Talk:Royal Dutch Shell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
A story relating to the article Royal Dutch Shell (or a previous version of it) was included in the news section of the Energy Portal. Please consider updating the portal news with any major developments on this topic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Royal Dutch Shell article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Wrong Revenue sum

I'm not sure where the person who added it got their figure, but the revenue they listed was overstated by about $70 billion dollars. Revenue for the year was actually $306.73 billion dollars. I'm not sure why there is such a big difference between the Shell website and others, but I think for the time being it would be safer to go with the multitude of sources that state it's revenue in the $306 billion dollar range. --Mrowlinson 14:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC) http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BCCBBD7E4%2DF44B%2D46DD%2DB2F9%2DE6F6169CE361%7D http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=RDS-B


It's just a matter of which number you use. Here: http://www.shell.com/static/nl-nl/downloads/res/nl_q4_05.pdf. I see both numbers. I'm sorry it's in Dutch, I'll keep searching for an English version. It says that their total revenues were 379 billion dollars, and that they payed araound 72 billion on taxes thtoughout the year, so that their net revenues were 306 billion. I'm no economist, so Í don't know which number is more commonly used, but they're both correct for 2005. Knijert 12:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I originally added the $379 billion figure. This is where I found it: http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=investor-en&FC2=/investor-en/html/iwgen/quarterlyresults/2005/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/investor-en/html/iwgen/quarterlyresults/2005/q4_2005_keyfinancials_02022006.html. jacoplane 14:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone look at this? It seems to say pretty clearly that revenue was $379 billion. It's from a pretty authorative source. Would anyone object if I changed the figure back to this? jacoplane 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
ping? jacoplane 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History and Discussion gone...

Thanks to the person who moved Royal Dutch/Shell to Royal Dutch Shell we lost all the previous article history as well as lengthly discussions. Also, this article has gained a lot of POV since I last looked circa January 2005. --129.173.105.28 00:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry abut that, but the new company name doesn't include the slash and I couldn't perform a direct move. Go to the no-redirects version of Royal Dutch/Shell (direct link: [1]). My apologies about the "lengthy discussions", although I can't understand why some comments would remain and some wouldn't. Small consolation, I know. Stickguy 12:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Maybe ask an admin to do it next time if you can't. Sometimes it's best to seek advice from above before doing major edits. --129.173.105.28 18:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corrib gas field

I'd like to see some examples of unrefined gas being piped ashore, especially if it is done in inhabited areas.

Lapsed Pacifist 06:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The [www.soep.com/ Sable Offshore Energy Project ] comes to mind. Also, much of the Gulf Coast gas comes ashore through pipelines, but I don't know which specific prospects are refined onshore. Offshore gas processing is usually done when it is cheaper than doing it onshore, usually it is cheaper to process onshore. In some countries offshore prospects fall under federal jurisdiction instead of local jurisdiction, if local regulations are too demanding, they may opt to process offshore. In some environmental aspects force offshore production, icebergs in northern regions are a good example of this. I will be happy to come back in a couple of weeks if you want more info. --129.173.105.28 13:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There's another gas rig in Ireland, off the south coast, where it's processed offshore. Does the Nova Scotia pipeline go through an inhabited area?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes --129.173.105.28 19:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I am guessing this is a contentious issue in the community. Some things to consider: Where is the field located in the south in relation to land. I used to live in Alberta, and I can tell you that unprocessed gas is not always refined at source. It can move through hundreds of kilometres of pipe before it gets to a refinery. I'm only changing things based on the facts I know. It is more expensive to build a processing facility offshore than onshore, until you consider things like political climate onshore and some other factors.--129.173.105.28 19:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I just improved the Corrib field article. It is a small field 1 TCF; this may be the reason why they are processing it onshore.


The Corrib field is not that much smaller, 70% of the Kinsale volume according to http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/corrib/. I'm just wondering if it's common to transport unrefined gas through inhabited areas. The Kinsale field is 50km from land. Both are in the jurisdiction of the Republic.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

To many in the energy industry a 1 TCF gas deposit ofshore would be considered small. I did not mean small compared to Kinsale. I already aswered your other question, yes it is common to process gas from offshore developments onshore. Take a look through the pages I linked to in the Corrib field wiki page, and see how many are processed onshore. FYI - the SOEP fields are ~200 km offshore and are processed onshore. The gas at Corrib appears to be sweet, with little H2S contamination. Refining then piping it won't change what goes through the pipes significantly. --129.173.105.28 18:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


The main issues seem to be the lack of ethanethiol or a similar chemical to warn of any leak, and the high pressure the unrefined gas is being piped at, compared to its pressure when it is refined, which the residents of Rossport consider significant. When I asked how common it is to refine onshore, I was looking for a ratio, i.e. are half of refineries for offshore gas onshore? A quarter? And what proportion of these have the gas piped through inhabited areas?

Lapsed Pacifist 18:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

129.173.105.28 has provided you with a link where you could put together the statistics and work out your own ratio; browsing through the site I can quickly see that there are many projects where gas is refined onshore. There are hundreds of offshore gas projects, you are asking someone else to do a significant amount of work for you. Based on your edits you I feel you have a POV on the issue. Can you provide the actual numbers for the pressures. All gas pipelines are "high pressured". --Csnewton 19:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


I'm given to understand that the pressure is much higher before the gas is refined. I'm not looking for exact offshore/onshore or inhabited areas/uninhabited areas ratios, a rough estimate from someone more familiar with the industry would suit me fine. Based on my edits, exactly what POV do you think I have?

Lapsed Pacifist 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think many people would have a rough estimate of the numbers you are looking for. You could try asking other places in wikipedia. You seem to be searching relentlessly for evidence that onshore refining is not the norm or common. The pressure of a pipeline depends on its use. For instance, a transport pipeline for refined gas would likely be at a similar pressure to the pipeline originating at the platform. A distribution pipeline would have less pressure. --Csnewton 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The pressures in all gas pipelines are decided by the desired flowrate, the gas consistency and the terrain over which they must pass. Unrefined NGL is sent by underground pipeline from St Fergus to Mossmorran a total of 212km. It passes close to many properties and nearby Aberdeen and Perth. There is no odoriser and the pressure in the pipe at it highest (lowest elevation) is similar (probably greater) to Corrib. Unprocessed gas arives at St Fergus and at Bacton in the UK from offshore. Unprocessed gas is collected thoughout Northern Netherlands from the Gronigen field and piped through hundreds of km of flow lines to gathering stations. There is no change in the safety position for odorised gas compared with unodorised gas. A leak remains equally likely and equally problematical. Use of odoriser would provide little value.--Rjstott 03:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Surely the odoriser would warn anyone near the pipe that there was a leak?

Lapsed Pacifist 06:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Given the number of explosions in houses caused by leaking gas where odoriser is obviously present it seem that detection by smell isn't effective and too late by far to have any purpose. As the pipeline passes through a largely unpopulated area detection by smell is not somethin any responsible operator would rely on. It is much more important that all precautions are taken to ensure the pipeline is properly maintained and protected. Other important safety solutions requires leak detection, the capability to shut down, isolate, depressurise and act quickly. All responsible Gas pipeline operators will have clear plans in any emergency which will be regularly tested.


That's fair enough. Should'nt blast radius be a factor if the pipe passes close to houses, though?

Lapsed Pacifist 04:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The radius is quite small even for gas mixed at precisely the right proportions. Gas explosions are also considered soft (slow), especially unless constrained. At around 50 metres from a gas release point, there is considered to be little risk of ignition. However, lots of factors need to be considered such as prevailing wind and weather, terrain, pressure, leak size, pipe depth, leak detection capability, temperature etc.

This discussion would be better on the LNG talk page if it is to have any general value.--Rjstott 10:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has very little to do with LNG. --24.137.104.16 02:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Founding 1907

The article states The Royal Dutch/Shell Group was created in 1907 when Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (legal name in Dutch, N.V. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij) and The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company plc merged. But this cannot be correct since there were no PLCs in 1907. Was it a Ltd? -- SGBailey 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch Wiki says they didn't become one company in 1907. Shell and Royal Dutch Petroleum were two companies, which worked very close together. They became one company in 2005. (Don't mention my bad English)

[edit] Factual inaccuracy

The folllowing sentence in the summary is factually incorrect, I believe and I will remove or re-write it today unless somebody provides references.

"Shell operates in over 140 countries worldwide, the biggest country being the United States where its subsidiary is Shell Oil Company, which has its head office in Houston, Texas."

Shell also operates in East-Russia,I read in the newspaper De Volkskrant Russia is a bigger country than the USA. I also have problems with the weight given to the situation in the USA in the summary. Why is the USA so important for Shell or the readers of Wikipedia? Andries 17:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentence does appear to be a bit inconsistent - I would imagine it means that the USA is Shell's biggest customer, not that it is the biggest country. QmunkE 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You are probably right and I should have thought about it. I changed it accordingly. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if somebody provided references for the assertion that Shell USA generates the biggest revenue of all countries. Andries 20:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Litigation

I'm not sure on how to view the section "ASSOCIATED LITIGATION: CIVIL ACTION 04431 IN THE US DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY ..." to "... all non-U.S. purchasers of Shell stock in the qualifying period). Court documents". This seems to be rather too detailed for an encyclopedic document, but I'm not sure how to proceed to rectify this. Can anyone point me to a reference or show how to get help on this? Mnbf9rca 19:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whistleblowing and accountability?

Let's take no lectures on ethics from a company incorporated in the UK but headquartered in Holland so it doesn't have to pay UK corporate tax nor any future 'windfall' tax as previously mooted. All the while mere common UK folk pay more and more personal tax to make up the Treasury's increasing shortfall. Nearly as bad as News International which famously a few years ago was discovered to have paid less company tax in 11 years than a village corner shop despite UK turnover of seven figures. Capitalism rules! 86.7.208.240 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Section On it's Criticism

I'm shocked to see that there is no section on the criticism of Shell, one of the largest corporations in the world and one of the biggest polluters, they've killed protesters (see the corporation's wikipedia article), they're helping to kill the earth. Come on guys - your not even going to mention how they are DESTROYING THE EARTH. the very air you breath.......222.155.61.4 05:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's an entire section dealing with environmental issues surrounding Shell. It's even broken down by country.

ManicParroT 15:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually ManicParroT, the section you are referring to has been conveniently removed to its own ghetto, under the title, Royal Dutch Shell Environmental and reputational issues. So, unless you were reading this article very carefully you would probably miss it altogether, drastically skewing the POV of the remaining article. --Betamod 08:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity how skewing? The rest of the article is mainly factual and doesn't particularly trumpet "good deeds" or anything AFAICT. However you are welcome to put a summary (not copy and paste) back in of course.--BozMo talk 21:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am busy rewriting the main article removing some of the content whioch was either biased or not really relevent to a summary article on Shell. I would prefer that the cricticism was returned to the main article, but don't feel that strongly about this. What do others think? Stephen Parnell 10:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the length and quality of content. As an economic entity Shell is the same size as Belgium roughly and listing every petty squabble would imbalance the article. I think a separate article is a good place for that stuff but some sort of longer summary section here would be good. --BozMo talk 12:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Petty squabble"? When a corporation is implicit in the executions of environmental activists (in Nigeria), I think that pointing such things out qualifies as something rather more substantial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregapan (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sub-article would be overwhelming if re-introduced to the mainspace unless it was drastically summarized - it's actually quite a bit larger than the rest of the material. It seems to function quite well as an article on its own, but I'm a little confused by the overly NPOV title - it is indeed easy to miss. I would prefer "Criticism of Royal Dutch Shell" ala Criticism of Microsoft. Kuru talk 15:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added back two sections dealing with the Royal Dutch Shell Plc domain name litigation and the still suspended Tell Shell Forum - both sections could be considered critical of Shell. I am a long term critic of Shell but surely the point is whether what is stated is factual and balanced. I use my real name to contribute to the article not a pseudonym, so everyone knows my background and can take take it into account. With the greatest respect, it is surely the overall content which must be fair and balanced. This objective is not obtained by deleting negative but true content. JohnaDonovan: 06 Jan 2006.

The content that you originally included, and which I removed, was controversial, particular and clearly part of your personal campaign against Shell. Wikipedia is not the right forum for such campaigning. There are thousands of stories about Shell which could be included - but the main article must be not only factually correct, and written from a neutral POV, but also significant and relevant. There is a separate entry where reputational issues in respect of Shell are described. You may wish to consider taking your input to this entry - but I would recommend that you rewrite carefully it if you do. Stephen Parnell 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The content you removed was displayed on the article for several months without anyone taking exception to it. With respect, it only appears to be controversial as far as you are concerned. Most of the section relating to Tell Shell was in fact contributed by someone else, "Paddy Briggs", if I recall correctly. I am not using Wikipedia for campaigning as you allege. I am an expert on Shell and have contributed negative and positive sections including the entire original material on the Shell Whistleblower facility, Live Wire and The Shell Foundation. All three contained purely positive information about Shell at the time of posting. That is a fact. You have the advantage over me in that you know who you are discussing this with. From the tone of your comments and what appears to be either advice or instructions, I assume that you are in a position of some considerable authority within Wikipedia, as you appear to be the judge and jury in regards to what is published on this article. I would welcome your response and will take no further action until you have had an opportunity to reply. User: JohnaDonovan: 19.33, 6 January 2007.

I thought I'd removed these sections before because they weren't noteworthy. Anyway I agree they do not merit inclusion in the main article on a $300bn turnover company. --BozMo talk 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If you check below we did discuss the issues you raised at that time and you appeared satisfied with the answers I provided. At that time the sections now in question were already displayed. Of course you are allowed to change your mind. Comment addressed to Stephen Parnell: Am I write in assuming that you are not a journalist with the initials DB? If you are DB, you will know why I have asked this question. User: JohnaDonovan: 20.32, 6 January 2007
Hmm. Ok. I haven't really taken a huge interest in this article and I do think it is a mess. I remember much more discussing the links to your site (where you were technically outside the rules on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest ) and there I thought the end point was ok. --BozMo talk 09:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not the source of any input in this entry on the Tell Shell forum - as far as I can see this originated on 2 June 2006 from John Donovan. PaddyBriggs 09:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment from Paddy Briggs is noted and accepted. I was the original contributor for the Tell Shell section. Someone then deleted a large section dealing with Tell Shell censorship. A revised version covering the same matters, including a reference to John Hofmeister, was subsequently posted (not by me). This will all be in the record. A contributor subsequently edited the end of the section and it ended up being accurate but unsatisfactory (in my humble opinion). I do recognise the point about transfering less important information to the subsidiary page, but could the link not be more prominently displayed on the main page? My guess is that many visitors do not notice it in its current form. User: JohnaDonovan: 10.30, 7 January 2007

I would like to explain why I have asked "Stephen Parnell" if his real initials are DB. A few months ago a person with these initials who can properly claim to be a journalist wrote a newspaper article about the Internet (his speciality) which mentioned Shell. I subsequently complained to the editor that DW had failed to disclose a commercial relationship with Shell. An agency DB works for has Shell as a client in regards to the Internet. I corresponded with DB and it was obvious from his comments about my contributions to Wikipedia (strikingly similar to those expressed by "Stephen Parnell") that DB had carried out research here, but had not apparently realised that I had also posted substantial content entirely positive about Shell. It may well be the case that "Stephen" is not DB, but if he is, then it would seem wrong for him to undertake a major rewrite in which entirely factually based content critical of Shell is removed, bearing in mind the effort made to post it in the first place, without being upfront, as I have been, in disclosing my connection with Shell. User: JohnaDonovan: 14.30, 7 January 2007

I am NOT DB (whover he/she is).!! Stephen Parnell 15:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that confirmation which of course I accept. I apologise for raising the question. User: JohnaDonovan. 6.06, 7 January 2007.

[edit] General article assessment

I like this article quite a lot. It seems pretty balanced, it adresses the issues, and it gives you a lot of very professional 'at a glance' information. I'm not so sure about the later parts (it seems to get slightly weak towards the end), but I think with some really good hard pushes it could be on its way towards good article or even featured article status. What do you think?

ManicParroT 15:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


we would have to do something about all the royaldutchshellplc.com links which seem to have been added by the site owner, and are being used with anchor text I guess to try to drive google (perhaps leave one). Otherwise it is not bad--BozMo talk 09:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the insertion of royaldutchshellplc.com links, I use a link for the original publisher whenever that publisher makes the relevant articles accessible permanently without charge. Unfortunately most publishers of news articles only keep them on line for a few days. They are then removed and in some cases only available thereafter by payment. I would point out that the site in question is entirely non commercial. All articles are searchable and permanently accessible without charge. There are no subcription charges nor paid adverts. User: JohnaDonovan 26 October 2006.

That's fair enough. I tried to find a bloomberg article and couldn't. Don't you have a problem with copyright? --BozMo talk 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

With regards to copyright, we have explained to publishers who have approached us (e.g. the General Counsel of Dow Jones Company) that we are entirely non-commercial, as indicated above, and that the website is directed towards a very narrow audience - people interested in Shell. This was accepted by Dow Jones and another news publishing organisation. The correspondence which mentions the USA "Fair Use" doctrine on copyright is available on request. No publisher has asked us to remove articles after we have explained the background circumstances. User: johonadonovan: 21 November 2006

Cool, well done. --BozMo talk 10:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article should only really cover the main elements of Shell's structure, history and operations. It should not duck the more controversial matters - but there is a separate article on reputational issues which is the logical home for the detail (e.g. the “Tell Shell” stuff and the Domain name controversy). I would welcome input from others who know Shell well and hope that the article can be as balanced and objective as Wiki requires. There is a fair way to go yet I think! Stephen Parnell 14:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I respectfully draw your attention to the paragraphs in the section above addressed to "Stephen Parnell". If you would prefer not to answer then I would not press the issue further. User: JohnaDonovan. 14.56, 7 January 2007.

On 2nd October user "ManicParroT" said that the article "could be on its way towards good article or even featured article status." His entire comments can be read above. This was before the article was decimated with major deletions and with all information critical of Shell removed to a secondary page. Does anyone know how many visitors actually click through to the secondary article? The changes which have been made are beneficial to Shell and in my view no longer present a balanced overall view of the multinational. "Stephen Parnell" says that he would welcome input from others who know Shell well... If this means someone other than me redrafting the deleted sections I have no problems. Indeed, I would be happy for him to do this as we are then more likely to end up with an acceptable draft. It is the easiest thing in the world to delete information. It takes time to contribute information and install appropriate links. I will do nothing on the matter so that there is time over the coming week hopefully for a consensus view to form on the merits of having a secondary article, rather than one article. I recognise that the article must be balanced, accurate and objective. No individual contributor should be able to dictate such matters. That includes me. User: JohnaDonovan: 18.00, 7 January 2007

The WP stats pages don't down into such detail so I cannot answer your question. Part of the problem is that the article is WAY too long. Reinstating long sections which have or are being peeled off into other pages is not helpful but writing concise summaries of them would be helpful, in my view. Also suggesting other parts of the article we could move elsewhere would be helpful. I repeat the oft quoted saying that as an economic entity and (shockingly?) as a producer of CO2 Shell is about the size of Belgium: in my view silly stuff about internal HR or a few local protestors shouldn't be in the main article but stuff like Sakholin or Nigeria certainly should. --BozMo talk 21:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The "shift in POV" issue is a bit more complex. In principle where the article sticks to financials or objective facts it is always NPOV. Where there are subjective bits I think we need to keep both sides of everything. e.g. it would be unfair to talk about sponsorship of wildlife photos without talking about negative things or equally to quote FOE's assessment of Shell's record without also quoting the official company response. --BozMo talk 09:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "ant-Shell" website just added

I am removing this latest link. It seems to be an anti-globalisation site (with many URLs), not even be cached by google and only have a small amount of stuff on Shell. On top of which the adding IP had added versions of it to a dozen WP pages and done nothing else. --BozMo talk 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 reserves problems at Shell

It seems that the reserves overstatements would still be an issue to mention. Anyone interested to give it a try? Stephan

See Royal_Dutch_Shell_Environmental_and_reputational_issues#Oil_and_gas_reserves_recategorisation--BozMo talk 21:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Any chance of a link to www.shelloiledwildlife.org.uk?

Thanks,

MMnajb 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New link?

Hi,

Any chance of a link to www.shelloiledwildlife.org.uk?

Thanks,

Mnajb 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be on the repute page not here. I will put it there --BozMo talk 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dispute

Remove this para which self contradicts:

An original investor, and the largest single shareholder in Royal Dutch Shell, is the holding company owned by the Dutch Royal Family [citation needed], which was set up by Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. Although a persistent myth in the USA, it has been denied that this is still the case. While king Willem III initially had 5% of the shares of Royal Dutch, those have been sold over the years and the royal family does not own direct shares any more.

Can anyone find the truth of the matter (with a reference please)?--BozMo talk 10:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy carr in management section?

It's seems out of place for the anecdote about Jimmy Carr working for shell and the top gear quote being in the management section. Also the William Hague inclusion is slighlty strange. I'm not saying it should be removed though.Just doesn't seem the place for it when seriously discussing the current management.--Eisner 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

D'Accord ! Stephen Parnell 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M&E Corporate Social Responsibility rankings

Someone added the following under the reputation section: -

"The company has topped the M&E Corporate Social Responsibility rankings for four years in a row.[5]"

There are two points I would like to make. Firstly the link does not work. Secondly, in my humble opinion the ratings cannot be correct as they take in the worst year in Shell's history, 2004, when its reputation hit rock bottom as a result of the reserves scandal. After publicly challenging the survey results, I received an email from Dr William Cox, the MD of the survey company, Management & Excellence SA. I replied asking if Shell is a client. There was no response. His email and my response can be found on this webpage. Under the circumstances, I believe that the reference to the survey results should be removed. Johnadonovan 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to this either and have taken the liberty of removing the statement! PaddyBriggs 14:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now found the reference to the 2005 study and have made a link to it which works. Best to let people make up their own minds I think. PaddyBriggs 12:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring of entry

My restructuring is "work in progress"! Comments very welcome. PaddyBriggs 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headquarters

Royal Dutch Shell's headquarters are in The Hague. The article plainly states this and so the summary on the right should reflect that. The fact that the company is incorporated in the UK and some divisions are directed from there is not relevant in this matter. 217.149.210.16 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the company not also have a headquarters in the UK though? Shouldn't we add 'Primary Headquarters; The Hague, Secondary Headquarters; London'? 81.154.20.159 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Shell has two "Central Offices" in The Hague and London. The global businesses and service functions are split between the two offices. In recent times (since the restructuring) some busineses/functions have moved from the UK to Holland. But London remains a substantial central office for the direction of Shell's global business and is the "Head Office" home of important parts of the Group. PaddyBriggs 09:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The situation in the past was that there were two corporate headquarters, one for RD and one for ST&T. In addition, downstream activities were managed from London and upstream activities were managed from The Hague, which is why The Hague was (and still is) considered the more important location of the two. The latter didn't change but the former did. The corporate headquarters are now located in The Hague, period. In the case of other companies (I always take Philips as an example) the headquarters of product divisions aren't mentioned in that location either (although they may be mentioned in the article), even though they are often not located in the same city as the corporate headquarters (Philips DAP's HQ is in Amersfoort, for instance). To summarize: I'm fine with the way it's mentioned in the article but the sidebar needs to mention The Hague only. I'm sorry if this hurts people's national pride, but that's the way it is. So I'm going to give you a few days to respond with counter-examples and then change it if no one responds. 217.149.210.16 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well how very generous and magnanimous of you to allow us mere common-folk some time to oppose your personal view before you make a final decision. Highly suprised - amused even - to see that you believe the registered and incorporated location of a company is irrelevant - why don't you just add another line in the infobox for "Registered (or Incorporated) - London, UK", or would that hurt your national pride too much? Your Philips analogy is bunkum and misinformed: Philips is a Dutch Company, Shell is a multi-national. But anyway, may I suggest you modify your approach to this resource and those who contribute to it when selecting the language and tone of your posts. At the moment you seem to stroll round this place like you own it. Delsource (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to add such a line if you think it's so important - but I can't find it in any other corporate article. Anyway, it doesn't really add anything interesting as far as national pride is concerned, because the info box already mentions (on its very first line, no less) that Shell is a plc. You seem to be more worried about national pride than I am, frankly. It's an INFO BOX for crying out loud - nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with nationality. Furthermore, Philips is just as much a multinational as Shell, it just happens to originate from one country instead of two. And you're the one that's misinformed - many of Eindhoven's inhabitants still consider Philips a company from Eindhoven, even though their headquarters are now in Amsterdam. It's a very relevant comparison because it's a similarly heated debate. I also don't like your condescending tone towards me, but you don't seem to like my tone either for some reason, so I guess that makes us even. 217.149.210.16 23:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Dutch Shell

Originally posted to Talk:MrZaius, moved here to open up the discussion a tad more, if there are any other interested parties.

Well done having a go at RDS, it looks to me like it is heading the right way. Please do not americanize spelling. Policy is that we use both British and American English and changing from one to another is considered edit warring. Thanks --BozMo talk 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience I might have caused, but I was on a major spelling blitz after correcting numerous errors on the Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell page. Basically got to the point where I was automating the process and running an American English dictionary spellchecker against both documents. Now, please note that it is actually policy to write an article with a single standard spelling technique in mind, be it British or American, to allow for computers to check the article. Take particular note of the Manual of Style's section: "Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout." Thanks for the feedback, - PS: Will copy over to the RDS talk page. MrZaiustalk 15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep. However I think the original author of the article used British English, the article was in British and also its more of a UK company than American. Shell's website uses British English and one of the words changed was a direct quotation off the website which definitely shouldn't be americanised. --BozMo talk 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that another user should rename the page in a contrary way to what I had proposed and others had endorsed. But I don't feel that strongly about it and am happy with the "Controversies" descriptor. I would encourage MrZaius to follow the courtesy that those of us active on the Shell entries have put in place which is to use the talk pages before making substative revisions. PaddyBriggs 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note that, at the time, the page had only ever been edited by one user, as it had been moved manually, rather than using the Move function (which would have moved the talk & history, and kept it from showing up in Special:Newpages). I spotted the article in question while trawling the Newpages queue, which, again, wouldn't have happened if it had been moved normally. Thinking it was a new article, I reflexively sought to remedy the rather clunky phrase "reputational issues", the astandard capitalization of Environmental, and the general length of the Newpage's title. Unfortunately, I did not see that the page was copied and pasted from a far older page until after my move. If it should be moved back, or to another name, I would be happy to remedy the situation. I meant no discourtesy, and apologise for the misunderstanding. It would seem that Talk:Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell would be a more appropriate place to discuss reverting the move or some other remedy for the situation. MrZaiustalk 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Websites critical of Royal Dutch Shell

I have added this section as per the same section on the ExxonMobil main webpage Websites critical of ExxonMobil. It is my contention that any "anti" websites should be listed on the relevant Wikipedia articles for all major corporations to provide a counterweight alternative source of information for the public and shareholders. If this section is okay for the ExxonMobil main article, it is surely also okay for the main Shell article.Johnadonovan 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I have moved them. At present the reason is mainly AFAICT there is no separate page for criticism of EM. Perhaps there should be but the crit section material for Shell is much longer which is why it moved out. Do let me know if there is a sep EM crit page in which case I will link the article to it there and move the material out. --BozMo talk 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, we could bin the separate page for Shell but the material would have to be shortened which is a pity. --BozMo talk 07:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right in what you say and in the action you have taken. Johnadonovan 15:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Citizen of New Orleans

Shell has supported the city of New Orleans in its struggle to survive after the catastrophic lashing it took from the hands of hurricane Katrina. By underwriting one of the core economic engines of the city, the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival, Shell painted the city with optimism by rescuing a venue many had written off as dead. The success of the first post-Katrina festival gave pause to the uncertain locals contemplating settlement elsewhere.

The company reopened its operational headquarters in New Orleans at One Shell Square, although to leave would have been understandable due to the dire conditions in New Orleans and with Houston only 350 miles to the west. Instead, the company dug in its heels and committed several million $US into the local rebuilding efforts including the construction of the musicians village, a community of "shotgun" styled houses used to support the local musicians and entertainers.

Nice to hear: but is this notable and verifiable? --BozMo talk 09:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reports on Shell

I have been dealing with an OTRS ticket where someone is complaining this article is a PR piece for Shell. They believe insufficient criticism is present and that, as an example, this Guardian article should be referenced. --Brianmc 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this material is covered in some detail in Controversies_surrounding_Royal_Dutch_Shell. Personally I think it would be WP:UNDUE to put too much of this material into this main article, given that Shell is about the economic size of Belgium and this is about one local dispute (which was almost certainly turned over in a higher court and pales into insignificance compared to say the Sakahlin fiasco). If we put them all in it would be a very long article --BozMo talk 13:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] currency

for a company which is British/Dutch why is the currence un US Dollars?....would Euros/Pound Sterling be better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.163.176 (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of subsidiaries?

I was hoping to find a clear list of RDS subsidiaries in this article. I know of articles for Shell Oil Company, Shell Nigeria, and Shell Canada....are there others? — Catherine\talk 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Merge proposal

Oppose: this article is way too big and we should be trying to spin off not merge. Shell as an economic entity is the size of Belgium (world's 11th biggest country), is hugely notable and diserves far more coverage. --BozMo talk 07:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Hear, hear. Suggested merger refers to a few companies of the Shell Group of companies only. If merged, it is even bigger than way to big.--Stunteltje (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: no sense making a big article even bigger.And i hereby remove the merge tag because:
1. The majority rejected the merge.
2. The article has been disputed for more the 1 year.

