Shell in the World

[Ann Leonard <aleonard@essential.org>]

  >Comments: Authenticated sender is <oilwatch@uio.satnet.net>
  >From: "OILWATCH NETWORK - Secretariat" EGANTAI No. 9 - English Version
  >OILWATCH -Oil Resistance Network Bulletin
  >
  >THE WORLD OF SHELL
  >
  >The Royal Dutch Shell Group.
  >
  >Principal Office:
  >
  >30 Carel van Bylandtillaan
  >The Hague, 22496 HR,
  >Netherlands,
  >Tel. 377 6655
  >Fax. 377 3115
  >
  >or 
  >
  >Shell Centre,
  >London, SE1 7NA
  >U.K. 
  >Tel. 171 734 1234
  >Fax. 171 934 8060
  >
  >The Royal Dutch Shell Group is composed of two companies, Royal
  >Dutch Petroleum (60%) of Holland, and Shell Transport and Trading
  >Company (40%) of the United Kingdom, which were linked in 1907.
  >
  >The Group's strategy in the present decade has been to
  >concentrate on oil, agrochemical and plantation activities, and
  >to slowly sell off its interests in mining and seed companies.
  >
  >
  >Map (printed edition)
  >
  >Shell has a presence in almost every country in the world,
  >through its chain of gasoline stations which sell various types
  >of petroleum derivatives. The company has the highest daily
  >refining capacity in the world and in countries such as Brazil
  >and Japan, it controls 50% of all stations.
  >
  >The group has more than 2,000 companies operating in more than
  >100 countries:
  >
  >Angola - Shell has begun to carry out oil and gas exploration
  >Cameroon - According to Shell they have suffered losses on their
  >oil operations in this country.
  >Curazao - Shell operated here for over twenty years, causing
  >serious environmental impacts. At the end of the contract the
  >company signed an agreement with the government which absolved it of
  >any responsibility for the damage caused. Ecuador - Shell explored for
  >oil in the country during the nineteen thirties, provoking serious
  >loss of life in the Huaorani people through the introduction of
  >illnesses such as influenza. Amongst the Quichuas of Pastaza Province,
  >there are accounts of other rights violations including rapes of
  >indigenous women. As a reminder of past events, even today there is a
  >town in the area called Shell. Gabon - This is an operation that Shell
  >considers to be one of its most important. It is carrying out
  >exploration and production activities in the country. Congo - The
  >country is undergoing a new oil boom. Exploration contracts have been
  >signed with Shell. Nigeria - Exploration and production of oil and
  >gas. In addition to their activities in the Niger Delta, Shell has the
  >largest gas field development project in Nigeria. The construction of
  >the gas duct will affect various peoples including the Ogoni. Namibia
  >- Shell has started drilling wells in their gas fields. Bangladesh -
  >Exploration activities. Sri Lanka - Shell has a gas bottling plant and
  >also sells the gas commercially, for which it has constructed 9km of
  >pipeline. Indonesia - Despite the harsh criticism about the impacts of
  >oil exploration, Shell is involved in exploration activities. Malaysia
  >- Shell is both producing and exploring for oil. Phillipines - Shell
  >is carrying out exploration activities. Thailand - Production has
  >risen and Shell has contracts for the exploration and production of
  >oil and gas. Vietnam - Activities in the South China Sea, exploration
  >and production of oil and gas. New Zealand - Exploration and
  >production of oil and gas Gulf of Mexico - Exploration and production
  >of oil and gas. Shell is one of the companies with the highest
  >operational levels in the gulf, and has polluted and otherwise
  >affected coastal ecosystems. Brasil - Production. Colombia - Shell is
  >carrying on exploration and production activities. Peru - Exploration
  >and production of gas. During exploration the Nahua have been affected
  >by diseases which have become epidemics. Venezuela - Exploration and
  >production of gas and oil. Shell has exploration contracts in
  >conjunction with state companies. Bolivia - Oil pipeline. Shell's most
  >important investments on the regional level are the gas duct which is
  >expected to cause major environmental and economic impacts in Bolivia
  >and Brazil, especially as it crosses the amazonian slopes of the
  >Andean cordillera.
