

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Shell has dismissed shareholder calls for a review of its controversial oil sands developments.
A group of institutional investors, led by campaign group FairPensions,
had tabled a special resolution ahead of the Anglo-Dutch company's
annual meeting next month. They want Shell to review the commercial and
environmental viability of going ahead with its new projects in
Canada's boreal forests.
But the Anglo-Dutch oil company today
urged other investors to vote down the resolution. "Whilst the issues
raised by the group of shareholders ... are valid and appreciated ...
it would set a precedent which, if applied more generally to the
company's major investment opportunities, would add unnecessary costs
and duplication of effort."
The letter to shareholders, giving
notice of the meeting in the Hague on 18 May, added that the company
had already provided all the non commercially sensitive information to
shareholders about its oil sands projects. BP, whose annual meeting
takes place on Thursday, is facing similar pressure from shareholders over its own oil sands activities.
Shell's
next development phase of its Athabasca joint venture will soon add
100,000 barrels per day. This will take production from oil sands
mining to 4% of its total production. About 0.6% of its current
production comes from in situ operations, where the oil is recovered
from beneath the ground by drilling.
The campaign led by
FairPensions, whose supporters include the Co-operative and trade union
Unison, argue that the projects are too big an environmental and
economic liability. They also argue that climate change caused by oil sands development could put at risk shareholders' other investments.
The
issue of oil sands has soared up the political and environmental agenda
since the Copenhagen summit highlighted the need for a clampdown on
carbon-intensive activities.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Shell has dismissed shareholder calls for a review of its controversial oil sands developments.
A group of institutional investors, led by campaign group FairPensions,
had tabled a special resolution ahead of the Anglo-Dutch company's
annual meeting next month. They want Shell to review the commercial and
environmental viability of going ahead with its new projects in
Canada's boreal forests.
But the Anglo-Dutch oil company today
urged other investors to vote down the resolution. "Whilst the issues
raised by the group of shareholders ... are valid and appreciated ...
it would set a precedent which, if applied more generally to the
company's major investment opportunities, would add unnecessary costs
and duplication of effort."
The letter to shareholders, giving
notice of the meeting in the Hague on 18 May, added that the company
had already provided all the non commercially sensitive information to
shareholders about its oil sands projects. BP, whose annual meeting
takes place on Thursday, is facing similar pressure from shareholders over its own oil sands activities.
Shell's
next development phase of its Athabasca joint venture will soon add
100,000 barrels per day. This will take production from oil sands
mining to 4% of its total production. About 0.6% of its current
production comes from in situ operations, where the oil is recovered
from beneath the ground by drilling.
The campaign led by
FairPensions, whose supporters include the Co-operative and trade union
Unison, argue that the projects are too big an environmental and
economic liability. They also argue that climate change caused by oil sands development could put at risk shareholders' other investments.
The
issue of oil sands has soared up the political and environmental agenda
since the Copenhagen summit highlighted the need for a clampdown on
carbon-intensive activities.
Shell has dismissed shareholder calls for a review of its controversial oil sands developments.
A group of institutional investors, led by campaign group FairPensions,
had tabled a special resolution ahead of the Anglo-Dutch company's
annual meeting next month. They want Shell to review the commercial and
environmental viability of going ahead with its new projects in
Canada's boreal forests.
But the Anglo-Dutch oil company today
urged other investors to vote down the resolution. "Whilst the issues
raised by the group of shareholders ... are valid and appreciated ...
it would set a precedent which, if applied more generally to the
company's major investment opportunities, would add unnecessary costs
and duplication of effort."
The letter to shareholders, giving
notice of the meeting in the Hague on 18 May, added that the company
had already provided all the non commercially sensitive information to
shareholders about its oil sands projects. BP, whose annual meeting
takes place on Thursday, is facing similar pressure from shareholders over its own oil sands activities.
Shell's
next development phase of its Athabasca joint venture will soon add
100,000 barrels per day. This will take production from oil sands
mining to 4% of its total production. About 0.6% of its current
production comes from in situ operations, where the oil is recovered
from beneath the ground by drilling.
The campaign led by
FairPensions, whose supporters include the Co-operative and trade union
Unison, argue that the projects are too big an environmental and
economic liability. They also argue that climate change caused by oil sands development could put at risk shareholders' other investments.
The
issue of oil sands has soared up the political and environmental agenda
since the Copenhagen summit highlighted the need for a clampdown on
carbon-intensive activities.