Shell Draws A Bright Line: No Food For Fuel

What's with all these Shell Oil entries on Treehugger? It seems like all Shell has to do is issue a PR statement and Treehugger prints it. Perhaps Treehugger could pander less to the big corporate interests and provide some stronger editorial response. Shell has manipulated the facts to an unacceptable degree; this needs a stronger response.

That Shell of all companies even use the word "morality" without a firestorm of criticism is incredible, if not infuriating!

This crude over simplification of facts for a nice sounding soundbite rings hollow with the obvious conflict of interest and distortion of facts.

First of all, Shell doesn't really know very much, if anything, about cellulose ethanol conversion. They have a Canadian "partner" IOGEN which they invested a paltry $46 million (Goldman Sacks is the other "partner" $30 million investment). IOGEN is the world leader in cellulose conversion technology. Well, for Shell, $46 million is less the cost of the ad budget that is promoting this "partnership". That $46 million buys Shell a nice card to play without having to actually do anything; nice for them, but it hardly much of a commitment.

Secondly, what is the state of cellulose ethanol production? IOGEN has an operating test facility that generates a paltry 3 to 4 million LITERS a YEAR (a single plant in Brazil can make this much in a day). It is NOT ready for large scale production. In fact, IOGEN has yet to build even a Prototype Production Test Plant. They emphatically say "Licensing is not available currently" not to Shell, and not to anyone else!! In other words this technology in promising but not ready for prime time. You couldn't license it if you wanted to. Makes that morality statement a little irritating, doesn't it?

Where is this cellulose biomass going to come from? Surely Shell doesn't suggest we cut down trees like the lovely Aspens in the photo provided by Shell PR. And even if we did, it wouldn't even work; the IOGEN process -won't work- on Aspen wood or other similar woods! (None of the softer woods will work, it needs to hardwood, grown principally in Canada. Which is why IOGEN is located in Canada, lots of hard wood chips up there. However, even IOGEN says wood chips collection and use would be cost prohibitive and impractical. The test plant uses straw, oats and grain).

More appropriate would be using plants such as switchgrass, elephant grass, etc. which can be grown in areas that couldn't sustain food agriculture, anyway (so much for the food vs. fuel morality argument). These grasses can be grown in vast areas of the southwest and harvested sustainably without the use of petroleum based (i.e. Shell Oil) fertilizers. Because these plants are perennials, they do not need to be replanted year after year; the erosion caused by plowing and monoculture is eliminated. In fact, natively occurring species like this can restore areas that have become arid because of over grazing and reduce the resulting top soil loss.

Surely Shell must know better that suggest the issue is "food vs. fuel"; this is an over simplification that surely is meant to slow down the enthusiasm for ethanol, especially within a community of people who want to do the right thing. But even having a modest knowledge of the biofuels situation it is easy to see through the Shell Press Release as hard core manipulation, plain and simple.

This tactic is a smoke screen that is intended on distracting us with a nice soundbite. If Shell were really concerned with people starving, it sure isn't reflected in any of their other policies. Shame on Shell, this is despicable.

Come on, Treehugger, stop pandering to Shell with headlines like "Shell Draws A Bright Line: No Food For Fuel". Shell has enough money to pay for their own advertising.

Shell's "No food for fuel" position contradicts what it is currently doing. In the Gulf of Mexico, Shell is constructing an open-loop liquified natural gas terminal that will kill many fish eggs and larvae and could have a devastating effect on Gulf fish populations. Is that not "food for fuel"

Learn more at:
http://www.healthygulf.org
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/GRN/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=3471

==== author's response follows ====
Good point.

Large corpporations are not monolithic; rather they are multi-unit groupings of often fairlyl autonomous strategic business units (SBU's) . A statement like this one is likely viewed, internally, as applying to primarily the SBU of origin. That should not stop anyone on the outside from holding the entire company to the highest standard they put forward (and we recognize that is what our commenters are going to do).

Taking the long view of business strategy is what this post is really all about. Commercial production of biomass 9any type) to ethanol will not likely become profitable and scaled up to a national level for several decades. Over the course of manyyears, unsustainable businesses will be closed or spun off, and more sustainable ones grown. Designers have to start somewhere. And long term investment is needed for designers to work from. Investment planning has to be based upon strategy; and the 'no food for fuel' strategy is simply one of many strategies that firms like Shell may work from. We like it as a strategy.

"No Food for Fuel" -- even though a workable cellulose process may take many years, if not a decade, to scale up to full production?

And this is a strategy you like?

The only "strategy" here is one that diminishes the role of ethanol and in the process keeps good ole' petroleum as the unchallenged energy source. (What a bunch of great guys at Shell, looking out for the starving people of the world).

Few companies have a worse human rights record than Shell. They destroyed countries socially, through human rights offences, and environmental destruction (Google Shell Oil, Nigeria). They have been boycotted around the world for these offences, and have been sued by nearly every human rights and environmental organization on the planet, with many lawsuits underway currently.

Do you really think these same guys would be concerned about making ethanol from a food product? Heck, they would make ethanol out of your grandmother if there was a buck in it :)

"No fuel for food" isn't a strategy, its PR, plain and simple. If you like it I guess the PR is working :)

It's easy to say "no food for fuel" when you might be years away of commercially producing a single drop of ethanol.

Want to see what Shell really thinks? Shell's CEO says it is "too early" to support an alternative energy direction. That helps solve the Fuel for Food problem.

In its 3rd quarter Shell posted one of the highest profits of any company in the history of man, making a NET profit of $9 BILLION dollars in 3 MONTHS.

With this kind of cash Shell could be doing some real good, i.e. feeding a few starving people, instead of lining the coffers of their expensive PR firm.

-----------

Want to see some recent Shell Oil headlines that DIDN'T show up in Treehugger?

"Shell to pick a renewable energy source, not yet" The CEO or Shell says it's too early to pick an alternative energy to support (Reuters article June 16, 2006)

"SHELL OIL SPILLS CONTINUE TO RAVAGE COMMUNITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN NIGERIA" (June 16 2006)

"Court Orders Shell Oil to Pay $1.5 Billion for Environmental Damage in Nigeria" (May 16, 2006)

"Shell Ad Campaign Masks Misdeeds with Media Spin" (May 16th, 2006) Sakhalin II PR push omits impacts on critically endangered whales by Shell's negligent environmental practices.

"Shell Oil Depot Blockade In Cork in solidarity with Rossport 5" Irish blockade of Shell Trucks due to environmental damage; Ireland is called "the new Nigeria", WSM Wednesday, (Jul 6 2005)

Shell's Greenwash Stunt: Driving Around (Some of) the World" (Guardian 2/16/2006) Shell hopes to distract consumers from it's windfall profits by a PR stunt, driving a VW Gulf around the world. They will be avoiding Africa, where Shell has been charged extensive human rights violations.

Shell Execs to Press the Flesh (June 8th 2006) In a bid to deflect anger over windfall profits and a dismal environmental track record Shell execs plan a 50 city PR "tour" where they hope to improve their tarnished image.

"Shell Hires Prestigious PR Firm Bursen Marstellar" (Oct 2005) In what may be the largest PR contract in history, by any corporation.

Shell Ad Campaign Masks Misdeeds with Media Spin
May 16, 2006 The Hague, Netherlands - In the weeks running up to the May 16, 2006, Shell Annual Shareholder’s meeting in the Hague, the oil giant has embarked on a broad PR campaign to try to minimize the impacts of its massive Sakhalin II oil and gas project on the critically endangered Western Gray Whale. “The world is watching the Gray Whales of Sakhalin. Alexander Rutenko is also listening,” the ad says, referring to that scientist’s monitoring of underwater noise impacts on the whale.[1] However, the ad campaign’s claims belie the fact that Shell is ignoring many of the world’s top scientists’ recommendations on the protection of the critically endangered Western Gray Whale.

Reuters: Shell to pick a renewable energy source, not yet
Fri Jun 9, 2006 10:28 AM ET
ROTTERDAM, Netherlands, June 9 (Reuters) - Royal Dutch Shell will pick a renewable energy source for commercial production but it is much too early to tell which one, its Chief Executive said on Friday. "We don't know which form of energy will win, and we don't know how quickly we will know," Jeroen van der Veer said at a meeting of Dutch business leaders.

Lots more on Google :)

If Shell really feels that it's morally inappropriate to make fuel from crops, then they must be outraged at the high percentage of US crops grown that goes into feed for farm animals, right? All of that energy/water/etc used to feed animals could be redirected into making human-food crops, with plenty left over for making fuel and saving fuel in the process, but I don't see them stumping for vegetarianism.

Really, this is just silly. This whole idea that there are starving people so we shouldn't use food is completely illogical. Yes, there are 800 million chronically hungry people in the world, but it's not because there isn't enough food. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone and have some left over. See Fracis Lappe, et. al.
=== author's response follows ====
Critical thinking skills like yours are what makes writing for TH worthwhile. Thank you. Perhaps the more important resource vulnerability will be cropland suitable for high yield corn, or water, or fertilizer.

I can't believe the Treehugger applauds Shell with the headline "Shell draws a Bright Line" don't they know better than to buy into this PR?

"Food or Fuel" is a sound-bite, its just PR, it has no logic or policy. No one has thought it through and developed a policy. There is no depth or substance behind this slogan, just Shell Oil manipulation.

This slogan is just a smoke screen for Shell horrendous environmental and human rights record, and the fact that Shell wants to sell oil, not ethanol. Because Shell has no ethanol to sell, and won't for many years.

Sugar cane? Feed corn? Is it food, or fuel? You can't figure it out, because it doesn't make sense, because it just isn't so black and white.

Even just growing food isn't so clear cut either. For example, the U.S. is shipping its corn around the world and (because of our generous government subsidies) we are putting the native farmers out of business. Destroying native agriculture in other countries because of our heavy government subsidies is not a good thing. So maybe using some of that corn to make ethanol to replace oil might be much more positive overall. If they had actually researched these issues and came up with more than just a soundbite, it might be easier to buy it. And helpful, not hurtful.

