Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Is it right or fair the describe the Shell reserves scandal as a “Fraud”

By John Donovan

Live Chat Comments by “blackisler”

The following postings were made on Live Chat on Saturday 7 June 2008.

blackisler : Oh dear – here we go again with the expression “reserves fraud” being banded about. Yes, Shell was overly optimistic in the volume allocated to “proved” as dictated by the archane rules of the US SEC (but not according to those in-house). Almost to a barrel, the volumes were reallocated to a category with less “certainty”, to be produced in time and certainly not “lost” as is the case with the billions of dollars which have evaporated in the current global financial FRAUD & SCANDALS for which barely one head has rolled. only a number of “early retirements” feather bedded by massive financial hand outs. Hardly a “sauce for the goose / sauce for the gander” situation. By the way, whilst I am on-line, may I appeal for a dramatic reduction in the volume of purile comments on the site?

“blackisler”comments end…

Unlike other Live Chat participants I am aware of the identity of “blackisler” and acknowledge the great expertise of a much respected individual on the subject of Shell reserve issues.

However, we continue to describe the reserves scandal as a “fraud” based on an even more eminent authoritative source. 

Please read the published findings and legal analysis of the SEC in relation to “fraudulent schemes” when they imposed a massive fine on Shell in 2004.

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION REPORT ON SHELL RESERVES SCANDAL: http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-50233.pdf (August 2004)

CLICK ON THIS LINK TO READ FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY REPORT ON SHELL RESERVES SCANDAL: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/shell_24aug04.pdf (August 2004 – £17 MILLION FINE FOR “MARKET ABUSE”)

Furthermore, Christopher Cox, the Chairman of the SEC is on record as describing the scandal as a “fraud” when he listed European frauds. The combined SEC/FSA fines on Shell amounted to $150 million.

The consolidated US class action Shell has agreed to settle was brought on the grounds on “securities fraud”.

There is ample other evidence including the infamous emails between Watts and Walter van de Vivjer to support the conclusion that although it was not a planned fraud, it ended up as being a fraud because of the cover-up which prevented investors from knowing the truth. If Shell or the fraudster Watts take exception to the description then lets have the truth aired in court. This is of course a challenge that Shell will never take up. It has already spent nearly a billion dollars to prevent it ever happening.

Related articles

http://www.shell2004.com/week40/financial_timessec7october2005.htm

http://www.shell2004.com/week40/financial_timesfraud7october2005.htm

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2006/01/25/global-floodgates-open-on-shell-reserves-fraud-class-action/

We note the criticism about comments on this website but none the less are pleased that the person in question holds the site in sufficient esteem (I could be using the wrong word) to believe it worthwhile to contribute here. 

I would like to provide some balance by revealing that we received an email yesterday from a senior manager of another of the worlds biggest oil companies. We did verify that the email is authentic. This is what it said.

Subject: world’s best website?

When I need fresh, compelling info on the industry, I always turn to your website. VERY good work.  

 

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: