CAVEAT EMPTOR: Contaminated Gas Sold By Shell

[Doug@GT]

Sorry to hear that happened to those people. Shame on Shell.

I haven't bought Shell gas in a long time and now I have a good reason to continue that trend.

I am curious to know what the stuff turns out to be, though.

[TexTuba]

This sort of stuff just pisses me off. Hope no one here gets a tankful of this contaminant. It seems that Shell will not take responsibility for this. Cretins. Scum. Do not buy from them until they figure out this one, folks. Just get something else for now if you are a Shell customer. I have bought Shell gas a lot in the past and my neighborhood station sells Shell gasoline. I will be monitoring this story and avoiding my local Shell until this is resolved.

Beware!

http://www.katu.com/news/local/19457484.html" target="_blank" target="_blank

Thank you for putting this up, Wade! I have one at the corner and I forgot to put some gas in today. I'm sure as hell glad I didn't!

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Interesting...similar problems, but a very different story here:

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/255/story/425901.html

At least, it appears in this story that Shell is acknowledging the problem and taking care of the customers through a claim process.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Wade,

Nothing more recent than the one I linked to first (from May 30). Here's a couple of related (actually, earlier) stories from the same paper:

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/424783.html
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/423737.html

Here's a quote from the second one above:

"Miller apparently is going to get compensation from Shell. She said a company representative told her to fax proof-of-purchase information and the mechanic’s estimate to the company, but she was also told that it could take three weeks for her claim to be processed."

Sounds like someone at Shell is at least acknowledging they were at fault...or, they are giving this lady the run-around. They might have just given themselves 3 weeks to figure out what to do. Hard to tell right now.

For some real fun, click on the "comments" link on each of the three stories...people there are not happy about this.

On the other hand...a quote from your link:

"In the meantime, drivers like Trengove are left without a car - and without answers. What they do have are bills that are adding up - bills they're not even sure Shell Oil will take care of.

Trengrove said a Shell Oil representative told him that they would not talk to him until he has all his repair receipts, and even then there was no understanding that he would be reimbursed for all the charges.

KOMO News attempted to talk with Shell Oil about these concerns, but the calls have not been returned.

Meanwhile, other people who got the contaminated gas say they are running into similar problems.

One family finally got their car fixed - but it cost them more than $2,000, and they have not yet been reimbursed."

Seems like if I were covering this story, I could shade it however I wanted, depending on how many people I talked to and who's story/quotes I wanted to use. Interesting that the big city (Portland) media outlet is more anti-Shell while the more rural media outlet (Bellingham) seems more fair to the big company. A quote from the Bellingham story:

“They’re taking care of me,” she said. “They were very nice about it.”

I suppose the Portland reporter didn't talk to anyone with that experience? Yeah, and I have a bridge up by Spokane to sell you. And I always love that "calls have not been returned" line...you always see it in these consumer-protection type stories. Forgive me if I question the integrity of the journalist who left the message.

I'm on the fence on this one...hard to judge the real story when you have such opposite, obviously biased, viewpoints in the media. I won't condemn Shell until I see that they refuse to pay for damages done by their contaminated gas. Look at it from their perspective...one of their employees messed up and got water (or something) in a delivery of gas. If you were the CEO of Shell, would you just start sending out checks to anyone who claims they got that gas? Or would you try to make sure (with proof of purchase) it was your product that did the damage?

That said, I would hope that they expedite the process to take care of their customers with damaged property. If they don't, I'm sure you'll hear more about it in the media. If they do step up and do a great job correcting this mistake...well, you most likely won't hear about that. At least, not in the Portland media.

[tofu]

--

[sungfw]

And I always love that "calls have not been returned" line...you always see it in these consumer-protection type stories

If you've ever worked in the public relations department of a district or regional office of a national or multinational corporation, you know why you always see that all the time in consumer-protection stories done by local media: because CORPORATE POLICY is NOT to comment on such inquiries until the corporate lawyers have vetted the question and provided a WRITTEN response that is to be read VERBATIM. Follow-up questions are answered either by simply repeating the relevant lines from the script or "No comment."

It's about limiting liability exposure. The last thing Corporate needs is for some PR intern shooting off his/her mouth in response to an "innoncent" media inquiry that could end up as exhibit #1 in a class action suit. (OBTW, if you think class action lawyers don't routinely have interns file "media inquiries" with the companies they're targeting, or tip off the "consumer-protection" team at local media outlets, I have an incredible copper SANDER CC tuba I'll sell you, cheap.)

[Rick F]

More links...

Ferndale Shell’s gas gets chemist’s nod
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/255/story/425901.html

SEATTLE -- Three or more gas stations had to shut down after contaminated fuel was pumped into several cars and trucks.
http://www.kirotv.com/money/16395366/detail.html

Shell says at least 10 customers bought contaminated gas
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/364 ... ate27.html

[Todd S. Malicoate]

If you've ever worked in the public relations department of a district or regional office of a national or multinational corporation, you know why you always see that all the time in consumer-protection stories done by local media: because CORPORATE POLICY is NOT to comment on such inquiries until the corporate lawyers have vetted the question and provided a WRITTEN response that is to be read VERBATIM. Follow-up questions are answered either by simply repeating the relevant lines from the script or "No comment."

I'm aware of that...I just tried to make the point in one sentence instead of two paragraphs...obviously I didn't fully succeed.

The bottom line to me is that the "our calls were not returned" line is used to imply the company is question doesn't give enough of a damn to explain what's going on. This reporting style has the effect of igniting the public outrage...which is what the media outlet was going for.

[sungfw]

The bottom line to me is that the "our calls were not returned" line is used to imply the company is question doesn't give enough of a damn to explain what's going on. This reporting style has the effect of igniting the public outrage...which is what the media outlet was going for.

While "the media" generally have provided ample grounds for cynicism regarding their motives and their objectivity, the fact is that had the media outlet NOT explicitly stated that they had contacted the company for a response prior to running the story, many of the same people who complain about the media portraying the company as "not giving a damn" would complain that the media outlet was one-sided and did not give the company a chance to respond to the complaint, so they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

So while I don't necessarily disagree that the phrase, "our calls were not returned" can—and, in the mind of the public at large, often IS—construed to mean, "they don't give enough of a damn to respond," nor do I necessarily disagree that the phrase does tend to ignite outrage, I am far from persuaded that the primary motive for employing the phrase was necessarily to ignite outrage.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I am far from persuaded that the primary motive for employing the phrase was necessarily to ignite outrage.

Agree to disagree. One needs only to read the rest of the Portland article to see the bias. The "calls not returned" part only added to flame. Context is everything. From one of the Bellingham stories (May 29):

"Shell Oil spokesman Brian Sibley said there is no evidence to link the reported problems at the Ferndale Shell with problems with water contamination at a few Shell stations in King and Snohomish counties over the past weekend. In that case, Sibley said, water got into a relatively small quantity of gasoline shipped from a terminal in Seattle, as the result of human error at the terminal. But none of that gas got to Whatcom County, Sibley said."

Funny how they were able to include a statement from a Shell spokesman, while the Portland reporter wrote (the much easier) "calls not returned." Apparently either the "no comment" policy applies only to some, or the Portland reporter didn't make much of an effort to get a statement. Personally, I believe the latter, but I acknowledge I could be wrong.

[sungfw]

One needs only to read the rest of the Portland article to see the bias. The "calls not returned" part only added to flame. Context is everything.

Yes, context IS everything: but "everything" includes the prejudices in the reader's/listener's head.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

All I really wanted to do with this post is to warn you guy's to not purchase any gas from Shell until the cause is determined and the problem cleaned up. It is clear that somehow some brown sludge (that is as yet unidentified) is getting pumped into Shell tanker trailers and is ending up, through no fault of their own, in the tanks of some people who then have major trouble that leaves them without a car. And no one is as yet taking responsibility for this.

Wow. Amazing how two people can get such different impressions reading the same news stories.

I see a very isolated problem in Washington state affecting about 2 dozen vehicles. When you say "it is clear that some brown sludge is getting pumped into Shell tanker trailers" you imply an ongoing problem. There is no evidence of that, unless you have some you haven't posted. Surely if this was a widespread problem with Shell gas in general, there would be many, many, many more stories from around the country. I don't see any reason for a blanket condemnation of Shell. Lots of folks just like you and me work for them...do you really think it would be fair to boycott the entire company and put them out of work over an isolated incident?

Perhaps you missed the quote from Carol Grimshaw of Ferndale (from one of the Bellingham articles) that I posted before:

“They’re taking care of me,” she said. “They were very nice about it.”

Doesn't sound like Evil Corporate Demons to me, unless you just don't believe her.

Again, I believe (from seeing too many similar situations...Google "Conoco Ponca City oil cleanup" sometime, then ask me about the real story) that if Shell is responsible in some way for the contamination and they step up and do the right thing, they will not be applauded in the media no matter how well they take care of the problem. Not going to happen. You'll be lucky if you can Google a story about it anywhere.

So I ask you, Wade...how long should we not buy our gas from Shell? Ma and Pa Smith who own the Shell station at 1st and Elm would like to know...they've got some bills to pay, just like us.

[Rick Denney]

It probably isn't Shell's fault. Shell stations buy their gasoline from local distributors, and probably from the same local distributor as the Chevron station across the street. The distributor dumps in the brand additive before (or during) delivery, that's all. So, if it's a distributor problem, it should have affected more than just Shell stations.

Lots of things can mix with gasoline and cause mucky sludge. Something emulsified the gasoline, like how egg whites can turn oil and vinegar into mayonnaise.

Fuel pumps in most newer cars are mounted inside the gas tank, and if they clog, the costs are probably limited to the pump and the tank. But removing the tank from most cars is a major job, and if it's full of sludge, it will have to be removed, cleaned, and inspected for a proper repair. Pumps on cars run in the several hundreds these days, not including labor.

If the intake screen on the pump is clogged, the car stops. Been there, done that.

It's reasonable for companies to need time to sort things out when something happens. After all, Shell is just the retailer and they'll want to know why someone sold THEM bad gas. And it's reasonable to expect the victims of bad luck to realize that bad luck happens. They should be talking to their insurance agents to see if it's covered under their comprehensive policy.

Rick "wondering how 10 cars could be disabled on the spot without being forced to push each other out of the way" Denney

[windshieldbug]

the above post...

Perhaps they just had very long gas hoses at this particular Shell station, and the motorists were eyesight was affected by the fumes...

[mclaugh]

Wow. Amazing how two people can get such different impressions reading the same news stories.

Actually, it's entirely predictable: it's called "auditor bias."

bias, n: systematic errors of interpretation made during inference by the recipient of information; the tendency to accept information that supports pre-conceived opinions and to reject or trivialize that which does not support preconceived opinions or that which one does not understand.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

This is just a matter of our own personal spin being placed on the written word, much like here at TubeNet. We want to see different things so we see them. And I will ALWAYS come down on the side of the little guy until the facts of the case have proven otherwise. Since I am not a judge I can afford to do tat.

Fair enough, Wade, and I do respect your opinion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the scope of the problem. Like you, I hope the affected folks in Washington state receive satisfaction.

[Mark]

There is a Shell refinery in Anacortes, Washington. Here is what they had to say about the situation: http://shellpsr.com/go/doc/3/204016/.

[tubatooter1940]

The Citgo station on the corner near here sold out and is now a Shell station. Prices just dropped at the new Shell to match all the "cheap" stations up and down highway 59.
How much trouble am I in if I buy gas there?

[Todd S. Malicoate]

The Citgo station on the corner near here sold out and is now a Shell station. Prices just dropped at the new Shell to match all the "cheap" stations up and down highway 59.
How much trouble am I in if I buy gas there?

Anybody who still thinks the media can't drum up a story causing real people with real jobs to lose real money over nothing, say "aye."

There is no problem nationwide with Shell gas...please read Mark's quote in the post right above yours. The very isolated problem was in Washington state, nowhere near you in Alabama. Don't punish the local owners of your Shell station on the corner because somebody messed up once in Washington.

Somebody allegedly found a finger in their chili at Wendy's once. I guess we should be warned about eating lunch there, too. What's the difference?

[tubatooter1940]

Dear Todd S.
I have gotten the finger without eating a Chili's.
Does that count?