Eriel Deranger and Mae Hank oppose Shell’s ‘extreme energy’ agenda outside the AGM. Photo by Suzanne Dhaliwal.

Yesterday I attended Shell’s Annual General Meeting in The Hague, to address the board and shareholders.

Shell, one of the largest multinational corporations in the world and a company that prides itself in having strong stakeholder relations, was taken aback by a barrage of questions from shareholders and groups attending.  Shareholders questioned Shell’s inability to effectively and adequately meet the needs of local communities, basic safety standards, changing global energy models and economies, global climate change, and basic business standards of corporate social responsibility.

Shell is a company that’s modelling its business projections on scenarios in line with a 6-degree global temperature rise, doubling its already huge tar sands developments on the traditional territory of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), and lobbying hard to stop EU climate legislation that would discourage tar sands imports. It’s also pressing ahead with plans for offshore drilling in the Arctic (though not this summer) and deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and has a huge, messy legacy to clean up in Nigeria.

I was honoured to head to the Shell AGM in the Netherlands with two incredible and fearless women, Mae Hank from Point Hope, Alaska, whose community is at risk of being hit by a gigantic oil spill should Shell press ahead with its Arctic drilling plans, and Eriel Deranger from ACFN in Alberta, where Shell has been violating their treaty rights for over 55 years (watch her explaining more about this in the film below.)

The theatre of the AGM is designed to inspire shareholder confidence in the board, so raising criticism in this environment can be quite an intimidating experience. Our concerns about the company abusing human rights, devastating the environment and playing russian roulette with our climate all have to be translated into a language that will make shareholders take notice. Plain clothes police and security guards litter the entrance as you go in.

Eriel and Mae, getting ready to take on Shell. Photo by Suzanne Dhaliwal.

You have to queue for almost an hour to ask a question, on a mic at the front of the auditorium. You’re directly addressing the board, who sit above you on a huge podium, and it’s also going out on a livestream. I was so moved and inspired when Mae took to the podium and addressed the board with a powerful elegance in her traditional language. Her unwavering commitment to speaking her native dialect was first met with cynicism by the board, but quickly turned to respect and a captive audience.

“I had hopes that Shell might take into consideration the worst case scenarios of an oil spill,” Mae reflected. “We strongly oppose offshore drilling and I will always oppose it because my children and grandchildren love our traditional foods. Our traditional foods have been embedded in our genes for thousands of years. I get my strength to speak up when I think about my family. I had hoped to get a plan of action from Shell in the event of a spill, and commitments to compensate our community for any loss to our food security for the next 20 generations, as the economy in our community is suffering. Non-native food subsidises our traditional food, so we often have to ration food during difficult times.”

As well as polar bears, Arctic drilling would threaten bowhead, beluga and gray whales, walruses and seals, and migratory birds such as the threatened spectacled and Steller’s eiders. Photo by Suzanne Dhaliwal.

After the meeting, Mae spoke with Simon Henry, Shell’s Head of Finance, over coffee and lush pastries, and pushed him on his commitments to be able to ensure that, in the incidence of a spill, Shell would be able to replace the food that comes from the sea, as this makes up 80% of their diet. He said they would not commit to compensating the community and could not offer the people food security in the incidence of a spill.

“It’s difficult to think that future generations may be displaced because the largest mammal we get out of the ocean is the whale,” said Mae. “Our traditions and the rituals we practice that celebrate the bountiful catch of bowhead whale will not be there. Without being able to celebrate that, our community will be displaced. Our right to practise our religion and culture will be threatened by the leases considered by Shell. The corporate community often fails to consider our food security when making these decisions, and it breaks my heart.”

We also challenged Shell over the failing business case for tar sands. I wanted to make the case to Shell, on their own terms, for why tar sands investment is such a bad idea. I asked them how they could possibly justify spending their shareholders’ money on projects that are bound to be affected by a whole host of risks: the falling price of tar sands oil due to opposition to pipelines in the US, litigation from communities like ACFN, new legislation such as the EU’s Fuel Quality Directive, and research from Carbon Tracker which clearly shows that 80% of fossil fuels are ‘unburnable’ and are vastly overpriced. Shell brushed my concerns off, of course, but they will be quaking in their boots when they see we were right.

“This is the third time I’ve attended Shell’s AGM,” Eriel Deranger explained, “and it feels like they’re finally starting to take notice of the serious concerns we bring forward, not only as impacted communities but as key stakeholders. Today I brought forward our concerns to Shell’s Board about current and proposed tar sands projects and the lack of adequate consultation. I sincerely hope the Board keeps its word to speak with their Canadian president to address our concerns, and potentially adjust the environmental impact assessment process. If Shell continues to move forward in project development without working directly with our community it will continue to lead toward more delays in project approvals, litigation and severe financial risk for Shell.”

We will also be attending the shareholder meeting in London tomorrow, so stay tuned!

Suzanne

Coverage from the day:

Shell board grilled on Alaska oil project – Financial Times

ACFN activists crash Shell AGM – Fort McMurray Today

Shell AGM: “With patience and saliva the ants devour the elephant – Platform blog

Indigenous Activists Challenge Shell – Price of Oil blog

Extreme Energy development is a risk for investment and the planet, Indigenous delegates tell Royal Dutch Shell shareholders – press release

A blow-by-blow account of the questions asked and responses given, including many of our tweets!

New film about ACFN’s struggle against the tar sands and Shell

Last week, two of the world’s leading scientists travelled to Europe to counter some of the outrageous lobbying coming from the tar sands industry and the Canadian government against EU climate legislation. The trip, by US climate expert Jim Hansen and Canadian environmental economist Mark Jaccard,  included giving evidence to the European Parliament, meetings with national governments, and plenty of media coverage making the point that the tar sands need to stay in the ground. The trip appeared to spur the Canadians into sending their second Minister to Europe in two weeks, giving us the opportunity for a quick protest in Brussels.

Perhaps most importantly, the visit prompted the revelation in the Guardian that the UK government is now supporting an approach to the Fuel Quality Directive that treats tar sands as no more polluting than conventional fuel. Totally outrageous! We will be ramping up our FQD campaign in response, so watch this space…

Get the full story of last week’s lobbying showdown here.

This week, we’re turning our attentions to Shell. It’s their Annual General Meeting tomorrow, and we will be there in The Hague. We will be there with Eriel Deranger and Mae R Hank, two amazing Indigenous women representing communities in Alberta and Alaska which are under attack from Shell’s extreme energy projects. Find out more here, including a powerful new film about the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation’s battle with Shell. You can watch the livestream of the AGM tomorrow morning (9am UK time) if you register in advance, or follow our live tweets from inside the event.

Finally, squaring up to Big Oil costs money. If you would like to support the work we are doing, please consider a donation. However small, we can guarantee that we’ll use it to kick the tar sands industry’s ass!

Love not lobbying,

Jess, Sue, Emily and Ruthi

Shell to face barrage of criticism tomorrow over financially risky and environmentally damaging new projects.

As the business case for tar sands extraction falters, Arctic drilling is suspended, and the company is investigated for price fixing, Shell’s board will be under pressure to defend the direction it is taking at its AGM in The Hague on Tuesday 21 May. You can watch a live webcast of the event if you register.

Eriel and Mae in the Netherlands, preparing to take on Shell tomorrow!

Two Indigenous women, representing communities impacted by Shell’s operations abroad, will attend the AGM to confront the Chairman and Board over the massive human and ecological rights violations and economic devastation that the company’s operations bring to Indigenous communities. They will argue that Shell’s decision to pursue highly risky ‘extreme energy’ projects, like Arctic drilling and Canadian tar sands, will have little long term benefit for the company, and expose it to both reputational damage and political risk, including litigation.

One of the communities represented, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN), which resides downstream from tar sands operations, is currently suing Shell for violating past agreements that have threatened their treaty rights. The community is also actively opposing two new tar sands mines Shell is proposing to develop on their land. For more details, watch the powerful film above. Legal challenges by other First Nations against tar sands extraction on their traditional territories is also increasing.

Eriel Deranger, community member and spokesperson for ACFN, states:

“Shell’s current and proposed tar sands projects violate terms of our treaty, destroy our land and contaminate waters critical to our survival. The ACFN leadership has made a commitment to protect our lands, rights and people currently being threatened by tar sands development. We have tried exploring amenable agreements and options with Shell only to be disappointed by their inability to compromise and adjust proposed plans to adequately work with us which has led and continues to lead toward litigation. Our culture, lands and rights can no longer stand for unabated and irresponsible development of tar sands in the region by Shell or any operator.”

Shell is also under fire for its Arctic operations. The company has spent $4.5bn securing permits to drill in Arctic waters. However it has been proven incapable of operating in the area and has had to suspend its plans for drilling this summer.

Mae R Hank, tribal member of the Native Village of Point Hope, Alaska, said:

“The Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are critical to the Inupiaq culture and traditions, and provide a vital habitat for the endangered bowhead whales, beluga whales, polar bears, walruses, seals and migratory birds. If an oil spill were to occur in the Arctic’s extreme conditions, there is no proven method to clean it up during Winter. Shell is taking a deadly risk with Inupiat and other Arctic Indigenous peoples’ cultures and food security for shortsighted profit, while the community faces long term consequences to their survival.”

Shell wants to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, which provide a vital habitat for polar bears as well as many other endangered species. Photo by Martha de Jong-Lantink.

In addition, the UK Tar Sands Network is bringing concerns to Shell’s shareholders over other long-term risks to the company’s investments in tar sands.

The tar sands are landlocked, making them difficult and expensive to get to market. The pipelines that present the industry’s only viable solution to this problem – such as Keystone XL and Enbridge Northern Gateway – are facing massive public opposition, and look unlikely to be built soon. The price of tar sands crude has dropped as a result. Meanwhile, in Europe, the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) is likely to strongly discourage future tar sands imports into Europe. Lax standards and lack of adequate environmental regulation have led to several high-profile leaks and spills in recent weeks, including the flooding of an Arkansas suburb with tar sands oil. Meanwhile, a recent report by the Carbon Tracker initiative identified an alarming ‘carbon bubble’, arguing that 80% of oil companies’ current fossil fuel reserves are ‘unburnable carbon’, and anticipating a crash in prices as climate regulations kick in.

In March, French oil giant Total pulled out of one of its three Canadian tar sands projects, citing the high costs and fragile profit margins that are besetting the whole industry. Total was willing to take a $1.65 billion loss rather than press ahead with what has become a bad investment.

Shell will also be criticised by UK campaigners for heavily lobbying the UK government against the labelling of tar sands as highly polluting in the Fuel Quality Directive. Shell was revealed to have a close relationship with its former Chief Economist, now Secretary of State for Business and Industry and official ‘Minister for Shell’ Vince Cable, in a letter published last year. The letter urged him to harden the government’s line against the FQD, a move which was revealed to have happened in leaked documents published last week.

Representatives from Indigenous communities in Canada and the Arctic attended Shell’s AGM last year, but did not feel their concerns were taken seriously. Photo by Ben Powless.

Suzanne Dhaliwal, from the UK Tar Sands Network, commented:

“The risk factors that recently led Total to ditch a major tar sands project are increasing. The tar sands are landlocked and expensive, and opposition to new pipelines has led the price of tar sands crude to drop. Meanwhile, the industry’s high emissions mean that Canada’s oil is increasingly looking like ‘unburnable carbon’. Despite Shell’s frenzied lobbying, upcoming EU legislation on transport emissions could close off this key future market and set a precedent that other countries will follow. Shell should ditch its expansion plans before the carbon bubble bursts, exposing its shareholders to financial disaster.”

• Leading scientists in London today to advise UK government on tar sands damage
• Leak reveals government’s pro-tar sands stance, Norman Baker’s response unconvincing
• Second Canadian Minister in two weeks visits UK on lobbying mission
• Comprehensive new tar sands fact-check website launches

Today the UK government is under fire for rejecting an EU proposal to classify oil from tar sands as highly polluting, a label that would deter EU countries from importing it. As revealed in the Guardian yesterday, the UK government supports a controversial methodology for the EU’s Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) legislation which would treat tar sands oil the same as conventional oil, despite it being 23% more polluting.

Transport Minister Norman Baker has hit back at the allegations, but Jess Worth, from the UK Tar Sands Network, said: ‘Norman Baker says he supports a Fuel Quality Directive that takes emissions from tar sands into account. But if this is the case, why does the leaked document clearly state that the options which the government says it ‘prefers’ are the only two that lump tar sands in with all other sources of oil? At the moment it looks like Baker is toeing the oil industry line on this matter. In order to prove otherwise, he needs to clearly state that he accepts that tar sands oil is more polluting than conventional oil and should be labelled accordingly.’

This comes in a week when the UK is receiving visits from both pro-tar sands lobbyists and high-profile scientists warning that the climate impacts of the industry are unacceptable. In the past few days, Canadian Ministers Joe Oliver and Peter Kent have flown to London as part of a pan-European mission to promote the tar sands and lobby against the FQD. Kent was met with a protest by the UK Tar Sands Network and Friends of the Earth Europe in Brussels yesterday.

Today, prominent former NASA climate scientist Dr James Hansen, and respected Canadian economist Professor Mark Jaccard are bringing the opposite message: that tar sands have no place in the world’s future energy mix, should be accurately labelled in the FQD as highly-polluting, and should be kept out of Europe. Part of their own pan-European tour, which included addressing the European Parliament on Tuesday, Hansen and Jaccard’s visit to London will include: a meeting with the Department for Transport, which is responsible for the UK’s position on the FQD; giving evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee; and a public lecture by Dr Hansen at the LSE.

Today also sees the launch of a comprehensive new website, tarsandsrealitycheck.com, from the growing international Tar Sands Solutions Network – of which UK Tar Sands Network is part. Drawing on peer-reviewed science, the site illustrates how tar sands extraction produces dangerously high carbon emissions, destroys the local environment, poisons water and food sources, and erodes Indigenous rights. It counters the misleading picture being painted by the pro-tar sands Harper regime and its lobbyists in Europe, and provides easy access to detailed sources of data.

Although tar sands extraction is taking place thousands of miles away, the EU’s attempts to pass the FQD have made this a key environmental issue in the UK, especially for the Liberal Democrat transport minister Norman Baker. The legislation has been repeatedly delayed by aggressive lobbying from both the Canadian government and oil industry, including British companies BP and Shell. Oliver and Kent’s visits are the latest of many attempts by the Canadian government to weaken the FQD and remove any references to tar sands being more polluting than conventional fuel. The latest revelations that the Lib Dems appear to have capitulated to this lobbying onslaught have been met by criticism from environmentalists.

Emily Coats, from the UK Tar Sands Network, said, “We are thrilled to see world-renowned scientists crashing the oil peddlers’ transatlantic travelling circus. The UK needs to hear the cold hard truth about the tar sands industry, rather than Canada’s fanciful spin. As James Hansen himself has said, if the tar sands are exploited as planned, it will be ‘game over’ for the climate. Labelling tar sands as a highly polluting fuel would be a long overdue step towards reining in this reckless industry, and the UK government – if it is to retain any semblance of green credibility – should throw its weight behind it.”

On Thursday, staff, students and alumni at Oxford University were united in their opposition to a new partnership between Shell and the university’s Earth Sciences department: there were protests outside the launch event, a letter to the editor of The Guardian condemning the partnership and protesters gatecrashed the celebratory dinner later that evening.

I was asked to give an interview on BBC Radio Oxford’s Drivetime programme with David Prever (starting at about 1:33 h in, will be available until Thursday, May 16) that evening to explain the arguments behind the opposition and to talk about the new Fossil Free campaign . However, David Prever had other ideas. Fancying himself as the next Paxman, Prever attempted to stir up a heated discussion around the issue of whether climate change is actually happening, saying…

“I would argue also that the evidence against climate change is overwhelming. We could sit here and bat this one back for hours on end. It’s not an absolute given, is it now? And there’s a huge amount of evidence from esteemed organisations and professors and universities around the world that are calling into question a lot of the climate change information we have been fed for so many years.”

The ‘huge amount of evidence’ simply does not exist. Sure, there is debate about the rate and impacts but even Shell’s Executives accepts that climate change is happening, despite their lack of any concerted attempt to tackle it. I was shocked to be in conversation with a BBC journalist who was either uninformed and poorly briefed, or was determined to trot out hyperbole and complete fiction for the sake of a tussle.

The real let-down is that the ‘is it happening’ debate was put to bed a long time ago and this should have been an opportunity to talk about ‘what we should be doing’. But the BBC, from John Humphrys to David Prever, seems to disagree. It’s clearly time the BBC briefs their journalists from top to bottom to get with the times and up the quality of debate. And in order to redress the balance, we’re demanding David Prever makes an on-air retraction and that BBC Oxford set aside air time for setting the records straight on climate change. If you feel strongly too, please join us in making this demand!

How to make a complaint to the BBC:

The BBC’s online complaint procedure is very simple. All complaints are collated into a nightly report which is circulated the following morning to BBC staff.

Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/; click ‘Make a complaint’ and just follow instructions…

Information you’ll need:

• The show was on BBC Local Radio (England); BBC Oxford; and is called Drivetime
• It was broadcast on May 9, 2013, and the relevant section happened at about 5:30pm, or 1:33h in.

You will then be asked “What is the best category to describe your complaint?” There are 3 categories which we feel are relevant in this case – Bias; Factual error or inaccuracy; Standards of Interviewing – choose whichever you feel is most relevant to what you are complaining about.

You will need to provide a 50-characters subject, and an up to 1500-characters detailed complaint.

And that’s it!

One last thing – it would be great to have a rough idea of how many people complained. So if you have, please do let us know in the comments below (you don’t have to use your real name…)

Yesterday, Oxford University announced a new partnership with Shell. That’s Shell, the largest producer in the tar sands. Shell, which wants to DOUBLE its tar sands extraction capacity despite opposition from the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and many others. Shell, whose business model is based on the exponential production of fossil fuels, hurtling us towards the point of no return from climate disaster…

Get the Shell out of Earth Sciences! Photo by Hugh Warwick

So we joined with many others for a day of opposition that included: a letter in the Guardian signed by 75 alumni, staff and students; a protest byaround 40 people outside the launch event attended by Secretary of State Ed Davey; a  motion opposing the partnership that was passed by Oxford Students’ Union; and a surprise invasion of the University’s celebratory dinner with Shell in St Edmund’s Hall that evening. Get the full story here.

Next week we are thrilled to welcome James Hansen, one of the world’s most influential and outspoken climate scientists, to London. He is giving a public lecture at the London School of Economics on Thursday 16th May at 6.30pm, entitled ‘Itinerant Farming to White House Arrests: a scientist’s view of the climate crisis’. Dr Hansen has probably done more than anyone else to alert the world to the fact that unconstrained tar sands extraction spells ‘game over’ for the climate. Come along to hear his thoughts on how to make governments do their job in the face of the unfolding human-made climate crisis.

Yours in anticipation of a truly inspirational evening,

Jess, Emily, Ruthi and Sue

P.S. Thank you to everyone who helped us raise $4,000 to support front-line communities to challenge Shell at their Annual General Meeting on May 21st. Stay tuned for updates!

Protests from students, staff and alumni as Energy Minister Ed Davey attends opening ceremony

The protest begins!

Today Oxford University launched a new research partnership with Shell, and opened the Shell Geoscience Laboratory. The ceremony was attended by Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Andrew Hamilton, Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University and Alison Goligher, Shell’s Executive Vice-President for Unconventionals.

The partnership with the Earth Sciences Department has drawn criticism from alumni, staff and students in a letter published in today’s Guardian. There are over 75 signatories (with more continuing to come in) including prominent environmentalists Jonathon Porritt, George Monbiot and Jeremy Leggett, Emeritus Fellow of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute Brenda Boardman, and Director of the Centre for Sustainable Healthcare Rachel Stancliffe. Last night, Oxford University Students’ Union passed an emergency motion to ‘formally oppose’ the partnership.

Paula bear listening to the apology from “Shell representative” Photo by Zoe Broughton

About 50 Oxford students, alumni, staff and residents protested outside the opening ceremony (see video), supported by several national human rights and environmental groups (see below). They held their own futuristic ‘closing ceremony’ – a tongue-in-cheek piece of street theatre [video will be available soon] set in 2018 which celebrated the closure of the ill-fated and unpopular Shell-funded geosciences laboratory after 5 years of criticism. The crowd heard pologetic speeches from ‘the Vice-Chancellor’, ‘Shell’ (including a direct apology to Paula the polar bear who was among the protesters) and ‘ex-Secretary of State Ed Davey’. This was followed by various creative chants such “We’re united in defiance, get the Shell out of our science”, “Oxford Uni funding fail, Shell’s just in it for the shale” and “Oxford Uni, please dump Shell. If you don’t we’ll raise hell!”

Later today two people were dragged out of Oxford’s St Edmund Hall, where the Earth Sciences department members were having dinner with Shell and the Vice-Chancellor, to celebrate their controversial new partnership. One of them started to calmly and politely explain why the partnership is receiving so much criticism, but was dragged out by the college porters. Film below.

The concerns about this partnership are wide-ranging. Shell is seen by many as an inappropriate choice of partner for Oxford University due to its enormous contribution to climate change. The new partnership includes research on, amongst other things, the location and properties of black shale - a type of rock rich in oil and gas. Whatever the scientific merits of this work, it will be of great assistance to Shell in locating and extracting more fossil fuels at a time of climate emergency.

Shell’s research money is also being criticised as an attempt to buy legitimacy for its controversial activities globally. These include human rights abuses in the Niger Delta, highly-destructive tar sands extraction which is undermining Indigenous rights in Canada, reckless drilling plans in the Arctic, and controversial gas fracking in South Africa.

Today’s action also marked the beginning of a movement for ‘Fossil Free‘ universities, spearheaded by student network, People & Planet, calling on the higher education sector to sever ties with the fossil fuel industry. Its petition calling on Oxford University to go ‘fossil free’ was signed by nearly 500 students, alumni and others, in less than 24 hours.

We have been getting a lot of interest on this, and some excellent media coverage. The following is what we are aware of. Please let us know in the comments below if you came across of anything else!

Oxford students and alumni to protest over Shell Earth sciences funding  / The Guardian

Earth Sciences Shut Down Protest At Oxford University Over Shell Partnership / Huffington Post

Oxford alumni condemn choice of Shell to fund Earth sciences lab / The Guardian

Drivetime / BBC Radio Oxford – starting at about 1:33h (after you listen to it, you might get the urge to complain to the BBC. Here’s how)

George Monbiot: Oxford University won’t take funding from tobacco companies. But Shell’s OK / The Guardian

Shell funds shale gas research at Oxford University / Extreme Energy Initiative

Partnership between Oxford University and Shell condemned / Public Service Europe

Teddy Hall Earth Sciences dinner crashed / The Cherwell

CNB video report: Shell protest / CherwellTV

Get the SHELL out of Oxford University / People & Planet blog post

Oxford University Earth Sciences take Shell Money / Greenpeace Oxford blog post

Jeremy Leggett, Oxford Earth Sciences alumnus, solar entrepreneur and author, is one of the signatories to today’s Guardian letter. He said:

Get the Shell out of Earth Sciences! Photo by Hugh Warwick

‘Shell has abandoned all pretence at playing a role in saving civilisation from the ruin of six degree global warming. Universities are increasingly part of the problem too. Most have become complicit seekers of funding, for short-term perceived interests, when a liveable future is at stake for the very students they educate. This union of my alma mater with Shell is a potent symbol of the suicide pact we are all now part of. I have such fond memories of my time in this department. Now I am almost as ashamed of it as I am appalled by Shell’s desperate defence of a deadly status quo, despite everything climate scientists know and warn of.’

Kate Allen, Oxford alumnus, Director of Amnesty International UK and Honorary Fellow of Brasenose College, has also expressed concerns:

“By picking Shell, Oxford University has chosen an odd bedfellow. Amnesty International has consistently highlighted Shell’s poor human rights record in the Niger Delta. Large parts of the region, home to more than 30 million people, have become a polluted wasteland due to the activities of oil companies. Numerous oil spills have left local communities with little option but to drink polluted water, eat contaminated fish, and breathe in air that reeks of oil and gas. Yet Shell has consistently failed to own up to its responsibilities. If Oxford is to continue with this new relationship, the university authorities should exert all the pressure they can to persuade the oil giant to own up, pay up and clean up. Failure to do so will not only let Shell off the hook, but will tarnish the good name of Oxford University and betray the millions of people who live in the Niger Delta.”

Ellen Gibson, a student at Oxford University who was also at the protest, said:

‘Oxford’s own climate scientists are warning us that, if my generation is going to have a stable climate to live in, we need to leave the majority of known fossil fuels in the ground. Yet this new partnership will undertake research to help Shell to find and extract even more hydrocarbons. Our research institutions need the money and the will to develop new knowledge for the good of humanity as a whole. But Ed Davey’s presence suggests that the Government is comfortable that its cuts to research funding are pushing our best universities into bed with the world’s worst companies.’

More information about Shell and this partnership can be found at – peopleandplanet.org/fossil-free/oxford

This protest was supported by: 350.org, Campaign Against Climate Change; Greenpeace UK; Healthy Planet UK ; Medsin UK;  Occupy Energy, Equity and Environment Group; People & Planet; Platform; Rising Tide UK; Tar Free Oxford; UK Tar Sands Network; World Development Movement.

The tar sands megaproject is a striking example of what happens when money, greed and die-hard adherence to the status quo dominate our idea of ‘progress’: it results in the destruction of entire ecosystems and the ‘slow industrial genocide’ of First Nations. The industry likes to boast of its humble beginnings, how against all odds it broke through technological constraints to access this valuable resource. But what it has created is a monstrosity, which is obliterating a centuries-old way of life for indigenous peoples, spewing toxins into the local environment, and sending us hurtling towards catastrophic climate change. Propped up by inordinate tax cuts from the Canadian and Alberta governments, powered by the wealth of one of the world’s most ruthless industries, and supported by much of Alberta’s population, the tar sands establishment is, on the face of it, a hard nut to crack.

But despite its recent growth spurt, and boundless optimism, the future of the tar sands industry is starting to look uncertain. Its biggest customer, the US, is now increasing its own oil production and tightening its energy efficiency measures, resulting in a declining demand for tar sands oil. With tar sands extraction rates planned to triple by 2035, the survival of the industry depends on the oil getting ‘to market’. Proposed pipelines heading South, West and East out of Alberta have been hit with phenomenal waves of opposition, contributing to the falling price of tar sands oil compared to conventional crude. Just this week, Joe Oliver, Canada’s Natural Resource Minister, admitted that without new pipelines being built it would ‘put a dent’ in future tar sands development. But the infrastructure is only half of the equation – an equally pressing question is, if all this tar sands oil ever makes it to the coast, will there be anyone waiting to lap it up?

UK activists tell John Kerry 'No tar sands, no Keystone XL!' Photo by David Hoffman.

Europe has been working to make sure that there isn’t. Since 2009 the EU has been negotiating the hugely important Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) legislation. The FQD isn’t just about tar sands, it’s aiming to reduce the EU’s carbon emissions by grading all types of transport fuel on a ‘well-to-wheels’ or ‘lifecycle’ basis, with the goal of a 6% reduction of transport emissions by 2020. Europe doesn’t currently receive significant amounts of tar sands oil, so it’s surprising that so much controversy has been generated over the wording of one article, 7A, which states tar sands-derived fuel is to be considered 23% more polluting than conventional oil. But if this goes ahead it would strongly discourage imports of tar sands oil to the EU, effectively shutting off one of the world’s largest customers.

The significance of this clause is evidenced by the great efforts taken by the Canadian government and oil industry to make sure it is watered down, warped, or taken out altogether. Hundreds of lobbying meetings have been held over the last three years with officials from the UK and other EU countries, mostly behind closed doors. Lobbyists have access to seemingly bottomless pits of money, time and political influence, and have succeeded in provoking a stalemate and sending the Commission back to draw up a new proposal, delaying things for a good year or more, while opponents feel shunted and ignored.

But it is a winnable battle. We don’t need to convince the EU to do something wildly unrealistic – the EU wants the FQD to include a specific value for tar sands. The Commission and Parliament have already supported it, but the member states, who are most vulnerable to Canadian and industry lobbying, have delayed and drawn out the process over several years. They are next set to vote on the legislation in October 2013. The UK last year shifted from opposing to abstaining on the FQD, and getting them to support it should be one of our top priorities this year.

The UK has a host of other energy and environment problems to tackle, and tar sands often may not seem the most pressing, direct, or winnable issue. But in this case the UK’s role is vital, and people power is crucial. We should take inspiration from the remarkable opposition to the pipelines in the US and Canada, where, were it not for public outcry, the pipelines would be built already and the oil flowing. For European activists already involved in the tar sands movement, the FQD forms a rare opportunity to directly impact the industry’s future development, and creates a new link in the chain of resistance which spans from communities resisting extraction in Alberta, to those opposing pipelines all over the US and Canada.

We can’t afford further delay. Not only is the legislation at risk of being thrown out if it is pushed back much further, but now is also a make-or-break moment for the tar sands industry. By allowing new markets to open their doors to tar sands we’re substantiating the need for new pipelines, and giving the industry a viable future, not only in Canada but around the world where tar sands exist ready to be exploited, in places such as Madagascar, Trinidad and Tobago, and Congo Brazzaville. On the other hand, by choking the industry of a major new customer, we could set a bold precedent that other countries would follow, making the price of tar sands oil plummet and eventually challenging the logic of this reckless projected expansion.

Dear friends from around the world,

Last week was a busy – and immensely satisfying – week for tar sands-stoppers in the UK.

Thursday saw us in not one, but two actions! We started early in the morning with our many collaborators, to welcome US Secretary of State John Kerry as he arrived to the G8 foreign ministers’ meeting. You might think – “good ol’ British hospitality!”, but actually, the 60 people who gathered on a drizzly London morning were there to tell him that we want him to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline!

We then headed to BP’s Annual General Meeting, where two of our campaigners were denied entry. This didn’t stop the many other campaigners who did make it past the over-the-top security measures to ask the board plenty of questions about the tar sands and about the company’s disregard of the threat of climate change and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Unsurprisingly, most of the answers - if there were any – were far from satisfactory.

Finally, Friday and Saturday saw us in Wales, with Bryan Parras of Houston, Texas. He was in the UK for the BP AGM, but took the opportunity to travel to Wales to talk about resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline in the US and make links with the local community in Pembrokeshire opposing Valero’s import of tar sands to the UK. The full story can be found here – watch out, Valero!

With the first AGM of the season complete, we are now preparing to work with our partners in North America to support a delegation of Indigenous community members resisting Shell’s expansion of the tar sands from the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Aamjiwnaang First Nation and also from the Arctic. Supporting communities to speak out about Shell’s operations is incredibly powerful, you can help make this happen - please consider chipping in, and donating to this unique crowd-sourcing campaign.

Wishing you a restful – or action-packed – weekend.

Emily, Jess, Sue and Ruthi

Manchester, an environmental battleground from Mateo Albaricoque on Vimeo.

Manchester, Texas

Pembrokeshire, Wales

Few things put the wind up a corporation more than when its critics start to unite. Making every issue seem isolated and insignificant is a perpetual tactic to divide and conquer dissenting voices – so showing that each case is symptomatic of a wider problem is a powerful way to disarm them.

We’ve been successful in the past in bringing together impacted communities affected by BP in the tar sands, US Gulf Coast, and West Papua, and affected by Shell in Canada, Nigeria, Rossport and the Arctic.

The next target for transatlantic information sharing was US refining company Valero, which operates mainly around North America, but for one lone refinery in Europe, which happens to be in Pembrokeshire, Wales. While Valero doesn’t dig out tar sands itself, it is a strong supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline, and its purchase of Pembroke refinery in 2011 formed a key part of the company’s plans to import tar sands oil to Europe.

Valero's refinery, seen from across the bay. Photo by Bryan Parras.

We linked up with Bryan Parras, an environmental justice activist from Houston, Texas, who has been working closely with the people of Manchester, Houston to stand up against Valero’s operations in their community. Valero’s refinery surrounds the community on three out of four sides. The Latino community is considered a textbook example of environmental racism, “a community that corporations believe is disposable and its people insignificant”. It is also surrounded by a trash incinerator, Rhodia chemical plant, Goodyear Tire plant, Texas Petro-Chemical Group plant, Lyondell Basell refinery, Westway liquid storage terminals (massive tanks), a car crushing facility, 17 railway crossings, and a major highway with industrial trucks inundating the community 24 hours a day 365 days a year to and from the Houston Ship Channel.

Manchester, Texas is surrounded by industrial infrastructure.

Unbelievably, things are about to get worse for Manchester. The resident Valero refinery is one of many on the Gulf Coast set to receive tar sands oil with the completion of the Keystone XL (or an equivalent) tar sands pipeline from Alberta. Tar sands oil is much more polluting to refine, and would produce increased carbon dioxide, heavy metals and sulphurs, making the air even more toxic to breathe.

Manchester, an environmental battleground from Mateo Albaricoque on Vimeo.

Bryan was keen to make links with communities opposing Valero and tar sands across the pond. He travelled with us to Pembrokeshire to share stories of Valero’s impacts in Manchester, and to learn about the infrastructure along Pembrokeshire’s beautiful rugged coastline. He shared this heartwrenching video, documenting the struggle of people in Manchester to find out what is in the air they breathe.

Eleanor from Friends of the Earth shows Bryan the refineries spoiling Pembrokeshire's coastline.

In Pembrokeshire the picture is very different to Manchester. Although much of the coastline is national park and has been awarded protected status, oil and gas infrastructure has been operating in the area since the 1960s. At the industry’s peak, as many as four refineries plus an oil-fired power plant were operating in the area. Today two refineries, a gas-fired power station, two LNG receiving terminals and a petroleum products storage farm remain.

One of three houses left in Rhoscrowther, Pembrokeshire, next to Valero's refinery. Photo by Bryan Parras.

These days, only three houses and a 14th century church are in close range of Valero’s refinery. In 1992, the rest of the village of Rhoscrowther was bought out by then owner Texaco. But the wider Pembrokeshire community, led by Pembrokeshire Friends of the Earth, is strongly opposed to tar sands, and is working hard to ensure that Valero does not use its Welsh refinery to start importing tar sands-derived fuel from the Gulf Coast. They have been working hard to support the EU Fuel Quality Directive, designed to discourage the import of polluting fuels like tar sands, which has been repeatedly delayed by industry and Canadian lobbyists.

The 14th century church still stands next to Valero's refinery. Photo by Bryan Parras.

Eleanor Clegg from Pembrokeshire Friends of the Earth meets a woman visiting her 91-year-old father, one of the last residents of Rhoscrowther, who has lived there since before the refinery was built. Photo by Bryan Parras.

Linking the two communities together is an important step in creating a chain of tar sands resistance all the way from the Indigenous communities in Alberta opposing extraction, to those along the route of the pipeline, to those at its proposed end in the Gulf Coast, to those resisting its expansion into Europe. The message is coming clearer than ever – across the world people will not accept this industry recklessly overriding people’s fundamental rights to clean air and water, and a stable climate.

Update: Bryan’s visit to Pembrokeshire was covered in the Western Telegraph: