WHEN reading The Herald on a regular basis, one could easily be forgiven for thinking there are only two topics of interest at the moment, namely the trial of Oscar Pistorius and the political build-up to the elections.
In response to an advertisement placed in the Herald, your reporter Xolisa Phillip (Herald April 7) wrote an article about Shell Petroleum and their reasons for applying for a three-year postponement regarding their compliance with the National Environmental Management Air Quality Act (No39 of 2004).
According to the article, Shell’s reason for requesting this postponement is money.
Their consultant Benton Pillay speaks of “double costs, viability and the inconvenience of building something which will have to be dismantled in three years’ time”. These comments seem to be at odds with a mission statement found on Shell’s web page where they assure the reader of their commitment to “limit emissions of local pollutants”, “to do no harm to their neighbours” and “define core values of honesty, integrity and respect for people”.
Nowhere could I find the bit that said these values excluded Port Elizabeth.
The people of Port Elizabeth have a constitutional right to breathe clean air.
We are kept in the dark, so have no idea whether or not Shell complies with the legislation as it stands.
I urge Port Elizabeth people to object to this postponement.
Cora Adcock, Humewood