Shell vs.The Environment & The Public Trust

The Public has a Right to the Truth - Officials have a Duty to Act
Home
Recent Settlements
Pattern of Avoidance
Voluntary Compliance
Legislative Answer
Access To Justice
The Players
The Solution
About Us
Press Relations
Write to Congress
$25,000 Reward
Resources & Links
Contact Information
"Voluntary Compliance" Doesn't Work: At Least Not With Shell Oil
There is a pattern to "environmental liability avoidance" by Shell Oil Company. The Texaco Problem and the mass sell off of Shell service stations in the United States is also being met with Shell's malicious avoidance of other environmental issues. This is aided by California's Water Boards relying on "voluntary compliance" as a substitute to doing their jobs.
  • If not doing a "definitive test" isn't "bad faith" and a "breach of the public trust" or "mailicious avoidance" of Shell's environmental responsibilities under California's "voluntary compliance" program, what is it?
 
"Voluntary compliance," at least by Shell Oil Company, is a farce. California Senator Dean Florez (pictured right) is having the same problem with Shell Oil and the state and local water boards as SeeitReal.com has had. He has asked the California Attorney General to intervene. We welcome that move as there appears to be a clear pattern in Shell's "malicious avoidance" in cleaning up the environment. Go here for Senator Florenz's frustration regarding Shell Oil and here for the letter Senator Florez sent to the Attorney General documenting Shell's malicious avoidance of its environmental responsibilities aided and abetted by what he claims are broken Water Boards. Contrary to what the Water Boards may claim, the existing remediation activities at the Corona sites will not only not catch the contamination caused by the buried equipment, but by extensive studies of "deep diving plumes" it can actually make it worse (go here for details). In any event, why wait for plumes to develop (perhaps decades after the problems were created) to fix what needs to be fixed now? Does that make sense only 957 feet from a clean water aquifer that we get our drinking water from, in water starved California? (see Problem Defined)
 
The California Attorney General Has a Duty to Act
California's Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown Jr. has a duty to act when corporations and their regulators effectively collude to the harm of the California electorate and the natural environment. As the Attorney General, it is the pattern of Shell's bad behavior in both Senator Florez and SeeitReal.com's experiences that signals the malicious and intentional acts of Shell that he is sworn to investigate. It is his duty to resolve the problems Shell and any one else is causing the state of California. Given what is documented in this website and Senator Florez's independent investigations and concerns, there is little doubt as to the pattern Shell is following in its attempt to avoid its environmental responsibilities, not just in California, but the nation at large. Not only does Brown have a duty to act for the State of California, but he should do so in the interest of America (SeeitReal.com's letter Brown). 
Shell Cannot be Trusted to "Voluntarily" Clean-up
What Shell is Attempting to Hide
Shell's corporate culture can not be trusted to do the right thing in addressing the Texaco problem. Besides having enough problems recovering from Shell's over stating their reserves, just like the Enron scandal, Shell has lost managerial direction for some time now (see award winning Wall Street Journal article here). There is also evidence that Shell directly participated in defrauding Pennzoil customers in a wide oil substitution scam (go here). And it was deceiving Russia about environmental problems that cost Shell control of the largest oil and gas project in the history of the planet (see Billions Lost). Shell tried to cover up egregious pollution by trying to destroy the family that leased the land to Shell (see "Shell Game" on Resources & Links).  So why are state and local Water Boards so eager to trust Shell Oil in "voluntary compliance" programs? What purpose does that serve other than to release them from their responsibilities? Can management at the Water Boards be that bad? Actually, we believe that it is (see State Water Board).