Further confidential Shell internal email correspondence

Paddy Briggs: Thanks for your question John The Shell Contributory Pension Fund was funded 130% or thereabouts a couple of years ago. This meant that it could meet its future actuarially calculated commitments + 30%. Some of us at the time (certainly me) argued that Shell should recognise this strength by alleviating the financial plight of many of the poorer pensioners in the fund. For example those thousands with annual pensions of less than £7500 per annum, who had worked for Shell for 20+ years and who were now in their seventies (or older). Shell had previously given a commitment that “…the real value of your pension [will be] maintained” – a promise that was clearly not be honoured insofar as poorer pensioners was concerned. The case that we made was rejected by Shell. Instead of helping pensioners they decided to help themselves by stopping contributions to the fund. There were two effects of this – one I am sure about and one I surmise. The first effect is that the retention of cash rather than its move into the fund helped Shell’s UK bottom line/cash generation. The second is (my guess here) that by improving Shell’s UK bottom line certain executives at the top of Shell in the UK befitted in their bonus payments!

John Donovan: QUESTION TO FORMER SHELL EXEC PADDY BRIGGS: Paddy a year ago Shell UK said its pension scheme was so well-funded that it could take a contributions holiday. I seem to recall someone saying this was safe unless there was a stock market crash. The link below is to a related FT article... http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/10/09/financial-times-shell-reverts-to-a-vanished-norm/ Is there any possible adverse consequence to the Shell UK pension fund from the current "collapse" in equities (and the Shell share price), as reported by the FT this morning?

Paddy Briggs: One of the reasons that Shell’s Corrib development got into difficulties is that the Irish Government failed to commission a proper Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) into the project. CBA assesses not only the P&L and conventional (mainly local) HSE implications of a project but ALL aspects, including the social and extra-environmental. The same applies to Tar Sands. Oxfam is quite right to raise the issue at this time when the risks and very real dangers of failed regulation of corporations are in the public eye. The Canadian Government should go ahead with a thorough CBA at a global impact level and not be blinded by the chimera of the attractions of Energy Independence.

MUSAINT: Sokari Ekine states that people in Ogoniland believe that Shell are again going to come back into Ogoniland under the guise of NNPC (what nonsense!!). Of course he/they will say this as they are fearful that NNPC will be worse than any international oil company. NNPC will NOT be as tolerant as Shell, NNPC will NOT provide money for communities as Shell have, NNPC will not listen as Shell does. Ogoni's need to wake up to reality.

FAWiKi: Hi! The post is really interesting! I've read your blog and can say it's a good job.

ex employee: test

John Donovan: REPLY TO “In the business”: I have never stated or thought that Shell and everyone who works for Shell is bad. On the contrary, I have no doubt that the vast majority of its employees are decent hardworking people. With regard to the positive initiatives of Shell, I am the person who added the sections about the Shell Foundation, LiveWire etc to Wikipedia. As you correctly say, we publish all news about Shell, the good, the bad and the ugly – some of the latter is in the pipeline. We have always published all positive news about Shell. I am pleased that you have a high regard for the company. I can tell you that many current and former employees of Shell in African nations e.g. Ethiopia, and in Malaysia, have a strikingly different opinion. Several hundred are suing Shell for unlawful deductions from Shell pension funds. As to carrying out research, we decide on what stories to pursue. This seems reasonable since it is our website. If you want to speak out on behalf of Shell you are very welcome to do so either on Live Chat (as you are doing) or by supplying articles for publication. If you want to put in the effort, we will publish your Shell related articles on an unedited basis provided they are to the same standard as your previous contributions. The same invitation extends to Shell or anyone who has informed intelligible comment to make about Shell. I have never spoken out in any depth regarding Shell benefit packages. I will leave that to the former Shell executive Paddy Briggs who has a much greater knowledge than me in such matters.

In the business: Ok Donovan - do some research and post how Shells benefit package compares to others. I have done this and can tell you that is is in the top 5 percent of the globe. Do some research and see how well our poor employess are paid. Do some research and see how Shell takes care of its people when there is a natural disaster tha impacts them, Employee assistance surpassed by none. You post a very distorted view of Shell and you know it. Ask people who leave Exxon, Lyondell, Dow, Dupont, Chevron, Total, etc why they left - Benefits and values. Do your research.

In the business: #36 Ali Zachari What a joke you are. You would be lucky if Shell was to invest in your country. There are many quality operators and Shell is one of them. If I had a vote, I do not, we would never invest a single penny in your country. Do some research on the web, outside this site where the lenses are so clouded you will never get a real picture of the company Shell is.

In the business: So you do post the good articles on Shell, but where is your editorial comment praising shell for its top of the league access to annual reports? For an evil company with no ethics, as you claim, one would not excpect such transparency eh. I can tell you that as an ee, I would rather work for no one else. When we have a choice to make on startup up facilities, we will never compromise our values. We are expected to do it right, and we always strive to. Get a grip, there are operators out there who knowingly violate permits and mis manage emissions, not Shell. If you only knew the internal standard we are held to as unit operators, you would change your tune.