SHELL BUSINESS PRINCIPLES – GENUINE OR CON TRICK?

SHELL BUSINESS PRINCIPLES – GENUINE OR CON TRICK?

Dec 5th, 2012

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

By John Donovan

Shell has for many years supposedly operated within an ethical code which, according to its current shell.com webpage on the subject, was first published in 1976.

This does not tally with therelevant pages in "A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL, Volume 3," about the history of the code – known in the 1990′s as the Shell Statement of General Business Principles.

Apparently they were first drafted in 1962, restated and first published in 1976, made freely available to the public from 1981 and reformulated in 1997, for the first time including human rights.

(According to the current version, they were last updated in 2005.)

The principles pledge "safe conditions of work" (Page 243).

In reality Shell management operated a "Touch F*** All" safety policy on North Sea platforms, which cost Shell workers their lives. Safety records were routinely falsified. After the Brent Bravo explosion, Shell admitted responsibility for avoidable deaths and received a record breaking fine.

According to page 307/8, relating to Shell business principles, criticism from Shell employees "should be considered an asset…" 

In reality, Dr John Huong, who worked diligently for Shell for decades as a production geologist, was sacked after criticizing deliberate deception of Shell shareholders over claimed oil and gas reserves. Dr Huong is a deeply religious man with a conscience, so he did not fit in. The exact opposite of The Reverend Fraudster Sir Philip Watts.

Eight Royal Dutch Shell companies subsequently joined forces to obtain an injunction in an unsuccessful attempt to stop this website from publishing criticism emanating from Dr Huong. So much for another claimed virtue of the code: transparency. Shell buried Dr Huong in injunctions and threats of imprisonment. 

A Shell executive, Mr John Johns, suffered a similar fate for his misplaced faith in the claimed principles.

Both Shell employees were deceived by comments and pledges about the principles made by senior executives, including Mark Moody-Stuart.

EXTRACTS FROM PAGE 357

Mark Moody-Stuart, Group managing director, stated in 1996 that the public at large now demanded to be convinced that a company practised what it preached. This had clear implications for how Shell companies put their messages across: 'a fine line had to be steered between a willingness to listen to others and maintaining the courage of one's convictions'.

The following is a reference to the code in an extract from a letter that Moody-Stuart sent to the Guardian in response to their publication of an extraordinary article: "Unlovable Shell: Goddess of Oil" in November 1997:

"the Statement provides, for our employees to follow and for the outside world to judge us by, an ethical framework which is mandatory, not optional: just having those principles is not enough.  In the past: an oil company could say "trust me" and expect that to be enough.  Today, people say, "tell me" "listen to me" "show me".  Trust has to be earned by transparency.  That's one of the most important lessons we've learned in Shell".

(Link to more extracts from the Moody-Stuart letter, published by the Guardian)

The supposed existence of and undying commitment to the ethical code was also used to bolster confidence in the integrity of the oil giant with oversight authorities.

For example, Form-20F declarations filed with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, which contained false information about the volume of Shell's hydrocarbon reserves, made repeated reference to Shell's business principles. Each such return was signed by a Shell executive director.

In reality, under the management of Moody-Stuart, "value creation teams" had been formed to conjure up proven oil and gas reserves from thin air. The deception, fraud, lies and cover-up, resulted in the biggest scandal thus far to engulf the company.

Many companies doing business with Shell no doubt felt, as we did, an extra sense of protection knowing that the company supposedly operated within an ethical framework.

Soon after it became apparent that a Shell executive had repeatedly stolen ideas we disclosed to him in strictest confidence, we raised the subject of the code (and continued to do so through the years).

Instead of honouring the pledge's made in the code, Shell decided to back the thoroughly dishonest executive who had rigged a contract tender process so that a company which had not run in the race was miraculously awarded the contract. The company had a close association with the Shell executive.

We had rung alarm bells far and wide during Moody-Stuarts reign, warning that Shell management was unethical. 

This is an extract from a leaflet distributed to Shell employees at Shell HQ buildings in London and The Hague:

I caution all businesses contemplating trading with Shell UK Ltd to be on their guard. In my experience, they are masters of double talk and double-dealing. It has at times proved almost impossible to extract the truth from this company.

Bearing in mind that Shell has pirated a series of ideas that Don Marketing disclosed to them in confidence, I take the view that they should fly a "skull and crossbones" flag over Shell-Mex House as fair warning to all who enter.

A press statement released by Shell gives some idea of the scope of our activities. We were told that it was drafted by an irate Shell Chairman.

People must have thought we were unhinged, but subsequent events described above, including the forced resignations of three Royal Dutch Shell executive directors, proved that our warnings were well founded.

We wondered at the time whether legal action could be brought against Shell based on non compliance with the pledges contained in the code?

Hence the self-explanatory correspondence below:

Letter to Shell General Counsel and company Secretary, Mr Richard Wiseman, dated 2 June 1997

Initial response letter from Mr Wiseman dated 3 June 1997

Considered response letter from Mr Wiseman dated 5 June 1997

Faxed letter to Mr Wiseman (Shell Legal Director) dated 22 April 2004

Response email from Mr Wiseman also dated 22 April 2004.

It struck me that although Shell said in its very carefully crafted response that "there was no intention to create a document for use in the court", that does not necessarily rule out the possibility that the promotion of the code, on a global basis (e.g. the Profits & Principles campaign), has not created a right to bring legal action when Shell fails to honour its pledges.

In other words, although it might not have been Shell's intention to create a document for use in the Courts, perhaps they inadvertently did so?

If there is no legal redress, then such codes amount to no more that a confidence tricksters charter when used by unethical multinationals, such as Royal Dutch Shell, to pretend otherwise.

Posted in: Alfred Donovan, Business Principles, Dr. John Huong, GoogleNews, Human Rights, John Donovan, Litigation, Oil, Outspoken Articles, Richard Wiseman, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Sir Philip Watts, The Guardian, United States.
Tagged: John Donovan · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Sir Mark Moody-Stuart · Sir Philip Watts

Christmas animated message

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Waitrose urged to freeze links with Shell’s Arctic drilling

Waitrose urged to freeze links with Shell's Arctic drilling

Dec 4th, 2012

by John Donovan.

No comments yet 

Greenpeace launches campaign condemning supermarket's new partnership with Shell, but Waitrose insists the deal is 'tiny'

By Jessica Shankleman: 04 December 2012

Waitrose is the latest company to come under fire from Greenpeace, which has alleged its ties to an oil company planning to drill in the Arctic undermines its ethical commitments.
The group has launched a new campaign yesterday urging the retailer to drop plans for a new partnership with Royal Dutch Shell that would see Waitrose supermarkets open in Shell petrol stations.
In a spoof advert, Greenpeace accuses Waitrose of misleading the public by promoting its charitable giving over the holiday period and hiding its links with Shell.
Shell has a contract with the US government to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea, 70 miles off Alaska's north-west coast.
Greenpeace is concerned that an accident in icy waters would be "disastrous" and be near impossible for Shell to respond to quickly.
Shell operates 13 petrol stations next to Waitrose branches and is selling Waitrose goods in some of its forecourts. Waitrose also offers fuel promotions with Shell.
"Waitrose can clean up a spill in aisle four with a mop and bucket, but an oil spill in the Arctic cannot be cleaned up so easily," said Greenpeace campaigner Sara Ayech. "It would be a disaster. And it would also have huge consequences for all those companies linked to it, such as Waitrose and Shell.
"Waitrose trades on its caring, green image. It's going to lose that carefully nurtured look very soon, unless they drop Shell."
However, Waitrose responded to the accusations, by insisting its links with Shell were "tiny".
"We put as much thought and careful consideration into our relationships with other businesses as into everything we do," it said in a statement.
"In the context of Shell UK or worldwide, the arrangement we have with them is tiny. Unlike our supermarket competitors, who have substantial petrol operations, Waitrose has chosen to get out of the fuel business."
The company also said it had been reassured that Shell would comply with US legislation and protect the environment when drilling in the Arctic.
SOURCE

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Business Principles, Environment, Greenpeace, Oil, Oil Spill, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

Toxic flaring at Shell/Motiva continues after equipment failure

Dec 4th, 2012

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

The $500,000 settlement is an accumulated penalty for violations that occurred during the years 2003-2010. During that time there were 265 violations at the Norco facility (and more than 140 violations at the Motiva refinery in Convent)

3 December 2012
An equipment failure at the Shell/Motiva manufacturing complex in Norco caused the release of unknown amounts of butadiene, hydrogen sulfide and benzene, according to a report submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard National Response Center.
The elevated flaring, which began Sunday and caused a smoky backdrop to Norco's annual Christmas Parade, has continued throughout Monday. The company says they are working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
"We also continue to conduct extensive monitoring around the site and in the community," the statement said. "No injuries have been reported associated with this situation, and air monitoring results indicate no environmental impact at this time."
In October, the Motiva refineries in Norco and Convent agreed to a tentative settlement with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality for hundreds of violations of the Clean Air Act.
The $500,000 settlement is an accumulated penalty for violations that occurred during the years 2003-2010. During that time there were 265 violations at the Norco facility (and more than 140 violations at the Motiva refinery in Convent) including the failure by Motiva to file the appropriate application for changes made to its Catalytic Cracking Unit (CCU) that resulted in more pollution being emitted into the local environment.
Motiva is accused of not going through a required review despite knowing that changes to the CCU would result in increased emissions.
In 2008 Motiva was found by the Environmental Protection Agency to be a chronically non-complying facility and put on an internal watch list for that organization.

Related News Article:

• Motiva slapped with $500,000 fine

Posted in: Environment, Human Rights, Motiva, Oil, Pollution, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Toxic contamination.
Tagged: Litigation · Motiva Enterprises · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

Royal Dutch Shell and Racism

Dec 2nd, 2012

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

Shell has admitted past discrimination against Jewish employees, which cost at least 20 of them their lives. It supported racist regimes in Nazi Germany and more recently, Apartheid South Africa.

By John Donovan
Shell employees who have accused Shell of being a racist company will be interested in a comparison set out in "A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL, Volume 3″ between Shell's much trumpeted business principles and those of its main competitor, ExxonMobil, in regard to equal employment opportunity.
Shell has admitted past discrimination against Jewish employees, which cost at least 20 of them their lives. It supported racist regimes in Nazi Germany and more recently, Apartheid South Africa.
EXTRACTS FROM PAGE 309/310
Other oil companies came out with comparable policy statements. For instance Exxon gave a booklet to its employees dealing with ethics and responsible behaviour. Interestingly, the Exxon document focused more on the individual employee rather than the operating companies. Starting with the policy on business ethics, the office of the chairman wrote: 'The policy of this Corporation, as stated by the Board of Directors years ago and reaffirmed by the Board at its September 1975 meeting, is one of strict observance of all laws applicable to its business.' Staff were addressed personally in the following manner: 'An overly-ambitious employee might have the mistaken idea that we do not care how results are obtained, as long as he gets results. He might think it best not to tell higher management all that he is doing, not to record all transactions accurately in his books and records, and to deceive the Corporation's internal and external auditors. He would be wrong on all counts. We do care how we get results.' Despite using the male form of address in this document, the company advocated a policy on equal opportunity for individuals, 'regardless of their race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap, and veteran's status'. Incidentally, this clause was absent in the Shell statement. Instead, the Shell statement mentioned the responsibility of the Group 'to promote the development and best use of human talent and potential and to encourage employee involvement in the planning and direction of their work'.
The most recent edition of the STANDARDS OF BUSINESS CONDUCT (published November 2011) by ExxonMobil still includes specific provision on equal employment opportunity policy.
As can be seen from the above information published in 2007, after being vetted and approved by senior Shell management, the company is much more reticent than ExxonMobil in providing such assurance.
Astonishingly, the current Shell Business Principles signed by Royal Dutch Shell Plc Chief Executive, Peter Voser, still does not give a comparable specific pledge making it absolutely clear there will be no racial, or other discrimination.
ExxonMobil clearly takes the view that this is such an important issue that no room should be left for doubt. In view of its past track record, you would have thought Shell would wish to do the same.

CLICK ON EACH IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Posted in: Africa, Business Principles, Exxon Mobil, Germany, Human Rights, John Donovan, Outspoken Articles, Peter Voser, Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell Nazi Secrets.
Tagged: Apartheid · Equal Opportunity · Racism · Shell South Africa

Our Father Who Art in Heaven

From: Friends from Shell Tabangao
Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:20 PM
Subject: Our Father Who Art in Heaven

I will put my faith on this one…. The moment you receive it, say one (1) Our Father Our Father who art in heaven,  hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,  give us this day our daily bread and forgive  us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and lead us not into  temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom, the power and  the glory, forever and ever Amen. Now watch what happens on the 4th day..  Our Father is the prayer . This is a Prayer from way back that started ,  it has never been broken. Within 48 hours send 20 copies to family  and friends.. This is a powerful prayer C ouldn't hurt. Please do not break it.... Thank You

Shell's oil spill containment gear 'crushed like a beer can' in testing

Dec 1st, 2012

by John Donovan.

SHELL ARCTIC FARCE: "Shell and its federal regulators have been tight-lipped about the failed test. But freedom-of-information requests reveal what happened beneath the surface of Puget Sound."

By John Ryan, KUOW, Seattle: Posted on November 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Shell Oil has been building and testing equipment designed for the Arctic Ocean in Puget Sound.
In September, a key test of underwater oil-spill equipment was a spectacular failure.
It forced the energy giant to postpone Arctic oil drilling until next summer.
Shell and its federal regulators have been tight-lipped about the failed test. But freedom-of-information requests reveal what happened beneath the surface of Puget Sound.
Before Shell can drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean, it needs to prove to federal officials that it can clean up a massive oil spill there. That proof hinges on a barge being built in Bellingham called the Arctic Challenger.
The barge is only one component of Shell's plans for handling oil spills off the remote north coast of Alaska. But the Obama Administration won't let oil drilling get under way until the 36-year-old barge and its brand new oil-spill equipment are in place.
On board the Arctic Challenger is a massive steel "containment dome." It's a sort of giant underwater vacuum cleaner. If efforts to cap a blown-out well don't work, the dome can capture spewing oil and funnel it to a tanker on the surface.
The Arctic Challenger passed several US Coast Guard tests for seaworthiness in September. But it was a different story when its oil-spill containment system was put to the test in 150-foot-deep water near Anacortes, Washington.
The federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement required the test of the oil-spill system.
"Breached like a whale"
According to BSEE internal emails obtained by KUOW, the containment dome test was supposed to take about a day. That estimate proved to be wildly optimistic.
*Day 1: The Arctic Challenger's massive steel dome comes unhooked from some of the winches used to maneuver it underwater. The crew has to recover it and repair it.
*Day 2: A remote-controlled submarine gets tangled in some anchor lines. It takes divers about 24 hours to rescue the submarine.
*Day 5: The test has its worst accident. On that dead-calm Friday night, Mark Fesmire, the head of BSEE's Alaska office, is on board the Challenger. He's watching the underwater video feed from the remote-control submarine when, a little after midnight, the video screen suddenly fills with bubbles. The 20-foot-tall containment dome then shoots to the surface. The massive white dome "breached like a whale," Fesmire e-mails a colleague at BSEE headquarters.
Then the dome sinks more than 120 feet. A safety buoy, basically a giant balloon, catches it before it hits bottom. About 12 hours later, the crew of the Challenger manages to get the dome back to the surface. "As bad as I thought," Fesmire writes his BSEE colleague. "Basically the top half is crushed like a beer can."
Representatives of Shell Oil and of BSEE declined to answer questions or allow interviews about the mishaps. In an email, Shell spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh writes:

"Our internal investigation determined the Arctic Challenger's dome was damaged when it descended too quickly due to a faulty electrical connection, which improperly opened a valve. While safety systems ensured it did not hit the bottom, buoyancy chambers were damaged from the sudden pressure change."