Really, we all know ethanol in its present form is not the ultimate solution. But its a step, and a step away from the grip of the oil companies.

Shell is trying to put doubts in the environmental movement's heads regarding ethanol by suggesting people will starve if we make ethanol. Really slimey coming from Shell.

Wake up and see what Shell is really up to. Don't fall for their expensive and clever PR. Remember this is Greenpeace or the Sierra club saying this, it's Shell.

Be informed; Shell is not trying to help or be kind. Shell is not concerned about starving or hurting people. Shell just wants to sell sell more oil.

And Treehugger, change your headline to reflect what is really going on; Shell doesn't have a bright light, but rather a very, very dark one!

This is rather disingenuous of Shell. As has been pointed out, their oil and natural gas operations are already harming the world's food supply, and I will add that they are also guilty of harming the lifestyles of many indegenous cultures. The only reason they're saying this is, as usual, for their own bottom line - to keep producing oil until we're really in a crisis and everything comes grinding to a halt.

Shell Oil: "I think energy independance is going too far"

The following interviews (MSNBC, CNN, Meet the Press) show what Shell Oil REALLY thinks of Ethanol and alternative energy; and no, they aren't worried about food and starving people.

They want access to drill pristine environments like Alaska and outer continental shelf, (even though Shell has caused major environmental devastation literally everywhere they have drilled).

They basically just want to continue the oil company's monopoly on energy, and continue the record profits of over 9 billion dollars a quarter for Shell Oil alone. (The major oil companies are making about $30 billion a QUARTER profits. Imagine if they all plowed one quarters profits (90 days) into alternative energy. You could put solar panels on 1,500,000 houses (at a generous $20,000 each).

These interviews are part of the 50 city tour Shell Oil in conducting as a PR campaign to diffuse public outrage about Big Oil's windfall profits and ongoing human rights and recent severe environmental damage around the world. From the sound of these interviews they might have been better off to stay home and shut up :)

> >>Shell Oil CEO on MSNBC:

"I think energy independence is going too far," said John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Corp.

Rather, the U.S. should be working to secure long-range energy reserves, he said.
"We have to look at opening access to more oil and gas production in this country,"

"The U.S. has 102 billion barrels of known oil and gas reserves in protected environmental areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the outer continental shelf, where drilling is prohibited", Hofmeister said. "We'd like to go produce that, and I think we'd like to produce that in environmentally sound ways," he said.

"For decades to come, we're going to be based on fossil fuels for providing energy," he said.

>>> Shell Oil on CNN:

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: 
Listen to this quote: "I think energy independence is going too far." You know who said that?

The president of one of the big oil companies, of course. John Hofmeister, who runs Shell, a division of Royal Dutch Shell, said in a TV interview that energy independence is the wrong goal for the U.S. He thinks it's good for international relations and for the economy to get our oil from all over the world. 

Meanwhile, government stats show 57 percent of the oil used in this country is imported. Last week, the average price of a gallon of gasoline, $2.93, up 40 percent from a year ago. Polls show most Americans blame Shell and the other oil companies for the spike in gas prices. But Hofmeister refuses to apologize for the industry's record profits. 

I guess, if you were in the business of selling shoes, your position would be that the world needs to keep buying shoes (laughter) -- Wolf.

VIEW THE VIDEO:
Video of CNN's Cafferty File of Shell Oil's "Energy Independence is Going too Far" on YouTube.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5scu0yPnio

>>> Headline: "President Of Shell Oil Would Like To Teach The World To Sing"

from the blog kohlville.net regarding the Shell Oil interview on "Meet the Press" June 11 2006

Whether you’re in favor of drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge or you think all cars should run on corn, the one thing we all seem to agree on is the need for energy independence.

Unless you’re the president of Shell Oil, who thinks “energy independence is going too far.”

Sunday’s Meet The Press gave the heads of three major oil companies yet another chance to try to coax the public into not hating them, and John Hofmeister of Shell provided an interesting bit of devil’s advocacy:

"I think energy independence is the wrong direction because the U.S. is not an island nation. We are interdependent on all of our global companies doing business all over the world, and I think the oil companies need to be interdependent as well. And I think that really is good for international relations."

It’s good for us to be dependent on fussy, volatile, rogue nations with questionable human rights records and violent mood swings because America doesn’t have any friends. We need someone to play with on the playground. Otherwise the teacher is going to call our parents into the office, and next thing you know we’ll end up in L.D. with all the nice-but-slow countries we like to pick on (like Smelly Canada…)

So, next time you wince at the gas pump, instead of thinking about oil barons sipping cocktails on the deck of a yacht and gently rocking in a sea of hundred dollar bills, think of the multicultural spectrum of smiley children’s faces in the Disneyland ride “It’s A Small World.” Sure, there might be a smiley freckled beheading or a preemptive war with “Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride,” but that’s just the price of using the happiest fuel on earth!



Dave, how much did you invest in cellulose ethanol? $46 million? I didn't think so.