  >
  >
  >ENERGY SUBSIDIES
  >
  >Gas, oil and coal, are non-renewable sources of energy which have high
  >social and environmental costs. However, these are the very sources of
  >energy that are promoted, and subsidised, to the exclusion of others.
  >
  >Oil is a resource which both confers power both to governments
  >and to companies, and destroys the ablility of communities to be
  >self sufficient. It also provides unfair competition for more
  >decentralised energy sources, as it is subsidised in a number of
  >different ways, such as: research and development (both
  >prospection and technology); construction of infrastructure;
  >reduction or even abscence of; avoidance of social and
  >environmental externalities, and military and police security,
  >amongst others.
  >
  >In Peru, Shell is undertaking a project to exploit gas from the
  >Camisea field. The project will have a life of 60 years and is
  >designed to both provide energy for the mining projects in the
  >south of the country, and to strengthen the petrochemical
  >industry with the provision of petroleum condensates (considered
  >to be the highest quality petroleum available). Peru's new
  >Hydrocarbon Law will result in indirect subsidies for the
  >project.
  >
  >In Nigeria the government has encouraged the production of oil,
  >presently its principal source of revenue, providing over 80% of
  >state income. Oil income is therefore of great importance in
  >supporting the military dictatorship.
  >
  >Large multinationals such as Shell are directly involved in the
  >preferential treatment that these energy sources receive. The
  >company, with its huge resources, exercises its influence so that
  >state laws are designed in ways that favour its operations, and in
  >many cases protect them with economic and security measures.
  >
  >
  >PERU
  >
  >Shell - Peru,
  >
  >Address:
  >
  >Avenida Nicolas Arriola 740.
  >Lima 13, Peru
  >Tel. 511 224 1616
  >Fax. 511 225 1460
  >
  >Shell has been looking for oil in Peru since 1980, during which
  >time it has caused serious social, cultural and environmental
  >impacts. Amongst others, the Nahua people have been decimated by
  >the introduction of illnesses such as Influenza, Tosferino
  >(similar to whooping cough) and others.
  >
  >Together with Chevron and Mobil, Shell obtained rights to block
  >75 - an area of 1,795,220 Ha - in which it is the major partner.
  >Shell is also operator of 213,000 Ha. in lots 88 A and B in
  >Camisea, the country's most important gas reserve, and one which
  >also contains important condensate reserves. In order to market
  >the gas the company will have to construct a 550 Km long gas duct to
  >Lima.
  >
  >On starting up its operations, Shell signed a contract with the
  >community of New World, which included compensation for the use
  >of Michiguenga territory for an airport. 
  >
  >Shell's environmental proposals, outlined in its environmental
  >impact study and management plan, contain a series of measures
  >which offer no environmental or social guarantees whatsoever. On
  >the contrary, they make it clear that the proposal is
  >environmentally irresponsible.
  >
  >The following examples give an idea of the value of the proposal:
  >
  >The statement proposes:
  >
  >- to construct waste dumps (or waste receiving pools) with roofs
  >so that the pools will not fill with rain water. In an area with
  >extremely high levels of rainfalls, this can hardly be considered
  >sufficient protection. 
  >
  >- to avoid contaminating water sources, to dump wastes in open
  >spaces.
  >
  >- in order to not pollute the communities, to dump wastes (such
  >as the residues from the cleaning of motors) in the ground water
  >underneath the villages.
  >
  >
  >Contradictory Proposals
  >
  >The statement also contains a number of contradictory proposals:
  >
  >- It is proposed that the workers not leave the work camps, but
  >at the same time they are instructed on how to maintain good
  >relations with the local communities.
  >
  >- Consultations are proposed with the communities, however, there are
  >no consultations, only cooptation.
  >
  >- It was proposed to contract local workers in order to avoid
  >problems with migration, however of the 230 workers presently
  >employed, over 70% come from other parts of Peru. 
  >
  >- It was proposed that deforestation would be minimised, yet a
  >band 60 metres wide will be cut along the whole length of the 150 Km
  >of the lines.
  >
  >- Shell has proposed that it will assume responsibility for the
  >protection of bio-diversity in the area, and the Smithsonian
  >Institute has been contracted for the job. However, there is no
  >protection against bio-prospecting by the Instutute.
  >
  >- As the ducts will pass through low areas and over the best
  >agricultural soils, some of the ducts will be buried. However,
  >the probability of breakage is 1 per year.
  >
  >
  >Two consortiums are competing for the construction of the
  >infrastructure necessary for the processing of gas from Camisea,
  >inlcuding a gas plant and ducts and export installations. The two
  >consortiums are: Bechtel (USA), COSAPI (PERU), Odebrecht (Brazil) and
  >Fluor Daniel (USA); and Grana and Montero (Peru) and Techint
  >(Argentina). The decision will be taken at the beginning of 1998.
  >
  >
  >THE NAHUA IN PERU
  >
  >In 1984 Shell undertook a seismic exploration program in order to
  >evaluate the natural gas reserves in the lower Urubamba region, where
  >the Nahua, who before that time had had no contact with outsiders,
  >have been living for centuries. Their initial encounters with Shell
  >were sporadic and violent, many people were injured and the seismic
  >exploration came to a halt. 
  >
  >The company subsequently attempted to improve its relations with
  >the Nahua, offering tools, food, and other gifts, and inviting a
  >number of the Nahua to the Shell camp. The strategy was
  >successful and the exploration program continued. However, during the
  >visit to the Shell camp, some of the Nahua became ill with Tosferino,
  >and on returning to their community, passed the illness on to many
  >others. During the development of Shell's operations it is feared that
  >the company will again come into contact with the Nahua, and that this
  >could be the final blow for the people, who could disappear forever.
  >
  >With the coming of Shell, relations were established between the
  >Nahua and loggers, who entered the area offering gifts in
  >exchange for the right to take out timber. Successive contacts
  >between the Nahua and the strangers eventually resulted in the 
  >introduction of Influenza, against which the population had no
  >defenses. The most conservative estimates of the effects of the
  >disease are that 50% of the people died. Of those that survived
  >some moved to the city of Sepahua, where they presently beg in
  >the streets, socially, culturally and economically destitute.
  >
  >
  >Communities affected by Shell in Camisea.
  >
  >The area is known as the Urubamba Region. In upper Urubamba there are
  >14 communities, and in lower Urubamba 19, of which Camisea is one.
  >
  >Peoples settled in the area are: the Machiguenga, Piro, Amahauca,
  >Yaminahua, Kugapakori and Nahua.
  >
  >Location:
  >Cashiriari   (Machiguenga)
  >Segakiato    (Machiguenga)
  >Shivangoreni (Machiguenga)
  >Camisea      (Machiguenga)
  >Nuevo Mundo  (Machiguenga)
  >Montetoni    (Kugapakoris)
  >Cabeceras Camisea (Kugapakoris)*
  >Alto Cashiriari (Kugapakoris)*
  >Alto Timpia   (Kugapakoris)*
  >Mishagua Serjali   (Nahuas)*
  >Cabeceras Mishagua (Nahuas)*
  >Cabeceras Manu     (Nahuas)*
  >
  >* Non-contacted, dispersed communities.
  >
  >
  >NIGERIA.
  >
  >In 1924 Shell began exploring for oil in Nigeria. The company
  >left some time later, but returned again in 1934. However, it was not
  >until 1956 that Shell began to produce oil in Ulbuibri. In 1960
  >Nigeria gained it's independence from the U.K. but the economy
  >continues to be dominated by British companies, including Shell.
  >
  >Since 1966 the country has endured a history of military
  >dictatorships and civil war. The dictatorships have been strongly
  >supported by oil companies - especially Shell - which has exercised a
  >particularly strong influence in Nigerian political life. 
  >
  >In Nigeria, Shell operates in a mangrove zone, and its
  >operational practices have provoked extensive deforestation
  >during the exploration phase, and pollution of rivers and canals
  >and other parts of the coastal zone. Oil effluents are discharged
  >directly into the water, while gases are flared in burners which in
  >many cases are at ground level.
  >
  >Shell is the operator of the largest "joint venture" project in
  >Nigeria, is involved in the exploration and exploitation of gas,
  >and will participate in the construction of the new Ikot-Abasi
  >gas duct, as well as a gas processing plant.
  >
  >Oil companies operating in continental Nigeria are: Shell (with a
  >production of 800,000 barrels a day); ELF (250,000 barrels a day);
  >AGIP (150,000 barrels a day). In coastal waters Mobil (400,000 barrels
  >a day) and Chevron (300,000 barrels a day) are operating. All
  >companies operate in conjunction with the State Oil Company of
  >Nigeria. The oil producing states in Nigeria are: River, Ondo, Delta,
  >Imo, Akwa Ibom, Abia, Edo.
  >
  >
  >SHELL AND THE OGONI
  >
  >Ogoni territory, which is situated in the Niger river delta,
  >covers an area of 1,050 Km2, and has a population of
  >approximately 500,000. In Ogoniland, Shell operates the Bomu,
  >Korokoro,Yorla, West Bordo, and Ebubu oilfields. 
  >
  >The majority of the Ogoni either fish or work on the land, but
  >their activities have been severely affected by oil activites.
  >The burning of gas has destroyed the crops and bio-diversity of
  >the area, has polluted the air, and produced acid rain, while the
  >industrial activity itself has polluted their water sources and fish
  >and crops. However, Shell has denied responsibility for the Ogoni's
  >environmental problems. 
  >
  >In fact, the company has asked the Military dictatorship for
  >protection a number of times, effectively resulting in violence
  >against local populations. For instance, the Ogoni's struggle for
  >their human rights, for political autonomy, and the possibility of
  >controlling their territorial resources, has been subjected to severe
  >military repression. 
  >
  >The Ogoni have suffered arrests, murders and torture as a result
  >of the repression. 2,500 Ogoni have also been forced to abandon
  >their homes, while their land has been razed. Shell decided,
  >however, in the middle of 1993, to suspend its operations in
  >Ogoni territory because of the protests of the local communities, but
  >it continued to work in other areas where there were also objections
  >to its presence.
  >
  >Despite the cessation of activities in the area, the repression
  >continued, and on November 10th 1995 Ken Saro Wiwa and eight
  >other Ogoni activitists were hanged by order of a farsical
  >Nigerian tribunal, which did not respect even minimal levels of
  >justice and impartiality. The reason for the sentence was
  >protesting against Shell, which in complicity with the corrupt
  >military dictatorship, has devastated the Ogoni people's
  >territory.
  >
  >19 activists are now in prison awaiting sentence.
  >
  >Shell's activities affect a number of indigenous communities in
  >the following states: Delta,Cross River,Igbide, Irri y Uzere (los
  >Izon, Ogbia, Ikwerre)
  >
  >
  >
  >Don't be an Accomplice to Genocide - BOYCOTT SHELL
  >
  >Shell has a long history of environmental damage and human rights
  >violations in the countries in which it has, or continues to work. As
  >with other large companies, Shell has exercised influence and
  >political control over governments and dictators in these countries.
  >
  >Shell is responsible for the environmental damage to the Niger
  >Delta. It has destroyed mangroves and crops, and has precipitated the
  >collapse of the artesanal fishery, all indispensable for the survival
  >of the Ogoni. Shell continues to affect the territory of other
  >indigenous peoples.
  >
  >In Peru, besides the genocide against the Nahau, Shell continues
  >to threaten the territory of the Michiguenga and other isolated
  >peoples such as the Kugapakori. 
  >
  >In fact, in all the territories in which it has operated, Shell
  >has left a trail of destruction for which it has refused to take
  >responsibility. It refuses to clean what it has polluted, to
  >leave fragile areas, to not enter regions of social or
  >environmental risk, or to give up its reliance on the type of
  >double standard style policies which it uses to operate in the
  >third world. 
  >
  >In order to pressure Shell to comply with accepted norms of human
  >rights an international boycott has been called. A boycott guides and
  >informs consumers, allows them to say what they think, and offers them
  >the opportunity to influence a company's policies and processes. In
  >the case of a boycott of Shell these arguments have even greater
  >weight, as the distribution and sale of gasoline and oil derivatives
  >to the public are fundamental to its's financial health.
  >
  >
  >Use your power to say no! Don't support genocide in the name of
  >consumption and profits. 
  >
  Ann Leonard