How Long Would It Take You...

by TD - Shell to Sea Mon Feb 05, 2007 03:31

Lest we forget, there's another Great White in feeding frenzy at the moment called Exxon-Mobil : last Thursday, they announced an annual profit of $39.5 billion for 2006. That’s the most ever by a US company, beating Exxon’s own record for 2005.

by lrt Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:20

OIL SPILL AT THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM, LONDON
Climate activists splatter oil across photo exhibition in outrage at Shell
greenwash tactics

Today at the Shell-sponsored Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition
at the Natural History Museum, 20 activists inspired by the Camp for
Climate Action (1), smeared oil over the photographs. This was an act of
outrage at Shell’s painfully transparent attempts to greenwash its
reputation via cultural sponsorship.

Shell's sponsorship of the Natural History Museum is deeply ironic, since
it devastates wildlife and the environment around the world through the
extraction and production of ever more oil and gas.

Today's action comes hard on the heels of the release of Shell's 2006
financial figures, documenting the 13 billions of pounds made at the
expense of people and the planet. Shell’s activities extracting oil
result in major ecological and social impacts. Trading 3.6 million
barrels of crude oil equivalent a day, the company is also a major
contributor to climate change, which has been predicted to wipe out a
quarter of all species on the planet by 2050, and to devastate the poorest
regions of the planet (2). The extent of the threat was highlighted on
Friday with the release of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change fourth report.

For all these reasons, the climate camp activists are calling on the
Natural History Museum to end its oily sponsorship deal with Shell.

As the black oil-like liquid has been spread over the glass covering the
photographs, the activists have not damaged the work itself. As Dan Baker
said, “This is not an attack on the work of the photographers. Shell does
not deserve to have its name associated with their beautiful images.” A
banner reading “Make Nature History Museum - sponsored by Shell” was also
unfurled.

Activist Daisy Williams said, “This action sheds light on the ugly stain
that covers this exhibition as a result of the Museum's collusion with
Shell. We're here to make sure everyone knows about this despicable
greenwash sponsorship deal. With more public pressure, we can kick Shell
out of the Natural History Museum!”

For high resolution photos of today’s action, visit this image site:
https://www.theimagefile.com/?skin=2903&ppwd=ks8551dt&A...59798

ENDS

Notes for Editors

1 – The Camp for Climate Action was held outside Drax coal-fired power
station in Selby last August 2006. This will be followed by another camp
in 2007 14th-21st Aug, location to be announced. See
www.climatecamp.org.uk

2 - For more information about Shell’s greenwash and climate crimes around
the world see: www.shellfacts.com, www.shelloiledwildlife.org.uk and
www.artnotoil.org.uk/gallery/v/Shell

-----------------
Rising Tide UK,
c/o 62 Fieldgate Street,
London E1 1ES
www.risingtide.org.uk
www.artnotoil.org.uk
Tel: 07708 794665

by sanity Tue Feb 06, 2007 03:49

...success is shameful.

It is the responsibility of every corporation to make as much money as possible - why do you expect Shell to be ashamed of the fact that is doing its job well?

Blaming corporations for making money is like blaming dogs for shitting. You are naive if you think corporations are ever going to put anything above profit, it is the responsibility of government and the law to protect us.

by VIL Tue Feb 06, 2007 15:09

1. Shell have a duty to preserve the lives of the the people around them, which means operating safely. The idea that profit comes before safety is Dickensian.

2. Shell say they are intersted in working WITH communities. Bussing in contracters behind 179 Cops with truncheons, is a funny kind of consent.

3. Shell is bigger than the government of Ireland.

4. No one is going to protect us from them, we are going to have to protect ourselves.

by len Wed Feb 07, 2007 19:33

Letter of the week: Nothing black and white about Corrib project

SIR - I cannot allow Mr O’Byrne’s letter to go unchallenged. Firstly, I have never claimed to be an expert in anything, though nearly 30 years in the international oilfields does give me some valuable insights, which might be usefully shared.
The pollution issue is one of degree. Of course any development, be it oil, coal, gas or mineral extraction will produce “pollution”. This can be foreseen and dealt with. Fluids associated with gas production may well contain toxic metals, and these are normally dealt with depending on their concentration. Often the safest option is to dilute by disposing to the sea, which is itself loaded with so-called toxic metals at infinitesimal concentrations. Where mercury in particular is present in alarming quantities it is easily removed by adsorption beds. Methanol is perfectly harmless when diluted, and pretty harmless when concentrated unless you drink it. So in this context, no big deal.

The point regarding methane emissions again requires context. I am not going to get involved in the alarmist global warming arguments, but it may be noted that the peat bogs surrounding the gas plant already emit huge amounts of methane. This is called methano-genesis, and caused by bacteria in anaerobic environments. Perhaps we should protest about that.

Offshore production is never as safe as onshore, as the recent Morcambe Bay helicopter crash which killed seven people demonstrated. The issue is about balancing risk. Would I live near high pressure gas lines? I already do. Is it risky? Probably. How risky? Less than the risk of being struck by lightning. I always remember a chemical plant where I worked where at safety meetings the shop steward fulminated about supposed chemical risks, while puffing on a pipe, which was delivering huge amounts of carcinogens to his lungs. He had made his own decision on risk!

I am well aware of Shells operations in Nigeria. I have worked in Nigeria, unlike, I suspect, Mr O’Byrne or the left wing Shell critics. There are huge problems, but not of Shells making. The local Ogonis are treated badly by their own government, and their dispute is not with Shell. The pollution incidents in the delta seem largely due to sabotage. I know for a fact Shell invests tens of millions of dollars in local infrastructure and projects. Working with locals, I learnt their grievance is with the oil money being siphoned to the Muslim north, away from the Christian/animist south. Of Alaska I know nothing, but the native peoples suffering is news to me. Maybe hangovers from all the money they make. The Russian government’s threats to Shell, and successful takeover of the Sakhalin 2 project has nothing to do with alleged pollution, but commercial blackmail. While Shell is guilty of many mistakes (they rejected me for a job once) these are not examples of them.

Finally, I have never claimed that Corrib gas will lead to lower gas prices. We will pay full market rate, as we should, but will have security of supply. Of the deal struck between Shell and the Irish government again I know nothing, but I have a lot more faith in a private oil company finding gas than any government. Incidentally, the current day rate for a semisub capable of drilling in up to 1500 feet of water is nearly 140,000 US per day, never mind all the associated costs involved. I would want some return for an investment like that.

Hopefully this response has given a different perspective on the Corrib project. Life is rarely black and white.

I look forward to a job offer from Shell in the next post.

Yours sincerely
Martin J. Witort,
Shuaibah,
Kuwait

by R. Isible Wed Feb 07, 2007 19:45

due to incautious phrasing like "left-wing protestors".

And also paints himself as one of the small minority of people that disagree with the overwhelming number of climate scientists that say we should take global warming seriously:
I am not going to get involved in the alarmist global warming arguments,

Hilarious!

but it may be noted that the peat bogs surrounding the gas plant already emit huge amounts of methane. This is called methano-genesis, and caused by bacteria in anaerobic environments.

How about some specific actual figures? I highly doubt that the peat bogs would put out anything like what the refinery would.

Perhaps we should protest about that.

Why? The peat-bog would probably listen even less than the government would. Unlike some people that write letters-to-the-editor, the Shell to Sea protestors aren't just making noise for the hell of it. They have a specific goal in mind: moving the refinery offshore to sea.

When that's done, then you can lead the protest against peat bogs. You may as well amalgamate with the "climate skeptics", "creationists" and the Flat Earth Society in order to get your numbers up to 12.

The rest of us will continue supporting technological progress which benefits the people instead of regressive, low-tech extraction of raw resources which defraud our exchequer and endanger the population.

That's as far as I could be bothered reading, he's obviously irrational and unwilling to provide data and so is of no interest to anyone seriously interested in the issue.

by me Wed Feb 07, 2007 21:19

"he's obviously irrational and unwilling to provide data and so is of no interest to anyone seriously interested in the issue."
When was the first/last time shelltosea produced data to prove their argument?