Shell CEO on global turmoil’s impact
Screenshots from a Fox Business video of an interview with Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van Beurden on 4 Sept 2014 shows the uncertainty that surrounds Shell. Mr van Beurden bluntly made it clear at the May 2014 Shell AGM that Shell’s priority is what is in the economic interests of Shell shareholders, not geopolitical concerns i.e. the invasion of Crimea. That explains why he happily bowed to Putin days after the annexation. Whatever the spin, ethics and moral issues are ruthlessly put to one side. The lack of scruples by companies such as Shell, has encouraged the Putin regime. Driven by the same motive, access to hydrocarbon reserves, Shell also connived with Hitler in his territorial ambitions. More recently, Shell traded with Iran despite US sanctions and Shell spin to the contrary. Like in relation to Shell’s claimed business principles, it is Shell’s deeds, not the mixed messages, which count.
HENCE
Why doesn’t Shell sue Donovan for libel?
Such deliberate misinformation (propaganda, to put it politely) is also totally at variance with Shell’s claimed core business principles. This proves beyond any doubt that the media and the public should not believe anything Shell says. The company even lies to itself.
By John Donovan
Why doesn’t Shell sue Donovan for libel?
I feel sure that this is a question that many visitors to this website have probably asked themselves many times.
It is a question that Royal Dutch Shell put to itself in July 2009.
Below is an extract from an authentic confidential Shell internal document dated 08 July 2009 in which this very question was raised in relation to “the Donovan’s.” Shell lawyers have redacted names shown on the “Confidential Focal Point”document, other than the names of my late father and myself. A series of questions are posed and then answered, to provide a contingency script if certain anticipated questions were raised by the news media, or at the Shell AGM.
Extract from the Shell document “Donovan Campaign Against Shell:
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
• The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. Accordingly, while we do not exclude this as a possibility, this is an approach to be adopted only after the most careful consideration.
This answer was completely disingenuous, as Shell had already decided long before, that Shell would not take legal action against the Donovan site. In other words, they had already excluded the possibility.
See this authentic Shell internal email sent just a few weeks earlier, on 19 June 2009.
Extract
Also, eg we have long decided not to take legal action against the site (although Donovan would probably welcome this)…
So the relevant information Shell set out in the contingency briefing for the media and the public was 100% at variance with what Shell had already decided.
Such deliberate misinformation (propaganda, to put it politely) is also totally at variance with Shell’s claimed core business principles.
This proves beyond any doubt that the media and the public should not believe anything Shell says.
The company even lies to itself.
Other information in the focal point document is also fundamentally untrue.
Incidentally, days after the focal point propaganda information was circulated, Shell was plotting on how to get this website closed down.
By coincidence or otherwise, the website has remained under regular cyber attack by an unknown party with deep pockets.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
The news that BP may be fined up to $18bn for the oil spill in the Gulf-of-Mexico as a result of a ruling by a US federal court that BP acted with “conscious disregard of known risks” and that BP’s “conduct was reckless,” may have very serious implications for other oil companies.
Royal Dutch Shell Plc CEO Ben van Beurden says he can’t deny returns are too low