Environmental groups say the Arctic Challenger's multiple problems show that Shell isn't prepared for an Arctic oil spill.
Environmentalist Todd Guiton lives on Sehome Hill in Bellingham. His condo overlooks the Bellingham Shipping Terminal, where the Arctic Challenger has been under construction for a year now.
"Just look out our window, and there it is," Guiton says.
He says the steel dome came back from its sea trial with its top half crumpled like a piece of paper. In the two months since, Guiton says, he's been watching Shell contractors rebuild the dome and reinforce it with more steel.
"This has to be a very beefy operation to do what they claim it'll do," Guiton says. "It failed under very calm, tranquil conditions in the best time of year up here in the Pacific Northwest. If it can't handle the best we have here, I really have my doubts it can handle even a little adversity in the Arctic."
Spokeswoman Kelly op de Weegh wouldn't say what Shell is doing to fix the dome or when it would be ready for testing again.
Earlier in November, the Obama administration called for more research into handling oil spills in the far North.
The Arctic Research Commission said oil-spill experiments and tests need to be done in the Arctic Ocean and that federal regulators need more staff or more time to properly vet proposals for offshore drilling at the top of the world.
The BSEE internal e-mails obtained by KUOW
SOURCE

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Environment, Oil, Oil Spill, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Nigeria Bill Risks Output in Top African Oil Country, Shell Says

Donovans mud throwing campaign against Shell

Donovans mud throwing campaign against Shell

Nov 22nd, 2012

by John Donovan. 

No comments yet

"It looks like the Donovans, the Royal Dutch Shell humiliators and mud throwing campaign initiators, the donors of cheat and steal approach are indemnified, otherwise they could have been sued for their below the belt statements derogating human dignity and respect. And the methods they use are outrageous examples of brainwashing of the people not involved in the petroleum industry, mixing true and false facts making it almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. I am writing this because I have worked on the Sakhalin 1 and 2 Project…"

By John Donovan

Printed below is an extraordinary email circulated overnight by a disgruntled former employee of Sakhalin Energy to various recipients, including senior people at Sakhalin Energy, Gazprom, Royal Dutch Shell, the Financial Times, Dow Jones Newswires, Bloomberg, the Russian government and the UK Police. It was originally sent to Thomas Zengerly, a director of Sakhalin Energy.

As can be seen, the sender does not seem to be particularly fond of us or our involvement in the Sakhalin 2 project as a conduit for whistleblowers.

The disgruntled translator, who has circulated veiled threats against us, is apparently also upset by the departure some time ago of Egbert Wijnen-Riems from SNGS (SakhalinNefteGasService).

This is but one of countless emails sent by the same disturbed person, many of which make reference to us, and contain all kinds of allegations. Corruption also rears its ugly head in some of the emails.

THE EMAIL

Dear Mr. Zengerly,

I do believe that SNGS has potential for its further growth and development. Despite of all, the base load has been formed and the team has been built and I do feel attached to people and still trying to do something "4my people", because my concern is that like with STS Service taken over by Orensakh, Gazprom has got its plans for SNGS to bring their branch or subsidiary to take over the company.

It's a multi-phased Project and 4 years have passed since Gazprom's takeover and Greer's resignation and 1 year since Wijnen-Riems has gone — quite enough time to look back and to ponder whether those actions weren't right and whose management style was more efficient.

To err is human and nobody is perfect, and it's more pleasant to deal with somebody vivacious, alive, and human rather than with somebody as emotionless, as alive as wax figures in the Madame Tussaud's museum and let me be the blatant plagiarist and repeat: "I am sure EWR has learnt the lessons, he had enough time to think them over and he is ready to come back with new ideas and strategies to go through the phase of restructural changes and to bring SNGS to the level of sustainable development, stability and prosperity for the sake of the Sakhalin II Project, SEIC, SNGS and for people's benefit."

Certainly, I don't know all of the details of what was going on between Mr. Wijnen-Riems and Ms. Gremblat, but from what I saw on the surface, it looked awful and terrible, totally against my personality and conscience. And I still remember the day of the New Year's party when the audit was in full swing. It was too much for me to attend the New Year's party, because all of my energy was given to support the audit team. However, Ms. Gremblat and Mr. xxxxxxxxx came to the party as if nothing had happened that it's not really her who had started everything and nothing inappropriate had been done.

In such a small world and especially in a small town like Yuzhno the news is spread very fast and reputation of the company has been derogated just because of the conflict driven by greed and arrogance. Eat or be eaten — this is a very good example of following this principle. And does Ms. Gremblat share the same values with me? Trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship? Has she built a good reputation of the company she works in? What kind of example can she set for others being a Contracts Manager? Has she been accountable for her words, actions, and attitudes? Speaking about manager's duty to lead by example, EWR was "unhappy" with Gremblat's discipline and when the procedure for registration of absence from the office was introduced by him, Gremblat got outrageous and called it a chasing policy. But how come I saw her at the notary's office, when notarizing translations for the Shutdown, doing her own business, resolving her personal issues?

In view of those risks and further escalation of non-conformance to ethical values, thus bringing company to an end, I believe that Mr. Wijnen-Riems is to be called back and Ms. Gremblat be removed and replaced, probably by me.

Perhaps, Wijnen-Riems wasn't always aligned with the Client in terms of assignments and jobs like demolition of the camp at the LNG site, but he considered the consequences and potential hazards and was protecting SNGS against legal troubles and that particular work was given to Wakkor and they earned money and that was used against Wijnen-Riems too as an inappropriate management decision and who can say now that SEIC was right and his decision was wrong? And considering all those challenges Mr. Wijnen-Riems had to face, I doubt that he is the one who came here to reinforce his CV. Power over money, money over power? But he started his own business in Germany, a VP of Airstream Gourmet.

Many times I've heard a story about the person from Fluor who worked in Russia, committed some financial crime and was put to prison, hinting that the audit was aimed to check EWR's integrity and honesty and here is another question: is it a shady person or a shady company, a fly in the ointment or a routine?

And for me to find a hot news spreader, who will try to put my name to shame behind my back, I just open an X-file about my relationship with my ex to find out whether this person is a fly in the ointment, a hidden threat for me, or a person who wouldn't hurt a fly.

Certainly, General Manager bears personal responsibility for what's going on in the company, but how could Wijnen-Riems control xxxxxxxxx on a business trip in Korea, who screwed up everything? How could EWR intervene and see xxxxxxxxxxx improper act in Korea and get involved and take action? Is it a failure of General Manager or his subordinate who, when not even fired, felt downgraded when transferred to a lower position, started blaming EWR? In Korea xxxxxxxxx was more concerned about his private life and personal problems — divorce and affair with Gremblat — rather than about business and the purpose he was sent for. Why should xxxxxxxxxxx actions and his mistakes and losses of the company due to his gross negligence have impacted SUP and other activities going simultaneously? And how come the Directors could say that two last years were a complete failure, due to whom, I wonder?

Egbert Wijnen-Riems has worked for SNGS since its foundation and was going through all its evolution stages and it's quite enough time to be "Sakhalinized" and to gain popularity among his supporters, men and women, who expressed their supportive attitude during the audit either in their conversations with the Directors or in a letter, the authenticity of which was questioned, as well as good will of people. Even the Directors admitted that the majority was for him but, alas, didn't take it into consideration. And my dignity was hurt by suspicions and allegations again that EWR told me what to write, thus doubting authenticity of my messages. What can be expected from the cunning linguist keeping her mouth shut? Let me quote: "translators have good memory recall and many other remarkable skills; they are omnivorous readers typically in the middle of 4 books at once in different languages, subjects."

It's amazing how quickly the Directors have changed their opinion, firstly, the bonus to pay EWR for his excellent performance was discussed and then, all of a sudden, two last years were a complete failure and I don't understand why Gremblat is still at SNGS and Wijnen-Riems is gone, ignoring his input and contributions to the development of SNGS. Could the Directors have a fair-minded attitude and make an impartial assessment of EWR's work if Polyansky imposed his biased approach? In all fairness, one has to recognize that the audit was carried out in the biased manner.

Ms. Gremblat referred to different mentalities, yes, indeed, there is cultural diversity and it should be taken into consideration as well as people's conservatism reluctant to accept new ideas and concepts because CHANGE is the scariest word, especially in Russia, where the political regime can change within a few days.

If in Mr. Greer's case it's unknown who was the source of the leaked email, in EWR's case it's obvious who was providing the incognito emails. What is not clear to me, how come this person stays on the project though has failed to follow SEIC requirement "I will comply with the law, standards, and procedures". Tandems are quite popular nowadays in Russia and I wouldn't be surprised that Gremblat wasn't alone when sending her allegations on emails, allegations that never came true, and two are needed to dance tango. Or was it a triumvirate like in the ancient times? But they used to, alas, collapse like the USSR.

It's not only failure to fulfill ex-officio manager's moral obligations, not only incompliance with "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor", this is derogation of human dignity and a violation of human rights protected by the RF Constitution since business is going on in the Russian Federation.

"We are programmed to receive. You can check out any time you like, But you can never leave!" I feel attached to Sakhalin like Scarlett O'Hara to Tara regaining her strength and vitality from "the green cotton fields of home" I am regaining my strength and vitality from the karma of the territory and beautiful nature of the Island(ers). And that's why Egbert Wijnen-Riems can already be considered a Sakhaliner. Would anyone keep the photos of the place if not attached to it?

I can't disagree with Eric Arkenstein's speculation that the source of the leaked email was someone from Gazprom. I believe him, Gazpromers are not Sakhaliners. A Sakhaliner wouldn't possibly have done that, it's against his/her "Mother Nature", instincts, and karma and the human nature rather than human factor and character should be counted as well. I'd like to ask the Sakhalin-2 personnel from different countries and companies working on the Project — are you Sakhaliners, too? or just guests on the Gazpromised land?

As far ass the Donovans is concerned, every time I visit their website I can't help "getting too emotional, sarcastic, pesky, and peshky". Both of them used to work for Royal Dutch Shell, they got all the information, saturated with the necessary data, and left the Company to establish their International Whistleblowers Center.

Who are the Donovans?  They are thieves. Are thieves the prophets nowadays and moral voices? Save Our Souls – oh, no, nowadays SOS is more likely to be interpreted as Sell Our Souls, and "faith, hope, and charity" are now "vanity, brutality, and hypocrisy" of the modern world? O tempora! O mores!

It looks like the Donovans, the Royal Dutch Shell humiliators and mud throwing campaign initiators, the donors of cheat and steal approach are indemnified, otherwise they could have been sued for their below the belt statements derogating human dignity and respect. And the methods they use are outrageous examples of brainwashing of the people not involved in the petroleum industry, mixing true and false facts making it almost impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff. I am writing this because I have worked on the Sakhalin 1 and 2 Projects and know what I am talking about and do feel the difference between the guns and butter.

The plain fact is that if the Donovans had abided themselves with the SGBP values or The Ten Commandments, would they have collaborated with a former KGB officer and sold the stolen information and blatant lies? I am saying this more in sorrow than in anger because I feel hurt for my country, my small motherland and my President and Prime Minister for applying such methods and rules of the game.

And if Mr. Greer can be reproached for using the General Patton's speech, yet, he is a man more sinned against than sinning, nobler than such honorable men as the Donovans and their collaborators, the social email leakers. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

To continue my humble efforts to expose the Donovans' hypocrisy, just worth mentioning that nothing is said about contributions and input made by Shell worldwide for the sustainable development of any environment the Corporation works in, including environmental protection and social programs. The SGBP is being been used as a PR tool to promote undeserved confidence in the scruples and honesty of Shell senior management. Or maybe it's the Donovans who use royaldutchshellplc.com as sensationalism of the media? This is not a Shell website nor is it endorsed by or affiliated with Shell, but it is a Shell affiliate of wormtongues and poisonous snakes warmed on the bosom of their master compared to Gremblat gambling behind EWR's back.

Shell, SEIC, and the Sakhalin-2 Project have always been under great public scrutiny, spotlight of the authorities and close monitoring of the Donovans requiring validation of every step taken and every cost spent.

Can Gazprom provide a model for better management of the offshore and onshore commercially exploited oil and gas fields?

There might be other anti-Shell websites and whistleblowers, just the Donovans are much more aggressive than anyone else, more sophisticated in their approaches of getting information, doing everything possible and using every leverage to put Shell's name to shame. But what's disappointing is that despite all critical remarks the Donovans will continue to provide the information and hatchet job available to them, they will follow the low road once taken because of their distorted values and lost integrity.

Some criminals are forgiven if they turn in politicians who provided protection to them and Mr. Putin and his government are the perfect protection rackets for the Donovans? Like Polyansky and DEM are the protection rackets for Gremblat.

And the game is still the same and Gazpromers have an impressive ideologue, equally at home in economics and in politics, the one who is usually holding back letting everyone stay put and then, suddenly, things will start happening. Surely, with his background as a professional KGB man, he is adept at playing the challenging role of "a friend among foes" and " a foe among his own".

It's hard to be God, it's hard to be czar, it's hard to be the RF President and it's hard to be an SEIC CEO. This is not rocket science, it's the petroleum industry and drilling operations and hazardous process facilities requiring maximum attention and alignment amongst management and any misalignment is concerning, because should there be any breach in the process chain or a glitch in the system – crash, boom, bang – and no treasure island called Sakhalin on the map and it looks like this is a no-brainer for Vladimir Vladimirovich to rule the roost and keep the oil and gas project, which is the largest of its kind, under control, brawn and background as a professional KGB man instead of brains.

By looking at the situations have been exposed to and by reading RDSplc.com, I just can't help saying and quoting: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. But I am confident of the successful future of the Sakhalin-2 Project, SEIC, and SNGS and "tomorrow is another day".

Sincerely,

EMAIL ENDS

For the record:

We were never employees of Shell.

We have never solicited or received any payment of any kind from any party in relationship to our website. That includes the Russian government. Our whole operation is non-commercial. There are no subscription or any other charges. We turn down all offers from parties wishing to advertise on our site. All of our Shell related websites have always operated on an entirely non-commercial basis. 

We do not throw mud at Shell. We bombard the company with unpalatable facts. If this was not the case, Shell would have sued us for defamation long ago. Eight companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group did for several years hold an injunction over information published on this website, but withdrew the action rather than allow the evidence to be aired in open court. A very wise decision under the circumstances.

We did supply crucial evidence to a Russian Government Minister, Oleg Mitvol, as he confirmed at the time in media interviews and has confirmed again in a TV interview earlier this year. The documents including a leaked Shell/SEIC email provided evidence of a cover-up by Shell in relation to important environmental issues. The cover-up cost Shell its control of the project.

With regards to David Greer, he was the author of his own misfortune, or to be more accurate, it was US General George S. Patton.

Posted in: Business Principles, Corporate Governance, Corruption, Environment, Gas,Gazprom, GoogleNews, John Donovan, Litigation, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Russia,Sakhalin II, Shell, Shell Project Delays, Shell Project Overruns.
Tagged: David Greer · Gas · John Donovan · Litigation · Oleg Mitvol · Royal Dutch Shell Plc · Russia · Sakhalin Energy