By John Donovan
Printed below is some recent weekend correspondence with Richard Wiseman which concluded today. It related to Mr Ray Fox and the former Shell Petrochemical Terminal at Earley. It also touches on Shell’s ruthless treatment of third parties with whom Shell does business.
EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO RICHARD WISEMAN, CHIEF ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC
From: John Donovan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 14 February 2009 16:14
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-RDS-CCO
Cc: Raymond Fox
Subject: Gross Pollution from Shell Petrochemical Terminal at Earley
Dear Mr Wiseman
In his recent correspondence with you, Mr Fox referred to several letters including correspondence between Thames Water Authority (Scientific Services) and Shell U.K. Oil. I have now published the relevant letters, including the response letter from Shell U.K. Oil which was missed from the attachment to his email.
The letters prove there was a serious pollution problem decades ago involving drainage from the Shell Petrochemical Terminal. The drain passed through land at 337 Wokingham Road, the residence Mr Fox owned for several years until he was taken seriously ill as a result of toxic contamination, radioactive or otherwise. The correspondence was only exposed due to the investigative efforts of Mr Fox.
Were you aware of the serious pollution of the River Loddon as a result of a grossly polluting discharge from the Shell Earley Terminal before Mr Fox first produced the Shell/Thames Water correspondence?
If you were, are there other incidences of gross pollution of the local environment by the Shell Petrochemical Terminal which you have not disclosed, despite potentially disastrous health implications to the local population?
I ask this question bearing in mind that you did not reveal this serious pollution incident which gave raise to complaints by members of the public living in Loddon Bridge Road which is much further away from the Terminal than 337 Wokingham Road, where Mr Fox later resided.
It was still judged to be serious gross pollution even though the contaminated waste was diluted in the River Loddon. It’s toxicity would have been far more concentrated immediately adjacent to the Terminal, where the broken sewer was discovered by Mr Fox many years later. No one can say how long the sewer had been broken or how long the Terminal had been discharging grossly polluted waste into the River Loddon and ultimately into the River Thames.
If you were unaware of the above serious pollution incident at the time Mr Fox first brought it to your attention, then it undermines your assurance that there is no buried nuclear bunker beneath the houses built on the land once occupied by the Shell Petrochemical Terminal. I say this because if you had no knowledge of a serious incidence of gross pollution, this would suggest that you are not in possession of the history of the petrochemical premises in question, yet issued a categorical denial in respect of the alleged buried nuclear bunker.
As you may recall, you originally attempted in correspondence with Mr Fox to blame Thames Water for the broken sewer before shifting position and paying for the repair. Yet you did not reveal the earlier gross pollution problem involving drainage from the Terminal for which Shell had expressly admitted responsibility to Thames Water Authority.
Your reluctance to reveal serious incidents at the Terminal also extended to the major fire which was do intense that rail lines are said to have melted. Information about that sinister affair was uncovered by Mr Fox and his investigator, Mr Alex Sones. A fire officer who attended the fire told Mr Sones that he was suspicious of the reluctance of Shell Terminal employees to allow Firemen on to the Terminal even though a major fire was in progress. Witnesses described an underground explosion which made the ground shake like an earthquake.
Naturally Mr Fox wonders what other material information may have been held back during the years the matter has dragged on in correspondence with you and consequently what else he may find out in the future, given his determined quest for the truth to be exposed, no matter how long it takes.
This leads to another question. Since I suspect that Mr Fox will wish to pursue your handling of this matter, can you tell us the right person to approach regarding the ethical conduct of a Shell employee, when the employee in question is the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc?
REPLY FROM MR WISEMAN: 15 FEBRUARY 2009
Dear Mr Donovan, and Mr Fox
All serious queries from Mr Fox have been dealt with diligently over the years. Recent exchanges have done nothing but irresponsibly cause completely unnecessary public concern. As always, all allegations not specifically admitted are denied even if not answered.
We remain happy to cooperate with any public authority. Otherwise this correspondence is at an end.
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office: Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands
REPLY FROM JOHN DONOVAN: 16 FEBRUARY 2009
From: John Donovan <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:08:58 +0000
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Raymond Fox <[email protected]>
Conversation: Gross Pollution from Shell Petrochemical Terminal at Earley
Subject: Re: Gross Pollution from Shell Petrochemical Terminal at Earley
Dear Mr Wiseman
I regret to say that you are twisting the truth. Contrary to what you claim, the serious queries from Mr Fox have not been dealt with, as would be clear to any independent observer reading the recent correspondence. You have completely ignored many fundamentally important questions raised with you which are based on credible documentary evidence by independent experts.
I note for example that you have completely ignored the correspondence between the Thames Water Authority and Shell in which Shell admitted responsibility for the pollution of the River Loddon from the Shell Earley Petrochemical Terminal. This was described by Thames Water Authority as serious pollution and gross pollution.
We are in good company with BBC Radio 4, the Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Sunday Times in bringing these serious health related issues to the publics attention. The Green Party have also supported the demand for Shell to treat these matters of toxic/radioactive contamination with the gravity they deserve.
Shell on its part has treated the local population with the same distain in which you secretly planned to treat your contractors and suppliers (RUTHLESSLY) as revealed in Shell internal confidential email leaked to me which resulted in a Reuters syndicated article published last week by the International Herald Tribune and many other global news organisations.
As you may recall, this was the same RUTHLESS treatment dealt out to me and many other companies misled by Shell’s false promises of ethical trading.
You were personally aware of corrupt practices by one Shell Manager (AJL) who connived to cheat companies who wrongly believed they were participating in a tender process conducted on an honest basis. Unbeknown to those unfortunate companies, a written plan approved by senior management was executed to steal their intellectual property and prevent them conducting business with rival oil companies after being drawn into confidentiality agreements under entirely false pretences. The SMART contract was then awarded to a company which had not even participated in the tender. This was a company with whom AJL, who masterminded the plot, had a close personal relationship and an offshore bank account. I have a copy of your witness statement supporting AJL who was also able to claim support from the highest levels of Shell management. Malcolm Brinded declined my invitation for him to withdraw his support for AJL despite being made aware of the corrupt practices exposed in discovery documents (which I still have).
Given your involvement in that matter and your admission that Shell used sleazy undercover activity against my father and me during the run up to a SMART High Court trial conducted by a Judge with undeclared connections to Shell (who by coincidence or otherwise resigned in controversial circumstances after we wrote to the Lord Chancellor), it is remarkable indeed that you are now the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. Or perhaps it was a reward (bribe) to buy the silence of a former Shell director (and Secretary to the Committee of Group Managing Directors) who knows many dark secrets about Shell? I am of course aware of your role in preventing important information from reaching Shell shareholders.
Your elevation reminds me to some extent of the new role and title given to Lord Mandelson a.k.a. The Prince of Darkness.
Returning to current matters, you have not even been prepared to fork out a paltry £5,000 (relative to Shell multi-billion dollar obscene profits) to pay for independent research which might reassure the public. Under the circumstances, you display amazing audacity in making allegations that we have caused unnecessary public concern.
Shell (not Mr Fox) laid the foundations for these public health issues when it RUTHLESSLY sold contaminated land for housing development and is unwilling to take appropriate action to deal with the fall out.
I note the imperial command that this correspondence is at an end. The title seems to have gone to your head.