Jump to content

Talk:Shell USA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.57.175.24 (talk) at 20:41, 30 April 2017 (→Revenues: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Protection needed?

I see some vandalism for this page. Does anybody think it might need protection? WarrenOutsky (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at recent history, I'd say no. There's not enough edit traffic.—C45207 | Talk 06:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, I thought it was worth checking. WarrenOutsky (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moved from User talk:Agathoclea

I saw your recent edit to Shell Oil. What is needed with the image? I did not understand your notation. Thank you. WarrenOutsky (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image was on the article until some editor replaced it with an image of a British petrol station. This subsequently was removed as the article is about Shell in the US. The article has changed a bit since those events so the picture might no longer be suitable, I leave that to the regular editors of Shell Oil. I was just trying to clean up image replacments which due to coyright issues or other problems in the end led to a total removal without reinstating the orinal fitting image. Agathoclea (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant edits where: change of image and subsequent removal of unsuitable image. As I said the article has changed quite a bit since then so it might no longer be needed. I was just going through the first users contributions as there had been a number of image issues. Agathoclea (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thank you. WarrenOutsky (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg.com resource

Shell Is ‘Welcome Barbarian’ in China’s Shale Gas by Stanley Reed and Dexter Roberts - Nov 18, 2011 Page 88 to 93 in November 21-27, 2011 print issue Bloomberg BusinessWeek, article titled What's (Shell) Doing in China?: The Anglo-Dutch energy conglomerate and state-owned PetroChina have teamed up to get gas out of the ground in China - and to tap news sources of energy worldwide. Talk about crude diplomacy. By Stanley Reed and Dexter Roberts. 141.218.36.43 (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Coal. 99.181.142.144 (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced Nigerian section

The Nigerian section refers to abuses and lawsuits related to Royal Dutch Shell, the UK/Netherlands parent company. This article is about the US subsidiary. Seems to me it should be removed, and any unique content considered for merger into the similar section of the Royal Dutch Shell article.

Which actually brings up a larger point. The section probably creeped in because it is too easy to confuse the articles. Should the article be renamed to make it clearer that this is for teh US company? I know there's a hatnote, but is it enough? Dovid (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points. I rewrote the section to emphasize that the lawsuit was filed in the United States against Shell Oil's parent company. I found more sources and shortened what was already there, which seemed biased toward plaintiffs. I do think the section ought to remain, as incidents like this one are important in shaping Shell's reputation, and readers are likely to turn to Wikipedia for an even-handed account of the events.
On a more practical level, if the whole section is removed, someone will probably add a rough draft of the same information again.
I did not have time to look into the last named suit scheduled to go before the U.S. Supreme Court last February. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 16:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the renaming issue, I'd support it if there is another Royal Dutch Shell subsidiary called "Shell Oil Company," e.g. in Nigeria. Otherwise I think the hatnote is sufficient. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 16:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Warren (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Office

Hi,

Although the edit has been reverted, what about the office closing in Perth? Can someone tell if that actually happened.

Thanks Warren (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Per WP:CRITICISM,

"Criticism should in total be well under half of the article, even if sourcing supports filling almost every line of the article with criticism. The minimum is that required by neutrality but the maximum should, in a neutral way, leave a majority of the article as not criticism."

As of March 21, 2015, 62% of the article is criticism, including much WP:UNDUE material such as small fines for minor infractions, purportedly unfair dealings with a single gas station operator, and other criticism that have never been mentioned in major news sources such as nationally syndicated newspapers.

I will reduce some of the more trivial criticisms to bring the article into compliance, while leaving the more key criticisms in place.

Formerly 98 (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to reduce criticism from ~60% to ~40% of article. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRITICISM is an essay and does not dictate article content. Rather than remove referenced content, if you feel the article is unbalanced, look for more positive/neutral content to add. I have restored two sections which have enough significant coverage to merit inclusion in the article.Dialectric (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree. The essay was approved and thus is a measure of community sentiment, and there is no justification for the article to be 60% criticism. Nor am I obligated to "look for more positive material to add to bring it into balance" when a large portion of the negative material is WP:UNDUE trivia that is not of interest to the average reader that wants to learn something about the company.
We have an entire paragraph on a "Notice of Violation" from 1999. According the the EPA website,
"A Notice of Violation or NOV is one step in EPA’s investigation and enforcement of violations of EPA statutes and regulations. A NOV notifies the recipient that EPA believes the recipient committed one or more violations and provides instructions for coming into compliance. NOVs typically offer an opportunity for the recipient to discuss the their actions, including efforts to achieve compliance. NOVs are not a final EPA determination that a violation has occurred. EPA considers all appropriate information to determine the final enforcement response."
This is clearly undue weight and I have removed it. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed several paragraphs dealing with Royal Dutch Shell and subsidiaries of Royal Dutch Shell other than Shell Oil Corporation, which is the U.S. Subsidiary. The Irish "controversy" is undue weight, and in any case involved a differeent Royal Dutch Shell Subsidiary (Shell EP Ireland). Similarly, the Nigerian situation did not involve the U.S. subsidiary. It instead involved the parent company Royal Dutch Shell, and is covered in detail in the article about Royal Dutch Shell. Formerly 98 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

# of Employees

I explained why I deleted it, the source for it goes to the website of Royal Dutch Shell (www.shell.com) the link to the website of The Shell Oil Company is www.shell.us This is because the Shell Oil Company is the US Subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, the parent company. The 93,000 employees cited are the number of employees who work for Royal Dutch Shell, of which the Shell Oil Company is a part, like Shell Nigeria, and Shell Pakistan. The number of employees of The Shell Oil Company is not listed on www.shell.us. The information is correct, only however for Royal Dutch Shell. Here's the link to Royal Dutch Shell's wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.57.175.24 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revenues

I added revenue some time back, but it's worth mentioning that the revenue that I added is a very rough estimate. Finding information in general, and financial information in particular, on Shell's wholly owned subsidiaries is next to impossible, even shell.us has virtually nothing in general regards. So... I found an article that gave the percentage of Royal Dutch Shell's revenue deriving from The Shell Oil Company for the year 2013 then multiplied this against revenues in 2016 to get the number. That being said the number this number is of course rife with problems, first and foremost the year for the last annual revenue statement is 2016 not 2013, second off the markets were much different in 2013 i.e. the oil and energy industry hadn't yet gone to h*** in a hand basket, thirdly since this report in 2013 Shell has purchased BG which had significant holdings in the Americas, fourth American operations tend to have higher minimum cost per barrel numbers making them some of the first to get closed. These reasons are just the tip of the iceberg, so while the number gives a general idea, it is an incredibly rough estimate at best. 85.57.175.24 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shell_USA&oldid=778044748"