Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

American as Chairman Good Politics for Shell

Screen Shot 2014-10-30 at 11.28.57From a Regular Contributor

I see Shell got an American as its new chairman.

(Chad Holliday right).

Not certain that is good news for the shareholders, although it is clearly good politics.

Shell needs extensions to its leases in the Arctic and with an American arguing the issue they might succeed.

If he saves Shell’s $6 billion investment he will have earned his salary.

Shell also knows there is a bunch of oil and gas in those structures they want to drill. And so the rumors of a Shell/BP merger are not to be dismissed. A merger would give Shell BP’s interest in Alaska, unless the USG objected.

The new chairman can help smooth those hurdles as well.

American, Chad Holliday, replacing Jorma Ollila as Shell Chairman

Screen Shot 2014-10-30 at 09.22.43By John Donovan

Chad Holliday, the former chairman of Bank of America, is replacing the Finn Jorma Ollila as chairman of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Before his four year stint as chairman at Bank of America, Holliday was chairman and chief executive of Dupont.

Commenting, Mr Ollila said, ‘I am delighted that the Board has appointed Chad Holliday to succeed me as Chairman. He has a distinguished track record as an international businessman and I am sure he is the right person to chair the Board going forward after the 2015 AGM.’

Chad Holliday commented ‘I am honoured to be appointed Chairman of this great company, and I look forward to working with Ben van Beurden and the whole Board to deliver the strategy.’

The announcement was included in Shell’s third quarter results with earnings of $5.3 billion compared to $4.2 billion for the same quarter in 2013.


* Royal Dutch Shell’s third quarter 2014 earnings, on a current cost of supplies (CCS) basis (see Note 2), were $5.3 billion compared with $4.2 billion for the same quarter a year ago.

* Third quarter 2014 CCS earnings excluding identified items (see page 5) were $5.8 billion compared with $4.5 billion for the third quarter 2013, an increase of 31%.

* Compared with the third quarter 2013, CCS earnings excluding identified items benefited from improved Downstream and Upstream results. In Downstream, earnings benefited from increased contributions from refining including improved operating performance, and trading. In Upstream, earnings increased due to the impact of new, higher-margin production, lower exploration expenses, and higher earnings from Integrated Gas, despite the effect of lower oil prices and volumes overall. The increase of a deferred tax liability as a result of the weakening Australian dollar reduced earnings by some $400 million compared with the third quarter 2013.

* Basic CCS earnings per share excluding identified items increased by 30% versus the third quarter 2013.

* Cash flow from operating activities for the third quarter 2014 was $12.8 billion, compared with $10.4 billion for the same quarter last year.
Excluding working capital movements, cash flow from operating activities for the third quarter 2014 was $11.1 billion, compared with $9.9 billion for the third quarter 2013.

* Capital investment for the third quarter 2014 was $8.5 billion. Net capital investment (see Note 2) for the third quarter was $4.8 billion, compared with $9.4 billion for the same period a year ago.

* Total cash dividends paid to shareholders in the third quarter 2014 were $3.0 billion. During the third quarter some 18.5 million shares were bought back for cancellation for a consideration of $0.8 billion.

* Gearing at the end of the third quarter 2014 was 11.7%.

* A third quarter 2014 dividend has been announced of $0.47 per ordinary share and $0.94 per American Depositary Share (“ADS”), an increase of 4% compared with the third quarter 2013.

Royal Dutch Shell Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden commented:

“Shell is proud to deliver high-quality fuels, lubricants and petrochemicals, for transportation, power generation and manufacturing industries. With over 90,000 employees in more than 70 countries around the world, Shell is dedicated to delivering low-cost, safe and reliable energy for our customers.

The recent decline in oil prices is part of the volatility in our industry. It underlines the importance of our drive to get a tighter grip on performance management, keep a tight hold on costs and spending, and improve the balance between growth and returns.

Our results today show that we are delivering on the three priorities I set out at the start of 2014 – better financial performance, enhanced capital efficiency and continued strong project delivery.

We have moderated our spending on growth and accelerated disposals of our non-strategic portfolio as part of a drive to improve capital efficiency.

Proceeds from asset sales so far this year total $11.6 billion, with further disposals ongoing.

Our plans to exit from Pinedale and Haynesville mark the completion of the major sales programme in our North America resources plays portfolio. We are now focusing on creating value from this slimmed-down position. Restructuring in Oil Products continues, with the completion of the divestment of Shell’s Australia positions in the quarter.

Our new investments are delivering benefits to the bottom line. We have brought four new deep-water fields on-stream this year. We are also adding new potential to the portfolio through exploration and appraisal successes.

Shell’s strategy is founded on creating value for the long term.

Our dividend per share for the third quarter of 2014 is up 4% from year-ago levels. With $8.9 billion of dividends declared and $2.4 billion of shares repurchased in the first three quarters of this year, we are on track for a programme of over $30 billion of dividend distributions and buybacks for 2014 and 2015 combined. All of this underlines the company’s recent improved performance and potential for the future.”



In Nigeria, Shell announced first production from the Shell-operated Bonga North West deep-water development (Shell interest 55%). Oil from the Bonga North West subsea facilities is transported by a new undersea pipeline to the existing Bonga floating production, storage and offloading (“FPSO”) export facility. The Bonga FPSO has been upgraded to handle the additional oil flow from Bonga North West which, at peak production, is expected to contribute 40 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day (“boe/d”).

In the United States, Shell announced the second major 2014 start-up in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico with the Cardamom development first oil (Shell interest 100%). Oil from the Cardamom subsea development is piped through Shell’s Auger platform and is planned to ramp up to 50 thousand boe/d at peak production.

In October, Shell announced first production from the Shell-operated Gumusut-Kakap deep-water development (Shell interest 33%) in Malaysia. The production system is expected to reach a peak oil production of around 135 thousand boe/d. With oil production now underway, work on the gas injection facilities is continuing with an expected start-up during 2015.

In October, Shell announced the final investment decision (“FID”) on the Bonga Main phase 3 project (Shell interest 55%) offshore Nigeria. The development is expected to contribute some 40 thousand boe/d at peak production through the existing Bonga FPSO export facility.

In October, Shell commenced front end engineering and design (“FEED”) on the Vito deep-water development project (Shell interest 51%) in the Gulf of Mexico, United States. The development, which is expected to deliver peak production of 100 thousand boe/d after coming on-stream, will be a 120 thousand boe/d capacity floating production system (“FPS”) with flexibility for up to four subsea tiebacks.

In October, Shell announced a frontier exploration discovery offshore Gabon, West Africa (Shell interest 75%). The Leopard-1 well encountered a substantial gas column with around 200 metres net gas pay in a pre-salt reservoir. Shell and its partners are planning to undertake an appraisal programme to further determine the resource volumes.

During the quarter, in Shell’s heartlands exploration programme Shell made a gas discovery at the Shell-operated deep-water Marjoram-1 well (Shell interest 85%) in Malaysia. Shell also announced two oil discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico with the successful Rydberg exploration well (Shell interest 57%) in the Norphlet play, and with the Kaikias well (Shell interest 100%) in the Mars basin.

Shell had continued success with near-field exploration discoveries in a number of countries, including the successful Dhulaima drilling campaign in North Oman.

As part of its global exploration programme, Shell added new acreage positions following successful bidding results in the United States and Colombia.

In resources plays in the United States, Shell announced two gas discoveries in the Utica formation in Tioga County, Pennsylvania with the Neal and Gee exploration wells.

Shell continued to divest non-strategic Upstream positions during the third quarter 2014, with divestment proceeds totalling some $1.6 billion.

In Canada, Shell completed the divestment of its 100% interest in the Orion Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (“SAGD”) project to Osum Oil Sands Corp. for a consideration of $0.3 billion.

Shell also completed the sale of its interest in a portion of its dry gas Deep Basin assets in Canada to Mapan Energy Ltd. for a consideration of some $0.1 billion.

In the United States, Shell completed the divestment of its entire interest in the Pinedale dry gas asset in Wyoming to Ultra Petroleum Corp. As part of the transaction, Shell received cash consideration of $0.8 billion including closing adjustments and gained an additional 155 thousand net acres in the Marcellus and Utica Shale areas in Pennsylvania. Shell now holds a 100% interest in the Tioga Area of Mutual Interest where two new gas discoveries were announced during the quarter.

Also in the United States, Shell completed the sale of its interest in 207 thousand net acres in the Slippery Rock acreage in western Pennsylvania to Rex Energy for a consideration of $0.1 billion.

Shell also agreed to sell its entire interest in the Haynesville dry gas asset in Louisiana, United States to Vine Oil & Gas LP and its partner Blackstone Group L.P. for a consideration of $1.2 billion, subject to closing. The transaction is effective from July 2014.

Shell agreed to sell its non-operated 20% interest in the BM-ES-23 concession in the Espirito Santos basin offshore Brazil to PTT Exploration and Production Public Company Ltd. The transaction, which is effective from January 2014, is expected to close later in the year.


Shell (40%), together with Hyundai Oilbank (60%), announced through its joint venture, Hyundai and Shell Base Oil Company Ltd, first production from the venture’s Base Oil Manufacturing Plant (“BOMP”) in South Korea. The plant has the capacity to produce some 13 thousand barrels per day of API Group II base oils.

On October 28, 2014 Shell Midstream Partners, L.P., a limited partnership formed by Shell in the United States earlier this year, announced the pricing of its initial public offering of 40,000,000 common units representing limited partner interests at $23.00 per common unit. The common units began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on October 29, 2014 under the ticker symbol “SHLX”. The underwriters of the offering have a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 6,000,000 common units from Shell Midstream Partners. The offering is expected to close on or around November 3, 2014, subject to customary closing conditions.

Downstream divestment proceeds totalled some $2 billion for the third quarter 2014 and included proceeds from the sale of Shell’s Downstream businesses (excluding Aviation) in Australia to Vitol.


* Third quarter 2014 CCS earnings (see Note 2) were $5,266 million, 24% higher than for the same quarter a year ago.

* Third quarter 2014 CCS earnings excluding identified items (see page 5) were $5,847 million compared with $4,457 million for the third quarter 2013, an increase of 31%.

* Compared with the third quarter 2013, CCS earnings excluding identified items benefited from improved Downstream and Upstream results. In Downstream, earnings benefited from increased contributions from refining including improved operating performance, and trading. In Upstream, earnings increased due to the impact of new, higher-margin production, lower exploration expenses, and higher earnings from Integrated Gas, despite the effect of lower oil prices and volumes overall. The increase of a deferred tax liability as a result of the weakening Australian dollar reduced earnings by some $400 million compared with the third quarter 2013.

* Basic CCS earnings per share increased by 22% versus the same quarter a year ago.

* Basic CCS earnings per share excluding identified items increased by 30% versus the same quarter a year ago.

* Cash flow from operating activities for the third quarter 2014 was $12.8 billion, compared with $10.4 billion for the same quarter last year.
Excluding working capital movements, cash flow from operating activities for the third quarter 2014 was $11.1 billion, compared with $9.9 billion for the third quarter 2013.

* Net capital investment (see Note 2) for the third quarter 2014 was $4.8 billion. Capital investment for the third quarter 2014 was $8.5 billion and divestment proceeds were $3.6 billion.

* Total cash dividends paid to shareholders in the third quarter 2014 were $3.0 billion.

* Under our share buyback programme some 18.5 million shares were bought back for cancellation during the third quarter 2014 for a consideration of $0.8 billion.

* Return on average capital employed on a reported income basis (see Note 7) was 7.7% at the end of the third quarter 2014 compared with 10.4% at the end of the third quarter 2013.

* Gearing was 11.7% at the end of the third quarter 2014 versus 11.2% at the end of the third quarter 2013.

* Oil and gas production for the third quarter 2014 was 2,790 thousand boe/d, a decrease of 5% compared with the third quarter 2013. Excluding the impact of divestments, Abu Dhabi license expiry, PSC price effects, and security impacts in Nigeria, third quarter 2014 production volumes were 2% higher than for the same period last year.

* Equity sales of LNG of 5.68 million tonnes for the third quarter 2014 were 16% higher than for the same quarter a year ago.

* Oil products sales volumes for the third quarter 2014 were 2% lower than for the third quarter 2013. Chemicals sales volumes for the third quarter 2014 decreased by 4% compared with the same quarter a year ago.

* Supplementary financial and operational disclosure for the third quarter 2014 is available at


Earnings for the third quarter 2014 reflected the following items, which in aggregate amounted to a net charge of $581 million (compared with a net charge of $209 million for the third quarter 2013), as summarised in the table below:

* Upstream earnings included a net charge of $394 million, mainly reflecting a deferred tax liability of $349 million related to an associate company and impairments of $176 million. These were partly offset by net divestment gains of $112 million. Upstream earnings for the third quarter 2013 included a net charge of $176 million.

* Downstream earnings included a net charge of $192 million, primarily reflecting losses related to divestments of $92 million and impairments of $75 million. Downstream earnings for the third quarter 2013 included a net gain of $14 million.

* Corporate results and Non-controlling interest included a net gain of $5 million. Earnings for the third quarter 2013 included a net charge of $47 million.

1 Q3 on Q3 change

Third quarter Upstream earnings excluding identified items were $4,343 million compared with $3,466 million a year ago. Identified items were a net charge of $394 million, compared with a net charge of $176 million for the third quarter 2013 (see page 5).

Compared with the third quarter 2013, earnings excluding identified items benefited from new, high-margin production despite the effect of lower oil prices and volumes overall. Earnings also reflected lower exploration expenses, primarily driven by fewer well write-offs and increased dividends from an LNG venture including the phasing of a dividend from the second quarter 2014. These items were partly offset by higher depreciation. The increase of a deferred tax liability as a result of the weakening Australian dollar reduced earnings by some $400 million.

Global liquids realisations were 8% lower than for the third quarter 2013.

Global natural gas realisations were 7% lower than for the same quarter a year ago, with a 17% increase in the Americas and an 11% decrease outside the Americas.

Third quarter 2014 production was 2,790 thousand boe/d compared with 2,931 thousand boe/d a year ago. Liquids production decreased by 4% and natural gas production decreased by 6% compared with the third quarter 2013. Excluding the impact of divestments, Abu Dhabi license expiry, PSC price effects, and security impacts in Nigeria, third quarter 2014 production was 2% higher than for the same period last year. Underlying production was driven by increased high-margin liquids production in the Americas, including the impact of substantially lower downtime, partly offset by higher downtime elsewhere.

New field start-ups and the continuing ramp-up of existing fields, in particular Majnoon in Iraq, Mars B and BC-10 in the Americas, contributed some 139 thousand boe/d to production for the third quarter 2014, which more than offset the impact of field declines.

Equity LNG sales volumes of 5.68 million tonnes increased by 16% compared with the same quarter a year ago, mainly reflecting the contribution from the acquisition of Repsol’s LNG business.

1 Q3 on Q3 change

Third quarter Downstream earnings excluding identified items were $1,793 million compared with $892 million for the third quarter 2013. Identified items were a net charge of $192 million, compared with a net gain of $14 million for the third quarter 2013 (see page 5).

Compared with the third quarter 2013, Downstream earnings excluding identified items benefited from higher realised refining margins, reflecting the industry environment and improved operating performance. Earnings also benefited from lower operating expenses, mainly resulting from divestments, as well as increased trading contributions. Contributions from Chemicals decreased mainly as a result of weaker intermediates industry conditions, and a prior-period adjustment, partly offset by improved base chemicals industry conditions.

Refinery intake volumes were 2% lower compared with the same quarter last year.
Excluding portfolio impacts, refinery intake volumes were in line with the same period a year ago. Refinery availability was 94%, compared with 93% for the third quarter 2013.

Oil products sales volumes decreased by 2% compared with the same period a year ago.

Excluding portfolio impacts, oil products sales volumes were in line with the same period a year ago.

Chemicals sales volumes decreased by 4% compared with the same quarter last year, mainly as a result of lower trading activity. Chemicals manufacturing plant availability decreased to 90% from 96% for the third quarter 2013, reflecting higher unplanned downtime, primarily due to an incident in June at the Moerdijk chemical site in the Netherlands. The impact of a separate incident in October at Moerdijk is currently being assessed; however, most units will be out for the remainder of 2014 and impact on some units is expected to extend into 2015.

At Royal Dutch Shell plc’s Annual General Meeting on May 20, 2014, the Board was authorised to allot ordinary shares in Royal Dutch Shell plc, and to grant rights to subscribe for or to convert any security into ordinary shares in Royal Dutch Shell plc, up to an aggregate nominal amount of euro 147 million (representing 2,100 million ordinary shares of euro 0.07 each), and to list such shares or rights on any stock exchange. This authority expires at the earlier of the close of business on August 20, 2015, and the end of the Annual General Meeting to be held in 2015, unless previously renewed, revoked or varied by Royal Dutch Shell plc in a general meeting.

As disclosed in the Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2013, presented in the Annual Report and Form 20-F for that year, Shell is exposed to the risks of changes in fair value of its financial assets and liabilities. The fair values of the financial assets and liabilities are defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair values at September 30, 2014 are consistent with those used in the year ended December 31, 2013, and the carrying amounts of derivative contracts measured using predominantly unobservable inputs has not changed materially since that date.

The fair value of debt excluding finance lease liabilities at September 30, 2014, was $38,013 million (June 30, 2014: $39,047million; September 30, 2013: $33,604 million). Fair value is determined from the prices quoted for those securities.

6. Impacts of accounting for derivatives

In the ordinary course of business Shell enters into contracts to supply or purchase oil and gas products, and also enters into derivative contracts to mitigate resulting economic exposures (generally price exposure). Derivative contracts are carried at period-end market price (fair value), with movements in fair value recognised in income for the period. Supply and purchase contracts entered into for operational purposes are, by contrast, recognised when the transaction occurs (see also below); furthermore, inventory is carried at historical cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

As a consequence, accounting mismatches occur because: (a) the supply or purchase transaction is recognised in a different period; or (b) the inventory is measured on a different basis.

In addition, certain UK gas contracts held by Upstream are, due to pricing or delivery conditions, deemed to contain embedded derivatives or written options and are also required to be carried at fair value even though they are entered into for operational purposes.

The accounting impacts of the aforementioned are reported as identified items in this Report.

7. Return on average capital employed

Return on average capital employed (ROACE) measures the efficiency of Shell’s utilisation of the capital that it employs and is a common measure of business performance. In this calculation, ROACE is defined as the sum of income for the current and previous three quarters, adjusted for after-tax interest expense, as a percentage of the average capital employed for the same period. Capital employed consists of total equity, current debt and non-current debt.

8. Liquidity and capital resources

Third quarter net cash from operating activities was $12.8 billion compared with $10.4 billion for the same period last year.

Total current and non-current debt decreased to $43.0 billion at September 30, 2014 from $44.1 billion at June 30, 2014 while cash and cash equivalents increased to $19.0 billion at September 30, 2014 from $15.4 billion at June 30, 2014. No new debt was issued under the US shelf registration or under the euro medium-term note programme during the third quarter of 2014.

Net capital investment for the third quarter 2014 was $4.8 billion, of which $5.4 billion in Upstream, and ($0.6) billion in Downstream. Net capital investment for the same period of 2013 was $9.4 billion, of which $8.1 billion in Upstream, $1.2 billion in Downstream and $0.1 billion in Corporate.

Dividends of $0.47 per share are announced on October 30, 2014 in respect of the third quarter. These dividends are payable on December 22, 2014. In the case of B shares, the dividends will be payable through the dividend access mechanism and are expected to be treated as UK-source rather than Dutch-source.

See the Annual Report and Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 for additional information on the dividend access mechanism.

Nine months net cash from operating activities was $35.4 billion compared with $34.4 billion for the same period last year.

Total current and non-current debt decreased to $43.0 billion at September 30, 2014 from $44.6 billion at December 31, 2013 while cash and cash equivalents increased to $19.0 billion at September 30, 2014 from $9.7 billion at December 31, 2013. New debt was issued under the euro medium-term note programme during the first nine months 2014.

Net capital investment in the first nine months 2014 was $16.1 billion, of which $15.3 billion in Upstream, $0.7 billion in Downstream and $0.1 billion in Corporate. Net capital investment for the same period of 2013 was $28.5 billion, of which $25.1 billion in Upstream, $3.3 billion in Downstream and $0.1billion in Corporate.

We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this document that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. U.S. investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website You can also obtain this form from the SEC by calling 1-800-SEC-0330.

October 30, 2014

The information in this Report reflects the unaudited consolidated financial position and results of Royal Dutch Shell plc. Company No. 4366849, Registered Office: Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, England, UK.


- Investor Relations: International + 31 (0) 70 377 4540; North America +1 832 337 2034

- Media: International +44 (0) 207 934 5550; USA +1 713 241 4544


Worlds leading source of information about Royal Dutch Shell

Screen Shot 2014-10-14 at 18.41.13Free access to over 37,000 articles, comment, historical information and news archive relating to corporate tax dodgers Royal Dutch Shell, the worlds largest company by revenue.

A TV documentary feature about our co-founder John Donovan, has aired in many countries. A related article was published in 10 languages.

We provide a global platform, on a responsible basis, for Shell whistleblowers to put confidential information, including insider information and leaked documents, into the public domain e.g. Sakhalin2

This non-profit website is tacitly endorsed by Shell

For nearly a decade, we have operated under the Royal Dutch Shell Plc top level domain name, dealing on Shell’s reluctant behalf with redirecting job applications, business proposals, Shell pension enquiries, shareholder and investment enquiries, complaints, invitations to speak at conferences, an approach from the Dutch Defence Ministry, contact on behalf of Fox Business News and CNBC, and even terrorist threats. All communications meant for Shell. A humiliation that Shell continues to endure

Shell's Ben van Beurden bows to Putin on Good Friday, 18 April 2014

Bootlicker: Shell’s Ben van Beurden bows to Putin on Good Friday, 18 April 2014, weeks after Russia had invaded and annexed Crimea

OSSL Blackmail Plot Against Shell?

Screen Shot 2014-10-28 at 21.42.29

By John Donovan

Since 22 October 2014 I have been updating an article posing the question: “Shell being blackmailed?”

Top people at Royal Dutch Shell  have all spoken directly to a director of a former Shell “Mr Fixit” company in Ireland, OSSL, which has bombarded Shell with money demands to settle a dispute that Shell says it has already settled.

To be specific, Desmond Kane of OSSL has spoken in person to Peter Voser, Ben van Beurden, Jorma Ollila, Michiel Brandjes, Michael Crothers (and other senior people at Shell).

My impression is that OSSL built a reputation inside Shell for being the perfect Mr Fixit, willing to engage in clandestine activity at Shell’s behest to smooth the troubled path of the long delayed and billions over budget Corrib Gas Project in Ireland. A small company prepared to bend rules and do the dirty work, including lying and bearing false witness for its valued client Shell, provided it was well rewarded.

That kind of relationship can backfire.

In my last update, I stated that I have received multiple threats from a law firm. The threats all came from Mr Marc Fitzgibbon, a senior partner of Lavelle, the Dublin solicitors representing OSSL.

Regular visitors to this webpage know that I have published countless articles about OSSL allegations, in which they claim to have delivered free alcohol to the Irish Police on behalf of Shell. Personally, I doubt that it ever reached ordinary officers. It was offloaded by senior Garda officers.

In April 2013, I sent an email to a senior journalist at the Guardian newspaper, Ed Vulliumy, and Maurah Harringtom of the Shell to Sea campaign, expressing reservations about the integrity of OSSL and included this comment in my email:

“I have often felt uneasy about OSSL.  Suspected we were being used to apply pressure. There is another term I could use.”

Three investigations by the Irish Police found no evidence to support the OSSL allegations. Likewise, two internal investigations by Shell. The same basic line was trotted out after each of the five investigations – no evidence to support the allegations. (OSSL claims this is because it was all destroyed on Shell’s instructions.)

The entire Irish news media seemed to accept the damning verdict on OSSL allegations, which effectively meant that OSSL are fantasizers and liars.

This situation left OSSL desperate to prove that in fact, their allegations are true.

Desmond Kane and Neil Rooney, both from OSSL, had a meeting with their solicitor, Mr Marc Fittzgibbon, in Dublin at the end of July. Unbeknown to him, they covertly recorded the entire 42 minute discussion.

Both during the recorded meeting and in related subsequent correspondence, Marc Fitzgibbon confirmed that the supply of alcohol to the Irish police by OSSL, at the instruction of Shell, was openly discussed in his presence during the three meetings with Shell attended by him, Desmond Kane and Neil Rooney. This was the alcohol which supposedly never existed. Senior people from Shell were present during the negotiations, including Michael Crothers on at least one occasion. Crothers is the CEO/MD of Irish Shell.

Selective extracts from the recorded meeting held in Dublin at the end of July 2014 between Marc Fitzgibbon, Desmond Kane and Neil Rooney:


Marc: …there were references made to the alcohol… I’m happy to confirm in the London meeting and indeed at the other… next meeting…”


Des: you see what Shell are saying is the first thing they knew about alcohol in any shape or form was when I produced the invoice after the mediation payment”

Marc: But they can’t say that because

Des: but they are saying that


Marc: …I have no hesitation in saying I do recall that in both meetings you introduced… you bought to the attention of the meeting to the alcohol claim and mediation I can’t recall because of so many discussions in the room and out of the room… but my recollection is that there was a kind of a gap in the agreement from their point of view in that it doesn’t cover off the alcohol…

All are references to the alcohol, which according to Shell, never existed.

In a state of exhilaration, believing with justification that they now had proof from an officer of the courts that their allegations were true, OSSL supplied the entire recording to me, probably without even listening to it. If they had done so, they might have thought better about giving me a copy, as some of the things said rung alarm bells with me.

I prepared a transcript and having typed every legible word, ended-up very familiar with the content, which does indeed provide evidence that Shell engaged in a cover-up over the alcohol and other “sweeteners” for the local population – one for several hundred thousand euros, and in the process, left Shell wide-open to blackmail.

At around 16 minutes into the Dublin meeting with OSSL, Mr Fitzgibbon noticed a red flashing light on a mobile phone belonging to one of the OSSL people present. He asked if the meeting was being recorded. OSSL was economical with the truth in its reply. However, Mr Fitzgibbon said that he did not care if the meeting was being recorded and went on with the discussion for another 25 minutes.

Mr Fitzgibbon stood his ground despite being put under considerable pressure to agree with OSSL’s version of the outcome of the negotiations with Shell and the terms of an eventual settlement agreement. His professional assessment on the status of the agreement was brushed aside by OSSL without any proper explanation of why OSSL should expect Shell to pay again.

Shell has indeed complained many times that OSSL has continually demanded money despite the fact that Shell had already agreed a final settlement with OSSL and paid accordingly.

In email correspondence with OSSL I made known my concern that they might be attempting to blackmail Shell. I made it plain that I did not want to be linked with their money demands to Shell and in August 2014 publicly disassociated myself and my website from these demands to Shell. 1. 2.

Desmond Kane asked to meet with me and explain why OSSL was not in his view doing anything illegal i.e. it is not attempting to blackmail Shell. I met him, but received no satisfactory explanation. What he said only increased my concern.

I sent an email to Mr Fiztgibbon on 18 October and advised that his suspicions about his  meeting with OSSL being recorded were well founded. I gave him extracts from the recording, but not the whole recording. I sent a copy of the email to Michiel Brandjes at Shell. I gave Mr Fitzgibbon and Shell the opportunity to take any action they deemed proper to stop me supplying the recording and other evidence to the Irish Justice Minister, the Irish Police, the Irish Police Ombudsman Commission and the Irish news media.

On Friday 24 October I received an email from Mr Fitzgibbon making threats.

The correspondence is self-explanatory.

From: Marc Fitzgibbon <[email protected]>

To: John Donovan <[email protected]>

Date: 24 October 2014 13:24:30 BST

Subject: Re: OSSL/Shell

Dear Me Donovan,

I refer to your several e-mails. I would be obliged if you would take note of the following.

1. I was not at any stage of the consultation that I had with Mr Kane and Mr Rooney aware that the meeting was being recorded and nor did I at any stage consent or agree to the recording.

2. I consider any steps that you might take to share all or part of the  recording with any of the persons mentioned by you to be a breach of  client privilege, and confidentiality and of Data Protection.

3. Please  take this e-mail as notice of my intention to report any such breach to the Data Commissioner and or take what others gal steps are necessary to prevent any unlawful use of this material.

I trust that I have made my position clear.

Yours faithfully

Marc Fitzgibbon

Sent from my iPhone


Subject: Re: OSSL/Shell

From: John Donovan <[email protected]>

Date: 24 October 2014 17:37:38 BST

Cc: [email protected]

To: Marc Fitzgibbon <[email protected]>

Dear Mr Marc Fitzgibbon

Sorry, but the position is not clear.

Are your threats being made on your behalf, or on behalf of your client OSSL, or on behalf of both parties?

I will deal with your three points in the order that you raise them:

1: You made it plain that if the discussion was being recorded, as you suspected, then you had no objection. As I have pointed out, you continued with the discussion for a further 25 minutes after you raised the subject. The recording speaks for itself.

2: The recording was supplied to me by your client OSSL who recorded it on their own recording device. The purpose for which it was supplied to me was expanded following a discussion I had on Friday 17 October with Mr Desmond Kane. The first time I have ever spoken to him. I have a record of that discussion.

3: I do take note of your threats. Dealing with the Data Commissioner threat, is this the Irish Data Commissioner? Please note in this regard that I am not an Irish citizen, nor am I resident within Irish jurisdiction. With regards to the further threats, are you saying that if I was to supply the evidence now in my possession to the Irish Justice Minister, to report a serious crime for police investigation, this act would itself be unlawful? If so, unlawful under which jurisdiction?

I do not think the Irish Justice Minister, or more importantly, Irish citizens, will be pleased with the disingenuous role of Shell and in particular the Managing Director/CEO of Irish Shell, Mr Michael Crothers, in these matters.

Mr Crothers has deceived the Irish nation and will feature prominently in the evidence I will be preparing over the weekend for supply to TD’s, the Irish Justice Minster, the Garda Commissioner and the Garda Ombudsman Commissioner.

Under his tenure SEPIL categorically denied OSSL allegations. He knew this was a lie.

It was a nice PR move on the part of Shell to bury a broadband cable alongside the Corrib pipeline. It will not be as easy to bury or disregard the evidence I will be turning over to the Irish authorities, which will include the recorded meeting.

Threats will not suffice. You will need to take action. The question you must ask yourself is whether such action would be in the Irish public interest.

I am sure you already have a good idea of how much is at stake as far as Royal Dutch Shell is concerned. No doubt they have already been in contact. A blackmail victim frightened to report extortion demands because they have something shameful to hide.

I trust that I have made my position clear.

Yours sincerely

John Donovan


I have further evidence, but will be saving it for the Irish Justice Minister.  It includes the panicked reaction by Shell after Mr Brandjes received my email on 18 October.

For the record, as far as I know, Mr Fitzgibbon has acted with absolute integrity at all times. The same cannot be said for his client or for Shell.

To the best of my knowledge, Shell has not reported any of the alleged blackmail notes, nor taken action under defamation or harassment laws. Why not? The answer, is because Shell knows the basic allegations by OSSL are true and therefore potentially highly damaging to the reputation of Shell.

Shell has almost succeeded in keeping a lid on an explosive subject.

Some Shell executives may have committed criminal offenses by participation in the cover-up of corruption, falsification of related invoices and deliberately holding back evidence during the recent deeply flawed investigation by the Irish Police Ombudsman Commission (the GSOC).

Mr Crothers, the main subject of an Irish newspaper article published on 26 October, was appointed CEO of Shell Ireland after the corrupt activities involving OSSL had ceased. It seemed initially that he might intervene to uphold Shell’s claimed business principles, but instead chose to become part of the cover-up.

Johan Groenewald, who led the GSOC investigation, did not even bother to contact Mr Fitzgibbon, although I supplied him with contact details. That tells us all we need to know about the thoroughness and competence of his investigation.

The Irish government will have the challenge, after all that has happened, of finding anyone with the qualifications, integrity and genuine independence, to properly investigate a possible blackmail plot targeting Shell.

That person or body should also investigate the legitimacy of a related OSSL alcohol invoice to Shell. Was it genuine, or a fake and therefore a form of blackmail note – key evidence of a blackmail plot?

The fact that the main platform of the blackmail is alcohol OSSL supplied as a mega bribe/gift from Shell to the Irish police for protecting the Corrib Gas Project project from protestors, makes the whole situation even more complicated and ironic. How can the police investigate blackmail relating to alcohol that Shell and the Irish police have always dismissed as an illusion?

Mr Kane strongly denies any wrongdoing. However, thus far, he has not supplied any credible explanation that I have seen of why he believes Shell still owes money to his company, over €200,000.

In my view, what is needed now is nothing less that a public inquiry.

Big oil is exposed to falling prices who can survive?

Screen Shot 2014-10-28 at 12.31.23


Screen Shot 2014-10-28 at 11.46.23

By John Donovan

The news media is waking up to the potential seismic impact on big oil from falling oil prices. Our headline – “Big oil is exposed to falling prices who can survive?” – is taken from an article by John Ficenec published today by the Telegraph, which poses the question:

Which FTSE 100 oil stocks to hold Shell v BP?

It mentions a prediction by Goldman Sachs “that the price for Brent Crude, will fall as low as $80 per barrel in the second quarter of next year.”

The article points out that according to analysis from Bloomberg “Of the two oil majors, Shell is slightly more exposed to a fall in the oil price as about 30pc of its future projects requires a price above $95 per barrel, compared to 20pc for BP.”

Former senior Royal Dutch Shell executive Paddy Briggs has also taken note of current developments, including “an almost perfect correlation between Multinational Oil company profits and the price of Crude Oil.”

In his own article posted today, Paddy speculates that a Shell/BP merger seems more likely than not.



There is an almost perfect correlation between Multinational Oil company profits and the price of Crude Oil. The higher the latter, the higher the former. Changes within the business operations, cost reduction exercises and other reorganisations and the like, can affect financial performance on the margins. And instituting such changes can give Directors the feeling that they are “doing something” to justify their windfall level remuneration. But, in truth, it’s the traded value of Crude which really drives the dosh. So falling prices are bad for Shell, Exxn and the rest of them Arguably, however, they are good for the rest of us.

There are those who argue that the higher the oil price the stronger the drive for diversification will be. Renewables become more relatively viable if Crude prices are high. But Shell, having established Wind, Solar, Forestry and other unconventional energy businesses got out of most of them despite the rise in Oil prices. Even the (highly questionable) Governments’ subsidies for renewable energy were insufficient to keep Shell in the game. And falling prices make it unlikely that they will return.

One of the drivers of falling prices is the gradual increase in production – especially in the United States – of hydrocarbons (mostly Gas) from Shale. Fracking is changing the face of the energy scene, and not just in America. The US could become self-sufficient in Energy as a consequence, an extraordinary turnaround. The energy business is a classic example of where price is a direct consequence of the interplay of supply and demand. As supply of oil and gas from new non OPEC production such as shale increases the price falls. For the first time for a while the Sheikhs and their friends are not telling us how much we’ll pay for our gasoline!

The prediction of oil price trends is a dodgy old game and one major shock can lead to panic and price rises. That said there is reason to be bearish on oil for at least the medium term. There is an uncomfortable dilemma ahead for the Oil Majors. Unconventional oil and gas production – be it via fracking or by moving into environmentally questionable areas like the Arctic – is expensive. And yet if the reliance on Middle East and other traditional producers is to be reduced then this has to happen. But the bean counters are going to be worried about project viability if the Crude price keeps falling. My guess is that the hurdle rate for investment approval slips negative in many cases at $80 a barrel or less.

Consolidation of the energy sector may be the way forward. Rumours of BP and Shell dusting off the merger files sound logical to me. BP is far from out of the mire of the Browne and Hayward years yet. But come the dawn, and if the lawyers confirm that all the lawsuits are behind them, then a Shell/BP merger seems more likely than not. The opportunity to build a great Europe-based Energy multinational around the strong(ish) foundations of RDS and BP would be attractive – not least to the European Union. The nightmare alternative, by which either or both fall into the hands of Russian, or Chinese or Arab predators is not!

“Follow the money” is never bad advice. And along with “Who benefits” I’d recommend it at this time. The next few years will see major changes, some surprising, to the global energy scene. The power is shifting. The prizes are high! Who will win? We’ll see.

RELATED: Shell BP Mega-Merger?: 29 May 2014

Shell CEO dubious prediction on oil prices: 9 October 2014

Shell’s Arctic Machinations

Screen Shot 2014-08-06 at 09.25.26The environmental group Oceana has obtained a copy of a letter from Shell to the U.S. Dept of the Interior revealing that the oil giant is seeking to pause Shell’s leases for five years. Approval would effectively extend the current drilling deadlines.  Shell’s plans to drill off the Alaska coast have already been heavily delayed by a series of avoidable mishaps, initially caused by negligence and incompetence, and subsequently by a desire to evade tax.

Extracts from a related Bloomberg article:

Shell Seeks 5 More Years for Arctic Oil Drilling Drive

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) is asking the Obama administration for five more years to explore for oil off Alaska’s coast, saying set backs and legal delays may push the start of drilling past the 2017 expiration of some leases.

Shell, which has spent eight years and $6 billion to explore the Arctic’s Beaufort and Chukchi seas, said in letter to the Interior Department that “prudent” exploration before leases expire is now “severely challenged.”

“Despite Shell’s best efforts and demonstrated diligence, circumstances beyond Shell’s control have prevented, and are continuing to prevent, Shell from completing even the first exploration well in either area,” Peter Slaiby, vice president of Shell Alaska, wrote to the regional office of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

Shell’s plans to produce oil in the Arctic were set back in late 2012 by mishaps involving a drilling rig and spill containment system, and the company has been sued by environmental groups seeking to block the Arctic exploration. The Hague-based company halted operations in 2012 to repair equipment and hasn’t resumed its maritime operations.

The July 10 letter from the company, released today by the environmental group Oceana that got it after a records request, seeks to pause Shell’s leases for five years, in effect extending the deadline to drill on its Beaufort and Chukchi leases.

While Shell cited events outside its control, it’s efforts have been beset by its own missteps, including the grounding in rough seas of one of its drilling rigs on the last day of 2012.

The U.S. Coast Guard said in April that a desire to avoid millions of dollars in Alaska state taxes played a role in Shell’s decision to move the rig in rough seas.

In its letter, Shell said it needed certainty from the U.S. before investing beyond the $6 billion it’s already spent.


Objection to Divestment of Shell Oil Blocks in Ogoniland

Screen Shot 2014-10-26 at 00.39.59National Union of Ogoni Students’ USA

3747 W. 138TH Street, Crestwood Illinois 60445, Tel. 1-(888) 610-5590, email – [email protected]

Press Release


CAVERT EMPTOR: Divestment of Shell Oil Blocks: Oil Mining License 11 not for sale

We, the Ogoni students in Diaspora under the National Union of Ogoni Students’ (NUOS INTL), USA on behalf of the Ogoni people, distance ourselves from the ongoing Shell Oil Company’s secret divestment and sale of assets in oil and gas in Nigeria. These secret sales should not extend to Oil Mining License (OML) 11 in Ogoni its enclave.

Our decision is predicated on the fact that Shell Oil Company has no oil and gas either onstream or upstream in Ogoniland but liabilities due to environmental despoliation, nonpayment of rent & royalties for 56 years, and sponsored genocide in Ogoni.

Over the years, The National Union of Ogoni Students’ USA has gained expertize studying and following trends in the Shell world and the oil industry. In early 2009, we started noticing changes in Shell Oil Company’s onstream and upstream policy when the company started divesting its onstream investment particularly in Niger Delta before the signing of the Nigerian Oil and Gas content Act 2010 by the then Acting President Goodluck Jonathan. Shell Oil in its defense laid claim to her new global assets divestment policy. In a statement, the then Chief Executive Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Mr. Peter Voser said, “that the divestments were part of company’s strategy of refocusing its onshore interests in Nigeria and in line with the Federal Governments aim of developing Nigerian companies in the upstream oil and gas business.”

Since the initial divestment of oil blocks, Shell oil Company has sold 45% of its Joint Venture equity in its lucrative Niger Delta western area of operation including Oil Mining Licenses (OML) 26, 42, 4, 30, 34, 38, 40, 41, 29, pipelines, including offices and residential areas in Warri. We are all alarmed by the secretive sale of these assets without inputs from host communities and state governments. We have reasonable suspicion following these trends that Shell Oil Company is taking advantage of the weakness of the host communities to evade its liabilities and responsibilities to the people of the Niger Delta by tactfully and secretly divesting its assets.

When contacted on the position of the company on OML 11 located in the disputed Ogoni area, some inside sources familiar with the divestment or sale of Shell Oil Company’s assets confirmed our fears that Shell Oil was far ahead in its secret move to woo buyers for the OML 11 in Ogoni territory. We started beaming satellite on some of these potential buyers who are lobbying and bribing those involved including some Ogonis for them to be granted safe passage into the Ogoni area. Based on our investigation, the sale of Ogoni Oil Block OML 11 could take place before December 2014.

Based on the backdrop above and considering the huge liability and conflict that Shell Oil Company would leave behind for any investor, we are honestly trumpeting to the hearing of ALL potential investors, bidders, and interested parties in OML 11 that this Oil Block belongs to Ogoni people and therefore is not for sale.


1. The Ogoni people have since 1990 canvassed and paid prices in blood and treasures for the control of their Oil and natural resources and will NEVER renege on this important article in the Ogoni Bill of Rights (OBR) at this point in our struggle.

2. Shell Oil Company has no right of ownership to OML 11 because it owes the Ogoni people £18 billion pound Sterling representing royalties on petroleum mining in Ogoni land since 1958, and £4 billion pound sterling as compensation for environmental pollution, devastation, and ecological degradation in the area. These compensations were unanimously passed into law at the 3rd Assembly of Rivers State House of Assembly in 1993 under the Leadership of Hon. Tuesday C. Kemeagbeye. These sums remain unpaid to date and we shall not renege on it at this point in our struggle.

3. The company should stop parading itself as an owner of assets in Ogoniland because it remains persona non grata in the area. It should rather own up, clear its liabilities to the Ogoni people, and clean up the environment, sit down for a comprehensive discussion with the Ogoni people before working away or before any purported transfer of ownership of assets to avoid another round of bloodshed. We would also add that no investor should purchase Shell Oil Company’s liabilities because the safety of their personnel, staff, assets, cannot be guaranteed in Ogoni.

4. In line with global Oil industry best practices, Shell Oil Company should emulate or borrow a leave from British Petroleum (BP) in the case of the Gulf of Mexico 2010 and Exxon Mobile 1989 in the case of Valdez by paying compensation to oil affected communities and cleaning up the ecosystem. The UNEP report of 2011 is also another reason why Shell Oil Company cannot sell Ogoni Oil block.

5. The death of Chief Theophilus Orage, Chief Edward KoBari, Chief Albert TomBari Badeh, Chief Ignatius Kogbara, Mr. Ken Saro Wiwa, and eight of his compatriots cannot be ignored. We shall continue to demand answers to circumstances surrounding their demise and Shell Oil instigated mass killings/ genocide and ecological war in Ogoni in the 1990s.

The catalog of unresolved liabilities hovering over Shell Oil Company regarding Oil Mining License 11 and few of which are outlined above should serve as blue print and warning to prospective contenders, buyers, investors, or interested parties in this oil block. The summary is that Shell Oil Company has no equity and assets in Ogoniland rather liabilities because they lose their mining right twenty (21) years ago. Let the buyer(s) beware, Cavert Emptor!


Pius Barikpoa Nwinee Sampson Npimnee

(President) (Secretary)


His Excellency Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, President of Nigeria

His Excellency Barrack Obama, President of the United States of America

Rt. Hon. David Cameron, Prime minister of Britain

His Holiness Pope Francis, Vatican City

His Excellency Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General, United Nations

Mr. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada

United States Congress & British Parliament

Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc

Mr. John Donovan, Activist.


Royal Dutch Shell Completes Onshore Oil Block Sale In Nigeria

Royal Dutch Shell Retreat from Nigeria: 28 August 2014

Safe Sex and Corruption in Nigeria – OPL245: 18 Sept 2014

Royal Dutch Shell Implicated in Nigerian OPL245 Corruption Scandal: 11 Sept 2014

Shell Accused of Unlawful Drilling in New Zealand

Screen Shot 2014-02-10 at 16.29.29MOSCOW, October 9 (RIA Novosti) – Oil and gas giant Shell and its New Zealand partner firm Todd Energy were accused of unlawful offshore drilling in New Zealand, but managed to evade court prosecution and only received a warning letter, New Zealand News UK reports.

According to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Shell Todd Oil Services (STOS) violated the law while carrying out drilling in the Maui oil and gas field without prior approval. Maui is the largest and the most important of New Zealand’s gas and oil fields. To legally carry out drilling activities in the area, companies need to apply for a special resolution or marine permission from the EPA, according to new regulations.

“If an operator wishes to undertake activities [...] such as any new structure or pipeline associated with an existing activity, making changes in the character, intensity or scale of an activity, or any alteration, extension, removal of existing structures or pipelines, they will need to request a ruling or apply for a marine consent from the EPA.”

The co-leader of New Zealand’s Green Party Russel Norman stressed that the behavior of STOS is incomprehensible and New Zealand’s authorities must apply proper punishment measures.



Shell and Todd caught drilling without approval

Shell Announces Gabon Deep-Water Gas Discovery

Screen Shot 2014-02-10 at 16.29.29THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, October 22, 2014 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, October 22, 2014 /PRNewswire 

Shell today announced a frontier exploration discovery offshore Gabon, West Africa. 

Leopard-1 is located around 145 kilometres off the Gabonese coast, west of Gamba. It was drilled in water 2,110 metres deep to a total vertical depth of 5,063 metres. Shell and partners are planning to undertake an appraisal programme to further determine the resource volumes.

“Shell has been exploring in Gabon for over 50 years. This latest deep water discovery is a testament to the innovation of our explorers in pursuing new plays, and application of our global sub-surface expertise,” said Andy Brown, Shell Upstream International Director. “We are proud to be sharing this success with CNOOC Limited, our partner in the licence.”


Oil price slump to hit majors’ earnings

Screen Shot 2014-10-16 at 12.52.57


Reuters is reporting that oil companies have seen billions wiped off their stock market values as crude prices dropped over the past four months by 25 percent to a four-year low near $85 a barrel, due to slowing global demand particularly in China and ample supplies. Shares of BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Eni , Total and BG have dropped by 15 to 20 percent since late June.


Shell being blackmailed?

Screen Shot 2014-10-22 at 08.24.58UPDATED FRIDAY 24 OCTOBER 2014 – SEE BLUE TEXT BELOW


By John Donovan

There is evidence, some of it covertly obtained, that Royal Dutch Shell Plc may be the victim of a sustained blackmail operation.

Shell has not called in the police to investigate. Why not? Because certain information held by the party making repeated money demands to Shell, including directly to Ben van Beurden and other senior Shell executives, is true and if the current cover-up unravels, will result in a scandal of epic proportion involving Shell and a host government.

I am in possession of extraordinary evidence and have no intention of being silenced. If Shell does not call in the police, I will do so myself and hand over the entire evidence for investigation.

Mr Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, is fully aware of this matter, which involves top executives at Shell.

Peter Voser, Ben van Beurden and Jorma Ollila have all had direct contact with the party making the money demands.

The question of a possible breach of fiduciary duty by Royal Dutch Shell executives may arise from the lack of proper action by Shell to protect shareholder interests.

More information will be added here as the situation develops. 


I know from insider sources and can prove it, that Shell senior management is in crisis mode on this matter as a result of the content of an email I sent to a law firm last Saturday, 18 October and copied to Mr Michiel Brandjes, my designated contact at Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

If Shell is being blackmailed, as I have strong grounds to suspect, then I doubt that any blackmailer in history has made as many demands for payment, nor at such a high level in a targeted corporation.

I gave the law firm and Shell 14 days to take action before I intended to do so myself. Given the lack of even a brief acknowledgement and taking into account developments inside Shell, I may move forward with my own plans to put the relevant evidence about this complex sleazy affair into the hands of the appropriate judicial authorities in the coming days without waiting any longer.

It is incredible to me as a Shell shareholder that senior Shell management has tried to ignore the pressure being applied to the company on an international basis.

It is a fact that all four of the top Royal Dutch Shell Plc board level executives named above have personally spoken with the party trying to extort money from the company. The blackmail allegation is based partly on a confidential Shell document supplied to me and related covertly obtained evidence, all of which is in my possession.

Suffice to say that I have, as a result of this story, received written warnings about my personal safety and security.


As anticipated, I have now received multiple threats from a law firm. The threats are designed to frighten me into not handing over important evidence to government and judicial authorities (along with a request for a police investigation). I have responded in a robust manner and invited the law firm to take action. As Shell knows, I don’t respond well to threats. As far as I know, the law firm does not represent Shell, but Shell is actively involved in applying pressure. Mr Michiel Brandjes is fully aware of today’s sinister development.


Mixed Signals between China National Petroleum Corp and Shell

Screen Shot 2014-02-10 at 16.29.29The comment refuted media reports that Shell senior executives had showed signs of wanting to cut the company’s expenditures on the project many times…

China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) said it was not informed that its Dutch partner would downsize the investment on their jointly explored shale gas project in Southwest China’s Sichuan Province, Shanghai-based newspaper China Business News reported on Monday.

An unnamed CNPC representative was quoted by the report as saying that the cooperation between CNPC and Royal Dutch Shell Plc remains the same. The two signed a shale gas production sharing contract in Sichuan in 2012.

The comment refuted media reports that Shell senior executives had showed signs of wanting to cut the company’s expenditures on the project many times due to the exploration difficulties as a result of complicated geological conditions and dense population.


%d bloggers like this: