CASE STUDY :

PORT ARTHUR,
TEXAS
E N V I R O N M E N TA L I N J U S T I C E BY
S H E L L R E F I N E RY P L A G U E S
AFRICAN-AMERICAN
N E I G H BO R H O O D S
 The Motiva Refinery, a Shell joint venture in Port
Arthur, Texas, is one of North America’s busiest and most
productive oil refineries, currently processing more than
235,000 barrels of oil per day. Shell profits financially from
the refinery at the expense of the low-income community
that lives in its shadow. Local residents call the area
around West Port Arthur “Gasoline Alley” because of the
high levels of toxic pollution.
I. RATIONALE Shell has always been a big advocate of
“corporate Social responsibility” or CSR and voluntary
codes of conduct, But there comes a time when this isn’t
enough. Friends of the earth believes that companies like
shell should be required by Law to consider a duty of care
to the environmental and social impacts of is operations.
Fenceline communities want shell to stop polluting there
environment and damaging their health.
 For many, Texas and oil go together, but for the
residents of the West-Side neighborhoods of Port Arthur,
such a mixture is a hazard to their health. As in many of
the communities where Shell operates, community
members in West-Side believe that their concerns about
Shell’s pollution have been ignored. Yet, Shell refuses to
address the significant health concerns of Port Arthur’s
West-Side residents, all of which are related to refinery
pollution. Instead, Shell has funded a health clinic, which is
located on the other side of town, and thus inaccessible to
I. RATIONALE most of the residents in the West-Side neighborhoods.

Over 1,200 Port Arthur pollution victims are

alleging air, soil, and other contamination due to the
release of “noxious fumes, vapors, odors and hazardous
substances.” The number of citizens participating in the
lawsuit is expected to grow dramatically. The lawsuit seeks
medical monitoring and reimbursement of medical
expense, as well as compensation for loss of quality of
Life.
 The specific legal claims include trespass, nuisance, and
negligence, aswell as fraud and misrepresentation of the
harm caused by the toxic releases.

The lawsuit is being brought pursuant to the

common laws of Texas and the Wrongful Death Act and the
Survival Statute. According to the citizens’ attorneys, “The
evidence we have obtained shows a habitual pattern of
emissions and discharges that endanger the health of the
public. These are clearly not ‘unavoidable accidents’.”
I. RATIONALE
However, this failure in addressing the concern of
shell’s fenceline community in Porth Arthur, Texas has
been a foreboding matter and an urgent problem that need
to be resolved. It is a social accountability of Shell
company to lend their ears and do something about this
community issues and concern in order to maintain
balance and exercise the rights of every individuals.
 • Failure to address the
concerns of Shell fenceline
communities

• Environmental Issues and

II. ISSUES AND
CONCERNS Health Hazards

• Neglecting Social and

Environmental Responsibility
of Shell Company.
III. POINT OF
VIEW
• Shell Company
 • To discover what should be the right
resolution of the Shell company with
these existing concerns of their
fenceline community.

• To engage readers with this alarming

dispute in order to witness these kind
IV. OBJECTIVES of matter.

• To exercise our Social and

Environmental Responsibility as part of
our respective community whether an
individual or a group of company.
 Strength
- Profitability

Weakness
- Hazardous Product
- Cause of Pollution
- improper location
V. AREAS OF
Opportunity
CONSIDERATION
- Door for Employment
- improvement of technology

Threats
- Presence of competitors
- pull out of investors
- termination of operation
 • What will be the best maneuver
VI. STATEMENT of the Shell company to address
OF THE the significant health concerns of
PROBLEM Port Arthur's west-side residents?
 • ACA #1.
- Shell should eliminate hazardous and life
threatening facility accidents by replacing antiquated and
dilapidated pipelines and relocating them to non-residential
areas.

VII. ALT E R N ATI VE Advantages:

C OU RSE O F AC TIO N - Will solve the issues about the concerns
of the fenceline community.
- Will definitely cease health and life threats

Disadvantages:
- Costly
- Timely
 • ACA #2.
- The government implement reforms national
campaign to clean up refinery pollution and injustice.

Advantages:
- It will contribute reducing the oil refineries
that operate in producing hazardous impact
VII. ALT E R N ATI VE to the environment.
C OU RSE O F AC TIO N - the fenceline community can easily demand
through this reform and voice out their rights
as concern citizens.

Disadvantages:
- time consuming
- possibility of unfulfillment
 • ACA #3.
- The government implement reforms national
campaign to clean up refinery pollution and injustice.

Advantages:
- It will contribute reducing the oil refineries
that operate in producing hazardous impact
VII. ALT E R N ATI VE to the environment.
C OU RSE O F AC TIO N - the fenceline community can easily demand
through reform.

Disadvantages:
- time consuming
- possibility of unfulfillment
 We highly recommend ACA#1, In
which, Shell should eliminate hazardous
and life threatening facility accidents by
VIII.
R E C OM M E N DAT IO N replacing antiquated and dilapidated
pipelines and relocating them to non-
residential areas.
 1. Shell Company should tap the
Government for the assistance and
approval of relocation.
2. Then, the company should find a
perfect spot of location to relocate
the facilities.
3. Next, Shell would buy new
IX. IM P L E M E N TATION equipments and materials to replace
those antiquated and dilapidated
pipelines for security purposes.
4. Finally, Shell can now start
constructing the facilities and inform
their fenceline about the response of
respective apprehension.
 THANK YOU
&
GOD BLESS !!!

Submitted To :
Pearl Lettee Maunes
Submitted By :
Arnel R. Tanggaro
Ronil S. Mendaros
Myra A. Humayag