BRAZIL COURT FINES SHELL

Brazil Court

Fines Shell,

Basf for Making

Workers Sick

Aug 21st, 2010

by John Donovan.

The plant was built

 

in 1977 by Shell…

 

Dozens of former employees of

 

the plant have been diagnosed

 

with prostate, thyroid and other

 

types of cancer, circulatory,

 

liver and intestinal illnesses,

 

as well as infertility and sexual

 

impotence, the statement added.

 

Caracas, Saturday August 21,2010
SAO PAULO – A Brazilian court has ordered the local units of Basf SE and Royal Dutch Shell Plc to pay 1.1 billion reais ($628 million) to cover the cost of medical treatment and compensation for former workers made ill by toxic substances.
The sentence, which can be appealed, was handed down by Judge Maria Ines Correa de Cerqueira Cesar of the labor court in Paulinia, Sao Paulo state, where a pesticide plant operated between 1977-2002.
The judge ordered the companies to pay the cost of medical treatment for all of plant's former workers, as well as for the children of employees or contractors who were born during or after the time their parents worked at the factory.
Each of the beneficiaries of the court's ruling is to receive 64,500 reais ($36,860) and the companies also must pay 622.2 million reais ($355 million) in collective compensation for "moral damages," to be deposited in the Worker Protection Fund.
"The companies must assume an approximate total cost of 1.1 billion reais," the judge said.
The two companies also were given five days beginning Thursday to publish a statement on TV networks inviting former workers and their descendants to present health records showing they were affected by the contamination, while Basf also must do the same in a pair of large-circulation dailies on two Sundays.
The Labor Prosecutor's Office said in a statement that more than 1,000 workers at the plant and hundreds of their relatives will benefit from the ruling.
The plant was built in 1977 by Shell and sold in 1994 to American Cyanamid. That latter company was acquired in 2002 by Germany's Basf, which closed the plant two years later.
Following initial complaints, soil studies confirmed that the area's subsoil water had been contaminated by highly carcinogenic substances and significant quantities of chromium, vanadium and zinc.
Dozens of former employees of the plant have been diagnosed with prostate, thyroid and other types of cancer, circulatory, liver and intestinal illnesses, as well as infertility and sexual impotence, the statement added. EFE
SOURCE ARTICLE

Posted in: Environment, Human Rights, Litigation, New York Times, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Shell Employee Safety, Wikipedia.
Tagged: Brazil · Groundwater Pollution · Litigation · Pollution · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Shell · Shell Pollution

← Brazil Court Fines Shell, BASF $654M For Toxic Leaks- Report

Outrage at UN decision to exonerate Shell for oil pollution in Niger delta →

THE PIPE

International hit

Aug 19th, 2010

by John Donovan.

The award winning

 

documentary

 

"The Pipe" has

 

become an

 

International hit

 

and will be

 

screened at the

 

Toronto Film

 

Festival and also

 

at the

 

London Film Festival.

 

Dates will be announced.

 

YouTube Clip

ASSOCIATED ARTICLE

Shell pipeline

documentary becomes

an international hit

By Adelina Campos

Thursday August 19,  2010

AN award-winning Irish

documentary

about the controversial

Corrib gas pipeline has struck

a chord

with the international

community after it was picked for

screening at two prestigious

international film festivals.

The Pipe follows the lives of

fishermen and farmers from

Rossport, Co Mayo, who rise

up against Shell Oil's plans to

build a pipeline for natural

gas through their county.

Both the Toronto International

Film Festival and the BFI

London Film Festival will be

showing the film which

received a

standing ovation

when it premiered

at the 22nd Galway Film

Fleadh.

Director Risteard O Domhnaill

told the Herald that he did not

expect such a positive response

or to win the Best Feature

Documentary Award at the

Galway event in July.

OVERWHELMING

"I was really stressed about

getting it ready for the Galway

festival, I didn't think about

the response we'd get," he said.

"I just wanted for people to see,

I didn't expect anything.

"I suppose it's timely, with the

BP crisis and all … It must have

struck a chord,"

the Tipperary native added.

The 25 documentaries that

will be shown at the Toronto

International Film Festival

were announced last week, and

Risteard said that he felt excited

to be included on the list.

"For me it was always about

getting the film shown in Ireland,

showing the people

the real story.

I looked at the list of

documentaries that will be

showing and it was scary.

"Credible, award-winning

documentary makers are on it,

Oscar winners …

It's overwhelming,

but good I suppose. We

don't care about competing,

if the story can travel that's

fantastic."

hnews@herald.ie

- Adelina Campos

SOURCE ARTICLE

 

 

Posted in: Corrib Gas Project, Environment, Gas, Human Rights, Ireland, LNG, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Shell to Sea Campaign.
Tagged: Corrib Gas Project · Gas · Ireland · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← End Mayo Gas Robbery

HOW I LEARNED TO QUIT WORRYING AND LOVE SHELL PESTICIDES →

VIOLATION BY SHELL OF US EXPORT RESTRICTIONS

Alleged Shell

 

violation

 

of U.S. Export

 

Restrictions

May 31st, 2010

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS OF WHISTLE BLOWER WITHHELD FROM PUBLICATION

Dear John,
As a Shell insider I need to stay anonymous but I will point you to the right story.
As you possible know, there are export restrictions to export software and technology which is US based to restricted countries like Iran, Sudan, Syria, North Korea and Cuba. Shell violates this export restrictions as Shell is using software and technology without a valid export license.
One example will be that in the joint venture from Shell and Sinopec both companies are using Microsoft Windows Operation system. They never got a valid license from the US government. It looks like that in some cases Shell take the business risk only for profit to make business with terrorists.
The joint venture in Iran is operating in
Etelaat Newspaper Building
South Naft Ave
Mirdamad Blvd
Other violations happen in Syria and Sudan.
The other problem there is that Shell help Sinopec also with technical expertise in exploration and production. This possible will also violate current restrictions special from the US.
Companies and special oil companies which support Iran run the risk to loose all government contracts with the US. You will not find any information on the official Shell website about the joint venture in Iran as Shell is trying very hard to hide this.
From my point of view the Shell export compliance office must be aware about the violation from software and technology. The top management, Malcolm Brinded up to the CEO must be aware about the other violations with the joint venture.
I trust you that you keep my address confidential and that you take this maybe as a starting point to challenge Shell. The public need to know about how unethical Shell run this business just for profit.
With kind regards

LEAKED SHELL INTERNAL E-MAILS

Leaked Shell

internal emails

reveal concern

over Corrib

subsea wells

Jul 22nd, 2010

by John Donovan.

By John Donovan
Published below is my self-explanatory correspondence with Royal Dutch Shell ethics boss Richard Wiseman, over the latest installment of leaked Shell internal emails, this time relating to the highly sensitive topic of the Corrib Gas Project in Ireland. More will follow.
The project has been dogged by controversy, including the jailing at Shell's behest of the "Rossport Five" – members of the local population who have deep concern over safety and other issues.
The string of Shell internal emails from March and April 2009, involve over half a dozen Shell employees and includes reference to senior Shell executives. The Shell people involved discuss concern over well ownership and issues relating to "long term suspension" of "subsea gas wells".
In this connection, one email says:

"In this case, risk may be mainly reputational rather than safety or environmental (subsea gas wells)."

Note that it says "may be" mainly reputational.  In other words, the risk could be to safety or the environment.
In view of recent events in the Gulf of Mexico and the just announced delay on the Corrib project resulting in a further 3 year extension of "long term suspension", the local population is likely to be alarmed at these revelations of internal concern at Shell that has not revealed to the public.
MY EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH SHELL

EMAIL TO RICHARD WISEMAN, CHIEF ETHICS & COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: 21 July 2010 12:00
To: Wiseman, Richard M RDS-LSX
Subject: Question-mark over ownership of Corrib wells

Dear Mr Wiseman

We have reason to believe that the leaked Shell internal emails below are authentic.

If you do not indicate otherwise within 24 hours, we will take the lack of a denial as confirmation of authenticity.

If you wish to supply any comment for unedited publication along with the emails, you are welcome to do so.

If you need more time to check this matter out, just let me know. As always our first priority is publishing accurate authentic information.

If there is any exceptional reason why we should not publish, please say so. As you know, on both occasions that Shell has asked us not to publish, indicating exceptional grounds, we have agreed not to do so. This will be our continuing policy.

Regards
John Donovan

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 21 July 2010 16:50:33 GMT+01:00
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: Question-mark over ownership of Corrib wells

Dear Mr Donovan

As ever, you should not take my silence to be an admission of authenticity.  I am surprised that you continue to try to force an admission by default.  I can by no means guarantee always to receive your emails within 24 hours of your sending them and in the interests of the accuracy and authenticity you claim to adhere to, I should have thought that you would never rely on silence as confirmation of your assertions, particularly in the light of the repeated requests from me and others that you do not do so.

Regards
Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office:  Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com/

RESPONSE BY JOHN DONOVAN 21 JULY 2010

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 21 July 2010 21:28:13 GMT+01:00
To: richard.wiseman@SHELL.com
Subject: Re: Question-mark over ownership of Corrib wells

Dear Mr Wiseman

As I made plain, you only had to let me know if you needed more time to investigate. Whenever Shell has asked for more time to respond, we have always agreed.

Readers of the correspondence will be able to draw their own conclusions for your "silence" over the authenticity of the latest crop of Shell internal emails, as I do. Readers will also be able to draw their own conclusions about who is trying to be open, constructive and fair.

As I have stated previously, you are free to say that Shell would like us to cease giving the company the opportunity to comment on draft articles or on the authenticity of Shell internal documents and emails leaked to us. If you tell us that this is the case, then we will cease.

Thus far, Shell has preferred to retain the option to have advance sight of such information and be able to comment, as Shell has done several times, or decline to comment, which is the most frequent response. Knowing as I do, certain matters in the pipeline for publication in the coming weeks, now would not be a good time for Shell to give up this facility, but the decision is yours. Having had dealings with us for getting on to two decades, you know that we would not wish to be a nuisance to Shell.

Regards
John Donovan

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENDS
I also supplied the Shell internal correspondence to some individuals with expertise in such matters.
FIRST RESPONSE

Hello John

Nice string of emails, lots of egg on the face of Shell.

I am certain they are all genuine.

The issue clearly is that there is no well defined owner of these assets. In my view this is criminal because in case of an emergency one needs action fast and if there is no owner they all will be waiting on each other. Very clear that this has slipped through the cracks. It is possible that WE (I assume Well Engineering) is still the owner since the wells have never produced (I assume?). But normally drilling hands over in a formal and documented way the ownership of the wells after these are completed.

It also is very clear that there is confusion as to the status of the wells. In short, you have just uncovered a great mess and Shell Europe should be very ashamed of itself not to have found this out themselves and rectified it the same day, now it is because some minions with their heart in the right place are taking some belated action. The head honchos obviously were too busy following Voser's decree to reduce staff, never mind the consequences….

This is going to be interesting. Perhaps you should ask how come there is no asset holder. How come this was not discovered in one of the great many audits on every topic one can think of. (Head office bureaucrats need to be kept busy after all). Clear example of 'me first, business later'.  Sounds familiar?

If someone does not get sacked over this or severely reprimanded, it would show that Shell has lost its basic control mechanisms! But what do you expect with beancounters and HR people in charge of a technical business?

A concerned Shell retiree.

EXTRACTS FROM SECOND RESPONSE

The fact that people are expressing concern that there seems to be an implied shortcoming is in itself proof that there are some good people in Shell going above and beyond their allocated duties.

This is definitely another classic example of the quote from inside Shell: "95% of Shell staff are honest, ethical and extremely competent. Unfortunately the other 5% are in senior management positions"

I'm not saying that what has happened is completely kosher, but the names of the people expressing concern in the emails are not the villains – please don't shoot the messengers!

Bearing in mind the above plea, we have decided not to publish the emails but will be supplying them to a third party for investigation.

Posted in: Corrib Gas Project, Environment, Gas, GoogleNews, Ireland, John Donovan, LNG, Leaked Shell Emails, Outspoken Articles, Richard Wiseman, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Shell to Sea Campaign.
Tagged: Corrib Gas Project · Gas · Richard Wiseman Shell · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← BP's changing lobbying disclosure amount? It figures

Tight Relationship of Oil Industry and Foreign-Exchange Market →

WIKIPEDIA MACHINATIONS

Royal Dutch Shell

 

Wikipedia Machinations

Mar 29th, 2010

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

Shell is obsessed with our online activities, not only in relation to our website, but also my role as a Wikipedian originating and editing articles relating to Shell.

I have noticed a suspicious correlation between Shell's internal fretting about how to edit my Wikipedia contributions without being caught and editing undertaken during the same time period by Shell partisan contributors hiding behind pseudonyms

Article by John Donovan
As prominent critics of Royal Dutch Shell, it is invaluable for us to know what the company is saying, thinking and plotting about us.
The inside information comes mainly from Shell itself, which is obliged under the UK Data Protection Act to supply us on request with Shell documents and communications in which our names are mentioned.
As a result, despite redaction of some information by Shell lawyers, we have a wealth of evidence, confirming that contrary to the impression it would like to project, Shell is obsessed with our online activities, not only in relation to our website, but also my role as a Wikipedian originating and editing articles relating to Shell.
I have noticed a suspicious correlation between Shell's internal fretting about how to edit my Wikipedia contributions without being caught and editing undertaken during the same time period by Shell partisan contributors hiding behind pseudonyms. If I had known then what I know now from Shell internal documents and emails, I would have been even more suspicious.
I am the main contributor to the Wikipedia articles: "Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell"; "Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns" and "Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues" and author of a substantial part of a recent book covering these important subjects.
In October 2007 I wrote an article drawing attention to personal attacks made against me by Wikipedia contributors operating under fictitious names. Unlike those using pseudonyms to conceal identity and background (as allowed under Wikipedia rules), I have always contributed using my real name and openly declared my Shell critic background from the outset.
Basically, I was accused of using Wikipedia to campaign against Shell. It was alleged that my contributions were all biased against Shell. The most hostile allegations against me came from people hiding behind pseudonyms. As can be seen from the discussion page content for the relevant Wikipedia articles, I made my suspicions known at the time about the bona fides of the relevant persons. Two of the most belligerent,  disappeared from Wikipedia after I drew attention to their activities, no doubt switching to new pseudonyms.
When I post information and comments about Shell on our own website, I do so on an outspoken basis deliberately designed to provoke debate. When I edit Wikipedia, I operate in accordance with Wikipedia requirements i.e. impartial information supported by reputable, independent verifiable sources.
I have on a number of occasions challenged anyone to produce any evidence of bias. I do so again now. No one has ever been able to cite any examples despite my extensive contributions. Much of what I have added to Wikipedia relating to Shell has subsequently been amended by people hiding behind pseudonyms.
On 23 November 2006, I published my email correspondence with David Bowen, a "website effectiveness consultant" and regular guest columnist for the Financial Times and FT.com. The exchange was partly about "Tell Shell", the Shell run blog facility. Mr Bowen had referred to it in an FT article – "Online greenery" – as being an "uncensored forum". The correspondence stemmed from a complaint I made to the FT on the basis that despite giving a plug to Shell in his article, Bowen had failed to disclose that Shell was one of his clients.
David Bowen implied in his response that credit should be given to Shell for not trying to "edit back critical pieces" added to the Wikipedia articles. He also pointed out that although Tell Shell had been suspended, critical postings remained accessible on a Shell online archive.
I advised him that contrary to Shell's boast of it being an uncensored forum for open and lively debate, Shell had in fact censored postings on Tell Shell. We also now know that Shell employees operating from Shell premises also secretly edited the relevant Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, the critical postings on Tell Shell are no longer available online.
I also brought to his attention the fact that I had posted positive information about Shell on Wikipedia. I was the author of the sections about Shell LiveWIRE, The Whistleblower Helpline and The Shell Foundation. I added these positive aspects to provide a balanced view. No one else had bothered to do so.
As a result of the information now received from Shell under the Data Protection Act, I have been able to compare Shell's internal unfounded comments in relation to my Wikipedia postings, with  the personal attacks made against me on Wikipedia under cover of fictitious names during the same period. The allegations are identical in nature.
We have provided links below to the extensive Shell internal correspondence and documents where the subject came up. Shell was trying to figure out how it could edit my contributions to the articles without being caught. Concern was expressed about this prospective outcome.
It is obvious from the internal email dated 1 March 2007, the importance attached by Shell to the Wikipedia articles. The point is correctly made in the email that the Wikipedia articles "come up on the first page of Google search."
Shell stated in the same email that the articles were managed mainly by xxxxxxxx (ex-Shell) and John Donovan (anti-Shell)." The "xxxx's" denote the third party name deleted by Shell. The missing name was almost certainly either retired Shell Executive Paddy Briggs, a contributor to Wikipedia, or Andrew Cates, a former Royal Dutch Shell Chief Executive. Paddy like me, always made contributions under his own name. Andrew Cates used the pseudonym "BosMo". He had a senior editor function and is now a Wikipedia administrator.
After "BosMo" unsuccessfully nominated the royaldutchshellplc.com Wikipedia article for deletion, I received an anonymous tip off revealing the identity of "BosMo" and his connection with Shell of which I was not then aware.  My related article from October 2007 should be read in conjunction with this article, particular my comments about Andrew Cates.
Mr Cates pointed out in June 2009: "BTW yesterday I found a blog item you had written in 2007. It was rather kind to me but wrong in implying I only revealed my identity as Andrew Cates after someone from inside the company had told you who I was in 2006. Please see: [3] My first contribution here at WP was to say that BozMo was Andrew Cates and it was within 5 days of leaving Shell 1 April 2004. The same edit gave my new employers website and my homepage. I always had my real name here. I had used BozMo anonymously in other contexts (anonymous cartoons on company noticeboards for example) going back a decade before that, but I have never been anonymous at WP."
Contrary to the repeated assertions by Shell in the internal correspondence and documents accessible below, my father, Alfred Donovan, has never added or edited any Wikipedia articles.
Ironically, the only Wikipedia article originated by me that has been successfully nominated for deletion was one focusing solely on positive aspects of Shell. Please see my email to Royal Dutch Shell Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes dated 6 March 2009 attached to a Shell internal email. The article "Royal Dutch Shell initiatives was deleted on 28 April 2009 on the basis that it was too one sided in favor of Shell.

JOHN DONOVAN SAYS

Shell critic

says oil major

targeting his

website

Wed Dec 2, 2009 3:04pm GMT

By Tom Bergin

LONDON Dec 2 (Reuters) - A prominent Internet critic of Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) says the oil major has asked an anti-cyber fraud agency to target his site, which Shell admits provides better information on the group than its own internal communications.

John Donovan, who runs the Royaldutchshell.plc website, where disaffected Shell employees post company news and gossip, said the move suggests Shell has adopted more aggressive tactics in its long battle to shut him down.

"They are very worried about the leaks," Donovan told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"They are trying to track down the people who are leaking information to us," he added.

The allegations are based on emails Donovan said Shell released to him following a request under data protection law rights. Donovan shared these, and a letter on Shell headed paper responding to Donovan's request, with Reuters.

Shell did not comment on the veracity of the communication or any of Donovan's allegations, despite several emails and phone calls requesting it.

However, Gavin White, from Shell's legal department, whose name appeared on the cover letter to Donovan, confirmed that Donovan made a request for information.

"The request is not a matter for public discussion or comment," White said.

One email between Shell employees dated June 2009, said an individual whose name is blanked out but apparently also a Shell employee, met with "NCFTA" to discuss the website.

The email adds that resources had been assigned to NCFTA "that are RDS (presumably Royal Dutch Shell) focused" and that "There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan".

Donovan believes NCFTA refers to the National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance, a Pittsburgh-based organisation, whose website says it is supported by Fortune 500 companies and that its purpose is to help tackle cyber fraud.

A Google search for NCFTA yields the Pittsburgh organisation as the top result.

National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance did not respond to emails or telephone calls.

Another email, dated March 2007 said Shell was monitoring emails from Shell servers globally to Donovan and internal traffic to their website. The email noted this information was "not for publication".

LONG-RUNNING BATTLE

Donovan, 62, and his father, Alfred, 92, have been vocal Internet critics of Europe's largest oil company by market value since the 1990s after a business dispute with Shell, which was a client of their sales promotion business.

That case, and two libel actions against Shell, were settled out of court a decade ago but the internet battle has continued.

Shell insiders use the Donovans' site to leak company secrets including, in the past 12 months alone, a planned restructuring of the group under new Chief Executive Peter Voser and a big hole in Shell's pension fund.

The website, which Donovan said receives 2 million hits a month, has also featured attacks on Shell's safety and environmental record.

Most of the vast reams of information and news reports on the site is unflattering about Shell, whose market capitalisation tops $182 billion.

Another email seen by Reuters, apparently from a Shell communications representative to U.S. news network Fox News said: "royaldutchshell plc.com is an excellent source of group news and comment and I recommend it far above what our own group internal comms puts out".

After failing to have the Donovans' ownership of the royaldutchshellplc.com domain name removed in a legal challenge in 2005, Shell appeared to have taken the approach of ignoring the site for fear of raising its profile any higher.

However, Donovan fears the company had simply adopted different tactics.

In March 2008, the website faced a cyber "assault".

"Someone was sending so many requests it kept on crashing it," Donovan said.

Donovan said he complained to Shell about the problem and that the same day, the problem stopped.

Shell declined to comment about this incident but in a letter from Shell to Donovan, posted on his site, Shell denied any responsibility.

In recent years, heavy-handed corporate attempts to stem leaks have caused public and political outrage.

Personal computer maker Hewlett-Packard (HPQ.N) became the target of lawsuits, a U.S. Congressional inquiry and police investigation due to its efforts to stem leaks in 2005 and 2006.

HP hired investigators, who impersonated reporters, board members and employees to obtain private phone records.

Deutsche Telekom (DTEGn.DE) is the subject of a long-running investigation in Germany after allegations it spied on directors and journalists to find out who was leaking information to the press in 2005.

Prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation into corporate spying at Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE), which said in July that a detective agency it had hired had spied on people the bank deemed a threat.

Deutsche Telekom (DTEGn.DE) is the subject of a long-running investigation in Germany after allegations it spied on directors and journalists to find out who was leaking information to the press in 2005.

(Editing by Sitaraman Shankar)

((Reporting by Tom Bergin, +44 207 542 1029, tom.bergin@reuters.com, Reuters Messaging tom.bergin.reuters.com@reuters.net))

 

 

 

SHELL BRENT SCANDAL

ShellNews.net:

When is Shell

going to sue

former Shell

 International

Group Auditor

Bill Campbell

 for defamation?

Aug 9th, 2006

by admin.

An Open Letter from John Donovan To JEROEN VAN DER VEER (sent by email)
Dear Mr Van der Veer
As a long term Shell shareholder I am extremely concerned by the serious allegations made by the former Shell International Group Auditor, Mr Bill Campbell, concerning alleged falsification of records in relation to the Shell Brent scandal.
We really cannot have a distinguished former high level Shell official being allowed to make such accusations without Shell taking action against him for defamation if, as Shell claims, they are untrue.
This is not a case of some outsider ignorant of the facts making wild accusations. The charges in this case are being made by a person of high reputation and considerable expertise following his authorised investigation as Group Auditor into the Brent safety regime. 
Since a number of “accidental� deaths have occurred on Brent Bravo, two of which resulted in a record breaking £900,000 fine imposed on Shell, the allegation of falsification of records could result in criminal charges if true.
Mr Campbell is on record as claiming that he has personally met with you to discuss these matters. If this is correct, then you must be fully briefed on the issues and the allegations he has publicly made. They have been repeated in various mass media sources and in trade publications including, for example, UpstreamOnline. 
Mr Campbell says that ESDV leak-off tests were purposely falsified, not once but many times. He further alleges that the inaction of the relevant Asset Manager, the General Manager, the Oil Director and the Shell Expro Managing Director in 1999 (Malcolm Brinded), contributed in some part to the unlawful killing of two persons on Brent Bravo in September 2003.
My father and I have published some outspoken articles about Shell ourselves but nothing as serious as the charges levelled against Shell management by your own former Group Auditor.  And as you are aware, we have a special dispensation from Shell International Petroleum Company to say what we like about Shell.
Surely Shell is not going to allow Mr Campbell to continued repeating these devastating allegations? If they are unfounded, why have you not already instituted libel proceedings? If they are true, why have you not sacked Malcolm Brinded? Why has he not done the honourable thing and resigned?
You had no compunction about bringing a draconian defamation action against Dr John Huong. Why the reluctance to set your lawyers on to Mr Campbell. If you do not take action, people will naturally assume that Shell management is unwilling to do so because Mr Campbell is speaking the truth and can prove it.
Knowing Shell management as I do, no doubt Shell undercover agents are already engaged in “activitiesâ€� in relation to the loose cannon, Mr Campbell – the ultimate whistleblower. As you are aware, one of your predecessors as the boss of bosses at Shell was simultaneously the spymaster of a sinister private intelligence company staffed by former MI6 agents who carried out operations for Shell on an international basis. Mr Campbell will therefore be well advised to be on his guard at all times while these matters are still on the boil. 
If anyone says anything untrue about Shell, it is your duty Mr Van der Veer to take action to protect the reputation of the Shell brand. However, you have my sympathy to some degree because Shell management blunders and misdeeds have been so wide-ranging that people who wish to criticise have an almost unlimited supply of ammunition (as the recent articles below confirm).
Conclusion: the fact that Shell has not obtained an injunction to prevent Mr Campbell making his allegations speaks volumes.  He is plainly a man of great courage speaking the truth.
Yours sincerely
John Donovan

SHELL ETHICS BOSS WANTS DATA THEFT EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION

Shell ethics boss

wants evidence

of data theft to

be destroyed

Feb 10th, 2010

by John Donovan.

By John Donovan
Published below is more email correspondence with Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It concerns the Shell Global Address Book containing company and personal contact information for over 100,000 employees. I will leave to readers to decide whether Mr Wiseman is fit for purpose in his current role.

EMAIL FROM RICHARD WISEMAN TO JOHN DONOVAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 5 February 2010 16:59:36 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: Directory
Dear Mr. Donovan
I thought I ought to follow up on the issue of the disclosure of the Shell internal address book ("Shell Address Book") to you by certain Shell employees. As you are probably aware, the Shell Address Book contains personal data under UK data protection law.  As I previously indicated, although the vast majority of information in the Address Book is largely business related, there may be cases where the security of an individual may be impacted by release of such information.  You have already agreed not to publish the information.  May I now ask you to delete/destroy the information that you have received and confirm this deletion/destruction to me.
While of course I cannot give you legal advice, and I am happy to rely on the assurance you have given about publication, I should tell you that I have been advised that disclosure of such information by you could itself constitute a breach of data protection laws and could be a criminal offence.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office:  Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands
Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com/

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN: 5 FEBRUARY 2010

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 5 February 2010 17:51:21 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Subject: Re: Directory
Dear Mr Wiseman
Despite our offer…
Available FREE on application: Directory of 100,000 plus Shell employees
being a tease, we have in fact received applications, including from a former Royal Dutch Shell VP.
We realised from the outset that this is in fact a serious matter, which is why I contacted Shell.
We take particular note of the comments in your last paragraph and are grateful that you have shared the advice received.
I will reply on Monday and in the meantime, be assured that we will not disclose any of the data.
I assume that you have no such problem with the proposed publication of the information sent earlier today. We will not publish it all, but substantial extracts.
Regards
John Donovan

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN: 7 FEBRUARY 2010

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 7 February 2010 11:59:24 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com
Subject: Re: Directory
Dear Mr Wiseman
I promised to let you know whether we are prepared on a voluntary basis to delete/destroy the Shell Address Book that was supplied to us.
The is a classic example of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The situation is already out of Shell's control.
Eight NGO's, not known for being well disposed towards Shell, already have copies of the Directory. Greenpeace for example, has multiple copies. I know that at least one NGO has already engaged in a distribution of the Shell Address Book via the internet. We all know how fast information can spread on the net, particularly if it causes significant embarrassment, in this case to a multinational giant with a controversial track record of exploitation and pollution, particularly in Nigeria.
We understand from our insider sources that various (former) members of Shell's HR department have set themselves up as recruitment agencies using not just the Shell Address Book, but also Shell's personnel files of which they have taken copies. We are informed that Shell knows this very well and some of Shell's JV partners even work with the agencies concerned.
Since the information is in the public domain already (as it obviously is), we understand that the further dissemination by third party recipients such as Greenpeace, would not contravene the Data Protection Act. The Shell Address Book is already available to any Shell employee (even when seconded to another company) around the world using any internet connection.
Many of the jurisdictions in which the data could have been copied have no data protection laws. Most countries with data protection laws prohibit the dissemination of personal data to countries with lower standards of data protection than their own. Personal data held in EU countries apparently cannot even be transferred to the USA. Our information output is made from the USA while we are resident in the UK.
It might therefore be said that Shell, by allowing the information to be distributed globally, is itself in breach of the Data Protection Act. It is plain that Shell internal security has been totally inadequate. Shell has failed in its duty to protect information which you have said in your current and previous emails potentially puts the safely of Shell employees at risk. This includes, as you have pointed out, "personal" information (entrusted to Shell not only by its own employees but also people employed by third parties). The accurate up to date information, including personal details, exposes everyone identified in the Shell Address Book to the risk of becoming victims of identity theft/cyber crime.
Having considered the matter and taking into account some of the points set out above, we intend to keep the Shell Address Book for our personal use unless you inform us that Shell intends to institute legal proceedings, in which case we will reconsider the matter.
Regards
John Donovan

FURTHER EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-RDS-CCO
Cc: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LC; Voser, Peter SI-GLOBAL
Sent: Tue Feb 09 14:37:36 2010
Subject: Shell Global Address Book
Dear Mr Wiseman
Since our last exchange on this matter, I have received and published a leaked copy of your reassuring message to employees listed in the Shell Global Address Book. In fact your message does not downplay any risk to personal safety, as I suggested in a related published comment. It does not mention that aspect at all. Logic therefore suggests that on further reflection, Shell decided that the employee personal safety risk aspect is so minimal that no warning at all on that score was needed.
A change of view by your risk analysis advisors would explain why Shell has not threatened to issue proceedings against us requiring destruction of the Shell Global Address Book in our possession. (I feel sure that if you had done so, we would have complied).
Since I am aware that a copy of the Shell Global Address Book is already in the hands of anti-Shell activists, including Nigerian activists, I question any such change of view on the personal safety issue. I am not a personal security expert, but plain commonsense suggests that would be kidnappers in Nigeria could use the listed contact information to locate and lure potential victims into traps, if the database falls into their hands.
As you will have realized, the leak of the entire global database was made by people highly sympathetic to Nigerian activist causes. There is evidence supplied with the database that Shell has been infiltrated as part of a long-term plot by Nigerian activists committed to peaceful campaigning against Shell's conduct in Nigeria. It is that insider group, claiming to be over 100 strong, which circulated the database.
Leaving that to one side, if you want us to enter into a formal agreement regarding the Global Address Book we received, this is fine in principle with us provided Shell pays all legal costs.
On the other hand, if Shell is still content with our assurance that we will not provide access to the Shell Global Address Book on the Internet and will act in a responsible way in relation to the copy in our possession, that is also okay with us. Obviously with the substantial job cutting in progress, the current contact information will, in any event, soon be out of date.
If I receive no response from you today, I will take it that the matter is concluded on the basis set out in the paragraph immediately preceding this one.
Regards
John Donovan

EMAIL REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

On 9 Feb 2010, at 14:15, richard.wiseman@shell.com wrote:
As always, do not take lack of legal action as acquiescence.
Your email suggests you are prepared to commit a criminal offence. I have already suggested you take legal advice for your own protection. That suggestion stands.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 9 February 2010 15:37:54 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com
Subject: Re: Shell Global Address Book
Dear Mr Wiseman
I have no idea on what basis you arrive at the conclusion that we are prepared to commit a criminal offence. We have no such intention.
Information and an attachment containing the database arrived by email on an unsolicited basis. If informed by any authority that the database should be deleted, we will do so immediately. Until such time, we retain the information and the attachment as evidence in what does appear to be a criminal matter. We have correspondence with other parties, as well as with Shell, which prove the responsible way we have handled this matter. I am surprised that you as a barrister and solicitor have suggested that we destroy evidence which may turn out to be vital in any prosecution.
I note there is no explanation for one statement being given to us highlighting the risk to employee safety and a different version spun to your employees, deleting that important aspect, despite the fact that their personal safety has been jeopardized.
Shell obviously did not want to come clean and admit its failure to safeguard data entrusted to you not only by your own employees, but employees of third parties.
Once again Shell has demonstrated its lack of integrity with a cover-up of the true situation caused by Shell negligence, intimidation designed to keep us quite and/or destroy evidence, coupled with the usual cavalier disregard for employee safety.
Regards
John Donovan

REPLY BY RICHARD WISEMAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 9 February 2010 16:27:35 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, Peter.P.Voser@shell.com
Subject: RE: Shell Global Address Book
I may reply more comprehensively in due course if I judge that there is any purpose in doing so.
At this stage I can confirm that all those on the directory have been informed of the situation.  We have also notified the appropriate regulators.  There is no "cover up" as you put it.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

RESPONSE FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: 09 February 2010 16:41
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-RDS-CCO
Subject: Re: Shell Global Address Book
Mr Wiseman you have put pressure on me to destroy the stolen database.
That act on my part might amount to a criminal offence as it is important evidence in a crime which could potentially cost the lives of Shell employees.
I am in the process of notifying Chief Superintendent Tim Newcomb of Essex Police. I had previously brought to his attention Shell's "invisible investigations" directed against us and your global spying against Shell employees visiting or posting comments on our humble website.
I can well understand why you might now be hopping around contemplating a more comprehensive reply.
Are you still suggesting that I destroy the database evidence?
Regards
John Donovan

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 9 February 2010 16:57:27 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: Shell Global Address Book
Yes I think you should destroy it.  As I have explained, we have already notified the relevant authorities, and all  relevant individuals.  The data has no evidential value in your hands.
You have already said that you intend to keep the Shell Address Book for your personal use, so the "evidence" excuse just doesn't hold water.
Regards
Richard Wiseman
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

RELY FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 9 February 2010 18:29:47 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Subject: Re: Shell Global Address Book
Although originally circulated to a number of parties by Shell insiders, and by them onwards, I know of only one copy of the attachment information which definitely still exists. That is the one in our possession and it will remain so until the Police or other relevant authority without an axe to grind advises if it should be deleted or supplied to them. I am not in as much of a rush to destroy potentially incriminating evidence as you self-evidently are for some reason. As for notifying all relevant individuals, unless there is a later notification than the one leaked to us, you failed to warn of a risk to personal safety.
Regards
John Donovan

Posted in: GoogleNews, John Donovan, Leaked Shell Emails, Michiel Brandjes, Outspoken Articles, Peter Voser, Richard Wiseman, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Shell Job Cuts.
Tagged: John Donovan · Peter Voser · Richard Wiseman Shell · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← SCOTTISH CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SHELL

Updated: Shell ethics boss wants evidence of data theft to be destroyed →