On 11 November, I sent an email to Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It contained the draft article printed blow. This led to a flurry of email correspondence with Richard Wiseman, Shell’s Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer.
One email contained an unusual comment by Mr Wiseman of a personal nature. He said:
“It is only because you know that I am utterly incapable of arranging the actions you ascribe to me, that you repeatedly accuse me of things of which you know I am completely innocent, safe in the believe that I would take no action.”
During the course of the correspondence I received a Shell internal email containing a draft response to me which Mr Wiseman had circulated to senior colleagues. Consequently I was able to compare its content with what was stated in the email he subsequently sent. The changes were revealing. Mr Wiseman confirmed that the internal draft I received was authentic.
The entire correspondence can be read via the link below:
Please be forewarned that the article and the correspondence is lengthy and will probably only be read in its entirety by Shell lawyers.
Shell, Saudi Arabia, Arms-for-Oil, Corruption, & Radioactive Contamination
By John Donovan
Unbeknown to the people who currently reside on a housing development (Amber Close) built on the site of a former Shell petrochemical terminal at Earley near Reading in Berkshire, the toxic history of the land on which they and their children live and play is a matter of sinister intrigue.
In addition to deadly chemicals such as cyanide and arsenic, there is credible evidence, including declassified documents and expert reports, confirming its toxic history, which has apparently resulted in some of the highest levels of Plutonium and Uranium contamination ever recorded in Britain.
The obvious question is, what is the source of the radiation?
There are two possibilities. Firstly there is a body of evidence and expert opinion that a nuclear reactor is buried in a secret bunker at the site. Alternatively, there is evidence the site was used as a staging post for the supply of embargo-busting weapons and munitions, including ?tactical nuclear weapons like shells and missiles? to Iraq and Iran. Both possibilities may be correct given Shell?s key involvement in clandestine projects including the so called scandal of the century: The Al-Yamamah BAe oil-for-military-aircraft affair.
Shell and BP played what has been described as a money-laundering role in the Al-Yamamah project generating slush funds associated with Saudi arms contracts which have helped to fund terrorism and corruption, including massive bribes to Saudi royals by the main contractor, BAe Systems. At the heart of the deal set up by the UK government, the Saudi Royal family, BAe and Shell/BP, was a barter arrangement under which the Saudis delivered oil to Royal Dutch Shell and BP for nearly two decades, worth tens of billions of dollars.
Living on land on which petroleum products were once handled and stored is bad enough, as a toxic cocktail legacy, including carcinogenic chemicals, is inevitable and difficult to eradicate. The fact that the land in question has been decontaminated at least three times confirms this is the case. Hydrocarbon and chemical contamination are however of relatively minor significance compared with radiation contamination, which is even more deadly to deal with and decays on an entirely different time scale.
The Earley site was decontaminated by specialist contractors prior to the housing development by Persimmon Homes, based on a declaration by Shell that it?s only prior use had been as a petrochemical terminal/depot handling and storing hydrocarbon and chemical products. This was a significant matter as due to the long-term blight of radioactive contamination, it is unlikely planning consent for a housing estate would ever be granted for any land with a nuclear history. Obtaining planning consent for a housing development obviously represented a financial prize for Shell because of the vast difference in commercial value of a site that has planning consent for housing compared with the value of an industrial site.
Correspondence from district councillor David Swindells to the Chief Executive of Wokingham District Council warned of a great deal of concern by residents (and in the press) over the proposed housing development. Swindells expressed hope that the Council would not authorise Persimmon Homes to build on the site until contamination issues were resolved in respect of the site and surrounding contaminated existing residences, including the home of the Ray Fox family at 337 Wokingham Road.
Extracts from the Cllr Swindells letter of 5 June 1998:
I can verify from visits made to the site that vegetation at the rear of Mr Fox’s garden has died over a period of years and there does not seem to have been a satisfactory explanation for this occurrence. If we take into account the fact that the slope of the land from Compton Close drops down towards the premises of 337 Wokingham Road it might be reasonable to consider if some of the cocktail of contamination from Compton Close and the contamination which has to be removed from the Shell site has resulted in the residents of 337 Wokingham Road being affected.
I must point out that in the report from Dr Kees he reports “chronic intoxication with heavy metals (Cadmium, Nickel, Lead, Mercury)? within Mr Fox’s body; this report was done before the contamination within Compton Close was reported and similar substances have been found in the preliminary investigations which have taken place on the properties of No 7 & 8 Compton Close.
Dr. Josef Kees is a German physician specialising in treating victims of chemical and radioactive poisoning. He carried out his examination and diagnosis of Ray Fox at his clinic in Germany from September 1998 until March 1999. The following are more extracts from the same report dated 3 February 1998:
?I am heavily concerned about the clinical and chemical evidences of a severe toxic poisoning of Mr. Raymond James Fox which have caused a severe health damage and endangered his life.?
?My findings are conclusively supported by the report of Dr. Robert Cass from the USA and his findings who examined Mr. Fox in the UK and advised him to obtain immediate medical help just before his admission to my clinic.?
Dr. Kees mentioned Uranium several times in his report, and concluded that Ray had been exposed to a very high concentration.
The issue of radioactive contamination has been a subject of importance in the area for some time because of speculation over a nuclear radiation source of a cluster of childhood leukaemia cases in and around Reading. The speculation was focussed on three Berkshire locations, all associated with nuclear weapons; namely the Atomic Weapons Establishment premises in Aldermaston and Burghfield, and the Greenham Common NATO Airbase at which nuclear missiles were once based.
THE BURIED NUCLEAR BUNKER
Until the BBC and other UK broadcasters aired a number of radio and television programmes about the Ray Fox story a few years ago, the possibility that there was another radiation source even closer to Reading was not widely known. The thrust of the allegations in all of the programmes being that a secret nuclear reactor is buried under the former Shell petrochemical terminal in Earley.
According to a report broadcast on the ?London Tonight? TV news show, tests on the Ray Fox property revealed plutonium levels 40 times higher than normal background radiation.
The dramatic introduction of a Channel 4 TV programme – “Mark Thomas’ Secret Map of Britain” ? featuring the Fox residence, described it as ?the most polluted house in Britain?. Mark Thomas revealed that soil tests carried out at the house by a radiation scientist, Dr Chris Busby PhD revealed some of the highest levels of Plutonium and Uranium contamination ever recorded in Britain.
In October 2003, the BBC Radio 4 ?Document? series, broadcast a half hour programme entitled: ?The Bunker?. It considered the evidence of the cluster of cancer and leukaemia cases around nuclear facilities in Berkshire and in particular the apparent radioactive poisoning of Ray Fox. His adopted son Christopher had already been diagnosed with leukaemia. Christopher?s father, who also lived in the area, had already tragically passed away as a result of leukaemia. Ray Fox suspects that Christopher?s mother, who passed away at the age of 22, also had a fatal illness arising from radioactive contamination.
The BBC commissioned an independent report from Dr Busby who conducted tests at the Fox family home. The programme also featured interviews with a host of experts including Professor Asef Durakovic (a Colonel in the U.S. Army), Professor Dudley Goodhead, Professor Eric Wright, Dr Francis Walley, Dr Dick van Steenis, Dr Joseph Kees and a consultant toxicologist, Dr Kartar Badsha.
The programme included interviews with two individuals who claimed to have seen the buried bunker. The first was a neighbour of Ray Fox, the other a ?medical physicist?, who said he had visited the bunker on a regular basis and that it did indeed contain a nuclear reactor.
The following are extracts from ?Wolves of Water?, a book published in 2006 by Dr Busby:
?The most bizarre example is the buried Shell reactor in Reading, a large town in Berkshire. All the evidence points to the existence, several metres underneath a normal, quiet suburban housing estate, of a buried nuclear reactor, corroded and leaching its contents into the groundwater. The locals say that there is a high level of childhood leukaemia in the area; but no one really knows, as the health authority and the cancer registry will not release data to examine the assertions.?
?Leukaemia clusters, cancer clusters and the Cold war
When the first research into nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and the uses of radiation generally, was being undertaken, Shell was a big player. At Earley, they were examining the possibilities associated with radiation, radioactive materials and organic solvents.?
I note that Shell took no action against Dr. Busby to challenge the categorical statements of fact published by Dr. Busby in a book that is still on sale. Shell could have obtained an injunction preventing publication if any statement made by Dr. Busby about Shell and its involvement in such sensitive matters was untrue.
The BBC programme ?The Bunker? featured the following quote from Dr. Kees:
?I found a lot of toxins like slightly raised dioxins in fatty tissue like lindane the pesticide lindane and we found even uranium in his blood stream double as high as the accepted normal value and this toxic mixture seemed to cause multiple chemical sensitivities syndrome?
The following are extracts from a medical report dated 4 February 1999 by Dr. Kees on Christopher Fox:
This 12 year old boy was referred to my clinic for investigation and treatment of the causes of his severe chronic intestinal ailment with recurrent abdominal pain.?
?I have to advice and strongly recommend as a further examination a bone marrow biopsy with a histological differentiation and histo-chemical testing to exclude a chronic damage of the bone marrow and a chemical toxic alteration of Christopher’s bone marrow as a result of the chronic contamination and toxic poisoning on your ground and in your house.?
The extracts below are taken from a letter dated 9 July 2004 sent by Hugo Charlton, Chairman of The Green Party, to a UK Government Minister, Nick Raynsford MP. The extracts provide a concise and vivid account of what happened to Ray Fox.
The Green Party has become aware of the following assertions relating to Mr Ray Fox, of 337 Wokingham Road, Reading, Berkshire. Ray Fox lived until recently in Earley, near Reading, Berkshire.
In the mid 1990s he dug up a drain at the bottom of his garden to clear a blockage which was flooding his garden. The land drain crossing the corner of his property was blocked with some tarry black material which Ray cleared away. Shortly after this he became seriously ill. His body became covered in what ?appeared to be burns and blisters.
The symptoms appeared to be those of radiation poisoning. Thus began several years of struggle to obtain an explanation for his illness and its origin, a struggle that has slowly revealed elements of what appear to be a most extraordinary cover-up – a secret underground atomic research site operated in Reading in the 1960s by the Shell Oil Company as part of a research effort into the development of atom bombs. Parts of the story have been revealed in newspaper articles and on television, but Dr Chris Busby, of the Green Party has visited the site on two occasions and made radiation measurements. As you will know, on 25th Nov. 2002 Dr Chris Busby and Caroline Lucas MEP had a meeting in Brussels with Stephen Kaiser of the ED Radiation Protection unit to demand that they investigate the situation. The facts appear to be as follows. Following his contamination and illness, Ray discovered that the drain he had unblocked was an illegal connection to the public land drain to the River Loddon and was apparently draining material from a Shell ‘oil depot’ at Earley, which had existed on a site at the bottom of his garden until the 1980s. After the closure of the depot, the land remained derelict until acquired by a developer in the late 1990s when it was ‘remediated’ by removing a metre of topsoil and replacing it with fresh topsoil. A new housing estate was built on the site and people now live there.
According to the results of tests mentioned in the letter…
“…the Plutonium levels in Ray’s house were up to 60 times higher than would be expected.”
The letter goes on to state: -
“What supports the argument that there has been contamination from a reactor or fissionable nuclear bomb material is the ratio of Uranium-238 to Uranium-235. Although the absolute levels are not high, this ratio is an unmistakable fingerprint for material from a reactor or a bomb core. “
(Caroline Lucas recently became the leader of the Green Party.)
There is more evidence of an underground nuclear reactor at the site.
I recently spoke with a Mr Alex Sones. In 2001, he worked as an investigator at the chambers of barrister Derek Willmott (now deceased). The chambers specialised in Investigation and Scientific Advice. Immediately prior to his untimely demise, Mr Willmott was working on a case involving the alleged high incidence of death and illness of people living in the Reading area from forms of radiation sickness and toxicological conditions. During the course of those enquiries Mr Willmott was contacted by Mr Fox who said he was suffering from apparent radiation related symptoms along with other members of his family.
Mr Sones was subsequently asked to investigate information provided by the source (also deceased) - a gentleman who claimed to have visited on a regular basis an underground bunker at the Shell terminal adjoining the residence of Mr Fox. The source said that the Shell site contained a nuclear reactor housed in an underground bunker. On the BBC Radio 4 programme ? The Bunker ? the anonymous source described details of the exterior, interior and the dimensions of the bunker.
Although Mr Sones held the Quaker barrister Mr Willmott in the highest esteem, he did not have the same confidence in the person described in the BBC programme as a ?medical physicist?, who, by coincidence, also worked as a consultant to the same chambers.
However, in as far as it was possible to check the information provided by the source, Mr Sones confirmed that the description of the exterior of the bunker appeared to him to be accurate based on evidence he had personally observed during contractors excavation of the Shell site as a prelude to the housing development.
Mr Sones says both he and Derek Willmott, based on their own investigation and reports by experts including Dr. Christopher Busby, reached the opinion there was a bunker at the Shell premises in Earley, Reading and that it contained radioactive material generated from a reactor or a nuclear bomb. This is in line with the conclusion expressed in an independent report by Dr. Busby prepared for the BBC and the comments made by Dr. Busby in his 2006 book.
Mr Sones says that a further indication of the buried bunker came from Richard Collett, the neighbour of Ray Fox who, in an interview on the BBC programme, described ?buried empty rooms? underneath the old Shell site which he spotted after he noticed something odd poking out of the ground when contractors were removing contaminated soil from the site.
Mr Sones also recalls that during the course of his investigations, a fireman who attended a major fire at the old Shell site in 1986 told him that he had noticed that some flames were coming up from under the ground. This implied that something buried under the site was incinerated in the blaze. According to Mr Sones, the fireman also recalled the reluctance on the part of Shell staff at the site to even allow the fire service on to the premises, which the fire officer found strange and suspicious.
THE WISEMAN CORRESPONDENCE
Ray Fox corresponded with Shell for over a decade in relation to the contamination. In March 2004, Ray received a letter from a senior Shell lawyer. It is reprinted immediately below:
16 March 2004
Dear Mr Fox
Thank you for your email of the 10th March. No, you cannot have copies of the correspondence in question. Since you constantly threaten litigation and indeed on several occasions have engaged firms of solicitors and referred to advice recently taken from American lawyers, the correspondence in question is clearly privileged.
I am afraid you have completely misunderstood the material you have obtained. Shell has never been involved in “atomic” or “nuclear” research at the Thornton site or elsewhere in the U.K. Between 1953 and 1966 it conducted research for the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. The research was only ever concerned with developing lubricants for nuclear power plants. It involved subjecting lubricants to controlled emissions of low-level Gamma radiation in a small secure purpose built laboratory at Thornton. The work was conducted strictly in accordance with the Radio Active Substances Acts of 1948 and 1960 and other relevant legislation. The site was properly registered and regularly inspected. We have nothing to hide – we have never made a secret of this research programme. Indeed, the work was described in the publicly available brochure “50 Years of Thornton Research Centre” which was produced in 1990.
Shell International Limited
U.K. General Counsel
Mr Wiseman, a qualified barrister, has served as Legal Director of Shell UK Limited and Secretary to the Committee of Managing Directors of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. Unfortunately his typically blunt letter contained fundamentally false information.
Wiseman made a categorical statement that Shell has never been involved in “atomic” or “nuclear” research at the Thornton site or elsewhere in the U.K. He also claimed on behalf of Shell: ?We have nothing to hide??
In fact, Shell has a considerable history of involvement in the nuclear industry and in associated research and not just limited to developing lubricants for nuclear power plants as Wiseman claimed. As to his claim that Shell had nothing to hide, nothing could be further from the truth: declassified documents from the UK National Archive reveal secret dealings of Royal Dutch Shell with the UK Atomic Energy Authority (the UKAEA) stretching back over 50 years. The evidence includes documents originated by Shell, the UK Ministry of Defence (the ?MoD?) and the UKAEA (covering Shell?s secret collaboration with the UKAEA in relation to nuclear research projects involving radioactive material)
SHELL?S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UK ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY
Shell entered into top-secret agreements with the UKAEA including a ?Heavy Water Access Agreement?. Correspondence recorded Shell?s desire to exchange information on ?heavy water manufacture?. Shell announced in a letter to the UKAEA ?our wish to acquire detailed technical information for the purpose of building a commercial plant for the production of heavy water…? An internal UKAEA letter mentions Shell ?making nuclear graphite?.
A letter from Shell Chairman Sir Francis Hopwood to Sir Edwin Plowden, Chairman of UKAEA announced Shell’s ambition to broaden the scope of its “research programme in the nuclear field“. Correspondence details discussions and agreements between The Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd and the UKAEA including “Isotope Techniques“, “Radiation Laboratory Design“, “Radiation Chemistry” and “Ship Propulsion Reactors?. Shell was even represented at the UKAEA ?Reactor School?.
(Historians might be interested to know that a related note on an agreement involving Bataafsche Petroleum Maatschappij and Shell Petroleum Co. Ltd intriguingly reveals there were agreements between the Dutch and UK parent companies of Shell “not embodied in formal documents?. An unwritten foundation agreement between parties in a multi-billion dollar enterprise is surely more in keeping with the mafia than a multinational oil giant. Of course it left Shell directors with maximum manoeuvre room in the event of any challenge from governments or regulators.)
NUCLEAR EVIDENCE FROM ?A CENTURY OF OIL?
More evidence of Shell?s involvement in nuclear matters comes from the Shell publication “A CENTURY OF OIL” published in 1997:
Extract from page 247 in reference to the Shell Thornton Research facility near Liverpool:
Thornton’s most unusual venture at this time was into radioactivity. This took two forms: the use of radioactive isotopes to monitor wear on piston rings in car engines, and the provision of lubricants for atomic reactors. The latter came about almost by chance, when samples of oil were subjected to radiation from Cobalt-60 to see the effect on the hydrocarbons.
(It is interesting to note that when the claims of radioactive contamination at Early first arose that Dr Gordon Lethbridge, then based at the Shell Thornton Research facility, was soon on the scene.)
Extracts from pages 311 and 312
A toe was put in the nuclear water with the purchase of a 10% interest in a Dutch company called Ultra-Centrifuge Nederland, part of a British-Dutch-German arrangement for developing the centrifuge method of uranium enrichment; and in 1973 Shell announced its ‘first big step into nuclear energy’. In a 50:50 partnership with Gulf Oil, two businesses – General Atomic Company in the United States, and General Atomic International elsewhere – were established to develop, manufacture and market the second-generation High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactors (HTGRs) and their fuels.
The initial cost to Shell was $200 million, with all subsequent costs to be shared equally with Gulf. For its money Shell acquired interests in a small 40-megawatt experimental plant in Peach-Bottom, Pennsylvania; a commercial-scale 330-megawatt plant in Colorado; six other larger HTGRs which were on order; and two more on which options had been taken. Nor was that all. HTGR technology was set to be introduced into France and West Germany, and possibly into the UK and Japan; and (as Shell Transport’s annual report for 1973 recorded) General Atomic was already working on several other developments, including inter alia an HTGR closed-cycle gas-turbine power plant, a gas-cooled fast breeder reactor, the use of HTGR heat in industry, nuclear fusion research and ‘the construction of the largest industrial light-water reactor fuel reprocessing plant in the United States.’
?Shell sold its interests in both General Atomic companies to Gulf Oil in 1980.
It is clear from the declassified documents, and from the history of Shell in its own publication ? ?A Century of Oil?, that Shell?s involvement in nuclear/atomic matters had little relationship to what was portrayed by Wiseman in his letter. That however, is not the end of the nuclear trail.
OIL FOR ARMS ALLEGATIONS
There is another sinister possible source of the radioactive contamination at the former Shell Earley terminal. The terminal, which was served by road and rail, allegedly also had a history involving radioactive materials relating to arms and munitions.
According to information we have received, it happened to be a convergence point of several matters of secrecy, deceit, sinister intrigue and scandal, involving the MoD, UK intelligence services and multinational corporations, including Shell – all allegedly co-conspirators in the notorious oil-for-arms trade.
There is evidence the terminal was used as a staging post in delivery of weapons and munitions to Iran and Iraq. The shipments allegedly included radioactive materials.
An important lead was found in a Witness Statement given in June 2007 to The Information Tribunal by Gerald James, the former Chairman of Astra Holdings Plc – a UK company that manufactured weapons and munitions. Mr James is a remarkable man who had the courage to face down the Thatcher government. He was at one stage vilified as a fantasist and was in real danger of ending up in jail. However after a dramatic climb-down in the House of Commons by the then President of the Board of Trade, Michael Heseltine (now Lord Heseltine) it became apparent that James had been telling the truth about his role in embargo-busting arms deals. His testimony contributed to the eventual resignation of another government Minister, the one time Minister of State of Defence Procurement, Jonathan Aitken, who instead of James, ended up in prison. He was found guilty of perjury in an arms deal scam involving Aitken and his connection with a member of the Saudi Royal family, Prince Mohammed. The astonishing account by Gerald James of how his company became a front for the MoD and Intelligence agencies can be read in his June 2007 witness statement.
Page 4 of the witness statement contained the following paragraph:
From an early stage, even before major acquisitions were made, the MoD conducted operations through our Astra factory at Sandwich transferring container loads of equipment and weapons from Earley, near Reading, to the Middle East (mainly Iraq and Iran, often via third party destinations) and using our factory as a transit depot.
Was this a reference to the Shell terminal? I contacted Mr James. He had an open mind on the subject but when advised the MoD sites at Burghfield (Royal Ordnance) and Aldermaston (Atomic Weapons Research Establishment) were some 10 miles away, the only remaining uncertainty in his mind seems to be over whether the Earley terminal was owned by Shell or the MoD.
He said in a letter to me dated 20 October 2008: ?If Earley was actually owned by Shell as far as I am concerned it was the MoD who dealt with us as I understand they stored weapons and ammunition at Earley until the time of the fire?. This was the fire investigated by Alex Sones involving an underground explosion and a strange reluctance by staff at the terminal to allow the fireman to enter the premises. Mr James went on to say: ?What was actually shipped I do not know but I believe Earley stored conventional ammunition and tactical nuclear weapons like shells and missiles?. Mr James said in his letter that both Shell and BP are ?vehicles for covert government policy run by unaccountable people?.
This information led to another question. Has Shell ever had a covert relationship with the MoD in regard to the supply of weapons? The answer is that it most certainly has. A declassified MoD letter from the UK Secretary of Defence, Michael Heseltine to a member of the Saudi Royal family, HRH Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, recorded details of the oil-for-military-aircraft ?Al Yamamah? deal. BP and Shell were named in the agreement ?to handle the oil trading scheme?. (BAE was as indicated the main contractor).
The declassified documents including the government documents listed below, have provide a wealth of evidence on these matters, but it begs the question, what information is contained in documents which have not been declassified?
We also found direct references to Shell by James in his remarkable book ?IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?, published in 1995/6, 12 years before we contacted him.
BAe Al YAMAMAH CORRUPTION SCANDAL
The Gerald James book has many references to the BAe Al Yamamah corruption scandal in which BP and Shell played a key role in the secret agreement to trade oil for the supply of military aircraft in a multibillion pounds deal.
On page 62, James set out the inventory of Tornado aircraft and Blackhawk helicopters being supplied as part of a three-part deal.
EXTRACT FROM PAGE 62
Part II called for a £1.5bn down payment in cash, the rest in oil, a deal designed by Peter Levene of the MoD calling for payment of as much as 500,000 barrels of oil per day, which were then to be traded by Shell and BP. There are various question marks hanging over Al Yamamah that concern the real destination of the goods, and the commissions allegedly up to £12m to Mark Thatcher and around £240m in total to his group.
EXTRACT FROM PAGE 104
It is further alleged that Mark Thatcher was rewarded with a commission of some £12m in the biggest deal inspired by his mother, the £60bn package destined for Saudi Arabia and known as Al Yamamah.
EXTRACTS FROM PAGE 105
Commissions reaching ‘over 45 per cent’ are said to go some way to explaining the inflated price, but in the case of AI Yamamah the mark-ups are described, apparently by an executive of BAe, as ‘proper profit margins on unprofitable business in the past’.
Further, since it is known that the lion’s share of payments from Saudi are in heavily discounted oil (as much as 500,000 barrels a day have been flowing into Britain on Al Yamamah ll), which must then be traded through Shell and BP, there is another hidden profit margin, no mention of which has ever been made.
The memo suggests that this profit area from the crude oil arrangement was of particular interest to Margaret Thatcher, ‘There are constant phone calls between Mrs T and King Fahd and Sir Peter Levene [MoD] and Prince Sultan.’
EXTRACT FROM PAGE 150
Stephan Adolph Kock, who was one of their special arms consultants, was, said Weaver on that occasion, ‘a man with influence and contacts at the highest level, including Mrs Thatcher’.
(Stephan Kock, a shadowy character associated with Shell and said to be an MI6 agent, became a director of Astra and was instrumental in the supply of unlawful arms sold to Iran and Iraq.)
EXTRACT FROM PAGE 151
I asked him which major companies he had been connected with, and he mentioned Biddle Holdings and Shell Oil, which had been on the Midland brochure, and bluffed his way through, saying he had been connected with so many.
EXTRACT FROM PAGE 153 & 154
‘Following his retirement from the army’, the Midland brochure continues, Kock ‘was for a period International Director for a major international Dutch mining and manufacturing group and subsequently again as International Director for the Shell Oil Company … ‘
But this is not strictly true either. As he was forced to admit to the DTI Select Committee, he was in fact a director of a metals mining company called Billiton, a Shell subsidiary known to provide ‘retirement’ posts for Intelligence officers. Kock was far from retired, however; for according to information he supplied for an internal Astra newsletter, at the very same time he ‘carried out special assignments for the Foreign Office.’
Various people are on record as to Kock’s role in Intelligence. The CIA/State Department referred to him as SIS (MI6).
END OF EXTRACTS
As the following extracts from (A) declassified government documents and (B) reputable publications confirm, Shell was certainly a key player in the Al-Yamamah scandal.
(A) Declassified UK Government documents relating to Shell role in Al-Yamamah “oil-for-arms” project (all confidential/secret/restricted documents)
26 September 1985
The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) document “SALE OF AIRCRAFT TO SAUDI ARABIA? includes written confirmation from Minister of Defence Michael Heseltine to “His Royal Highness Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz” of terms for the BAe military planes-for-oil deal:
“Following acceptance by the British Government of payment by means of an oil trading scheme, preliminary discussions have been held with the British Oil Companies, BP and Shell. These two companies are prepared in principle to handle the oil trading scheme subject to the agreement of satisfactory terms and conditions. They will form a Consortium, to be led by BP. “
2 October 1985
UK Department of Trade & Industry Minute headed BRITISH AEROSPACE: SAUDI ARABIAN DEAL
“All that had so far been agreed was that the aircraft ordered by Saudi Arabia might be paid for entirely in oil, up to an amount of $4 billion. The details now had to be worked out. Mr Knapp’s simplistic view was that if the oil price went down, the Saudi Arabians would have to pump up more to pay for the aircraft. British Aerospace would have to play a role with BP as an agent having an interest in the deal. BAe had already been involved by the Ministry of Defence in the discussions on the oil deal.”
MoD Letter 21 October 1985
Letter to UK HM Treasury headed “SALE OF TORNADO, HAWK AND PC-9 TO SAUDI ARABIA”.
“Nor have the Saudis told us yet exactly how the deal is to be financed; the only word on that so far is that the Saudi authorities have told us that it will be paid for entirely in oil. We hope in concert with BP, Shell, BAe and the Department of Energy to thrash this out with the Saudi Petroleum Ministry, Petromin, very shortly. We await a summons to Riyadh.”
22 November 1985
From 10 Downing Street (From Charles Powell on behalf of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) to MoD plus MoD Response.
EXTRACT FROM MoD RESPONSE 4 DECEMBER 1985
“Our oil negotiators (from Shell and BP) are ready to resume discussions with the Saudi Ministry of Petroleum as soon as the Saudi Government (which effectively means the King and Prince Sultan) have decided on the way ahead. Prince Sultan told Mr Chandler that he hoped to be able to make an initial cash payment in addition to arrangements for a long-term oil lifting arrangement in our favour.”
27 January 1986
MoD letter to Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) headed “SAUDI ARABIA – MILITARY AIRCRAFT FOR OIL”
CONTENT OF LETTER FROM C H HENN, UK MoD Assistant Under Secretary of State Defence Export Services Administration.
“On returning from Saudi Arabia this morning I have seen a copy of your letter of 24 January to Adams.
I ought to put it on record that an agreement was signed yesterday in Riyadh by Yamani and by Shell and BP representatives providing for the lifting of 300,000 barrels//day for an initial period of 3 years. It will then continue year by year unless either party terminates. The 300,000 includes lifting East of Suez. The funds generated will be dedicated to the military aircraft project and Shell/BP stated their intention to carry on lifting so long as the aircraft project requires. There are of necessity review and escape clauses but all concerned are well aware of the need for stable funding and Shell/BP would in practice only terminate in extremis.
I should stress that the existence as well as the terms of this agreement is a matter of some political as well as commercial sensitivity.
I should be glad to expand on the above.”
11 February 1986
Department of Trade & Industry Minute
“The essence of the agreement is that Shell/BP will lift 300,000 bpd (+ or -10%) over three years, recoverable if payment for Tornado not by then completed (calculations were made on a price of $20pb which seems optimistic).”
“The Saudis have emphasised that they wish these arrangement to remain confidential; in particular there should be no mention of barter. Neither HMG nor BAe would take title to the oil.”
ECGD 10 March 1986
Export Credits Guarantee Department letter from P Henley to R E Adams at HM Treasury
“Subsequently Shell and BP entered into 3 year contracts to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis and there are provisions for extending the period as necessary.”
“However, towards the end, the Saudis made it clear that they expected all payments to be made from oil lift arrangements and for this purpose Shell and BP entered into contracts with the Saudis to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis.”
18 March 1986
Export Credits Guarantee Department Minute by P Henley headed “£5BN DEFENCE DEAL WITH SAUDI ARABIA”
“Subsequently Shell and BP entered into 3 year contracts to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis and there are provisions for extending the period as necessary.”
25 March 1986
Department of Trade and Industry letter from Minister Paul Channon to Rt Hon Nigel Lawson MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer (copied to the Prime Minister)
“However, towards the end, the Saudis made it clear that they expected all payments to be made from oil lift arrangements and for this purpose Shell and BP entered into contracts with the Saudis to lift 300,000 barrels per day on a net-back pricing basis.”
2 May 1986
Letter from Peter Walker MP, Secretary of State for Energy, to Rt Hon George Younger MP, Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence
?You will remember that, at the time the MOU was signed last September, I expressed great concern about the impact of the deal on the oil market.
I am still concerned to avoid adding to disruption and instability in the oil market. Given the importance that Saudi production levels have assumed, I have doubts about the wisdom of agreeing to any increase in liftings under the oil side of the aircraft deal. Nor would I want pressure to be put on Shell and BP to accept such an increase against their better judgement.?
30 July 1986
Letter from MoD Head of Defence Export Services, Colin M Chandler, to HRH Prince Sultan bin Adul Aziz Al Saud, under the heading “PROJECT Al YAMAMAH”
“Currently we have approached the British oil companies who have indicated their agreement to increase liftings, subject to terms from 300,000 to approximately barrels a day until the end of March 1987, and as we have agreed today, it is our mutual aim to maintain this level throughout the life of the project. They have also indicated that they will endeavour, given market conditions prevailing, to take larger quantities.”
“(b) Implementation of Increased Oil Liftings
As we agreed today it is necessary for Your Royal Highness to notify the Ministry of Petroleum so that the necessary negotiations can be commenced with the British oil companies Shell and BP as soon as possible.”
29 August 1986
Letter from P Henley of ECGD to HM Treasury under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA: DEFENCE DEAL (Tornados) (now called the YAMAMAH PROJECT)
“ECGD will also have no liability for any default by Shell/BP under the oil net-back arrangements or for the collapse of such arrangements.”
11 September 1986
Department of Trade and Industry letter from Minister Paul Channon to Rt Hon Nigel Lawson MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer (copied to the Prime Minister)
“In the event of a collapse of the oil arrangements between Shell/BP and Aramco ECGD would only assume liability if within a reasonable period thereafter (say 3 months) the Saudi have failed to institute another method of payment.”
23 October 1986
Letter from P Henley of ECGD to HM Treasury under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA – YAMAMAH PROJECT”)
4. We have already told BIS that we are not prepared to entertain cover against any autonomous default by Shell/BP (or by any subsequent oil-lifters) in honouring the oil-lift agreements or in remitting the proceeds as instructed by the Saudis. In so far as Shell/BP entered into the Oil Agreement at the request of MODUK and BAe, Shell/BP can be said to be acting for the benefit of the latter and, in our view, any cover requirement by BIS in this particular respect should be addressed to them.
25 November 1986
Letter from Department of Energy Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Peter Gregson, to Sir Clive Whitmore, MoD.
3. It is of course not at all clear how the Saudi intend to achieve a price of $18 pb without cutting production. But if they are to make any progress towards a fixed price, they will have to dismantle all their current netback contracts, including those with Shell and BP. The current oil agreement gives Shell and BP some protection against this because it entitles them to a netback deal so long as any other company has one.
9 December 1986
Letter from G T W Jones of HM Treasury to Peter Henley of ECGD under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA: YAMAMAH PROJECT”
“4. You attached to your letter a copy of a Department of Energy letter of 25 November, which we had not previously seen. The Department of Energy is concerned that the Saudis might seek to renegotiate the netback contracts with Shell and BP in the context of the Yamamah project. As you know, the Saudis are reported to be in support of reducing output in order to increase the price of oil. This issue is included on the agenda for this week’s OPEC conference.”
18 December 1986
Letter from Peter Henley ECGD to T J D Downing at Bank of England under the heading “SAUDI ARABIA; YAMAMAH PROJECT”
“First concerning delivery of oil. The Oil Agreement provides for oil to be delivered to Shell/BP fob at an Arabian Gulf VLCC port or fob YANBU, making use of the oil pipe-line, or by means of a Saudi vessel to a Shell/BP facility outside Saudi Arabia.”
“If Shell/BP cannot send its ships into the Gulf because of war or a blockade and if oil cannot be delivered at any other port because of pipeline capacity constraints and if KSA were not able to ship the oil to a Shell/BP facility and then failed to pay by other means, ECGD would be liable.
You also raised the question of the difference in meaning between “delivery” and “offer for delivery”. Whilst it is our intention to cover failure by the Saudis to offer oil for delivery and not failure by Shell/BP to take delivery (other than by reason of the force majeure events described above), we have a practical and legal problem in defining “offer for delivery”. We are overcoming this difficulty by talking only about “delivery” (as defined above) but specifically excluding events that we are not prepared to cover (eg default by Shell/BP).”
6 January 1986
“E. SULTAN ACCEPTED THE NEED FOR A LETTER LINKING THE OIL DEAL TO THE AIRCRAFT PROJECT. WE WILL TABLE A DRAFT ON 6 JANUARY SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM AGREED WITH SHELL AND BP AND WHICH HAS BEEN SEEN BY THE SAUDI MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM.’
B EXTRACTS FROM REPUTABLE PUBLICATIONS
Extract from MEED Middle East Economic Digest article published 17 May 2002 under the headline: Al-Yamamah weathers the changes. (BAE). (Al-Yamamah project remains at the heart of the UK trade drive in Saudi Arabia)
The largest contract ever awarded to a British company, the Al-Yamamah project remains at the heart of the UK trade drive in Saudi Arabia, generating a substantial portion of Britain’s export earnings from the largest economy in the Arab world.
Although past its peak, Al-Yamamah still generates at least [pounds sterling] 100 million of sales a year. Contract payments are made through an oil barter arrangement involving BP and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group.
Extract from The Daily Telegraph published 19 August 2006 under the headline: ?BAE lands arms deal for a new generation?
The oil-for-arms basis of the first deals only served to add to the mysterious workings of Al-Yamamah. BAE was “paid” in oil produced by Saudi outside its Opec quota and sold in the market by BP and Shell. The switch from oil to cash as the basis for the third deal has been influenced by a Saudi anti-corruption drive and a recognition that the slush funds associated with other Saudi arms contracts have helped finance terrorism. There is also a recognition that Al-Yamamah – which means The Dove – is hardly appropriate for defence contracts. There is nothing “dovish” about destructive weapons.
Extract from comments by Dr. Vincent Cable MP during House of Commons debate on Al-Yamamah Arms Agreement 7 February 2007
Reagan was perfectly happy to support this British arrangement, which proved to be one of the largest arms deals in history. It has been worth about £40 billion to date, and could be worth something of the same magnitude again in the future. It is not merely an arms deal, but one of extraordinary complexity that involves two major subsidiary features. One is an offset agreement, which, essentially, is a joint venture set of arrangements under which British companies put in capital and expertise, and their Saudi partners take their cut. There is also an oil element. There was an oil barter arrangement whereby oil was marketed, initially by Shell and BP, and the proceeds were routed through the MOD to BAE Systems.”
Extract from The Times article published on 21 February 2007 under the headline: ?Al-Yamamah an echo of 1980s sleaze?
?The first two al-Yamamah deals were complicated oil-for-arms arrangements that cost Saudi Arabia a certain number of barrels of oil a day. This oil was transferred to BP and Shell, which in turn paid the value of the oil into an escrow account from which BAE received its money.?
Extract from The Guardian article published on 7 June 2007 under the headline: The al-Yamamah deal
?Al-Yamamah is Britain’s biggest ever arms deal. The agreement – its name means “the dove” in Arabic – has kept BAE afloat for the last 20 years, bringing around £40bn of revenue.?
?Al-Yamamah has been controversial for many reasons. Within weeks of the deal being signed in 1985, allegations of corruption surfaced. Those allegations have never gone away; in December 2006 the government terminated the Serious Fraud Office investigation into claims that BAE had paid massive bribes to Saudi royals.?
Extract from Financial Times article published 8 June 2007 under the headline: ?Barter fund used to pay commissions to middlemen?
Al-Yamamah is covered by government-to-government contracts between Saudi Arabia and Britain, which the British government and BAE insist are confidential. At its heart was a barter arrangement under which the Saudis delivered oil to BP and Royal Dutch Shell, which sold it and deposited the proceeds in an escrow account at the Bank of England. Payments from this account required signatures from officials of both Saudi and British governments. From this account, BAE was paid in stages as it completed project milestones. It used some proceeds to pay commissions to middlemen who had helped facilitate the transaction.
Extract from Financial Times article published 2 July 2007 under the headline: Al-Yamamah deal: the Saudi foreign policy connection
The arrangement, at least initially, involved a special account controlled by the Saudis, at the Bank of England. This would receive funds from the sale of Saudi oil lifted and sold by BP and Royal Dutch Shell, which took a commission. Press reports in 1996 suggested this exact arrangement changed – but over nearly two decades, tens of billions of dollars were directed through it.
Extracts from The Times article published 11 April 2008 headlined: Margaret Thatcher ?ordered bugging of prince?
Al-Yamamah was initially an oil-for-arms trade. BAE supplied Tornados to the Saudis and they transferred oil to Shell and BP. These companies would pay for the oil by moving money into an account held by the Bank of England. The Ministry of Defence then paid BAE from there.
Al Yamamah 2 Offset Agreement THE AL YAMAMAH ECONOMIC OFFSET PROGRAMME
This Saudi British Bank document contains a reference to the original “Al Yamamah” agreement involving Saudi Arabia, BAE Systems, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), with Shell and BP fulfilling what has been described as a money laundering role in the “oil-for-arms” deal:
“The Al Yamamah Project was initiated in September 1985. It involves the supply and support of Tornado, Hawk and PC-9 aircraft and specialised naval vessels to Saudi Arabia. The UK Government’s prime contractor for the project is BAE Systems pIc. The related Al Yamamah Economic Offset Programme was launched in 1989.”
The main parties are once again Saudi Arabia, BAE Systems and the MoD. The main “Key” address for “The British Offset Office” stated in the document is the Ministry of Defence in London. Shell is also involved, this time via a subsidiary:
“The foreign partner is Basell, who is the world’s largest PP manufacturer and is itself a 50/50 joint venture between Royal Dutch/Shell Group and BASF. Basell will hold 25% of the equity in the Saudi Arabian venture.”
Shell is closely associated with the Saudi Royal family and the state owned national oil company, Saudi Aramco. Shell and Aramco jointly own Motiva Enterprises, an American company operating nearly 7,700 Shell-branded gasoline stations and three U.S. refineries. Motiva also has an ownership interest in 41 U.S. refined product storage terminals. Former Royal Dutch Shell Group Chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart is a director of Saudi Aramco. Saudi Arabia is a founding member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, better known as OPEC, the oil producing nation?s cartel, whose counter-productive greed has once again helped to push the world into recession following the most recent oil price shock.
A damning report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development published on 16 October 2008, focused on overseas bribery and corruption involving UK multinationals, is evidence of the immense damage inflicted on Britain?s reputation. The report seems to have been fuelled by Tony Blair?s decision, while still UK Prime Minister, to drop a Serious Fraud Office investigation into the Al-Yamamah corruption scandal on alleged national security grounds. This followed a threat by the Saudi Royal family to cut off the supply of intelligence to the UK in relation to fighting Islamic terrorism (which some members of the Saudi Royal family allegedly fund).
The Saudi threat was significant bearing in mind that it came from the world?s largest oil producer. Despite Blair?s sensational intervention, authorities in other Countries, including the U.S. Justice Department, are continuing with investigations into the scandal, which will not go away.
In reference to the Al Yamamah scandal, a recent report by Reuters said ?the use of oil made it easier to conceal secret payments?.
Some further salient news articles?
SETTLEMENT OFFER FROM SHELL TO RAY FOX
Wiseman had initially claimed that a broken sewer discharging contamination from the Shell site onto Rays property ?is the responsibility of Thames Water?, before later shifting position and offering to fund work on the drain on a ?good neighbour basis? ? an absolutely laughable claim in view of Shell?s track record of generating multimillion dollar fines for toxic pollution of neighbourhoods adjacent to its refineries.
Despite the seriousness of the matters being discussed, in a letter dated 2nd May 1997, Wiseman unwisely described the contamination as ?your horticultural problems?. This was a snide reference to the dying trees in Rays garden, which Ray claims were like him, poisoned by radiation.
In a letter dated 16th May 1997, Wiseman attempted to persuade Ray to accept an ?all claims? settlement in the form of Shell paying for modifications costing several hundred pounds to a drain from the Shell terminal that deposited contamination onto Ray?s back garden. Ray wisely refused to accept the ludicrous proposed settlement. A short time later Ray became seriously ill from apparent radiation contamination.
During the course of the acrimonious correspondence with Shell, it became apparent that someone from Shell had expressed concern to Woodley Social Services relating to the safety of the Fox children. The following are extracts from a letter sent to Wokingham District Council by Cllr David Swindells:
Mr Fox has faxed me a letter he has received from Woodley Social Services office regarding concerns expressed by Shell relating to the children of Mr & Mrs Fox.
How Shell came to consider that the children might be “at risk” has not been outlined but I am clear that they are not “at risk? from any actions of Mr & Mrs Fox who as I say have always taken great pride and care of their family.
If, as appears to be the case, Shell did make such an allegation to the authorities it was a despicable and hypocritical act bearing in mind that it was Shell contamination (not the parents) allegedly responsible for the severe ill health and consequential stress that destroyed the family.
On 31st May 2006, Shell filed its defence in relation to High Court proceedings brought against Shell for personal injury and consequential loss by Ray Fox & Others arising from alleged escape of noxious radioactive substances from the Shell Earley Terminal.
Shell brought to the Courts attention that Ray Fox was made bankrupt on 12th February 2001. Corporate Watch has publicly described the bankruptcy, which arose from a personal guarantee relating to a directorship of a building company, as being “highly dubious”. Mr Fox says that a bankruptcy order was made against him while he was abroad receiving specialist medical treatment from radiation exposure. He claims that a forged document was used to obtain the order and that his offer to pay the claimed sum of around £7,000 was declined. He also points out that the order made him bankrupt on an indefinite basis. The bankruptcy does indeed appear dubious to say the least.
Link to Corporate Watch Newsletter July/August 2003: http://archive.corporatewatch.org.uk/newsletter/issue14/newsletter14.pdf
Shell denied operating a “nuclear facility” at Earley, and that any “radioactive material” was transmitted to Fox’s home. However, Shell did not deny, in the defence document, that radioactive material was stored at the terminal. Perhaps even more significantly, Shell said that it would:
“admit that if, contrary to the above, the Claimants prove that the Defendants used or stored radioactive material at the Earley Terminal and that this radioactive material was transmitted from the Earley Terminal to the Claimant’s home then this would represent the breach of relevant duties owed by the Defendants to the Claimants as adjoining occupiers and/or persons living in the vicinity of the Earley Terminal.”
Unfortunately Shell succeeded in blocking the litigation. Prosecution of the claim on a timely basis had been made difficult if not impossible by the bankruptcy order, the associated lack of funds, and the continuing ill health of Mr Fox. In blocking the action, Shell also succeeded in preventing the UKAEA from having to supply relevant documents to Mr Fox in accordance with an application he had made to the courts. Very powerful forces were at work, including almost certainly the British Intelligence Services with whom the UKAEA and Shell have had a long close association.
SHELL & THE UK SECRET SERVICE (aka MI6)
In his letter dated 20 October 2008, Gerald James also made a reference to Hakluyt, the commercial intelligence firm said to be a front company for MI6. James says that Hakluyt is also connected to the CIA. A search at Companies House revealed that titled Shell directors were the spymasters and major shareholders in Hakluyt & Co Limited. Sir Will Purves was until recently Chairman of Hakluyt & Co Limited and the late Sir Peter Holmes was President of The Hakluyt Foundation, the organisation supposedly providing oversight of Hakluyt intelligence operations.
LINK TO COMPANIES HOUSE DOCUMENTS: http://www.shellnews.net/images/shell-hakluyt-connection.html
In June 2001, The Sunday Times published a front-page exposé of the covert missions undertaken by Hakluyt on behalf of BP and Shell. The article contained an admission by Shell that Hakluyt had carried out undercover operations on its behalf.
LINK TO SUNDAY TIMES ARTICLE: http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/Sunday%20Times%20MI6.pdf
Shell?s connection with MI6 continues. Ian Forbes McCredie OBE, a Shell Vice-President and current head of Shell Global Security, is a former senior officer of MI6.
I have only been aware of the Shell Earley scandal and related matters for a short time. It is therefore appropriate to acknowledge the vast amount of time given by other individuals including ethical activist Kim Gold, who has investigated related matters reaching deep into the corrupt heart of the UK establishment mafia – a clique of greedy elite individuals, many titled, most in privileged influential positions, working together for personal aggrandisement.
Kim Gold has written an article covering the wider story: http://forums.opendemocracy.net/node/21244 (this may be changed to an updated article)
A friend of Ray Fox, Mr Victor Tassell has very kindly given a great deal of his time to assisting Ray in legal matters and scored a major success in the European Courts when a judgement was made in 2007 that Britain had failed to implement mandatory HSE procedures relating to the safety of employees at nuclear installations in the UK and the general population. The judgment was the result of an application to the European Courts prepared by Mr Tassell on behalf of Ray.
There is much more information available on a separate webpage www.rayfox.info
It includes a host of additional information including medical and scientific reports and links to most, if not all, of the documents mentioned in this article.
It is shameful that a cabal of unethical people in government and multinational corporations have been prepared, with a motive of pure greed, to engage in machinations which fuel death and destruction in foreign lands. Fortunately, there are courageous individuals such as Ray Fox, Gerald James, Kim Gold and Victor Tassell, who have the determination to oppose and expose such evil deeds, even if faced by a range of powerful adversaries. This includes a ruthless oil giant, which, if independent experts such as Dr Chris Busby PhD are right, let Persimmon Homes build a housing estate on land that has a toxic radioactive history.
DRAFT EMAIL TO MP’s
I am aware of the convention that you do not deal with matters unless raised by one of your constituents. Unfortunately toxic contamination and nuclear radiation does not recognise artificial boundaries.
My family and I are victims of radioactive and/or toxic poisoning from the former Shell terminal/depot at Earley, Reading on which a Persimmon Homes housing development now stands (Amber Close). Deadly toxic residue from Shell?s operations, as confirmed in decontamination reports, included carcinogenic chemicals such as cyanide and arsenic. High levels of Plutonium and Uranium are of even more concern.
I lived at what has been described on Channel 4 TV as ?the most polluted house in Britain? (a property adjacent to the terminal). Another TV programme reported Plutonium levels 40 times higher than normal background radiation at my home. A report prepared for BBC Radio by a radiation scientist, Dr Chris Busby PhD revealed some of the highest levels of Plutonium and Uranium contamination ever recorded in Britain. Dr Busby indicated that the radiation has a unique fingerprint, which can only have come from a nuclear reactor or a bomb core.
Following an examination carried out at his clinic in Germany Dr. Josef Kees, a physician specialising in treating victims of chemical and radioactive poisoning, stated: ?I am heavily concerned about the clinical and chemical evidences of a severe toxic poisoning of Mr. Raymond James Fox which have caused a severe health damage and endangered his life.? Dr. Kees mentioned Uranium several times in the report and concluded I have been exposed to a very high concentration. My son, Chris, was diagnosed with leukaemia when he was 12.
Although Shell General Counsel Richard Wiseman denied Shell has ever been involved in “atomic” or “nuclear” research in the U.K. and claimed Shell has ?nothing to hide?, this turned out to be a pack of lies. Declassified documents involving the MoD, the UK Atomic Energy Authority, and Shell, prove Shell was heavily involved in nuclear research. There is also evidence of a buried nuclear reactor at the site. On top of that, there is credible evidence the terminal was used as a staging post for arms and munitions sent to Iraq and Iran, including tactical nuclear weapons, as part of embargo-busting chicanery involving the MoD and the intelligence services. Declassified government documents from the UK National Archive also provide overwhelming proof of Shell? involvement at the heart of the BAE Al-Yamaha ?arms-for-oil? corruption scandal.
Kindly visit rayfox.info to see more information including how Wiseman tried to entice me into an ?all claims? settlement at a cost to Shell of just several hundred pounds for destroying my family. There are links to the declassified evidence, reports from the media, decontamination experts, doctors and scientists. There is also a link to information about Shell?s blatant disregard of HSE issues as manifested in its notorious ?Touch F*** All? safety policy on North Sea Platforms exposed by former Shell HSE Group Auditor Bill Campbell. I understand that Campbell has recently called in the Police in relation to alleged corruption in that matter.
The UKAEA, central and local government, the courts and Shell, all share a common interest in keeping a lid on a major scandal relating to a cluster of childhood leukaemia cases in and around Reading that could result in huge claims for personal injury. This perhaps explains why my attempts for over a decade to expose the truth and seek justice for my family have been blocked in all directions.
Local MP?s Rt Hon John Redwood (Wokingham) and Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) are aware of the Shell Earley contamination and have very kindly done their best to assist with what appears to me to be a coordinated campaign to shut me up. They are attempting to deal with the obstruction of benefit entitlements and provision of proper medical care.
Please therefore support my call for an independent pubic inquiry into the sinister history of the Shell terminal at Earley and its deadly radioactive legacy, which has had a truly devastating impact on the health of my family and me. I would also ask that any remaining classified documents relating to these matters should immediately be released into the public domain or supplied to any such inquiry.