Watch Shell’s 1991 Video Warning of Catastrophic Climate Change
A public information film unseen for years shows Shell had clear grasp of global warming 26 years ago but has not acted accordingly since, say critics.

The oil giant Shell issued a stark warning of the catastrophic risks of climate change more than a quarter of century ago in a prescient 1991 film that has been rediscovered.

However, since then the company has invested heavily in highly polluting oil reserves and helped lobby against climate action, leading to accusations that Shell knew the grave risks of global warming but did not act accordingly.

For decades, Nigeria’s Ogoniland region was the scene of massive oil extraction by Royal Dutch Shell and its Nigerian subsidiaries. Since then, a series of major oil spills have turned the region, which lies on the Niger Delta, into one of the world’s largest environmental disaster areas.

But Ogoniland’s musicians are not standing idly by; they’re helping to create a new beginning. Their work has resonated with the community, showing how music can be a way forward for the region and its discontented youth.

Take young hip-hop artist MC Kay, who witnessed the impact of a devastating oil spill firsthand. MC Kay’s father died young, leaving him to support the family as a fisherman. But the latest oil spill in 2009 took all that away. Consequently, he turned to music.

“I want to send a message on what is happening in my country that is affecting the poor people and affecting the youth,” he says. “I cannot go to the government and tell them, but I can say this through the music and people will hear it.”

Young Musicians Call For Change In Ogoniland, Nigeria

Photo: Banning Eyre/NPR
Caption: Hip-hop artist MC Kay’s song “January Money,” about the compensation owed fishermen from a 2009 oil spill, spread throughout Ogoniland and resonated with his community.
Shell abandons Alaska Arctic drilling
Oil giant’s US president says hugely controversial drilling operations off Alaska will stop for ‘foreseeable future’ as drilling finds little oil and gas
By Terry Macalister

What a good news on a Monday! Shell has abandoned all plans of drilling in the Arctic for now, as the results from their exploratory drill was disappointing and did not lead to the results they were hoping for. 

I have written about offshore drilling a few weeks ago, so I happily welcome this news. If you’ve missed my posts:

Part 1: What is Offshore Drilling and Its Impacts on the Environment

Part 2: Arctic Drilling Plans, and the Need for Green Technologies

Company seeks to build island off Alaska for Arctic drilling

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) – America within a few years could be extracting oil from federal waters in the Arctic Ocean, but it won’t be from a remote drilling platform.

Federal regulators are taking comments on a draft environmental statement for the Liberty Project, a proposal by a subsidiary of Houston-based Hilcorp to create an artificial gravel island that would hold production wells, a processing facility and the start of an undersea pipeline carrying oil to shore and connections to the trans-Alaska pipeline.

The drilling would be the first in federal Arctic waters since Royal Dutch Shell, amid protest both in the United States and abroad, in 2015 sent down an exploratory well in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska’s northwest coast.

Supporters like its chances. A final decision is in the hands of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. President Barak Obama in December signed an executive order designating the bulk of U.S. Arctic Ocean waters indefinitely off-limits to future oil and gas leasing. But President Donald in April signed another order aimed at reversing the policy. Zinke said Trump’s actions would put the country on track for energy independence.

Opponents say Arctic offshore oil should stay in the ground, where it won’t add greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and the melting of sea ice, the habitat of polar bears and walruses. They say spills are inevitable and cannot be cleaned up in icy Arctic water.

Opponents also question Hilcorp’s safety record. State authorities this year fined the company $200,000 for violations at another production site. Hilcorp also waited several months to address an undersea pipeline leaking millions of cubic feet of processed natural gas in Alaska’s Cook Inlet because of danger to divers, Lois Epstein, Arctic program director for The Wilderness Society, said at an Anchorage hearing.

“This ongoing gas release into Cook Inlet, visible from the air, was a national embarrassment for Alaska,” she said.

The gas leaked from a pipeline supplying fuel to Hilcorp production platforms. The company confirmed the leak in February and lowered pressure in the line but waited until April to make repairs because of the threat to divers from floating ice. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to date has found no evidence the leak harmed birds, fish or marine mammals.

The latest project is on federal leases sold in the 1990s. Hilcorp proposes to create the island about 15 miles (24 kilometers) east of Prudhoe Bay, North America’s largest oil field. BP Exploration Alaska drilled at the site in 1997 and sold 50 percent of the assets to Hilcorp in 2014.

The island’s base on the ocean floor would be 24 acres, about the size of 18 football fields, with sloped sides leading to a work surface of 9 acres, the size of nearly seven football fields.

Trucks would travel by ice road to a hole cut in sea ice and deposit 83,000 cubic yards (63,450 million cubic meters) of gravel into 19 feet (6 meters) of water to create the island. A wall would fend off ice, waves and wildlife.

The island would be 5.6 miles (9 kilometers) off shore. The surface would have room for 16 wells, including five to eight conventional production wells. At peak production, Hilcorp anticipates extracting 60,000 to 70,000 barrels per day for a total recovery of 80 million to 150 million barrels over 15 to 20 years.

Oil would reach shore by a pipe encased by a second pipe and equipped with a leak detection systems. It would be buried to prevent gouging by moving ice.

At the end of production, the company would remove equipment and the wall and let waves and ice dismantle the island.

At a public hearing on the project last week, Joshua Kendrick, an attorney for the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, said opposition testimony has focused on rhetoric. Liberty would be the 19th artificial drilling island in Alaska, including four now pumping oil from state waters. Decisions should be made by data and science, he said, and Hilcorp is not proposing something novel.

“This isn’t venturing into new waters. Anyone who sells fear or the least likely outcome to discourage these types of investments coming forward is doing a disservice to Alaska, doing a disservice to the public,” he said.

Andy Mack, commissioner of the state Department of Natural Resources, said the body of information built up from wells on gravel islands in state waters should give people comfort about Liberty’s effects on marine mammals and the environment. Like other supporters, he touted Liberty’s economic benefits.

“Each of these facilities on its own, frankly, they’re not giant fields,” Mack said. “But they’re all very, very important to the economy of Alaska.”

Blake Upshaw of the Center for Biological Diversity said spills are inevitable and routine and cannot be cleaned up in Arctic waters.

“Oil companies have guaranteed safe operations to communities in Valdez, the Gulf of Mexico and Santa Barbara over the years, and we all know how projects in those locations turned out,” he said.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will collect comment on its draft environmental review until Nov. 18.
The biggest lease holder in Canada's oil sands isn't Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It's the Koch brothers.

You might expect the biggest lease owner in Canada’s oil sands, or tar sands, to be one of the international oil giants, like Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell. But that isn’t the case. The biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.
CEO of Royal Dutch Shell: Climate change discussion ‘has gone into la-la land’

Q: Let’s turn to the Ukraine? You have been planning to drill for shale gas in eastern Ukraine near recent fighting. How much of that is in areas controlled by Russian separatists?

It is very much in that general region. That venture is very much in the Donetsk and Slavyansk areas. I’m not sure whether they are smack in the middle of the conflict or on the borders. The contours have changed. One thing I know is we can’t operate there. We have declared force majeure. As it happened, we had taken a pause to evaluate the drilling results. So this is just suspended. I don’t know what is going to happen. I guess nobody knows what is going to happen. When it all has stabilized and returned to normal, which I truly hope will happen soon, we’ll take an inventory of what the situation is. There’s no production. We had drilled and fractured the first well. It is very early exploration.

weird how conflicts arise virtually everywhere oil companies spend money
Nigeria oil spill manager: Shell offshore spill affecting 115 miles of ocean, moving to coast

An oil spill near the coast of Nigeria is likely the worst to hit those waters in a decade, a government official said Thursday, as slicks from the Royal Dutch Shell PLC spill approached the country’s southern shoreline.

The real story behind Shell’s climate change rhetoric

In the first of an investigative series into the fossil fuel giants from which we are calling on [the] Gates [Foundation] and Wellcome Trust to divest, we reveal Shell’s pursuit of ever riskier reserves is at odds with its own forecasts for dangerous global warming.  


The american government knew that some rich and important people (the rich elite/industrialists) did trading with Nazi germany, but nothing was done. What has been hidden from the public for over 70 years is, that the Nazi war machine was an american business. Keeping this little secret was possible thru propaganda taught in school books. Watching the docu on youtube you understand that the rise of hitler was no coincidence. It was all setup by powerfull elite families that still rule the world today. Forget all you’ve been taught at school. It was just nonsense to keep the sheeple blind.

It’s all about the money. When germany was bombarded, factories that were build with money that was lend by american banksters, were not attacked. Who would be so stupid to destroy his investment in nazi germany??