Shellreport

Behind the shine
The other Shell Report 2003

Dedicated to the memory of our
kasama, good friend, hard worker
for the people’s cause,
Dick Gabac, Pandacan resident who
campaigned tirelessly to oust Shell’s
depots from his community.

Before, his untimely passing in early
2004, Dick had planned to attend
the Shell AGM in London this year to
tell Shell personally about the
urgent need to relocate their
dangerous fuel depot.

Contents

This report will highlight Shells poor performance as a leading corporate social responsibility advocate, its failure to address
the concerns of Shell fenceline communities from last year’s AGM and the link between Shell’s exaggerated oil reserves fiasco
and its exaggerated cliams about its social and environmental performance in order to highlight the need for urgent reform of
UK company law and Shells attitude to fenceline communities.

This report is based largely on evidence from people around the world who live in the shadows of Shell’s various operations.
This report is written on behalf of Friends of the Earth (FOE), Coletivo Alternative Verde (CAVE), Community In-power
Development Association (CIDA), Concerned Citizens of Norco, Environmental Rights Action of Nigeria (FOE Nigeria), Global
Community Monitor (GCM), groundWork (FOE South Africa) & groundWork USA, Louisiana Bucket Brigade, Sakhalin
Environmental Watch, South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA), and United Front to Oust Oil Depots (UFO-OD).

Report Coordinator: Denny Larson, Global Foreword by Tony Juniper 2
Community Monitor.
The year in review 3
Contributors: Anne Rolfes, Louisiana Bucket
Global recognition for people standing up to Shell 6
Brigade, Hilton Kelley, Community In-power
Development Association, Karen Read, South Durban, South Africa: social development schemes to ignore
Durban Community Environmental Alliance, refinery hazards 8
Melissa Coffin, Environmental Health Fund,
Norbert George, Humane Care Foundation Port Arthur, Texas: environmental injustice by Shell refinery
Curaçao, Denny Larson, Global Community plagues African-American neighbourhoods 11
Monitor, Vanessa Stasse, JED Collective Center,
Manila, the Philippines:
Cesar Augusto Guimarães Pereira & Elson
Pandacan oil depots—a disaster waiting to happen 14
Maceió dos Santos, Coletivo Alternative Verde,
Hope Tura, UFO-OD, Francesca Francia, Global Norco, Louisiana: health problems still not addressed by Shell 17
Community Monitor, Monique Harden & Nathalie
Walker, Advocates for Environmental Human Nigeria: the strange case of Shell’s vanishing oil reserves 20
Rights (AEHR), Dmitry Lisityn, Sakhalin
Sao Paulo, Brazil: Shell contamination at the Vila Carioca 22
Environmental Watch, Ikuko Matsumoto, Friends
of the Earth (Japan), Peter Roderick, Doug Curaçao, Caribbean: Polluted paradise 24
Norden, Pacific Environment, Marc Pagani.
Sakhalin Island, Russia: Shell’s broken commitments 26
Editors: Simon McRae, Friends of the Earth
Examples of Shell’s documented spills, fires,
(England, Wales & Northern Ireland), Monique
and toxic releases since the 2003 Shell AGM 28
Harden & Nathalie Walker, AEHR.
Smoke and mirrors: social development and assessments,
Thanks to: Adam Bradbury, Rita Marcangelo,
pay offs, and community advisory panels 29
Calliste Lelliott, Phil Michaels, Brian Shaad, Tricia
Phelan, and Craig Bennett. Corporate lobbying under scrutiny—the case of Shell 30
Design and printing by Design Action Collective Why the voluntary approach just isn’t good enough 32
and Inkworks Press. Printed on 100% post-consumer
recyled paper, Processed Chlorine Free. Conclusions 34

Want to know more? Additional Message from the Independent Auditors and assurance report 36
information on Shell can be found in Riding the
Endnotes 37
Dragon: Royal Dutch/Shell and the Fossil Fire by
Jack Doyle, published by the Environmental
Health Fund, available at www.shellfacts.com.

The Other Shell Report 2003 1

Behind the Shine

Foreword

Dear Stakeholder
This is the second alternative Shell Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) report that Friends of
the Earth has been privileged to produce with, and for, the many communities that live on
Shell’s “fencelines”.

For several years now, Shell has been overstating its social and environmental performance.
Our report, Failing the Challenge—The Other Shell Report 2002, documented what it is like
for the many communities living next to Shell’s refineries, depots, and pipelines in different
parts of the world. We were able to show that, despite making a public commitment to
sustainable development eight years ago, Shell is still putting more effort into green spin than
green delivery, and that little has changed on the ground.

Behind the Shine—The Other Shell Report 2003 provides an update on the main cases profiled
in Failing the Challenge and chronicles Shell’s inaction and procrastination over the last 12
months. In Texas, Durban, Manila and the Niger Delta, communities have been offered endless
dialogue, projects, and pilot projects instead of the concrete action needed to stop the harm the
refineries, depots, gas flares, and pipelines are causing. Together with these cases, we profile
three new case studies. We also challenge the failure of CSR and the use of voluntary codes of
practice to address the significant social and environmental impacts of corporations.

Since Shell’s Annual General Meeting in April 2003, shareholders and institutional investors
have discovered what fenceline communities have known for a long time: that what Shell
says in its reports and what happens in reality are often not one and the same. The
company’s announcement in January 2004 that it had overstated its oil and gas reserves by
20% sent shockwaves through world energy markets and the corporate sector as a whole. But
at least shareholders have rights established in law, through which they can hold Shell
accountable when it fails to act in their interest.

The same cannot be said, unfortunately, for the people who live next door to Shell. These
stakeholders have little or no rights of redress, and Shell is working to destroy what few rights
they have by lobbying against an important UN standard, Norms on the Responsibilities of
Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights.
Existing laws governing companies are flawed because they focus on delivering short term
profit rather than considering the wider social and environmental impacts of companies.

The time has come for laws governing corporations to protect the environment and the people
who are most directly affected by Shell’s poor performance: the fenceline communities.
Friends of the Earth is campaigning as part of the Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition
to reform UK law so that companies are required to address their impacts on human rights
and the environment, both here in the UK and wherever these companies operate overseas.

Justice and accountability should be rights for the stakeholder—not just for the shareholder.

Tony Juniper
Executive Director, Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)

2 The Other Shell Report

The year in review

“Our commitment to contribute to sustainable development is not a cosmetic public
relations exercise. We believe that sustainable development is good for business
and business is good for sustainable development. Last year’s financial results were
encouraging, in a very difficult business environment. However, the corporate
scandals of the past year underlined that good financial performance must be
accompanied by the highest standards of governance. Shell’s Business Principles
assurance process ensures we meet and maintain those standards.”

Sir Philip Watts (then) Chairman of Shell’s Committee of Managing Directors in his Foreword to the Meeting the Challenge—The 2002 Shell CSR Report.

In the year since Sir Philip Watts’ Just as important, people living near the The reality, as known all too well by
statement, shareholders have come to fencelines of Shell’s facilities have Shell’s many fenceline communities, is that
realize the deep irony of his words. witnessed the emptiness of Sir Philip Shell has been overstating its social and
Rather than demonstrating “good Watt’s statement pertaining to sustainable environmental performance for years. For
financial performance . . . accompanied development and the commitment he many, the company has become
by the highest standard of governance”, made to them during Shell’s Annual synonymous with the word “greenwash”,
Shell has created an international General Meeting “AGM” in April 2003. i.e. giving the impression of acting in an
corporate scandal by exaggerating its oil At the AGM, shareholders listened environmentally protective way while
and gas reserves. Chief Executive Sir patiently while one fenceline community carrying on with unsustainable business
Philip Watts has been compelled to representative after another seized the as usual. It was in an effort to expose this
resign, and governmental entities in the opportunity to finally put their case gap between rhetoric and reality that
United States and Europe have launched directly to Shell’s Board of Directors. Friends of the Earth and the Global Shell
investigations of Shell’s business practices. Under the glare of the media and investor Fenceline Alliance last year published the
spotlight, Sir Philip Watts made numerous first alternative Shell Corporate
personal and corporate commitments to Responsibility (CR) report, Failing the
ensure action would be taken. However, Challenge—The Other Shell Report 2002.
Shell has failed to deliver any significant
on-the-ground improvement in its
operations.

Shell neighbors, Desmond D’Sa, Hope Tura, and Oronto Douglas engage Sir
Philip Watts at last year’s AGM meeting in London. (Denny Larson, Global
Community Monitor)


Behind the Shine

The year in review

year in review continued... Who knows the real Shell best—its fenceline neighbours
Shell has always been a big advocate of This report is a message from people it causes and live up to its stated
“corporate social responsibility” or CSR around the world who are severely commitments to human rights and
and voluntary codes of conduct, but there impacted by Shell’s operations. It presents environmental standards. Unfortunately,
comes a time when this isn’t enough. case studies from a few of the many Shell fails to respond to community
Friends of the Earth believes that countries, towns, and suburbs that have concerns unless and until its bad practices
companies like Shell should be required been damaged by Shell’s environmental are brought to public attention. And even
by law to consider a duty of care to the and social failures. People living near when Shell comes under public scrutiny,
environmental and social impacts of its Shell refineries, pipelines, and such as in Nigeria, Durban, South Africa,
operations. Fenceline communities want petrochemical facilities from places as far and Port Arthur, Texas, it often fails to act,
Shell to stop polluting their environment apart as Texas in the USA and Nigeria in or does not act in good faith.
and damaging their health. Africa want the world to know that this
multinational corporation is jeopardising In response to Shell’s 2003 annual report
This report provides an update on the their families’ health, destroying their to shareholders, and its multi-million
main case studies profiled in Failing the quality of life, and threatening their lives. dollar public relations campaign to
Challenge, and chronicles a pattern of In all of these cases, ordinary people portray itself as being socially
procrastination, inaction, and continuing have had to put a great deal of personal responsible, this report brings to the light
poor social and environmental time and energy into advocating that of day the truth about Shell’s harmful
performance by Shell over the last 12 Shell take responsibility for the problems operations. The communities from around
months. Little has changed. the world that are featured in this report
share their inspiring and courageous
stories about their daily struggle to
defend their health and environment from
Shell.

Norco residents remember playing beneath these live oak trees as children, before they were moved off their land when Shell built their chemical plant in the 1950’s.
The trees are now fenced within the Shell Chemical facility. (Louisiana Bucket Brigade)


Shell’ neighbours tell Shell:
s
? To stop wasting its resources on “feel ? To comply with local legislation and ? To take full responsibility for past
good” social projects that do nothing relocate oil depots away from Manila, environmental damage that continues
to solve the serious health and where the densely populated area is to impact the health and environment
environmental problems of its facility subjected to the depot’s constant toxic of people in places like Sao Paulo,
operations that plague communities emissions, as well as the threat of the Brazil and Curaçao, Caribbean.
around the world. depot being a terrorist target.
? To fully and accurately assess the
? To eliminate hazardous and life- ? To improve and enhance its significant impacts of massive projects,
threatening facility accidents by identification and measurement of like the Sakhalin II oil and gas drilling,
replacing antiquated and dilapidated facility pollution by employing state-of- processing, and export complex in
pipelines and relocating them to non- the-art real-time environmental Russia, which could ultimately subject
residential areas. monitoring, which thoroughly involves Sakhalin Island to irreversible
community participation. environmental disasters and
? To significantly reduce pollution where devastating economic losses.
Shell operates in communities of color, ? To cease any and all delays in
just as Shell has done at its facilities in terminating the odious practice of gas
Denmark and other locations that are flaring in Nigeria.
predominantly populated by
Caucasians.

Global Delegation of Shell neighbors from Asia, Africa and North America in front of the Shell AGM meeting last year. (Nick Cobbing/Friends of the Earth).


Behind the Shine

Global recognition for people

The Goldman Environmental Prize, Margie Eugene Richard, Goldman Prize Winner 2004
considered the “Nobel Prize for the
Environment,” is the world’s largest prize “If a person does not live where Margie was first motivated to take on
program honouring grassroots people live who are impacted, Shell in 1973 when a Shell pipeline
environmentalists from the six continental they really, I think, have exploded, killing an elderly woman and
regions of Africa, Asia, Islands and something missing in teenage boy only a block from her house.
Island Nations, Europe, North America, understanding the daily ills of In 1988 there was another major
and South and Central America. Over not being able to enjoy where accident at the plant which killed seven
the last several years, the Goldman you live, where you work and workers and resulted in over 150 million
Environmental Prize has been awarded where you play.” tonnes of toxins being spewed into the
in three separate instances to community air. In 1989 Margie formed the
leaders for their inspiring work in Margie Richard, Goldman Prize Winner, 2004 Concerned Citizens of Norco to seek
combating Shell’s destructive practices justice from Shell.
and related injustices in their countries.
In 2004 the Goldman Prize was Margie Richard grew up in the Margie has led the 13-year campaign of
awarded to Margie Richard from Norco, community of Diamond and lived within Concerned Citizens of Norco for a fair
Louisiana, USA; in 1998 Bobby Peek 25 feet of the Shell chemical plant in buy-out of their contaminated
from Durban, South Africa won the Norco, Louisiana. Margie and her neighbourhood. Margie was awarded the
prize; and in 1995 the late Ken Saro- neighbours believe that the high rates of Goldman Environmental Prize 2004 for
Wiwa from Nigeria was posthumously cancer, birth defects, and serious ailments persuading Shell to relocate residents
awarded the prize. These awards stand such as asthma were caused by pollution who had grown up living next door to the
as a testament to both the profoundly from Shell’s operations. The Shell plant at chemical plant and to reduce its toxic
negative global impacts that Shell has on Norco dumps more than two million emissions from their operations by 30%.
communities around the world, and the pounds of toxic chemicals into the
exceptional courage, commitment, and environment each year.
personal sacrifice of the people living in
these communities, who tirelessly fight
for justice.

Margie Richard on the banks of the Mississippi River, Louisiana,
along a 136 kilometer stretch known as "Cancer Alley", because
of the high concentration of industrial chemical facilities .
(Marc Pagani, Louisiana Bucket Brigade)


standing up to Shell

Previous winners of the Goldman Prize who stood up to Shell
Ken Sarowiwa, Goldman Prize In May 1994, Ken was abducted from his
Winner 1995 home and arrested with other MOSOP
leaders for the alleged murder of four
Ken Saro-Wiwa, a well-known Nigerian Ogoni leaders. In October 1995, despite
award-winning author and activist, was the protests of people around the world,
executed by the Nigerian government in including government officials from other
1995. Ken Saro-Wiwa was president of countries and human rights organizations
the Movement for the Survival of the such as Amnesty International, Ken and
Ogoni People (MOSOP), an organization eight co-defendants were convicted by a
military tribunal and hanged. Many Bobby Peek addresses a rally of South Durban residents
fighting to defend the environmental and concerned with pollution from Shell’s refinery. (South
human rights of the Ogoni people. Ogoni believe that the only crime Durban Community Environmental Alliance)
committed by Ken Saro-Wiwa was his
Since the late 1950’s, Shell has been daring to stand up to Shell. Bobby Peek, Goldman Prize
operating in Nigeria, extracting more Winner 1998
than US$30 billion of oil and
contaminating the farmland and fisheries Sven ‘Bobby’ Peek grew up in South
of the Ogoni. Many of the fish and Durban in South Africa next to one of the
wildlife in the area have vanished. Ken largest oil refineries in Africa, the South
Saro-Wiwa mobilized his people to African Petroleum Refinery (SAPREF). The
demand compensation from Shell for oil refinery, which is jointly-owned by Shell
spills on Ogoni farmland and in the and BP, operates in communities where
wetlands, rivers, and streams of the Niger poor black, Indian, and mixed race
Delta. In January 1993, Ken brought people live. Every family on the block
together 300,000 Ogoni who took to the where Bobby lives has lost at least one
streets in the largest demonstration member to cancer.
against an oil company in history.
Bobby was awarded the Goldman
Environmental Prize in 1998 for his vision
and leadership in uniting multi-ethnic
communities, in post-apartheid South
Africa, to advocate for reductions in
Shell’s significant pollution levels.

Ken Saro-Wiwa


Behind the Shine

Durban, South Africa
Social development schemes to ignore refinery hazards

Durban is home to the massive Shell’s assurance to Durban at Double standards
South African Petroleum Refinery the 2003 AGM
(SAPREF) which is the largest Shell asserts that it uses the best
Desmond D’Sa is a Durban resident and environmental standards at its facilities
crude oil refinery in South Africa. worldwide. In fact, however, Shell is guilty
Chairperson of the South Durban
Jointly owned by Shell and BP, Community Environmental Alliance of using a double standard, one that
the SAPREF refinery began (SDCEA), a coalition of community often provides cleaner facilities in areas
operating in the 1960s and has organisations from diverse racial, ethnic, around the world with predominantly
and religious backgrounds that advocates Caucasian populations as compared to
the capacity to process more than
for industrial pollution reduction and dirtier and more hazardous facilities
185,000 barrels of oil per day. located in places where people of color
accident prevention. In 2003, Desmond
The refinery complex is in an travelled to the Shell AGM in London and live. For example, on a daily basis, the
area of south Durban populated eloquently spoke out against Shell’s SAPREF refinery dumps 19 tons of
by poor black, Indian, and hazardous operations in Durban. During sulphur dioxide into the air that people in
the AGM, Sir Philip Watts, then CEO of the neighbouring communities breathe1,
mixed-race communities.
the Shell Group, gave Desmond his which is more than six times the amount
SAPREF’s aging infrastructure has personal assurance that action would be of sulphur dioxide released by Shell’s
caused an appalling catalogue of taken to clean up the SAPREF facility. refinery in Denmark2. Sulphur dioxide is
accidents in recent years that Such action has not occurred. One year a severe respiratory irritant which can
after Watts’ assurance, the South Durban trigger asthma attacks, and a 2002
have had devastating
communities continue to suffer from health study by the Durban Environmental
consequences for local people Health Department and two universities
repeated industrial accidents and
and the environment. hazardous spills. (See section entitled confirms the significant incidence of
Examples of Shell’s documented spills, chronic asthma among Durban residents,
fires, and toxic releases since the 2003 especially children3. Further, unlike Shell
Shell AGM). facilities in Europe, the SAPREF refinery
does not employ an effective rust-
detecting system, which has resulted in
the leakage of 25 tons of tetra ethyl lead,
a harmful neurotoxin, into the
environment.

Shell refinery flaring in South Durban, South Africa.
(South Durban Community Environmental Alliance)

8 The Shell Report

South Durban residents protest pollution problems in front of Shell refinery. (South Durban Community Environmental Alliance)

Ignoring the problem attention from the serious health and Dialogue without action
environmental impacts of its operations.
SDCEA and groundWork (Friends of the SAPREF has been holding Community
Earth South Africa), an environmental In those instances when SAPREF does Liaison Forum meetings for a number of
justice organisation, have repeatedly urged attempt to address environmental issues, years. However, people in the community
Shell to deal specifically with the such attempts are woefully inadequate, are tired of “talkshops” that have
environmental issues of its refinery that fail to respond to community demands, achieved nothing. SAPREF managers say
plague Durban residents. However, rather and ignore the root of the problem. For they that want to build trust and move
than taking action to remedy the excessive example, although SAPREF brought Shell beyond an adversarial role with the
pollution and frequent accidents at its experts from its offices in the Hague and community, but these managers have
operations, SAPREF has gone to the London to assist in cleaning up around completely ignored the community’s
expense of bringing international leaking pipes that have spilled over 1.3 repeated admonitions that trust cannot be
consultants from Shell’s headquarters in million litres of petrol under the homes of bought with so-called “social projects”.
London to spend their time and resources Durban residents, SAPREF and Shell
on what they believe are social issues experts refuse residents’ demands for
affecting fenceline communities4. This is relocation of the faulty pipelines away
reflective of a strategy increasingly from their homes, and the implementation
employed by Shell to offer “feel good” of appropriate environmental
projects, such as academic scholarships and improvements in SAPREF’s refinery
new playgrounds, in order to divert operations5.

How meaningful are Shell’ voluntary environmental management standards?
s

In attempting to defend its indefensible operation of the SAPREF refinery, Shell points to its ISO 14001 certification as
evidence that its environmental management of the SAPREF refinery is entirely appropriate. However, ISO 14001 is merely
a body of voluntary environmental standards which pertain to on-site industrial activities. These standards do not require
Shell to consider either the environmental sustainability of its operations, or the off-site impacts that these operations have
on local communities. In short, the ISO 14001 certificate is meaningless to communities who bear the significant off-site
health and environmental consequences of SAPREF’s toxic pollution and frequent industrial accidents.


Behind the Shine

Durban

Desmond D’Sa of SDCEA (right) reads a list of environmental justice demands to South African government officials. (South Durban Community Environmental Alliance)

SAPREF’s leaks waste money What has SAPREF done for South Durban residents since the Shell
and disrupt the AGM in April 2003?
community

The community is outraged that SAPREF’s ? Polluted the community with accidents ? Turned away community leadership
routine response to its frequently leaking and leaks from Remediation Site Meetings
pipelines consists of nothing more than pertaining to massive leakage of oil
excavating some of the contaminated ? Exceeded air quality guidelines under their homes
land in their neighbourhoods, and
? Offered little other than excuses when ? Locked out community leaders from a
applying patches to corroded segments of
the antiquated pipelines. SAPREF’s leaks the community complained about toxic meeting when members of the South
and attendant excavations are a continual emissions and flaring African Portfolio on the Environment
nuisance that severely disrupt the lives of ? Withheld information from community
Committee visited SAPREF
residents. Why isn’t there a program to groups by using old apartheid
relocate and replace all the pipelines? legislation known as the National
Why doesn’t Shell recognize that it is an Keypoint Act
injustice to jeopardize the health and lives
of residents with faulty pipelines that leak
dangerous substances? Why does Shell
continue to waste shareholders’
investments by failing to fully and finally
stop the leakage of refinery materials into
the ground of South Durban?


Port Arthur, Texas
Environmental injustice by Shell refinery plagues
African-American neighbourhoods

The Motiva Refinery, a Shell joint Shell’s assurance to Port Arthur,
venture in Port Arthur, Texas, is Texas at the 2003 AGM
one of North America’s busiest
and most productive oil Hilton Kelley, Founding Director of
Community In-power Development
refineries, currently processing
Association (CIDA), a community
more than 235,000 barrels of oil environmental justice organisation in Port
per day. Shell profits financially Arthur, Texas, USA, travelled to the 2003
from the refinery at the expense Shell AGM in London. At the AGM,
Global Delegation of Shell neighbors holds a press
of the low-income community Hilton confronted Sir Philip Watts
conference in Port Arthur, Texas, to highlight Shell’s poor
regarding the health-damaging pollution environmental performance. (Global Community
that lives in its shadow. Local from the Motiva Refinery. Speaking Monitor)
residents call the area around immediately after the AGM, Hilton said “I
West Port Arthur “Gasoline am hopeful that something will be done. Community mobilizes in
Alley” because of the high levels Sir Philip looked me in the eye and defence of their health
promised. Things have to change. And if
of toxic pollution.
they do not, I will be here next year and In December 2003, CIDA opened the
in coming years.” Center for Environmental Education and
Health. The Center provides information
After returning to Texas, Hilton found that on health and toxic exposure, offers youth
Shell hadn’t changed. (See section activities, and in the future will make
entitled Examples of Shell’s documented computers, faxes, and printers available to
spills, fires, and toxic releases since the the public. CIDA has organized
2003 Shell AGM). A few months later, community health surveys conducted by
Hilton and his community decided that the University of Texas at Galveston
they had no option left but to bring legal Medical Branch, which document that
proceedings against Shell. 80% of the surveyed residents in
neighbourhoods near the refinery have
heart conditions and respiratory
problems, compared to 30% of people in
non-refinery areas.

A young Port Arthur, Texas,
child with acute asthma
during breathing treatments.
(Hilton Kelley, Community In-
power Development
Association).


Behind the Shine

Port Arthur

Residents hold Shell liable for
health-damaging refinery

For many, Texas and oil go together, but
for the residents of the West-Side
neighbourhoods of Port Arthur, such a
mixture is a hazard to their health. As in
many of the communities where Shell
operates, community members in West-
Side believe that their concerns about
Shell’s pollution have been ignored.

The West-Side of Port Arthur is an
African-American community that is
literally located “on the other side of the
tracks”. People living in the public housing
developments and single-family homes on
the West-Side suffer from high levels of
asthma and cancers. They bear the brunt
of Shell’s pollution most directly. Residents
believe that Shell has exploited them; if
Hilton Kelley of Port Arthur explains the impact on Shell’s neighbors of toxic releases on April 14, 2003, when the
refinery lost power and sent all their product to the flare—see photo on page 13. (Denny Larson, Global Community
they were white and affluent, they reason,
Monitor) Shell’s response would be different.

Hilton Kelley’ Story
s informing me about the new way In the summer of 2003, representatives of
they would be dealing with our CIDA met with Tom Purvis, the manager
“Last year I went to the Annual community but this did not of the Shell facility. CIDA offered him and
General Meeting in London, happen. Nothing has changed executives from Shell’s corporate office in
England, and I met with Sir Philip [since last year’s AGM]. Pollution- Houston, Texas the opportunity to
Watts, Chairman of the Shell wise, emissions are still high and negotiate steps for addressing the serious
Corporation. Upon meeting him the plant manager is still environmental and health problems in the
and telling him about the ignoring our concerns from last community. When the managers refused
pollution problems from the year. Apparently Sir Philip Watts to enter negotiations, the residents felt
Shell facility that plague our never talked with the plant compelled to file a lawsuit against Shell.
community, he assured me that manager at the Shell Facility in
he would do everything in his Port Arthur, Texas, so we had no Ignoring the problem
power to rectify the situation. I choice but to file a lawsuit
left that meeting thinking that his against the Shell facility. Shell refuses to address the significant
word would hold true. health concerns of Port Arthur’s West-Side
Now we will let the courts decide residents, all of which are related to
“Upon arriving back to the US, I who is dumping what.” refinery pollution. Instead, Shell has
thought that I would receive a funded a health clinic, which is located
call from the Shell facility on the other side of town, and thus
inaccessible to most of the residents in the
West-Side neighbourhoods.


Bad air day in Port Arthur, April 14, 2003 (Hilton Kelley, Community In-power Development Association)

Legal action against Shell The lawsuit is being brought pursuant to pleadings charge that local industries
the common laws of Texas and the have “violated these basic human rights
Over 1,200 Port Arthur pollution victims Wrongful Death Act and the Survival which we must honour as a society if we
are alleging air, soil, and other Statute. According to the citizens’ are all to live in peace and well-being.”
contamination due to the release of attorneys, “The evidence we have
“noxious fumes, vapours, odours and obtained shows a habitual pattern of Because management refused to even talk
hazardous substances.” The number of emissions and discharges that endanger with affected neighbours, Shell is now
citizens participating in the lawsuit is the health of the public. These are clearly being sued in Port Arthur. Is this a good
expected to grow dramatically. The not ‘unavoidable accidents’.” way to manage shareholders’
lawsuit seeks medical monitoring and investments?
reimbursement of medical expense, as Don Maierson, one of the attorneys for
well as compensation for loss of quality of the fenceline neighbours in Port Arthur
life. The specific legal claims include said, “The industries have destroyed the
trespass, nuisance, and negligence, as quality of life of their neighbours. It is
well as fraud and misrepresentation of the clearly illegal to deny citizens the right to
harm caused by the toxic releases6. breathe clean air and have full use and
enjoyment of their property.” The legal


Behind the Shine

Pandacan oil depots
A disaster waiting to happen

Pandacan is a residential Philippines’ activist exposes Circumventing the law:
neighbourhood of the city of truth about Shell’s oil depot at ignoring health and safety risks
Manila in the Philippines where 2003 Shell AGM
The oil depots are located in a densely-
Shell owns a massive oil and gas
Hope Esquillo Tura, a member of the populated district located in the heart of
depot. Shell refuses to relocate its Manila. Pandacan has a population of
United Front to Oust the Oil Depots (UFO-
depot, despite legislation OD), travelled to the 2003 Shell AGM in about 84,000 people who come from
requiring them to do so. Over the London where she presented community diverse economic backgrounds, the
past year, Pandacan has been concerns that the continued presence of majority of whom are urban poor. More
Shell’s oil depot was circumventing a city than 15,000 students are enrolled in
the site of an ongoing battle
ordinance that requires its removal. She elementary and high schools situated
between residents and Shell (and explained that Shell had used its near these facilities. The largest university
two other oil companies, Caltex significant influence to secure a special in Asia, the University of the Philippines,
and Petron) regarding the permit to operate, rather than respect and which has a student population of about
comply with the local ordinance. At the 25,000, is located directly across from
companies’ refusal to remove the
AGM, Sir Philip Watts announced that the depots on the banks of the Pasig
oil and gas depots located on 33- River. Daycare centers, churches, and
Shell would protect the local community
hectares of land. by creating a “buffer zone” between the small businesses are located in the area
oil depots and nearby residents. However, as well. The Malacanang Presidential
Hope exposed the misleading nature of Palace is just two kilometers away from
this announcement, pointing out that the the depots.
so-called “buffer zone” was only going to
be a few meters wide.

Residential neighborhoods in Metro Manila, the Philippines, in an area known as Pandacan, co-exist adjacent to fuel
storage depots operated by Shell and other oil companies. (Francesca Francia, Global Community Monitor)


Local residents and governmental officials in court13. An alliance of university
advocate for the removal of the oil depots students, professors, and employees
because the continuous presence of the joined UFO-OD in filing a complaint with
depots in Pandacan is a disaster waiting the Office of the Ombudsman against the
to happen. They warn that an accident or Mayor for issuing the permit to Shell,
terrorist attack could result in the biggest claiming that the Mayor violated his duty
disaster in the history of petrochemical to enforce the ordinance. The alliance
facilities, affecting the 10.9 million also requested that the Ombudsman
residents of metro Manila7. investigate “three Pandacan [officials] for
seeking ‘benefits’ from the oil firms in
On November 28, 2001, the city of return for their support of the depots”.14
Manila passed ordinance number 8027
requiring Shell, Caltex, and Petron to Exponentially exacerbating Shell’s brash
relocate their oil depots outside of Manila circumvention of local law requiring Shell
city limits by the end of April 20038. to move its operations out of Pandacan is
However, in June 2002, the Mayor of the fundamental fact that Shell’s lease from
Manila, Lito Atienza, signed a the University of the Philippines for use of
memorandum of understanding (MOU) the property expired on May 3, 2000. The
with the three companies allowing them University was so outraged by Shell’s
to “stay” if certain conditions were met, failure to honor the terms of its lease
including the construction of the woefully agreement that it urged the Supreme Court
inadequate “buffer zone”9. The legal to direct the mayor to enforce “the city
adequacy of this MOU was obviously not ordinance banning oil companies from
apparent to the companies, who maintaining oil depots in Pandacan15”.
thereafter each filed separate petitions Warning the court that the presence of
with the Manila Regional Trial Court Shell’s depot in Pandacan poses a “major
seeking injunctions to suspend the threat to national security, considering the Children of Pandacan living in the shadow of Shell’s
ordinance from taking effect10. On April present escalation of terrorist activities”16, huge fuel depot. (Francesca Francia, Global Community
30, 2003, the trial court denied Shell’s the University expressed concerns about its Monitor)
petition for an injunction, but granted the liability for “death and destruction” from
petitions by Caltex and Petron11. The Shell’s continued presence17.
Mayor then issued “special permits” to
Caltex and Petron to continue operations
during the pending litigation12. And, in a
highly controversial decision, the Mayor
also issued a similar permit to Shell,
notwithstanding Shell’s failure to prevail


Behind the Shine

Pandacan

Ignoring the problem Buffer zone: false sense of The United Firefighters of the Philippines
security and international experts on disaster
Instead of complying with the existing management estimate that an accident or
law, Shell uses its seemingly limitless After entering into a scandalous explosion in the Pandacan oil depots
resources to fund a massive public arrangement with the Mayor of Manila, could result in devastation within a two-
relations campaign. That campaign Shell and the other oil companies scaled kilometer radius19. Local residents
promulgates misleading claims by the down their operations and constructed a continue to complain about the foul odour
company, and also employs Shell’s so-called green buffer zone. Although this from emissions released by the depots,
increasingly routine tactic of enticing area measures only 5 to 7 meters in and continue to suffer from respiratory
residents with “feel good” offers, such as width, Shell claims that it provides a safe diseases, skin diseases, and other
scholarship programs and supposed distance between fenceline communities ailments associated with toxic pollution.
employment opportunities18, which, of and the oil depots. Commerical
course, do nothing to address residents’ advertisements paid for by Shell and the In short, Shell’s scaling down of
complaints of environmental and health two other oil companies falsely describe operations, creating a so-called buffer
problems, as well as security concerns. the buffer zone as a “park” or zone, and offering air monitors do not
Rather than acting as a socially “promenade area”. Continuing the farce, adequately address the serious health
responsible corporation, Shell perverts the Shell painted its depot with pictures of and environmental risks to the entire
principle of social responsibility into bushes and trees. population of Pandacan and metropolitan
something more akin to “pay-offs” in an Manila. The continued presence of the oil
attempt to pacify serious local community depots in Pandacan is a disaster waiting
concerns. to happen. The health, safety, and
welfare of residents is of paramount
importance, and must take precedence
over the business interests and profits of
Street scene in Pandacan community is dominated by looming fuel storage tanks. (Francesca Francia, Shell and the other oil companies.
Global Community Monitor)


Norco, Louisiana
health problems still not addressed by Shell

Norco, on the banks of the
Mississippi River in Louisiana, is
home to a large Shell oil refinery
(now a joint venture called
Motiva) and a Shell chemical
facility. Norco is located in
“Cancer Alley”, a 136 km span
of the Mississippi River where
over 130 refineries and
petrochemical facilities operate in
communities that complain of
high rates of cancer. The Norco
neighbourhood of Diamond,
where generations of close-knit
African American families have Shell Norco refinery flares again. (Louisiana Bucket Brigade)

lived since the1700’s, is locked
between the two Shell facilities.
Margie Richard and Iris Carter are Norco firms, progressive members of the US
In 2002, Diamond residents, residents who have been fighting for years Congress, and scientific experts. With
organized as Concerned Citizens to get Shell to relocate residents and deal significant public scrutiny, the community
of Norco, compelled Shell to offer with the health problems in their organisation compelled Shell to enter into
them relocation and reduce the community that are associated with the negotiations for a fair and just relocation.
toxic pollution released by the Shell In 2002, Shell finally agreed to buy out
pollution from its facilities. This facilities. Margie and Iris travelled to the polluted neighbourhood at a fair price
unprecedented victory was a Shell’s headquarters in both London and that allowed residents to move. Shell
bittersweet one for residents, in the Netherlands to demand action. claims that the rationale for its relocation
who left their homeland in order Margie, who organized Concerned decision was simply to create a “green”
Citizens of Norco, also spoke out about buffer zone by offering to move residents
to find a healthy place to live.
the community’s environmental justice on the first two streets abutting the facility.
struggle to overcome Shell’s resistance at Shell also claims that it was only
the 2003 AGM. interested in maintaining the “historic
unity” among residents by offering
Leaving home relocation to the remainder of the
community. To date, Shell has never
Concerned Citizens of Norco developed a acknowledged any of the health impacts
residential relocation plan and worked of its operations, although residents made
tirelessly to bring Shell’s harmful practices it abundantly clear that the issue of health
to international attention. The was their motivating factor in demanding
organisation garnered the support of a relocation.
diverse international coalition of
environmental, health, and human rights “We realized that under no circumstances
advocates, socially responsible investment would it ever be fair for people to live
next to a toxic industrial facility. For us,
relocation was the only option.” Margie
Richard, Goldman Prize Winner 2004.


Behind the Shine

Norco

The legacy of health problems Since the relocation in 2002, Shell has Concerned Citizens of Norco were
begun several community initiatives in certain that, notwithstanding Shell’s
Now out of harm’s way, many Norco Norco. Among these initiatives are a representations to the contrary, they were
residents are reflecting on the trauma they health survey and an air monitoring being exposed to significant pollution
suffered living next to Shell. They recall program. Unfortunately, both the health from Shell’s facilities, and so set about to
their neighbours who were killed by survey and the monitoring program are document that fact. With the assistance of
Shell’s accidents, the cluster of rare reflective of Shell’s pattern of designing Global Community Monitor and the
diseases, and the respiratory problems self-serving programs that fail to Louisiana Bucket Brigade, organisations
suffered by so many in the community. meaningfully address the vitally important that train local residents to collect samples
Numerous residents continue to suffer environmental and health problems of air pollution in their neighbourhood
what they believe are the effects of associated with its massive pollution which are then analyzed by an
chemical exposure, and are burdened by impacts on the community. Further, the accredited laboratory, Norco residents
the associated crippling health care costs. supposed “health survey”, conducted by were finally able to make their case. In
the Tulane University School of Public the air samples they collected, Shell’s
As Iris noted, “We’re still dealing with Health, merely focused on residents’ toxic chemicals were detected at levels
that, we’re still dealing with health issues. perceptions about the environment, not exceeding health based standards
I went to England, to Shell’s headquarters, on residents’ actual health conditions, established by the State of Louisiana.
and was promised that Shell was going to exposure to toxic chemicals, or medical
work on it. We had a meeting… and we needs.
still haven’t resolved anything.”

Air samples taken by Norco community members with their buckets have proven
ongoing exposure to toxic chemicals. (Marc Pagani, Louisiana Bucket Brigade)


Problems with Shell’s air PROBLEM SOLUTION
monitoring program
Takes an air sample once every Shell should install real-time
Following the relocation of Diamond six days monitors that detect and record
residents, Shell initiated an air monitoring emissions occurring 24 hours a
program in Norco pursuant to the terms ■ People do not breathe once every six
day.
of a settlement agreement it had reached days. Chemical exposure in Norco is
with the Louisiana Department of ongoing, 24 hours a day.
Environmental Quality pertaining to
various air and water quality violations at ■ The monitoring system offers no
its facilities in Norco and another facility information whatsoever on air emissions
approximately 30 miles from Norco 21. during each 5-day interval between
However, this air monitoring program is sampling dates, and the majority of
woefully inadequate — the monitors do emissions could be released during such
not even detect sulphur compounds, intervals.
which are lung-damaging pollutants
routinely released in massive quantities by Does not detect sulphur
Shell facilities in Norco. Shell should install a monitor
compounds
that detects, speciates, and
■ Sulphur compounds are a primary measures the various sulphur
emission of oil refineries. compounds released by its
facilities.
■ Sulphur has a highly offensive rotten

egg odor and is scientifically known to
harm the respiratory system.

One of the homes of Norco residents Uses inferior technology Shell should employ effective,
adjacent Shell Chemical plant being
torn down during relocation reliable monitors that provide
■ Shell employs Suma canisters to collect
program. Relocation and the instantaneous data on emissions.
destruction of their historic air samples.
Such monitors are readily
community was the only option for
Shell’s neighbors in Norco,La. ■ Although Suma canisters are used at
available at reasonable cost.
(Louisiana Bucket Brigade)
many industrial facilities, they are far
inferior to many other state-of-the-art air
monitoring devices.


Behind the Shine

Nigeria
The strange case of Shell’ vanishing oil-reserves
s

In the last year, shareholders Exaggerated oil reserves scrapped in 2000 by Nigerian President
have come to learn what oil- Obasanjo. A Shell spokesman told The
producing communities in Nigeria In January 2004, Shell shocked its Independent newspaper in February
shareholders by announcing that it had 2004, “I do not know whether it was a
have known for decades: Shell overstated its oil and gas reserves by matter of public record that these
can’t be trusted to regulate itself. 20%. Shareholders were then left incentive payments were being made in
wondering how Shell could lose almost 4 return for booking reserves.”23
billion barrels of oil and gas22. Initially,
Shell stated that it revised its Nigerian It was unclear at the time this report went
reserves over concerns about the cost of to print, if the March 2003 decision of
infrastructure investments needed to deal Shell’s new Board of Directors to drop its
with the natural gas found in its oil fields, claim that Shell made the Nigerian
but it appears that there well may have bookings of its reserves “in good faith” is
been other influences at work. related to the tax breaks Shell received.
The US Securities and Exchange
Damage from oil spill and fire in a wetlands During the 1990s, Shell and other Commission and US Department of
area in first reported to Shell on December
companies received incentives under Justice who are currently investigating
3rd 2003 by local villagers of Rukpokwu.
(Copyright Stakeholder Democracy Network
Nigeria’s bonus scheme in the form of tax Shells misquoting of oil reserves should
2004) credits for every barrel of oil booked. The determine if any influence has occurred.
scheme ran for nine years, but was finally


Polluted land—oil spills, fires, What happened to the money
and gas flaring for development?

Flaring natural gas from oil fields is one Shell has benefited from the billions of
of the visible impacts the oil industry has dollars of oil that have been pumped out
on daily life in Nigeria. Flares tower over of the ground in Nigeria while basic
farms, schools, and communities, spewing economic development—hospitals,
flames and acrid plumes of charred schools, running water—are seriously
smoke, day and night, seven days a under funded. Shell claims that 75% of
week. The Nigerian government wants the development projects it supports are
flaring to stop, and has passed successful, but Shell only allows external
environmental laws that should end the reviewers to examine projects that are no
practice beginning in 2010. Shell more than one year old.
committed to ending its flaring earlier, in Rukpokwu, Nigeria, January 7th 2004, fire erupts in a
high-pressure, 28-inch pipeline operated by SPDC,
200824, but unfortunately Shell is now Shell's Nigeria affiliate, (copyright Stakeholder
A recent Christian Aid news article
backsliding on this commitment by Democracy Network 2004) revealed that a critical internal Shell
claiming that it will be expensive. report about community relations was
shredded. “Even the computer hard discs
a problem since 1963, ruptured, causing
Speaking in February 2004, Chris were wiped”, according to one Shell
an oil spill and fires. It took Shell more
Finlayson, chairman of SPDC [Shell insider. Oil-producing communities in
than six weeks to put out the fires and
Nigeria] told the Financial Times Nigeria want to know how Shell can
carry out basic repairs. Rukpokwu is less
newspaper, “To put in an integrated gas spend US$69 million a year of
than an hour’s drive from Shell’s
and oil development is more expensive shareholders’ money on social
headquarters.
than a simple oil development […] with a development projects in the Niger Delta,
limit on the funding going into the with no visible benefits for the majority of
Speaking about the oil spill and fires,
industry, clearly that does constrain how people who own the land which contains
Paramount Ruler, Chief Clifford E.
much you can do.” the oil and gas26.
Enyinda, and Chairman of the Mgbuchi
Community, Azunda Aaron, have said,
Local people have suffered from decades “If Shell wants to put US$69 million into
of pollution as a result of oil spills and
“Our only source of drinking water, community development, why doesn’t it
fires from Shell’s rusting network of pipes.
fishing stream, and farm-lands covering set up a foundation which has no direct
In early December 2003, a high pressure
over 300 hectares of land with aquatic links to the company and let development
oil pipeline in Rukpokwu, which has been
lives, fishing nets and traps, farm crops, workers who know what they’re doing
animals, and economic trees worth manage the projects?” asks Oronto
several billions of naira (equivalent to Douglas of Environmental Rights Action
millions of US dollars) are completely (Friends of the Earth Nigeria).
destroyed by the spillage and was made
worse by the three separate fires that
broke out of the spill site”25.


Behind the Shine

Sao Paulo, Brazil
Shell contamination at the Vila Carioca

For decades the residents of Vila Shell, along with ExxonMobil, arrived in
Carioca in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Brazil in 1912 as Anglo Mexican
have been using drinking water Petroleum, Inc. The company established
a facility in the neighbourhood of Agua
contaminated by the nearby joint Funda, next to the Santos-Jundiai railroad
Shell ExxonMobil facility. In 1993 line on which it transported gasoline,
local unions joined Coletivo kerosene, diesel, cooking oil, insecticides,
Alternativa Verde or the Green and pesticides to the Port of Santos/São Panel in the Chamber of the Representatives Brasilia—
Paulo. Commission of Environment—Public Hearing about
Alternative Collective (CAVE) and
environmental contamination in Villa Carioca, including
Greenpeace, and filed a Shell and ExxonMobil continued to representatives from Shell Brazil, ExxonMobil Brazil,
complaint in the courts, citing Petrobras and Coletivo Alernativa Verde - 04/09/2003
operate in Agua Funda until 1942, when
(Cláudio Guimarães, Coletivo Alernativa Verde)
contamination of Vila Carioca the Santos-Jundiai oil pipeline was
with hydrocarbons, heavy inaugurated. After this, Shell built a new
storage tank depot and shipping terminal Toxic drinking water
metals, and organochlorides.
in Vila Carioca and ExxonMobil built a
Since then, despite investigations facility in Mooca. In 2001, ExxonMobil For decades, residents have been using
by local health and closed its Mooca facility and became a the drinking water wells on their
partner with Shell at Vila Carioca, buying properties, which have been
environmental authorities,
21.66% of the land and 45% of Shell’s contaminated by industrial waste. The
progress, if any, has been slow. thousands of families of Vila Carioca
processing capacity.
Despite evidence which indicates have used that water not only for
breaches of environmental law, drinking, but for their gardens and for
Shell has yet to be prosecuted. growing fruit trees as well.


Vila Carioca has over 40,000 residents, Above the law?
mostly working-class, who are at the
mercy of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and For years, Shell and ExxonMobil were
teratogenic contamination from Shell’s able to act with impunity because they
practices. had a virtual monopoly on the
distribution and importation of petroleum
Shell denies responsibility for any derivatives, pesticides, and herbicides.
contamination. Numerous residents have However, in 1993 SIPETROL, in
testified to serious health problems, collaboration with CAVE and
among them tumours, cancers, infertility, Greenpeace, filed a joint complaint in
leukaemia, respiratory problems, and Shell neighbours hold a protest in Vila Carioca (Coletivo
court, citing contamination of Vila Alternative VerdE)
depression, which they believe are Carioca with hydrocarbons, heavy
caused by Shell’s operations27. metals, and organochlorides. Heavy the shut-down, shortly thereafter Brazil’s
metals were identified, including lead, environmental agency fined the company
The Sindicato dos Trabalhadores no mercury, and arsenic, as were traces of for its “grave fault” in polluting the Vila
Comércio de Minérios e Derivados de chromium, barium, strontium and cesium. Carioca site30. Shell currently faces
Petróleo de São Paulo (SIPETROL), or the mounting potential liabilities, as a
Union of Workers in Mining, Petroleum Since the filing of the complaint, both growing number of lawsuits and
and Related Industries of the state of São Shell and ExxonMobil have been the complaints continue to be filed by
Paulo, is a member of a working group subject of investigations by the São Paulo residents and local governments31.
that is preparing a report on the health State Department of Health and by the
hazards faced by workers and State Environmental Protection Agency. In The poisoning of an entire community is
neighbouring residents of the facility, as 2002, the investigations revealed that continuing with the complicity of some
well as on the environmental Shell’s large fuel-holding tanks located in regulatory agencies. Although CAVE and
contamination of the soil and the water. Vila Carioca had been operating without SIPETROL are pressuring the Ministry of
a valid permit28. Governmental officials the Environment to fine Shell under the
determined that the permit had expired in Environmental Crimes Law, thus far,
1985, and ordered an immediate shut- despite clear evidence of violations, the
down of the facility29. Although Shell was Ministry has not been willing to enforce
able to obtain a court order overturning the law. The struggle continues, with the
aim of forcing federal authorities to
investigate the potential commission of
environmental crimes by Shell and
ExxonMobil.

Authors of this chapter are Cesar Augusto Guimarães Pereira, Executive
Director of SIPETROL-SP and Director of the Coletivo Alternativa Verde
(CAVE), and Elson Maceió dos Santos, CAVE Co-ordinator.


Behind the Shine

Curaçao, Caribbean
Polluted paradise

The small island of Curaçao has so-called enclaved economy. The Poisoning the community
a population of approximately ecological balance and
130,000 inhabitants and only development of the island In 1982, a Venezuelan lab reported that
the concentrations of sulphur compound
444 km2 of land. The island has gradually became contaminated emissions from the Shell refinery were
over 20 km of coral reefs by toxic pollutants. In particular, more than twice the levels established by
contained inside the Underwater the Shell refinery caused major the US EPA and could be responsible for
Marine Park, sandy beaches in environmental damage to the respiratory diseases suffered by
people living on the island33.
the south, and remnants of old Caracus Bay, the Spanish
mahogany forests inside Waterlake, Bullen Bay, The following year, the Central
Christoffel National Park in the Schottegat Bay, Sint Anna Bay, Environmental Management Service of
north32. In 1914 Shell constructed Valentijn Bay, and Brusca Bay. Rijnmond (DCMR, Rotterdam), visited the
the largest oil refinery in the Ultimately, Shell sold the refinery site and conducted interviews. This
agency concluded that “The continuous
western hemisphere on Curaçao. to the Curaçao government for
emission of extremely high concentrations
Shell was able to dominate the US$1 and left behind a toxic of sulphur dioxide and particulate matter,
micro-scale island community, legacy that continues to plague on relatively low stacks, is a huge
which found itself trapped in a what was once an island problem. Measurements of the
concentrations of pollutants in the air
paradise.
downwind of the Shell refinery indicate
that the pollution is influencing and
damaging the health of the people living
downwind of the refinery. The

Shell sold this aging refinery to the
government of Curaçao for US $1 in 1985,
but the toxic legacy lives on today. (January
23, 2004, Norbert Gerorge Humane Care
Foundation Curaçao)


health crisis is evidenced by the high Curaçaons hold Shell liable for
number of poor townships exposed to massive environmental damage
excessive emissions35.
In 2003, the people of Curaçao
In 1985, Shell sold the aging refinery to organised a campaign called the Humane
the island for US$1 on terms that Care Foundation Curaçao, in order to
included an indemnity clause transferring hold Shell liable for the massive damage
to the local government financial that it has inflicted on the community. The
responsibility for any vital habitats and natural resources on the
environmental/health impacts caused by island have sustained significant toxic
Shell’s 70 years of operation. Local damage38 that affects more than 12.5% of
authorities now bear the financial the population, including more than
Residents have named this refinery dumping area: the
asphalt sea (Norbert George Humane Care Foundation
responsibility for the premature deaths, 5,500 children39. Central to the campaign
Curaçao) cancers, birth defects, bronchitis, chronic is obtaining redress for Shell’s legacy of
obstructive pulmonary diseases, asthma, environmental devastation that violates
concentrations of pollutants on Curaçao
skin diseases, respiratory disorders, and the fundamental human rights of people
are approximately four times higher than
childhood illnesses suffered by residents36. living on Curaçao.
maximum concentrations accepted
anywhere else in the world. This implies
Just as the case in Nigeria and the
that irreparable damage is being inflicted
Philippines, Shell has been accused of
to the health of human beings that inhale
exhibiting an undue influence over the
the chemical, organic and toxic pollutants
isolated Antillean/Curaçaon
emitted by Shell.”34 Epidemiologists from
governments. As a former Shell manager
the Pubic Health Services of Curaçao
exclaimed in an interview in 1980, “The
further noted that the scope of the public
Antillean government? We are the
government!”37 During its 70 years as the
major employer in Curaçao, Shell clearly
wielded its financial might as the supreme
rule of the island.


Behind the Shine

Sakhalin Island, Russia
Shell’ broken commitments
s

“Shell’s policy to save money at About Sakhalin Island and Endangered gray whales under
the expense of Russia’s Sakhalin II threat
environment and the health of
On Sakhalin Island in the Far East of The waters off Sakhalin Island are home
local people is causing a reaction
Russia, Shell is proposing to build the to 25 marine mammal species, 11 of
from Russian and international world’s largest single integrated oil and which are endangered, including the
non-governmental organisations. gas facility that is known as Sakhalin II. world’s most critically endangered gray
Shell must finally take full This massive facility would include off- whale species, the Western Pacific gray
responsibility for its Sakhalin II shore oil and gas drilling platforms, an whale. This whale has been identified by
enormous liquefied natural gas the International Union for Conservation
project and conduct appropriate
processing and export facility, an oil of Nature and Natural Resources as
studies of its impacts to society export terminal, and over 800 kms of “critically endangered” with only 100
and the rich environment in onshore pipelines. The off-shore waters of whales estimated to remain, including just
Sakhalin. Shell has taken an Sakhalin Island are some of the most 23 reproductive females40. The Scientific
species-rich marine environments on the Committee of the International Whaling
enormous risk with its Sakhalin II
Pacific Rim with crab, herring, cod, and Commission is concerned about Sakhalin
project. In its haste to save salmon—including the unique masu II and noted that “it is a matter of
money there is considerable cherry salmon—as well as the absolute urgency. . . to reduce various
evidence that Shell is violating endangered Sakhalin taimen, the most types of anthropogenic disturbances to
Russian environmental laws. It is ancient salmonid. The off-shore platforms the lowest possible level” [emphasis
will be adjacent to the Western Pacific maintained]41.
essential to ensure species are
gray whales’ feeding and migrating
not put at risk.” — Dmitry habitat, and undersea pipelines will be
Lisitsyn, Chairman of Sakhalin trenched directly through that habitat.
Environmental Watch

Whales living in the shadow of oil drilling platforms in waters
off shore of Sakhalin Island, Russia. (Gravilov/Greenpeace)


Shellreport

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Shellreport

Similar to Shellreport (20)

More from Coletivo Alternativa Verde

More from Coletivo Alternativa Verde (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Shellreport