steve albino
New Member
The shitty part of the deal may actually come much later. After a quick look into Shell's legal history it seems that they are / have been involved in a lot of conflicts, even with Governments that made what were presumably similar deals to the one they made with the Irish Government.
OECD Guidelines Case Update: Argentine and Dutch Governments accept case against Shell
11 09 2008 - CEDHA
The Dutch and Argentine governments jointly admitted a complaint (called a Specific Instance) presented against Shell Argentina and Shell International for alleged violations of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises at their largest Latin American refinery facilities located in Buenos Aires.
Shell’s Argentine refinery was ordered “closed” back in September of 2007, due to a long list of violations of environmental safety codes, permits, as well as infraganti petrol contamination observed during routine inspections over a 13 day period, by the Argentine Environment and Sustainable Development Secretariat, the SAYDS.[1]
Local communities welcomed the action of the SAYDS against Shell complaining for decades over the environmental catastrophe faced by residents in the neighborhood adjacent to the refinery and other industry. Local environmental groups, including Inpade and Friends of the Earth Argentina capitalized on the government closure of the refinery and in May of this year,[2] took the Shell case to the OECD for violations of social and environmental norms established to promote greater corporate accountability amongst multinational enterprises.
The Dutch and Argentine National Contact Points (the government offices), charged with ensuring that States promote corporate compliance of the OECD Guidelines, yesterday met with complainants and signed a formal response in which they jointly state,
“the complaint presented by Inpade and Friend of the Earth against the
multinational Shell, complies with the necessary formal requirements
for the presentation of complaints over possible violations of the OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and is pertinent to both National
Contact Points, considering that the arguments presented are largely
grounded on the precautionary measures already taken by the National
Environmental Authority against [Shell’s] contamination and its effects.”
more here: http://oecdwatch.org/news-en/oecd-g...nts-accept-case-against-shell?set_language=en
Russians hire British legal firm for Sakhalin case
The Guardian, Friday 15 December 2006
The British lawyer who represented Greenpeace in the battle with Shell over the disposal of the Brent Spar oil platform has been hired by Russia to prepare a case against the Anglo-Dutch oil company over problems at its development project on Sakhalin island off Siberia.
Mark Stephens, partner at Finer Stephens Innocent, said he expected court proceedings in spring although he would not say whether that would be in London, New York or Moscow.
The moves emerged amid another twist to the Sakhalin story yesterday with the environmental official dubbed a "Kremlin attack dog" for his verbal assaults on Shell's environmental records facing disciplinary proceedings.
more here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/dec/15/oilandpetrol.news
and there's even a wikipedia site called "
Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns"
Health and Safety Executive partially uphold claims about Shell safety
On 8 November 2007, BBC News reported that “The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has partially upheld claims that Shell was not doing enough to ensure safety offshore” and that Shell has taken action to address the matters. The article said that the offshore unions Unite Amicus and OILC had asked the HSE to investigate claims from their members which “focused” on manning levels and the attitude of platform management. The article went on to say: “The investigation concluded that aspects of the complaint were justified”. Graham Tran, an official of the Unite Amicus Union was quoted as saying he believed Shell should leave the North Sea as it has “no credibility”. Shell said the company was fully co-operating with the HSE and that it continues to keep its staff and the HSE informed.
Under the headline “More safety breaches found on Shell's North Sea rigs”, The Guardian newspaper reported on the same day, 8 November 2007, that “Shell has once again been rapped over the knuckles by the Health and Safety Executive for safety problems on its North Sea platforms despite pledges from chief executive Jeroen van der Veer that he was determined to change the culture after problems in the past”. The HSE confirmed that it had upheld complaints about staff levels and operational procedures on five platforms, including Cormorant Alpha and Dunlin Alpha, and asked Shell to take immediate action. The article went on to say: “Shell, which earned £1.5m an hour last year, has been through a torrid time over North Sea safety since one of its own most experienced inspectors, Bill Campbell, blew the whistle on his employer claiming that safety procedures were being repeatedly ignored on some platforms.” Shell said it would not comment “in-depth” on the HSE statement saying that an investigation was continuing. Shell pledged to fully co-operate with the HSE and keep Shell staff informed. The article ended with forthright comments attributed to Gran Tran of the Unite Union expressing fears for the ongoing safety of the workforce on the platforms.
On 22 November 2007, the Guardian newspaper published a further article, this time under the headline: “More than half of North Sea oil rigs fail safety checks”. It stated that “The safety regime at Britain's North Sea oil operators was condemned yesterday in a report by the Health and Safety Executive.” According to the HSE report, which was based on a study covering nearly 100 North Sea rigs and platforms, inspections had revealed almost 60% had problems that oil companies should have addressed. The article said “Shell is one of those that has been handed a large number of HSE ‘improvement notices’ in recent years and been criticised by its own workforce, although the group itself denies that safety is not top of its agenda.” The HSE report was also covered in a Daily Telegraph article published on 23 November 2007, headlined: “HSE sounds alarm over rigs”
more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_...d_safety_chiefs_to_summit_as_criticisms_mount