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Shell logo.svg

Image:Shell logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to controversies

Would one or more other editors kindly review these changes made by Johnadonovan (talk · contribs)? I undid them but John maintains that the article ought to contain these links in the lead. It is a nonstandard page structure and has no precedent elsewhere on Wikipedia or in the Manual of Style. However he wants confirmation that it really is as clear cut as I have made out. Thanks BigBlueFish (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bigbluefish deleted the links leaving no link whatsoever to the environmental issues article. Only after I complained, Bigbluefish installed a link at the bottom of the article; another inch lower and it would have been in the footnotes. Bigbluefish has stated that visitors “will eventually find the section”. I do not believe Wikipedia should adopt a maze format rather than an easy access, user-friendly approach. I can only assume Bigbluefish is of the opinion that there is little interest in environmental issues. I take the opposite view. Controversial issues relating to Shell used to be on the main page. Despite some strident opposition, as displayed under the heading “No Section On it's Criticism” above, the relevant content was moved to a subsidiary article. There was a perfectly valid argument for the move, namely the considerable length of the article. However, I maintain that the issues now spread over three prime subsidiary articles are important and deserve a prominent link from the main page, with all three links being clustered together, rather than being inserted separately in a haphazard fashion which make it even less likely that they will be noticed. Note that I am arguing for a prominent position, not necessarily a lead position. Bigbluefish to his or her credit is a stickler for Wikipedia guidelines. I seem to recall that commonsense is also deemed by Wikipedia to be an important element in deciding such matters. Johnadonovan (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
To condense the focus of the discussion, following the reinstallation of a link to the environmental issues article by Bigbluefish, it seems we are both agreed there should be links from the main article to the three prime subsidiary articles covering controversies, environment issues and safety concerns. I am contending that the links should be clustered together in a prominent position, perhaps within the “Corporate responsibility and reputation” section. Johnadonovan (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I would be grateful if anyone interested in providing an opinion on this issue would kindly visit the Wikipedia articles on BP and ExxonMobil. On those articles controversies are dealt with prominently and fully within each article, not relegated to secondary articles with no prominent links. There are subsidiary articles in the case of Royal Dutch Shell because of the volume of verifiable information from independent reputable sources about controversial issues sufficient to support encyclopaedic reference. Pushing on to secondary articles such important information concerning health, safety and other significant issues, sometimes of life or death significance, without providing prominent links, in my humble opinion amounts to a sly and unacceptable form of censorship if deliberate. Such information should never have been removed from the main article without prominent links being in place. I would make it clear that I do not think Bigbluefish has any ulterior motive in this matter but is certain that having the links in a lead position, as installed by me earlier this month, is definitely contrary to Wikipedia policy. He or she has been unanimous in that verdict. Johnadonovan (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am however baffled why if the Wikipedia policy so definitely rules out having links within the lead introduction to an article, Bigbluefish did not delete the identical form of link clusters from the related Wikipedia articles Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell, Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns and Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues. On reflection I think it was right under the circumstances to place the links where I did, but will of course accept any consensus verdict. Johnadonovan (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the lack of any comment one way or the other on the issue raised by Bigbluefish, I have reinstated the links in the exact position as they were before deletion by Bigbluefish. We will then see whether any other Wikipedia contributor raises objections. Otherwise the deletion is an act of censorship by one person even though carried out in good faith. At least others will now have an opportunity to pass comment instead of the issue being relegated to the discussion page where it has not apparently attracted any attention, or if it did, people have not felt sufficiently motivated to pass judgement for or against. Johnadonovan (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate structure

Shell Expro is not a joint venture with ExxonMobil. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shell UK Ltd. Its full title is Shell Exploration and Production. What Shell UK and Esso UK do have an agreement (the '65 Agreeemnt) under which the two separate companies agreed to co-operate in certain areas of the North Sea. It is neither a joint company nor a partnership. For example, Shell Expro has interests West of Shetland together with BP which, quite exclusive of any ExxonMobil involvement. It is quite different from the upstream set-up in the Netherlands where "Shell" and "Esso" are both share-holders of NAM (Nederlands Aardolie Maatschaapij).

For interest: the Goldeneye gas field 107km offshore St. Fergus is an example where unprocessed gas is sent onshore for processing before being in any way pre-processed offshore. The main reason this is not done more often is that it is not physically possible. It took five years of innovative engineering to deliver Goldeneye - and many thought it might not work. The reason is that gas generally comes with water, some liquid hydrocarbons, and solids such as sand and waxes. Fields' pressures drop over time, allowing all manner of physical and chemical changes to occur to the fluids - and even today these changes are difficult to predict and model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.25.217 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need For Cat or Navbox?

Would it be a good idea to create a category or an infobox for the various subsidiary companies and other assets that make up the Shell group? e.g. Shell Centre, Shell Oil Company, Shell Canada, Albian Sands, etc. As well as other articles realted to the company such as Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues, Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell, Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns, etc. And perhaps even things like Shell Turbo Chargers, Shell Mera, Shell Oil Company "Spectacular" Sign. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)