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
The Players
The Solution
About Us
Press Relations
Write to Congress
$25,000 Reward
Resources & Links
Contact Information
The Proof is in the Settlements
 
Shell recently agreed to a $6.5 million settlement, in Riverside County and $10.5 million in San Diego County, for not reporting and fixing leaking underground storage tank equipment. Quote from the Riverside District Attorney's Office: "Those stations are included in a list of 71 "released" stations in the lawsuit. Those are stations once owned by [Shell]. If they are still under a cleanup order, they have to comply. If they have been sold, [Shell will] have no further obligations unless a violation is discovered that can be traced back to them."

This is exactly what SeeItReal.com has been saying and the point this website is making. Shell is "releasing" [selling] all of its stations nationwide in order to dump its retail environmental responsibilities on unsuspecting retailers, the public, congress and any one else who will eventually have to pick up the bill for Shell's faulty UST systems ("release of liability"). The lawyers for the California State Water Board knew this, as this lawsuit was active when I contacted them and Shell was in full swing "releasing" all its stations. Michael Lauffer, chief attorney for the California State Water Board said "we are aware Shell is selling a few stations." We are informed and believe he knew Shell was selling all its stations. If true, he lied to cover for Shell Oil Company. It seems clear those lawyers no longer work just for the public interest, but more for the interest of the corporations they are supposed to regulate. It is an egregious conflict of interest that should be investigated. See State Water Board. Here's the motivation for Shell selling all its stattions: "When Shell gets fined it pays millions, when a retailer get fined they pay thousands." - Quote from Shell employees [$3.6 million in civil penalties in this last suit alone] What is ironic, is by Shell attempting to sell its stations clandestinely through "non-disclosure agreements" is what caught this author's attention. The Riverside settlement is not the first and is likely not the last (see San Diego article here). 
 
The Five Malicious Facts
  1. Shell's UST systems are inadequate and failing.
  2. That Shell is intentionally escaping high fines and remediation costs by clandestinely selling off all its service stations in the United States.
  3. That Shell will be effectively "released" from retail  environmental liability after completing the mass sell off.
  4. Shell wanted to finish selling the 13,000 Texaco stations before they could be cleaned up, especially the two in Corona.
  5. "Voluntary Compliance" does not work with Shell Oil (see Voluntary Compliance)

 
 
 
Shell has a pattern of "malicious avoidance" to environmental issues that is catching up with Shell worldwide. See Pattern of Avoidance. 
 
 
(This and every page is subject to The Disclaimer)