Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

ShellNews.net: Response to recent postings on Live Chat

By John Donovan

Guest 5915 said: What competitor of Shell is paying Mr Donovan for this website? Seems like a smear campaign….

Guest 1579 said: Anyone reading the news posted here in blatant breach of copyright law will have noticed Donovan has added a blogging blitz to his anti-Shell campaign on the net. He uses his website, Wikipedia articles and now anti-Shell blogging every day on top international news sites including the WSJ. His campaign must be impacting on Shell’s reputation and share price. I hope someone asks at the AGM why he is being allowed to continue.

Our response…

No individual or company has ever paid us a cent towards the cost of this website. It is funded entirely by my father and me and operates on a strictly non commercial basis. There are no subscription or other charges of any kind. We do not solicit or accept donations.

There is no copyright infringement. We have been approached by a number of news organisations on this subject including AFX News and United Press International. We even received a Cease & Desist letter from The Dow Jones Company acting for The Wall Street Journal who accepted our reliance on the Fair Use Doctrine under U.S. Law (based on the fact that we operate on a non-commercial basis as indicated).

It is our contention that we provide the world’s most comprehensive collection of news articles focussed on Royal Dutch Shell.  Visitors to our site are exposed to our own articles from time to time, such as this one. No one is forced to read them. It is purely a matter of choice.

Yes, I am a prolific contributor to the Wikipedia articles about Shell. One such article is authored solely by me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell_safety_concerns

I have added positive and negative information, all within Wikipedia guidelines as to being properly sourced, with verifiable facts and written in a balanced neutral way.

It is not my fault if Shell has so many skeletons rattling around, some of which have been listed in Wikipedia: –

(For working links go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Royal_Dutch_Shell)

  • 1 An Early Critique
  • 2 Henri Deterding
  • 3 Sanctions busting in Rhodesia
  • 4 Corruption in Italy
  • 5 South Africa
  • 6 Formula Shell
  • 7 Explosion at Louisiana refinery
  • 8 US Clean Air Act violations
  • 9 Jiffy Lube International
  • 10 Environmental infringements in Louisiana
  • 11 Pipeline rupture in Washington
  • 12 Groundwater contamination in USA
  • 13 Unauthorised venting and flaring of gas in the USA
  • 14 The Vietnam War
  • 15 Nigeria
  • 16 Darfur region of Sudan
  • 17 Exchange Control speculation in Japan
  • 18 Job reference violation in the United States
  • 19 Environmental law infringements in Brazil
  • 20 Brent Spar
  • 21 Brent Bravo
  • 22 Tainted Shell gasoline in North America
  • 23 Retirement fund deficiencies in Malaysia
  • 24 Refinery contamination in Texas
  • 25 Oil Refinery in Durban
  • 26 Ireland
  • 27 Oil and gas reserves recategorisation
  • 28 Sakhalin
  • 29 The Shell Foundation
  • 30 Bonus schemes
  • 31 Domain name oversight
  • 32 Tell Shell Forum
  • 33 Fictitious trades
  • 34 Participation in price fixing cartels
  • 35 Use of charity fund raising song as internal motivational anthem
  • 36 Iran
  • 37 Nicaragua
  • 38 External Links
  • As to the blogging about Shell on a variety of newspapers around the world, I have an extensive library of information and add it whenever it is relevant to a news article. Shell supports free speech on the internet, so what’s the problem? I see nothing wrong with investors being given a more rounded picture, rather than reading articles often heavily influenced by the spin spewed out from the Royal Dutch Shell Media/PR machine.

    Finally, I would not be at all surprised if the existence of this website is brought up during the Q & A Session at the forthcoming AGM, bearing in mind that it has cost Shell billions as a result of our role in the Sakhalin-2 debacle.

    Â

    Comments are closed.

    %d bloggers like this: