|
|
David Sexton, Pres. Shell Oil Products US
 Background: The author of SeeitReal.com worked for Texaco when Texaco declared bankruptcy over its purchase of Pennzoil. It was when Texaco did not have the money to compete with other oil companies that were converting auto repair facilities into mini-marts. Accordingly, Texaco allowed its retailers to convert their stations into food marts using their own monies. What happened under that policy was that the station owners cut corners to save money by covering over their garage sumps, that collected toxic wastes, and their hydraulic car hoists, filled with hydraulic fluid, rather than pull them out of the ground. It may take time to leak, but leak they will. I know with as much certainty as possible that the equipment was covered over with concrete at Chopra's stations in Corona.
In a "Fraud" it's the "Missing Element" that Indicates the Truth
In this case the missing element is a "definitive test." If David Sexton does not believe that the Texaco stations have environmental problems why not do a definitive test? It is our opinion Sexton does believe Texaco stations have problems. It certainly would appear that Sexton believes the problem exists enough to not follow through and do a successful "definitive test" (see picture right for what a "definitive GPR test" looks like). The fact speaks for itself, no definitive test has yet been done by Sexton or Shell. Accordingly, it is SeeitReal.com's belief that Shell engineered a "failed test" so that Shell would not have to address cleaning up some number of the 13,000 Texaco stations Shell purchased. It seems a simple logical process to prove the test was designed to fail. Had it not been designed to fail, why would Shell give up so quickly, especially given the involvement of the District Attorney investigating an environmental crime? Doing a "failed test" would appear to be a good plan predicated on no one knowing what a good GPR test is. It almost worked. Everyone including the state and local Water Boards, Riverside County Health Department and the Riverside District Attorney were ready to sign off on Shell's "failed test." Who else was the expert in this but Shell? It couldn't be a lone ex-Texaco employee. Under the concept of "voluntary compliance" this was a necessary outcome (see Voluntary Compliance). That is until the District Attorney's Office did one final step and that was to talk to the author of this website for the purpose of convincing him that everything had been done to discover the truth. Everything turned around in that meeting (see District Attorney).  As a result, this author did the necessary research to show everyone how easy it is to do a real definitive test (see above right) and how hard it is to do a real failed test (see The Right Test). Shell's lead environmental attorney, Kathleen Gillmore, took the fall for this matter reaching this point. We are informed and believe Shell fired her (see More Shell Players). SeeitReal.com openly alleges that Shell "engineered their test to fail" with "the intent to defraud" the authorities out of doing a "definitive test" that would uncover the truth. Why else would the 2nd richest company in the world fail to do a definitive test if it was in their best interest to do one? Why would Shell fire their attorney opposed to simply doing a "definitive test," if Shell believed it was in the right, that no environmental problem exists at those locations? It is "bad faith" for a major oil company to not "voluntarily" clean up an environmental responsibility of theirs. By not doing a definitive test, isn't Shell saying it does not care if there is an environmental problem at those locations and doesn't want to have to clean them if there is? What does that say about Shell? If that isn't "bad faith" and a "breach of the public trust" and "malicious avoidance" of Shell's environemental responsibilities, what is it?  Sexton's Challenge for the Truth
David Sexton, if it isn't true that Shell did a fraudulent test to not have to clean up the Texaco stations, then do the good 3-D GPR test now (see IST Laboratory) and prove me wrong and be done with it. I'll even pay for the test as I have always said I would and I'll help Shell clean up the Texaco stations for free if Shell can't find its resolve to meet its environmental responsibilities in this matter. In the alternative, explain to America why it isn't important to Shell to find a problem at a Shell station less than 33 yards from a clean water aquifer, especially when the District Attorney is investigating that problem as an environmental crime. Contact Info: David Sexton, President, Shell Oil Products US, 1 Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana St., Houston, TX 77002, PH: (713) 241-7171, FX: (713) 241-9800, Email: d.sexton@shell.com
| John Hofmeister, Chair & Pres. Shell Oil  Your employees are doing what I told Sexton they would. They are protecting Shell Oil, the machine that feeds them. However, doing a failed test and using it as a means to lie to Riverside County is grossly underestimating the power of the truth and will eventually lead to substantial damage to Shell's reputation and the public trust. Shell Oil will not do well, given where this issue is destined to go. That you are protecting Satish Chopra from a felony for doing this less than a 1,000 feet from a clean water aquifer, because you do not want to clean up a "Texaco problem" at some 13,000 stations is understandable, but it is also collusion in a felonious act. Your one failed GPR test, engineered to not discover the truth, is going to cost Shell Oil its good reputation. It's time now to do the definitive test and clean up Satish Chopra's locations. Good management is often knowing when to do the right thing. It will eventually cost Shell more to not clean up this mess. So, do the right thing and do the right test. Clean up Corona and Riverside County. Contact Info: John Hofmeister, Country Chair & President, Shell Oil Company, 1 Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana St., Houston, TX 77002, PH: (713) 241-6161, FX: (713) 241-1681, Email: john.hofmeister@shell.com | Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Exec., Royal Dutch Shell  The Royal Dutch Shell Board of Directors elected you Chief Executive to stem the bad faith created by your successor for overstating oil reserves in order to beef up Shell balance sheet and inflate the stock price. So why is Shell going down this same road of "contrived ignorance" over the Texaco environmental issue? This is an exceedingly easy matter to address. All you need to do at this point is a definitive test. Simple for a man with four company jet airplanes during a time of record profitability. If Shell cannot do a "definitive test," and everyone else fails to obtain one, this issue is ripe for the Grand Jury. There are environmental issues in front of that fact finder now with less impact than this one. Nobody doubts Shell has the financial resources and technical skill. I and the public ask you - Why can't Shell Oil conduct a definitive GPR test in Corona? If you don't know what one looks like, here's one on the right (see The Right Test).
Contact Info: Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell, Carl van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR, The Hague, The Netherlands, PH: 011-31-70-377-9111 FX: 011-31-70-377-3687, Email: jeroen.vanderveer@shell.com |
|