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 →

SHELL's SINISTER ACTIVITIES AGAINST OPPOSITIONS

The Pipe – Shell

 in Ireland

May 27th, 2010

by John Donovan.

by John Donovan

A new documentary on Shell's Corrib Pipeline Project in Ireland is claiming that the Irish Police and regulators colluded in covering up the connection between private security working on the Corrib Gas pipeline project and an apparent assassination attempt on the Bolivian President, Evo Morales.

Shell's interests in Bolivia have been threatened by Morales' policy of nationalising its natural resources. However, apparently for legal reasons, the film-maker has been forced to avoid naming the oil company.

Shell has a track record of involvement in sinister covert operations against perceived enemies, including Greenpeace, The Body Shop, Nigerian activists and the Donovans. In our case, the activity has continued into recent years and become a global activity involving Shell Corporate Affairs Security (CAS) headed by a former senior officer of the British Secret Service.

Under the circumstances, it should be no surprise that Shell has adopted similar sleazy tactics in Ireland. Indeed, several years ago, during an interview on Dublin Newstalk Radio 106fm -- "The Breakfast Show with Eamon Dunphy", I warned that Shell would engage in  sinister activities against the local population campaigning about the Corrib pipeline.

Official site and trailer: http://www.thepipethefilm.com/

Facebook site: ThePipeTheFilm

Posted in: Corrib Gas Project, Corruption, Environment, Gas, GoogleNews, Ireland, John Donovan, Litigation, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Shell Spying, Shell to Sea Campaign.
Tagged: Corrib Gas Project · Gas · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

BREACH OF EMPLOYEE DETAILS

Shell guilty of

 allowing worlds

biggest breach

of employee details

Feb 16th, 2010

by John Donovan.

By John Donovan
Shell media spin machine went into overdrive last week trying to downplay the worlds biggest ever leak of employee details, including personal information, which Shell Ethics boss Richard Wiseman, has twice admitted puts the safety of some employees at risk.
A copy of a related email from Mr Wendel Broere, Group spokesman, Global media relations, Shell International B.V, desperately engaged on a damage limitation exercise with the news media, was leaked to me on the day it was sent. My role is discussed in the email, no doubt because I am the person who broke the story which turned into a global PR disaster for Shell, with all kinds of unwelcome repercussions, including an investigation by the Information Commissioners Office and the prospect of a fine for being reckless with confidential employee data.
The information sent by Broere on the record says that Shell is investigating the matter and will comply with all legal requirements. The issue of personal security is only mentioned "Off the record" in his email, down-played to being no greater risk to Shell employee personal safety than merely handing out a business card.
Shell now says there was no private address information. That was not the case in the leaked employee data I received which Shell pressured me into destroying before Shell media started pumping out smoke. In fact, many post-codes were included in the data: Far more than could be only Shell addresses. Also personal mobile phone numbers, along with an array of other contact information.
The line now being taken by Shell is totally incompatible with the unambiguous statement on the personal security aspect made by Shell Ethics Richard Wiseman that he subsequently reconfirmed to me by email. This was after I published a leaked email Wiseman had sent to all employees, which failed to mention any risk to personal safety.
And it was not just Shell employee information that was leaked, but four other data files, all forming part of an carefully contrived plan – formulated with almost military precision – for a claimed corporate revolution at Shell by a subversive group that appears to have successfully infiltrated the oil giant. The whole thrust of the plan directed at Shell is motivated by its alleged crimes in Nigeria, which are listed in the extraordinary document.
Following contact with the Information Commissioners Office, we have also destroyed the other related files supplied within the attachment containing the Shell Global Address Book. However, we understand that now that the information has escaped into cyber-space, it will always be potentially retrievable.
Although Shell Corporate Affairs Security (CAS) is mounting a major investigation, how much confidence can employees have in a department headed by retired spooks, when CAS was presumably ultimately responsible for safeguarding security in the first place? At least it might divert CAS from carrying out "invisible" investigations against the Donovans.
Clearly the global spying by CAS against Shell employees to try to stop information from reaching us has not been entirely successful. The flood of leaked Shell information continues unabated.
According to a posting on our Shell Blog by a Shell IT insider (a regular contributor of articles to this website) a breach of the employee Directory could have happened at anytime in the last decade:

SHELL'S CLOAK AGAINST PROSECUTION

Shell warns of fuel shortage, job losses if its imports are seized

ABS-CBN News

Posted at Jan 15 2010 05:11 PM | Updated as of Jan 18 2010 12:05 AM

http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/01/15/10/shell-warns-fuel-shortage-job-losses-if-its-imports-are-seized

MANILA, Philippines - Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation on Friday warned that the threatened seizure of P43 billion worth of its raw materials and product imports by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) would force it to shut down its Batangas refinery, resulting in fuel shortage.

Shell said the closure will result in job losses and massive disruption in power supply, land, sea and air transportation and other critical industries.

"The domestic storage facilities of Shell's competitors are limited and in the event that Shell is unable to service its 27.7% market share, this void cannot be filled by its competitors who do not have enough supply to fill this massive shortage," Shell supply planning and scheduling manager Garry Galvez said in a statement.

Galvez said that the planned seizure of Shell's imported raw materials and products will prevent it from producing and selling petroleum products like jet or aviation fuel, kerosene, liquefied petroleum gas, diesel, variants of unleaded gasoline, variants of fuel oil used for marine vessels, power plants and other general industries.

He added that this will force Shell to close its Batangas refinery, leaving 823 workers jobless and resulting in P11 billion monthly losses for the company.

"With no products to sell, the seizure can also eventually close down Shell's 959 retail dealer stations. Shell's retail stations service road transport vehicles and account for about 34% of the market as of June 2009. These stations employ nearly 17,000 daily wage earners who also stand to lose their jobs as a result of the seizure."

The BOC vowed to seize, under Section 1508 of the Tariff and Customs Code, all future shipments of Shell amounting to $923 million arriving from February to May 2010, to answer for alleged deficiency tax assessments covering its importations of Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (CCG) and Light Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (LCCG) from 2004 to 2009.

Shell is disputing the tax assessments before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), saying its CCG and LCCG imports are merely raw materials for the production of unleaded gasoline. It said BOC's tax assessments have no basis since excise taxes are supposed to be levied only on finished products for consumption and sale in the domestic market.

Shell legal counsel and former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo complained that the BOC's demand constitutes double taxation since Shell already paid billions of pesos on Shell's finished products withdrawn from its refinery that were produced using the imported CCG and LCCG.

"The threatened seizure is unjust, premature and oppressive. BOC is threatening to seize Shell's shipments even if the supposed liability has yet to be determined with finality. There is still a pending case before the CTA on this issue. What makes this worse is that the BOC threatens to seize all of Shell's shipments, even those that are not CCG or LCCG," said Marcelo.

Marcelo added that Shell is asking the CTA to bar the BOC from implementing the seizure as this will result in grave injury, not only to the company, but, more importantly, to its stakeholders and the general public.

Apart from having a 27.7% market share on average in the retail fuels market, Shell said it also supplies 33% of the demand of power plants, including those of the National Power Corporation; around 17.2% of the fuel requirement of the aviation industry; 24.6% of the marine transport market; and 70.2% of the demand for bitumen by contractors engaged in road works.

DOE chief fears shortage if Shell oil imports are seized

ABS-CBN News

Posted at Jan 17 2010 04:00 PM | Updated as of Jan 18 2010 12:02 AM

http://news.abs-cbn.com/business/01/17/10/doe-chief-fears-shortage-if-shell-oil-imports-are-seized

MANILA, Philippines - Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes fears there could be shortage in supply of fuel if the Bureau of Customs (BOC) seizes P43 billion worth of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.'s importations.

"Shell can't operate as usual, BOC may have to go the process of bidding for the sale of the cargoes. But the buyer may not have the capacity to store the cargo," noted Reyes in a message to reporters.

He explained that "Shell has a share of over 30% of the market—second only to Petron Corp.”

The BOC earlier vowed to seize $923 million worth of Shell's imports arriving in February to May 2010 as payment for alleged back taxes. The agency said Shell failed to pay excise taxes covering its importations of Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (CCG) and Light Catalytic Cracked Gasoline (LCCG) from 2004 to 2009.

Shell is disputing BOC's tax assessments before the Court of Tax Appeals. The company contends that excise taxes are not applicable to its CCG and LCCG imports because these are merely raw materials and not finished products.

Reyes said the Department of Energy shares the same position.

"Final tax is levied as gasoline leaves the refinery for sale to the market," he said, pointing out that "BOC insists to collect tax on the intermediate product."

Shell said the planned seizure of its imports would force it to shut down its Batangas refinery, resulting in fuel shortage, job losses and massive disruption of critical industries such as power, and sea and air transportation.

Apart from having a 27.7% average share in the retail market, Shell said it also supplies 33% of the demand of power companies including the National Power Corp.; around 17.2% of the fuel requirement of the aviation industry; 24.6% of the marine transport market; and 70.2% of the local demand for bitumen which is used in road works.

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/547963/boc-seize-shell-imports

MANILA, Philippines - Customs Commissioner Napoleon Morales announced yesterday that the Bureau of Customs (BOC) will seize imports of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. starting today to pay for the company’s alleged import tax arrears worth P7.3 billion.

“Shell owes the government so we have to hold their shipment,” he said.

The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) yesterday denied Shell’s petition to stop the BOC from seizing the goods.

Morales said that as soon as the agency receives a copy of the court order, the bureau could start holding the imports of Shell.

In a meeting with officials of the Department of Finance, Shell maintained its position that it should not be paying the amount.

Shell officials said there would be supply problems if the BOC seizes the shipments. The company warned the bureau that a seizure may prompt it to shut down its refinery, one of only two oil refineries in the Philippines.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: Morales dismissed this as “blackmail” and maintained that the BOC is determined to seize the goods.

He said that if Shell agrees to pay the amount, even at a later date, the BOC would not seize the goods.

“But they are not even talking to us,” Morales said.

The issue stemmed from Shell’s refusal to pay import taxes on catalytic cracked gasoline (CCG) and light catalytic cracked gasoline (LCCG) it imported between 2004 and 2009.

Shell cited a previous legal opinion issued in 2004 by then Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Commissioner Jose Mario Buñag, which said that the importation of the two products is exempted from excise tax.

BIR Commissioner Joel Tan-Torres has already reversed the Buñag ruling and agreed with the BOC that the products are subject to tax.

Morales said the BOC is exerting all efforts, including going after Shell’s tax liabilities, in order to meet its revenue goal for 2010 amounting to P278 billion.

In January, the BOC collected P17.602 billion, above its revenue goal for the month of P14.091 billion, latest data from the Treasury showed. In the same month last year, the BOC collected P14.4 billion.

The Department of Finance (DOF), for its part, gave its full backing to the BOC, saying that its mandate is to collect taxes.

“Our mandate is to collect taxes so we are in consonance with the positions of the BOC and the BIR,” said Finance Undersecretary Estela Sales.

Shell warns consumers

Shell spokesman Roberto Kanapi warned consumers of a possible fuel shortage after the CTA denied the firm’s petition for injunction, thus allowing the BOC to seize Shell’s importations starting today.

Kanapi, on the other hand, said the company would exhaust all legal means to prevent the BOC from implementing the seizure order.

“The severe consequence of the oppressive act compels us to exhaust all legal measures,” Kanapi said.

Kanapi said “Shell cannot pay back taxes claimed by BIR and BOC since these are under dispute. This is because Shell has adopted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) as part of its corporate governance principles. This prohibits the payment of assessments that are in dispute, meant to have retroactive effect, or subject of a rewards system to private individuals.”

Shell country chairman Edgar Chua said they are not keen on paying such in any form since they are not amenable to “double taxation.”

Shell, a member of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, also did not discount the possibility of stopping its importations if the CTA decides in favor of the BOC.

“We have been advised that if we do not get the suspension order the BOC is mandated to seize all our imports, and when a seizure happens then we will be forced to stop importations as even if we import, we will not be able to use it until the P76.3-billion liability is extinguished,” Chua said.

Ria Campos, president of the Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers Inc., expressed dismay over the decision of the CTA, saying that this would greatly affect their business and their employees. PSDI currently has over 960 retail stations nationwide.

“We are saddened by the outcome of the decision of the CTA not to grant the extension of the TRO. Now, we are not assured of what will happen to our businesses and our 17,000 employees nationwide. Most of our employees belong to the lower income bracket,” Campos said.

Campos also doubts if other players would be able to absorb the market of Shell.

“I do not know if other oil players can absorb what Shell is serving right now. I doubt if they have the capability to supply the 30 percent share of Shell in the market,” she said.

“What will happen to our business if Shell refinery will stop importing,” she said, noting that each station normally has 2-4 days of oil supply on inventory.

But Campos is optimistic that the government would be enlightened on the impact of this tax issue on the business community.

In a resolution released yesterday, the CTA was split on whether to issue the suspension order sought by Pilipinas Shell to bar the seizure of its importations by the BOC.

Shell is disputing before the special tax court a P7.34-billion tax assessment slapped by the BOC on Shell importations of CCG and LCCG from 2004 to 2009.

In a four-page resolution, Justices Erlinda Uy and Esperanza Fabon-Victorino said that “the damage in (PSPC’s) property rights must, in the meantime, take a backseat to the paramount need of the State for funds to sustain governmental functions. Compared to the damage to the State, which may be caused by reduced financial resources, the damage to (PSPC) is negligible.”

Presiding Justice Ernesto Acosta, the most senior member of the division hearing the case, rendered a 13-page dissenting opinion stating that “(PSPC) has a right to be protected during the pendency of the case.”

He added that “the threatened action of (the BOC) are damaging not only to (Shell’s) interests but also to the whole community considering the undesirable effects of rising prices of basic consumer needs, possible unemployment of a large number of people and extinguishment of opportunities for businesses dependent on (Shell’s) operations.”

The dissent concluded by saying that “to deprive (Shell) of the Suspension Order will in effect render naught and useless the statement of Justice Holmes that ‘the power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.’ For this Court failed this time.”

Before Justices Fabon and Uy joined the division hearing the case, the CTA previously issued a 60-day temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the BOC from enforcing the seizures. The TRO lapsed yesterday. Shell previously warned of a looming fuel shortage, job losses and severe economic disruption should the seizures push through.

Energy Secretary Reyes called a stakeholders meeting Monday attended by representatives of Shell, other petroleum players, BIR and BOC. Reyes expressed concerns about the security of the country’s energy supply in the event of such seizures. Reyes is also set to meet today with Finance Secretary Gary Teves on the issue.

“It is unfortunate that this split in the CTA clearly results to unlawful double taxation. Apart from the economic disruption that will be caused by the seizures, the long term consequence of the ruling is that manufacturing in the country will be discouraged and the security of our energy supply will be placed at great risk due to the eventual closure of the Batangas refinery,” said Shell legal counsel John Balisnomo.

Last week, the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives released a report based on hearings it has conducted since last year.

The report found the reversal by the BIR Commissioner Tan-Torres of a series of prior rulings of the BIR relied upon by Shell in its importations as “a naked, arbitrary, and whimsical abuse of administrative power by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and a usurpation of the power to tax solely vested in Congress by the Constitution.”

Prior to the recent reversal, the BIR has consistently ruled since 2004 that Shell’s CCG and LCCG imports are not subject to excise tax upon importation since they are intermediate or raw materials as found by the DOE. Shell has paid billions of pesos in excise taxes after the imported CCG and LCCG are blended in its refinery to produce unleaded premium gasoline fit for domestic consumption.

The Ways and Means Committee also found that the BIR ruling “is arbitrary as it lacks factual and legal basis.”

The Joint Foreign Chambers has expressed concern over the “heavy handed” approach of the government in its tax collection effort against Shell.

The European Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines (ECCP) and the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) also expressed concern over the flip-flopping of government agencies on the matter.With Donnabelle Gatdula, Evelyn Macairan

POTENTIAL LITIGANTS now may SUE SHELL

Do you have

 grounds

 for a lawsuit

 against

 Shell?

Have you,

your firm or

family been

cheated or

 injured

by Shell?

Feb 9th, 2007

by admin.

If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, then you may find this article by John Donovan to be of interest…
The first difficulty faced by potential litigants considering suing Shell, is finding a law firm with the required resources which does not have a conflict of interest and is willing to confront an opponent quite literally prepared to stop at nothing.
In this connection we may be able to assist by providing introductions at law firms with a track record of winning cases against Shell, who may in some cases, be willing to work on a contingency fee basis.
The owners of this website have been participants in countless proceedings with Shell stretching back to 1993. We are currently involved in proceedings brought by EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group. A High Court hearing took place on 8 February 2007. The next is scheduled for 7 August.
Consequently, we know most Shell litigation moves including the use of:

* unscrupulous solicitors e.g. Kendall Freeman
* undercover activity
* witness intimidation
* threats
* jurisdiction ploys
* burying evidence
* tampering with evidence
* holding back discovery documents
* manipulating the news media
* hiding information about the litigation from Shell shareholders
* dragging out litigation to drain the resources of a weaker opponent

Basically nothing is too low for Shell.
Knowing that other parties have had the same problems dealing with Shell can help psychologically and also possibly strengthen a case by providing what is known as "similar fact evidence". This perhaps explains why one of Shell's first actions in responding to a case is to ask that the case be sealed, preventing the court documents and documents relating to discovery from reaching the public domain. Even where a case has been sealed, the initial petition is by definition in the public domain, since it was lodged with the court before the case was sealed. Shell does not want news of litigation to circulate in case it reaches the ears of another potential or actual litigant who might be able to supply or benefit from acquiring similar fact evidence.
It has therefore been suggested that we act as a repository of threatened or actual legal proceedings against Shell. This would enable us to compare cases to check for relevance to litigation already in our files and notify relevant parties accordingly, putting them into direct contact if both sides agree. In the event of a pattern of Shell conduct being revealed, perhaps even involving the same Shell individuals, it might enable the cases to proceed more expeditiously and potentially even persuade Shell to settle out of court rather than allowing predatory conduct to be exposed in open court.
Consequently, if you have a legal grievance against Shell you are invited to report it to us. If legal documents are already in the public domain we will, with your permission, publish them. If the information is confidential we will only share it with another party with a similar grievance if you give us clearance to do so.
There are a number of options available to convey information depending on the degree of confidentiality involved.
It can be sent directly to me at: john@shellnews.net
Or you can use a more secure form of transmission e.g. http://www.anonymousspeech.com/
The information will then be relayed to me at my email address.
Alternatively check out http://wikileaks.org/
You will shortly be able to post information and documents on this new facility designed to protect anonymity of documents. It is expected to become operational within a matter of weeks.  If this service is used, you would need to tip me off to check the wikileaks.org website by perhaps posting a message on our Live Chat box e.g. It might be worth a visit to wikileaks.org?
For information about the wikileaks.org service check out the Time Magazine link below.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581189,00.html
Our own experiences with Shell: At the beginning of our legal battles with Shell we knew nothing about such shady tactics but were well aware of the daunting challenge of taking on a multinational Goliath which has an army of in-house lawyers supported by unlimited financial resources and a ruthless unscrupulous management. We thought we were on our own in having to threaten ligation after a Shell manager stole our intellectual property. Then in a meeting I had with a Shell Chairman, he let it slip that other firms were also threatening to launch legal proceedings on the same basis about the same Shell national manager. In other words, the Shell manager in question had been accused of stealing ideas from other parties who, like us, had disclosed information on a confidential basis believing they could trust Shell. The then Shell Chairman, Dr Chris Fay, claimed that he could not agree to settle our claim because it would set a precedent. This was a major concern in view of the fact that other potential litigants were pressing Shell. Royal Dutch Shell did later did settle for £200,000 approximately $400,000.

Posted in: Shell.

MORE OF SHELL'S MISDEMEANORS

Royal Dutch Shell plc .com

News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Skip to Content ↓

• Home
• Contact Us
• Contributors
• Mission
• Shell Blog
• Shell Library

Shell Criticized

for Manipulating

Environmental

Audit Report

Sep 3rd, 2008

by John Donovan.

SEPTEMBER 2, 2008

Shell Criticized

for Manipulating

Environmental

 Audit Report

Shell is accused of manipulating an independent environmental audit by AEA Technology to determine whether an oil and gas project would receive bank funding, Guardian reports.
Dozens of e-mails secured through the Freedom of Information Act show how Shell officials in London attempted to downplay and edit environmental criticism of the $22 billion Sakhalin II energy scheme. Officials persuaded AEA to disperse its findings throughout the report, rather than leaving them in one appendix. Also downplayed were experts' concerns over the impacts of continuous noise on endangered whales, and questions about whether permits were sought before or after drilling began.
In addition, the AEA report lists Sakhalin Energy as its client, even though the audit was supposed to be independent.
In August, Shell was reprimanded by UK's Advertising Standards Authority for violating advertising rules when it claimed that two oil projects in Canada and the U.S. involved sustainable forms energy.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/09/02/shell-criticized-for-manipulating-environmental-audit-report/

Posted in: Environment, Oil, Wikipedia.