, 91.76%, is second only to Total S.A., while their sustainability score, 88.63%, is second to Petrobras.

There are two points I would like to make. Firstly the link does not work. Secondly, in my humble opinion the ratings cannot be correct as they take in the worst year in Shell's history, 2004, when its reputation hit rock bottom as a result of the reserves scandal. After publicly challenging the survey results, I received an email from Dr William Cox, the MD of the survey company, Management & Excellence SA. I replied asking if Shell is a client. There was no response. His email and my response can be found on this webpage. Under the circumstances, I believe that the entire reference to the survey results should be removed. Johnadonovan 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of this section. PaddyBriggs 09:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Page title, Move of March 27th

Apparently this page was moved once before the move I initiated on March 27th, however, that move was carried out in a manner that lost a great deal of the page's history. If it can be done without removing subsequent edit history, note that we may benefit from posting this article to the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, to have the initial page's history restored. MrZaiustalk 19:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns suggested merger with this article

I still plan to add a considerable amount of extra information to the Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns article over the next few days. I suggest that a decision is then made on whether to add it to the “Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell” article, as put forward for consideration. The only other point to make is that the the "controversies" article is already rather lengthy after recent additions. Perhaps there are plans to break it up in some way. In any event, I am happy to leave such decisions to you Paddy and other Wikipedians. Johnadonovan 13:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment John. Just one word of advice. I think that there is a risk that the Shell entries on Wiki become seen an extension of your own campaigning efforts (and indeed that the information on Wiki duplicates what is already on your remarkable website.). I think that there is an opportunity for the Wiki entries to be complete without needing to be all-embracing. The challenge here is to get the references and links right - not necessarily to strive for ubiquity on the Wiki pages. So I would certainly try and get the safety stores on the “Controversies” entry and also try and keep every “story” as brief as possible. PaddyBriggs 14:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. Although there is some duplication e.g. Brent Bravo, almost all of my recent contributions have not been published at all on Royaldutchshellplc.com. I seem to have exhausted suitable source material in any event for the time being so you will have some time to catch up with my Wikipedia ramblings. Best regards. Johnadonovan 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just make one final point in favour of a separate article rather than a scaled down version in a merged article. The current safety concerns article packs in a considerable volume of information including extensive links. This would all be absolutely invaluable to anyone carrying out research on the subject. No doubt much of this would be discarded if moved into the controversies article. However please feel free to do what you think is best as I am not a good judge of such matters. Johnadonovan 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy to keep this as a separate entry - but we must try and mke it's content a bit wider in sources! I'll have a go myself. PaddyBriggs 08:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

If anyone has concerns over the growing length of this article, it could be shortened considerably if all of the information relating to Shell operations in the USA was extracted and placed in a linked article "Controversies surrounding Shell Oil Company in the USA". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnadonovan (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Alternatively all of the relevant information could be imported into the existing article Shell Oil Company. Johnadonovan 14:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At this date, the Shell Oil Company article is still 3kb stub. Moving Shell Oil Company-specific content from here to there would actually be a really good way to flesh it out, regardless of the WP:LENGTH of this one. MrZaiustalk 15:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a volume of information to add to this article that will of course add to its already considerable length. I will carry on and do this in the next week or so. I am also in the process of reinstating sections deleted for alleged lack of suitable verification sources. I am providing what will hopefully be accepted as suitable sources. Again this will add to the length. I would therefore propose that when this work is completed, a new offshoot article be created perhaps under the heading: “Shell environmental issues”, with all applicable sections transferred to the new article. It would result in two articles of reasonable length. I would be happy to make the changes if the proposal is acceptable. Comments please. Johnadonovan (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling/typing

Interesting article, but despite the significant amount of discussion and editing to date, it still contains many typos. 85.210.145.98 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second removal of positives

If people are so insistant on this article being all negatives, where should the positives go? I just checked (hadn't been here in months), and all of the positives have been stripped out again and replaced with some rather dubious claims. Shell is one of the world's biggest producers of solar and wind power, one of the world's biggest researchers in solar, wind, hydrogen, and carbon sequestration, but you wouldn't know it from reading this article. Shell chairmen have long been lobbying for greenhouse gas regulation, but you wouldn't know it. Shell was ranked No. 3 on the fortune 500 for the most socially responsible companies, highest in China by TNS newswire, and on and on, but you wouldn't know it. Shell provides domestic partner benefits and has a very high ranking by the HRC, but you wouldn't know it. Shell's former chairman was the person who tried to *STOP* the sale of Iraq's oil industry to private firms under the CPA (he threatened to resign over it), but you wouldn't know it. And on and on and on. This article is a big smear piece without the positives being represented. -- Rei 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What absolute nonsense! This page is about CONTROVERSIES - how can you have a positive controversy! if you have something positive to say about Shell this isn't the entry for it. 88.18.187.150 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the article used to be titled. It was renamed, and now the rename is being used as an excuse for it not to have them. -- Rei 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rei Your post is a classic example of POV. There is nothing wrong with looking for balance and the main RDS entry is the place for it. Alternatively you could create an entry "Why Royal Dutch Shell is a great institution" - nobody could stop you and it might give an outlet to your views and your ego. But this entry is a brillinat record of well-referenced stories about where Shell has damaged its reputation. Leave it alone my friend. Bill from Banff 13:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd seriously have no problem with the main article containing all of that?
"Leave it alone" -- I'd say that to the person who removed the positives.
How is deliberately excluding everything good and only keeping the bad NPOV, while having both POV? Please explain that one.
You call this a "brilliant record of well-referenced stories about where Shell has damaged its reputation". I'd describe it as an attempt *to* ruin its reputation, given that Shell keeps winning awards for corporate responsibility. But once again, hey, you'd never know that from this article. -- Rei 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since almost all of the facts in this article are sourced from reputable publications, it is wrong to describe the article as a smear. Information which is true is not defamatory. Furthermore, I would not put much faith in reputation rankings prepared by commercial organisations which sometimes have Shell has a client. Some of the positive information I introduced has been moved by Paddy Briggs to the main article e.g. information about the whistleblower helpline, which is fine and probably more likely to be viewed than if reglegated to a secondary article. However, I would support and contribute to an article focused solely on the many positive aspects of Shell if that is prefered. It would mean removing information from the main article to avoid repetition. A new article would need to contain properly sourced verifiable information just as this article does, with the exception of Formula Shell, which has no sources whatsoever. I remember the Formula Shell controversy but thus far have been unable to find any reference source. So if Rei is minded to instigate the new article, I will happily add to it from time to time as I check dozens of news reports about Shell every day. The information previously deleted/moved can be recovered and included in the new article, which could be linked to the main article and this article. Johnadonovan 23:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If I wrote an article about America and only included America's "wrongs", yes, it would be a smear. That would be "sins of omission".
Furthermore, I would not put much faith in reputation rankings prepared by commercial organisations which sometimes have Shell has a client Furthermore, I would not put much faith in reputation rankings prepared by commercial organisations which sometimes have Shell has a client -- and which organization mentioned or cited thusfar has had Shell as a client? I count zero.
If the concensus is that there should be a new article that would be paired with this one, I will work on it when I get a chance. Until then, the current state of "citing only the bad, omitting the good" is a smear. -- Rei 19:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Rei: I was referring in general to reputation ranking reports about Shell. Here is an [3] example. The firm in question does have Shell as a client, yet did not disclose that material fact when it published the report. Being a person of integrity, you have disclosed that your father is a Shell executive. That was the right approach. Most people involved in the Wikipedia articles about Shell are aware of my background and no doubt take that into account when considering my contributions. I strongly supported your position when the positives were first deleted. That was under a different article title. It is the change in the title in which neither of us was involved that makes it inappropriate to retain positives here. If it is agreed that there should be a linked separate article covering the commendable/positive aspects of Shell, I will draft it if no one else has the time, but I believe that you would do the job with far greater enthusiasm and have more knowledge of what should be included. In any event, I would contribute as the opportunity arises. If you send me your email address I will forward any appropriate source news reports. I already have one from yesterday. My email address is john@shellnews.net. Johnadonovan 08:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination of this article for deletion

On 6 October 2007, a Wikipedia administrator who uses the pseudonym “Jreferee” nominated the article for deletion. Although personal attacks are frowned upon under Wikipedia etiquette, Jreferee, who is aware that I post information using my real name rather than a pseudonym, made a number of serious allegations about me which are untrue.

During the period of several days when the proposed deletion proceedings were underway, no one notified me even though I was the prime subject of discussion and could have taken the opportunity to rebut the incorrect information put forward by Jreferee in support of his or her nomination to delete. The attempt to have the article deleted was unsuccessful. There were more votes to “keep” than “delete”, the only two votes for deletion came from a single individual within a period of 15 minutes.

Since these allegations were published on Wikipedia and amount to a direct attack on me, I believe that it is reasonable for me to respond in an article entitled: Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell Johnadonovan 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that I saw posted by him that was at all questionable was that there being one editor largely responsible for the article (as is true for nearly all articles) might be indicative of POV-pushing, but that was hardly a direct attack. That said, if something more direct was written, feel free to bring it up on the notice board. This page should be limited to discussion of the article itself. MrZaiustalk 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I take the point about this being the wrong place to discuss the issues I raised, but if the deletion had taken place there would be no article to discuss. Johnadonovan 08:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed - section removed

This article has had a needs-citation tag since June 2007. Obviously no-one is taking is seriously, so I've cut two sections to try to encourage some sourcing. I rather suspect that Rhodesia is correct, but that everyone else was doing it too; and that for the period the Italian bit was negligible William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The official Shell autobiography (as it were) "A Century in Oil" records this incident [Italian] with essentially all these details (except they say £2.5m not $6m dollars) on page 324. The Rhodesian incident below is detailed on p 327 in the same book, and I think these were added by Paddy Briggs who used it as a source. Would any one (e.g. WMC) like my copy of "A century in Oil"? Clearly I was given it for free and don't value it. I suspect it is a reliable source for most historical stuff. --BozMo talk 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, then I think that those two sections can be restored as sourced, and use that as the source. I'll trust you that its really in the book William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Sanctions busting in Rhodesia

In 1965 the British Crown Colony of Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence from Britain which led to the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations. These sanctions included strict controls on oil and petroleum product sales to the rebel colony. In 1978 the "Bingham report" into sanctions busting revealed that Shell’s local offices in southern Africa, along with those of BP, had been breaking the government's oil embargo from the moment it was imposed. This conflicted with a letter to the British Government which had been written by Shell's Chairman Sir Frank McFadzean in June 1976 which said that "... no company in which we [Shell] have an interest is supplying to Rhodesia". The Bingham report revealed that shipments to Rhodesia had arrived at the old petroleum port of Lourenco Marques (now Maputo), and from there the oil had been shepherded by Shell Mozambique, a UK-incorporated firm, into the hands of South African brokers, who sent it north by rail through Mozambique to Rhodesia. Senior executives of Shell were criticised in the report for failing to monitor what local employees were doing.

[edit] Corruption in Italy

In the early 1970s Shell decided to dispose of the heavily loss making business of Shell Italiana - its downstream operation in Italy. Assets were sold to the Italian state company Eni in 1973. Subsequent to the sale Shell’s accountants and outside auditors discovered that in the five years prior to the sale to Eni Italian politicians had received “political contributions” totalling around $6 million from Shell Italiana’s local management. These had been recorded in the company’s books as “advertising and publicity” expenses. Shell’s General Manager in Italy, who had operated without authority and who had misrecorded the payments, was dismissed.

OK, on we go: also cut the four following, which have no refs:

[edit] An Early Critique

In 1928, the satirical play Öl-Konjunktur (Oil-Economy) by Leo Lania and Felix Gasbarra was staged in Berlin, dealing with a backward Balkan country over which Shell and two other international oil companies are fighting for sole rights to its oil production. The production had music by Kurt Weill, now partly lost, but including the still-extant Muschellied (Mussel-Song), with words by Gasbarra specifically attacking Shell. The famous scallop logo is here changed to a mussel, and reference is made to the firm’s origin in 'an old man selling shells on Margate promenade'. From these beginnings it has grown to ein Naphtha und Benzine Cartel, Shell! Shell! Shell!. After verses about environmental pollution and exploitation of labour, the song climaxes

… da fing das Öl zu brennen an, Von Aserbeidschan bis Tibet. Es stecke die Welt in Brand, Petroleum heisst unser Vaterland. Dafür zerlöchern wir uns das Fell: Shell! Shell! Shell!

(… the oil began to burn from Azerbijan to Tibet, It set the world on fire. The name of our Fatherland is Petroleum, And for the sake of it we’ll drill Each others’ hides full of holes: Shell! Shell! Shell!)

[edit] South Africa

During the 1980s Shell was accused by anti-apartheid activists of supporting and sustaining the apartheid regime while pursuing business opportunities in the Republic of South Africa. Annual General Meetings of the two Group holding companies were disrupted by protesters and Shell was also accused of sanctions breaking. Shell always argued that unlike other multinationals who withdrew (e.g. Mobil), it could be more of a force for good by staying in the country than by leaving.

As the largest global company remaining active in South Africa, Shell became the figurehead scion of big business tied to the Verwoerd and De Klerk administrations. Anti-Shell activists went as far as a moonlighting terrorist group RaRa (Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action, but also Dutch for 'Guess Who') raiding gasoline pump stations and cutting through filler tubes and setting them on fire.

After Apartheid was dissolved and the ANC legalised, it was a shocker for many European anti-apartheid activists that the African National Congress (ANC) decided to rent floors in the South-African Shell office building to make it their party headquarters.

[edit] Formula Shell

In the post war years Shell was one of the leaders in fuels technology – in particular the development of additive packages designed to enhance the performance of petrol (gasoline) in automobiles. Amongst the new products of the 1950s and 1960s was “Super Shell with ICA” a fuel/additive mix which controlled ignition (ICA stood for Ignition Control Additive). However after the oil price hikes caused by OPEC raising the price of crude oil in the 1970s Shell and other oil companies suspended advertising and marketing programs and “fuels differentiation” (as this strategy was known) ceased. Shell scientists and technicians continued to carry out research into the subject and by the mid 1980s Shell felt able to introduce a new initiative. A fuel/additive package which was claimed to “significantly improve your car’s performance” was launched in the United Kingdom, Europe and elsewhere from 1985 onwards. It was known as “Formula Shell”.

The initial customer response to Formula Shell was very positive and drivers claimed to notice a genuine improvement in their car’s performance. Shell’s sales responded significantly in all markets where the new brand was introduced. However within a few months in some countries reports began to appear of problems with a small number of cars running on Formula Shell. There were reports of damaged engines and even of cars having to be taken off the road because of mechanical defects. One particular example was of a police force in Scotland which suffered damage to many of the cars in their fleet. This was highly publicised in the British media.

Shell’s initial response to these problems was denial. They claimed that the Formula Shell product had been extensively tested and denied that there could be any problem. However as reports began to come in from around the world Shell started to take the matter more seriously and conduct their own laboratory experiments into the problem. Eventually Shell was forced to acknowledge that in a small number of instances with particular cars running on leaded petrol one of the components of the product (known as the “Spark Aider”) could cause problems. Formula Shell was withdrawn in the United Kingdom and some other markets – although the brand continued to be sold (without the Spark Aider) elsewhere. Compensation was paid to those car owners whose cars had been damaged by the product. An internal report criticised Shell’s management for its slow response to the problem, its initial denials that there had been a problem at all and for other aspects of the management of the affair which was seen to have damaged Shells’ reputation for technical excellence.

The problems of Formula Shell were confined to a small number of markets and to a small number of cars in these countries - but the damage to the brand was such that it was completely withdrawn in most of these countries (e.g. the United Kingdom). However Formula Shell continued successfully in many other markets and the brand name still exists today as an automotive lubricants brand [4]

[edit] Ireland

See also: Shell to Sea

In Ireland, Shell has been criticised, along with Statoil and Marathon Oil, for its plans to pipe unrefined gas from the Corrib Gas Field onshore through a pipeline that would pass close to people's houses (often within the pipe's blast radius), en route to a refinery 9 km inland, in northwest County Mayo. The plans were originally made by Enterprise Oil and inherited by Shell when they acquired this company in 2002. In the summer of 2005 five local men were sent to prison for three months on the basis of an injunction obtained by the company - these men became known as the Rossport Five. There is currently a campaign by local residents, Shell To Sea, whose main aims have been to get Shell to change their plans for the pipeline and refinery. In April 2007, in a victory for the Shell to Sea campaign, the Irish High Court ruled that Shell cannot use their original intended pipeline route. As of May 2007, they have no plan for bringing the gas from the sea to the site of the refinery at Bellinaboy, although they have optimistically decided to continue construction there. There is also a solidarity camp where people from outside the locality who support the campaign have come to live and help out.

The opposition to Shell's plans have been for a number of reasons:

  • Questions over the safety of the proposed pipeline - protestors have called for the gas to be refined at sea (as is the case with the Kinsale gas field, Ireland's only gas field currently being exploited), instead of running a pipeline through residential areas and areas that have a history of major landslides.
  • Shell's attempts to force the project through without any meaningful consultation with local residents.
  • The Fianna Fáil-led Irish government's decision to allow the consortium of companies led by Shell to pay no royalties, and to enjoy what a director of Statoil called "the most generous terms in the world for oil and gas companies". Ray Burke, who along with current Taoiseach Bertie Ahern changed the laws in the late 1980s and early 1990s to benefit the oil companies, was jailed for six months in 2005. Burke and Ahern are currently being investigated by the Mahon Tribunal on suspicion of corruption.

Despite the protests Shell - aided by scores of Gardaí (police) from throughout the Republic of Ireland - attempted to restart work at the onshore terminal site at Bellanaboy on 3 October 2006.

Since then contractors employed by Shell have been escorted to the site by a large force of police. A political decision by the Irish government to avoid arresting protestors in order to damp down the negative publicity around the project led inevitably to a more physical police operation. At a demonstration on November 10th 2006 the police forced a group of protesters off the road by beating them with batons, causing many injuries and some hospitalisations. Over twenty Gardaí are currently being investigated on charges of police brutality.

Shell has claimed that the development is welcomed by most of the local population, that all planning regulations are being followed and that it has been responsive to local concerns. See [5]. These claims have been rubbished by the local parish priest, Fr. Nallen, who told an Environmental Protection Agency hearing in Belmullet that a majority of locals are against the project. The original planning inspection report declared that the project was "in no way sustainable" and "unsuited for such a scenic and remote environment". This report was ignored after pressure from the government on An Bord Pleanála resulted in a U-turn by the planning body.

[edit] Quality of sources

I don't think http://royaldutchshellplc.com/ counts as a WP:RS. Far too many news reports are sourced to unverifiable copies on that site, rather than to originals. I'm going to start cutting sections only based on this, unless I can track down the originals. I should add, this is only a quality-of-sources issue. The question of whether the page text is appropriate is untouched William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Took out the sections below, to see if this prompts any more sourcing:

[edit] Shell fined $19.75 million for oil spill from Martinez Refinery

On 1 December 1989, The New York Times reported that Shell Oil Company had agreed to pay $19.75 million “for spilling more than 400,000 gallons of crude oil into San Francisco Bay”. Shell said that it had “spent an additional $14 million in cleaning up the spill, when oil flowed from a pipe at its Martinez refinery in April 1988”. Oil leaked out from a 12.5-million-gallon storage tank at the manufacturing complex 40 miles northeast of San Francisco. The Government said that several Federal regulations were broken. According to the article at least 250 birds and 50 other animals were found dead and a valuable wildlife habitat was ruined and tidal marshlands would take 10 years to recover.

[edit] Shell settles Martinez Refinery dumping suit for $3 Million

On 8 February 1995, an article in the The New York Times headlined “Shell Settles Dumping Suit for $3 Million” revealed that Shell Oil Company had agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging that it had been “dumping illegal amounts of selenium into San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta”. As part of the settlement, Shell agreed “to reduce the selenium released in wastewater at its Martinez refinery”. The article said that selenium is a nutrient in small amounts but is toxic in larger doses. While admitting Shell had exceeded permitted limits, company officials claimed that the selenium discharges in the strait were not enough to harm the environment.

[edit] $2 million fine by UN for violation of embargo against Iraq

On 26 April 2000 The New York Times reported that the United Nations had fined the Royal Dutch Shell Group $2 million for shipping Iraqi oil on April 5 2000 in violation of the then international embargo against Iraq. The tanker, the Akademik Pustovoit, was boarded by American-led naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Royal Dutch/Shell had maintained that the tanker carried only Iranian oil, loaded at the port in Bandar Mahshur. However, a spokesman for The Pentagon, Kenneth H. Bacon, was quoted as confirming that tests on the cargo had determined that 20 percent of the oil was from Iraq. The article reported that with high prices increasing demand, there had been a sharp increase in illicit oil shipments and Iraqi officials were believed to be earning millions from smuggling oil.

[edit] Shell espionage

On 17 June 2001, The Sunday Times published an article headlined “MI6 ‘Firm’ Spied on Green Groups”. It revealed that a private intelligence firm, Hakluyt & Company Limited, “with close links to MI6” spied on environmental campaign groups to collect information for the oil companies, Shell and BP. The article revealed that an undercover agent, German-born Manfred Schlickenrieder, a serving member of the German secret service, infiltrated and “scuppered” environmental campaigns directed against the oil giants. Schlickenrieder was said to have “posed as a left-wing sympathizer and film maker”.

The Nigerian Connection: According to the article, Schlickenrieder tried to dupe The Body Shop group to pass on information about its opposition to “Shell drilling for oil in a Nigerian tribal land”. The spying operation began in 1996, when Mike Reynolds, a director of Hakluyt and former MI6 head of station in Germany, “was asked by Shell to find out who was orchestrating threats against its petrol forecourts across Europe”. The threats apparently followed an outcry over Shell’s attempts in 1995 to “dump” the redundant Brent Spar oil platform at sea and allegations of environmental damage caused by Shell’s oil drilling in Ogoniland, Nigeria. Schlickenrieder made a film on Shell in Nigeria called “Business as Usual: the Arrogance of Power”. Using this cover story, he interviewed friends of Ken Saro-Wiwa, the Nobel prize nominee hanged by the military regime in 1995 after leading a campaign against Shell.

“Schlickenrieder was known by the code name Camus and had worked for the German foreign intelligence service gathering information about terrorist groups, including the Red Army Faction”. The Sunday Times also reported that it had seen documents which confirmed that “the spy, German-born Manfred Schlickenrieder, was hired by Hakluyt, an agency that operates from offices in London’s West End”. Confronted by The Sunday Times, BP and Shell admitted hiring Hakluyt, but said they were unaware of the tactics used on their behalf. Shell said it had wanted to protect its employees against possible attack. One of Schlickenrieder’s spying missions was to gather information about the movements of the motor vessel “Greenpeace” then operating in the north Atlantic. Greenpeace alleged that the scandal had “echoes of the Rainbow Warrior affair”, when in 1985 its ship campaigning against nuclear testing in the South Pacific was blown up by the French secret service. Schlickenrieder was hired by Mike Reynolds. According to The Sunday Times report, “Reynolds and other MI6 executives left the intelligence service after the cold war ended to form Hakluyt in 1995. It was set up with the blessing of Sir David Spedding, the then chief of MI6”. The article stated that Christopher James, the managing director of Hakluyt, had been head of the MI6 section that liaised with British firms. The Sunday Times article also revealed “MPs believe the affair poses serious questions about the blurring of the divisions between the secret service, a private intelligence company and the interests of big companies. Hakluyt refutes claims by some in the intelligence community that it was started by MI6 officers to carry out “deniable” operations”. Sir William Purves, a Shell director was Chairman of Hakluyt & Company. A former Group Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, Sir Peter Holmes, was President of The Hakluyt Foundation, an associated organisation.

There is an earlier example of Shell's admitted involvement with undercover activity. In connection with a letter dated 23 June 1998, Shell Legal Director Richard Wiseman admitted that Shell had used undercover activity involving a Mr Christopher Phillips in the course of litigation. The letter from Mr Wiseman refers to a related letter to the Office for Supervising of Solicitors. According to an article published in the Sunday Telegraph, although Shell lawyers admitted that they hired Mr Phillips, they said it was only to carry out "routine credit inquiries". Shell subsequently settled the relevant litigation.

On 12 September 2001, under the headline: “No Secret's Safe From These Sharp Eyes”, The New York Times published an article focused on corporate “cloak-and-dagger escapades”. An executive of Shell International Exploration and Production, Mr Stephen J. Wade, was revealed as being a "competitive intelligence analyst -- management-speak for corporate America's equivalent of a spy”. The report said that Mr. Wade “uses every trick in the book” and “may even dish out erroneous information...” Mr Wade was quoted as commenting: It isn't James Bond. The article went on to say: “Still, like any good spy, Mr. Wade declined to give detailed examples of information gleaned this way”. It also pointed out that corporate spying “sometimes skirts ethical bounds”.

An article published in the Financial Times on 5 October 2005, revealed that a Mr Ian McCredie was in September 2004 appointed as a Shell Vice-President responsible for security. McCredie was described as “head of Global Security Services at Shell International”. The FT article said of McCredie “He had worked for the UK Foreign Service since 1976 in security and intelligence”. This is believed to be a reference to the naming of Ian Forbes McCredie OBE, as being a former MI6 officer.

[edit] Fictitious trades

In January 2006, Royal Dutch Shell Plc agreed to a $300,000 settlement in respect of allegations that “two of its subsidiaries engaged in “fictitious” crude oil futures trades on the New York Mercantile Exchange.” Shell Trading U.S., located in Houston and London-based Shell International Trading and Shipping, agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a Commodity Futures Trading Commission case. Nigel Catterall, then head of the futures desk for Shell Trading U.S. agreed to pay $100,000. Bloomberg reported that Catterall and Shell engaged in prearranged trades for oil futures at least five times between November 2003 and March 2004. The CFTC acknowledged that Shell had cooperated in the investigation. According to the Bloomberg story (one on many news reports on the case), a commission spokesman, Dennis Holden, would not comment on how the trading violations came to light.

[edit] Reinstatement of sections

All sections previously originated by me have now been reinstated using hopefully acceptable verification links. Johnadonovan (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I don't believe it's helpful or fair to just issue a blanket request for citations, without reference to the density of citations desired or where exactly in the text they should appear. Deleting whole sections of text in the hope that this will increase the frequency of citations also seems somewhat over-the-top.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been a request for citations up for ages. Clearly people have simply got into the habit of adding stuff to this page with not even a nod towards reliable sources. Nothing but removing the offending sections has had any effect. But they are carefully preserved up above, in case the edit history is hard to use. They can go back when they get proper cites. The article is still a disaser area, IMHO, but at least it'll be a cited one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no reference to the amount of citations required, or where they should go. Ridiculous. Your opinions seem to have a lot of characteristics, William, but I'm not sure humility is one of them

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything removed needs to have a citation in order to go back. I'm not going to be too picky about the exact number, but unless you're prepared to make the effort and look some of this stuff up, then just leave it out. The page is also in need of a major re-work to stop if being a pile of thrown-together chaff, but thats another matter. Humility: yes I know, its hard to be humble when you're as mind-bogglingly clever as I am. However, as far as I know my opinions aren't on the article page, but other peoples are William M. Connolley (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The following is taken from the Royal Dutch Shell discussion page which explains why I used links to articles on royaldutchshellplc.com and why I continued to use them. All of the cited articles are word for word as published originally. If I had been instructed to cease using the links to RDSplc.com at that time I would have done so. In the light of recent events I have begun only using links to the original source material but it seems unreasonable that the goal posts are being moved retrospectively, thereby removing important information about Shell unless I am able to find the original articles. If this argument is rejected, how I best proceed in supplying original source material for verification purposes in respect of sections already authored by me? For example, I have the original Sunday Times article concerning Shell MI6 connections. How can this be used for verification? Can I mail it to someone at Wikipedia so that it can be checked? Alternatively can I scan and publish it on an entirely non-commercial unbranded website and place a link to the webpage? Or are you prepared to accept my past contributions on the basis that I am now following the new instructions? I can identity the sections added by me. The record below shows that I acted in good faith.

EXTRACT FROM ROYAL DUTCH SHELL DISCUSSION PAGE

we would have to do something about all the royaldutchshellplc.com links which seem to have been added by the site owner, and are being used with anchor text I guess to try to drive google (perhaps leave one). Otherwise it is not bad--BozMo talk 09:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the insertion of royaldutchshellplc.com links, I use a link for the original publisher whenever that publisher makes the relevant articles accessible permanently without charge. Unfortunately most publishers of news articles only keep them on line for a few days. They are then removed and in some cases only available thereafter by payment. I would point out that the site in question is entirely non commercial. All articles are searchable and permanently accessible without charge. There are no subcription charges nor paid adverts. User: JohnaDonovan 26 October 2006.

That's fair enough. I tried to find a bloomberg article and couldn't. Don't you have a problem with copyright? --BozMo talk 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

With regards to copyright, we have explained to publishers who have approached us (e.g. the General Counsel of Dow Jones Company) that we are entirely non-commercial, as indicated above, and that the website is directed towards a very narrow audience - people interested in Shell. This was accepted by Dow Jones and another news publishing organisation. The correspondence which mentions the USA "Fair Use" doctrine on copyright is available on request. No publisher has asked us to remove articles after we have explained the background circumstances. User: johonadonovan: 21 November 2006

Cool, well done. --BozMo talk 10:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

EXTRACT ENDS: Johnadonovan (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One final point. I cannot speak for others, but my contributions are not opinion but information sourced entirely from reputable publications. Johnadonovan (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
John, you have a point. But goal posts often moving with tightening policy I am afraid. However as I understand it if you correctly cite a news article in a form in which it could be verified in a public library this is adequate to count as a verifiable source (assume it is not science correspondent of the Sun etc). --BozMo talk 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the goal posts have been moved, I will be putting time into providing acceptable reference sources for all of the above entries which were originated by me. It will take time because I intend to use new IT which I will have access to hopefully in about six weeks time. Johnadonovan (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated two sections, "Shell espionage" and "Fictitious trades" supplying an original of The Sunday Times article with photographs which supports the main part of the espionage related section and a press release from the relevant regulator in respect of the fictitious trades section. The text of the Sunday Times article is exactly as previously cited. Johnadonovan (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Shell County Mayo protest.jpg

Image:Shell County Mayo protest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)