Dear Mr Funkhouser

You may have seen the email I sent yesterday to Tom Purves inviting him to provide for unedited publication on our website, his response to the serious allegations leveled against him by contributors to our Shell Blog facility.

As you are probably aware, you have also been a target for some equally serious allegations.

Leaving to one side abusive comments and rumors, here is a list of some of the main allegations: -

1. You have helped to create a climate of fear by bullying Motivia employees, brandishing a knife on one occasion when allegedly threatening to gut employees like a fish.

2. You have been the subject of at least two DUI charges.

3. You treat employees who are not part of your inner circle with contempt.

4. You have been described as being unethical and corrupt.

5. You have been allegedly promoted and remain at the company solely because of a special relationship with Tom Purves, allegedly involving joint ownership of a property.

If this is all a work of fiction, please feel free to say so.

If you check with Shell lawyers, you will discover that you cannot count on Shell to intervene to protect the reputation of its senior managers and executives.

This may be because Shell is frightened what we might do in retaliation. As unlikely as this may seem, it is a fact gleaned from a legally privileged and Confidential Shell internal email released to us under the UK equivalent of freedom of information law.

Basically Shell set up a crisis reaction team to try to counter our activities.

Shell admits in the email that it is “on the back foot”… in “handling the Donovans”…

Extract:

Would one blanket statement response be more effective than several rebuttals? Should we be more forthright about the site and our views on it? What might happen (leafleting in the past)?

There was some macho content:

“…demonstration that we won’t tolerate the Donovan’s approach unchallenged any longer?”

However, since the email is over two years old, we assume fear of reprisal (Shell management did not like our leaflets being distributed outside their UK and Netherlands HQ offices every week day), won out over anger. Shell senior management continue to hide in their bunkers with hard hats on leaving others alone, unprotected, to receive incoming fire from postings on our website.

I would have thought that at the very least Shell/Motiva should offer to cover legal costs for Shell employees/managers/executives/officials to take action to protect their reputations if any wish to dispute published accusations.

Since no such support is apparently forthcoming, you may be well-advised to consider whether to take up our invitation of a right to reply whenever allegations are made against you on our website. If you do, your comments will, as promised, be published unedited. This offer applies to any Shell/Motiva employee whose integrity is impugned by any posting on our site.

Yours sincerely

John Donovan

LONDON — A natural gas pipeline serving a plant operated by Royal Dutch Shell PLC has been attacked by locals in the Niger Delta, the Nigerian army said Tuesday, underscoring the ongoing risk of violence despite a cease-fire.

Ken Saro Wiwa

Letter from Abuja from Our Own Correspondent

SHELL AND THE UK SPOOKS

NEW documents have emerged showing the British government and Shell colluded with senior figures in the Nigerian military junta against activist Ken Saro-Wiwa in the early 1990s. Secret papers show intelligence collusion between the British high commission and Shell, and between Shell and our former dictator Sani Abacha.

At the time Saro-Wiwa was leading a campaign against the environmental devastation of Ogoniland and for a greater share of oil wealth. By 1994, the Ogoni people were suffering a violent military backlash and called for international help. Your Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop, tried to set up a fact-finding tour. In April 1994, the British high commission here secretly wrote to Shell informing it that Body Shop “will not get their way”. Later that month the commission again passed information to Shell, saying visas for the visit had been refused.

‘Requisite intelligence’

A month later, four Ogoni elders were murdered, the crime for which Saro-Wiwa would later be tried and hanged in what was widely condemned as a sham trial. The day before the murders, Brian Anderson, head of Shell here in Nigeria, told colleagues in London he had tried to get Abacha on the phone to talk about the Ogoni issue. Anderson, who had Abacha’s two private telephone numbers, said: “I think it is important that we are seen by him to be assisting the state by giving him the requisite intelligence as it comes to us… it is a delicate issue and needs to be carefully handled.”

Just weeks after Saro-Wiwa’s arrest, Anderson noted: “I saw the British high commissioner and also his man from Abuja and we discussed the Ogoni issue. Reports from their intelligence support the view that the Ogoni leaders were brutally murdered by Ken Saro-Wiwa’s militant MOSOP youth wing. They believe that the government has good reason to arrest him and those who may have been involved… It shows the sort of actions that this so-called peace-loving man is capable of.”

Later that month, the British high commissioner over here, Thorold Masefield, and his wife accompanied Anderson on a two-day tour of the Niger Delta. Anderson noted: “This went well, and I believe that he was happy with what he learnt. He is prepared to assist us in dealing with the government on economic and the Ogoni issues.” Elsewhere in the document, Anderson wrote: “I am in touch with the British Secret Service representative in Lagos. He has agreed to keep me informed of any developments that might be of interest to Shell.”

‘Quiet diplomacy’

Shell, meanwhile, met the Nigerian ambassador back in London, who complained “about the Body Shop and their activities among the more militant NGOs”. The ambassador offered to help Shell in its anti-Ogoni propaganda film (see Eye 1143) if Shell “encountered any difficulties” with permits, and offered to “use his influence” to sort things out. He told Shell there was “every chance that [Saro-Wiwa] would be found guilty”.

The British continued to keep Shell informed of their intelligence, which changed by early 1995 to thinking Saro-Wiwa was innocent. In April, some seven months before Saro-Wiwa’s execution, Anderson wrote: “The British high commissioner believes that although the charges should not stick the government will make sure he is found guilty. He would be then sentenced to death, and reprieved after giving in to pressure from outside, but be incarcerated for a very long time.”

Shell and the British continued to push for “quiet diplomacy”, a stance many believed contributed to Saro-Wiwa being hanged in November 1995 to international outrage. Your then PM John Major called it “judicial murder”. Maybe he should have looked at what his own spooks had been doing to see if he too had blood on his hands.

SOURCE ARTICLE

HOUSTON (Dow Jones)–The U.S. Minerals Management Service said Monday that it has received a “complete” plan from a Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSB) unit to explore two offshore leases in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska.

Britain’s second biggest oil refinery – employing 800 full-time staff at the Stanlow site near Ellesmere Port in Cheshire – could be sold off by the Shell oil group.

Royal Dutch Shell and BP played pivotal roles in the “oil for arms” deal said to be the biggest scandal in history. We have published evidence including declassified documents revealing details of the top secret agreements involving the UK government, BAE Systems, Shell, BP, and members of the Saudi Royal family. The US Justice Department investigation is highly sensitive and the outcome potentially explosive for Shell in view of its close relationship with the state owned oil company Saudi Aramco, involving joint ventures in the USA under the Shell/Motiva umbrella.

EMAIL TO TOM PURVES: I am sure you must be aware that you are a constant source of controversy and debate on our website royaldutchshellplc.com with all manner of allegations concerning your alleged misconduct and alleged lack of ethics. The number of postings over the last 24 hours in particular is extraordinary. No other Shell executive from anywhere in the world attracts as many unfavorable posts on our site.

It has been suggested by a knowledgeable source, that the Shell Blog posting below may have been made by Tom Purves, the Shell/Motiva Regional Vice President for Downstream Manufacturing on The Gulf Coast, sometimes referred to as “Uncle Tom” by a few contributors?

Yesterday we published an article authored by “Jo Blow”, a contributor whose real name is known to us.

The article stimulated the Shell Blog comments published below:

From Motivaman

Jo blow,
On the contrary, I did not take offense at all to your post. Actually it made me see that I was making mistakes in my post. I am very sorry. I have been posting about our managers/leadership, but I guess I need to be more specific in what I am saying. I know there are a bunch of great people that make up our management. A lot more good people than are bad!

If you knew me you would never expect I would be posting these things, I grew up Shell! Almost everyone I knew while growing up was shell managment. One of the main points I was trying to get across was that in the past 5 or so years Shell has been on the wrong path and needs some serious changes. The Shell I once knew would have never stood for the types of things going on now. Most of the people I knew are retired by now, but they still are in the loop. Most of them tell me they are glad they left when they did. I think Shell can be the greatest company in the world.

The management in the previous posts were mostly Motiva, Convent Managers. David, Curtis, Roxan, Connie, and a few others. Along with Mr. Purvis. These people are nothing but a bunch of liars and the people whom had the vision of Shell long ago are probably rolling in their graves because of the lack of respect by these people. They do not have any morals or ethics. They respect no one but themselves.

Contrary to what I may have led you to believe, but I was deeply saddened by the dismissal of almost all of the managers that were let go at Convent. These people were not let go because of performance, I would know because before these evaluations were even done, I was told the names of people whom would be let go. Most of these people did value others and did live up to the old Shell expectations.

I do see both sides of everything also, and do believe cuts were necessary, but the process was flawed and good people lost their jobs. I said a few years back that this run of “luck” would only last so long. The margins would only last so long and only the best, most efficient plants were going to survive. While we were making money hand over fist, things should have gotten fixed so when these time come, we would be ready.

I think they hit the wrong ones with the layoffs, they should have got the pirates and his maties. These people will ruin this company.

So what I am saying is I know things have to be done to run a business, I know that not all management are bad, and I am sorry if I offended any of the great people that did attempt to make a difference. I hope good things come to those good people.

Motivaman for president!

From Golden Triangle Watchman

Hey JoBlow…. Enjoyed your article… I respect that you can be that balanced in your assessment of the situation when in your own words” had a disgraceful exit” from one of the plants. You described the macro picture extremely well. What you didn’t mention is what happens with the leaders when the chips are down and they have to show true leadership? In the case of our piece of the company, that would be the failure we have seen with the one they call Tom Purves. He has lost all credibility and will never regain it. He lied, has cheated some out of their careers, and treats a core few like they are his peers…when he can’t even compete with his true peers on the leadership scale. Tom, how was the weekend up at the lake with the little boy they call Jeff?

So Jo, don’t take this personal. You are letting this so called leadership off by rationalizing this into the “big picture”.

Jo Blow, you wrote…

“I remain proud because I will and many others will always know the truth.”

What is the truth?

From Paddy Briggs

Jo Blow

Thanks for your excellent article and for your kind remarks about my recent piece on Shell and the downstream. My own interest is more beyond the refinery fence rather than what happens to the refineries. I also, perhaps simplistically, find refining very straightforward! In a vertically integrated structure refineries are cost centres not profit centres. Jan Blauu is right in a way to say that Shell is selling Stanlow because it is “unprofitable” – but he and Shell are both wrong to use the “P” word. Stanlow is a cost not a profit centre – in my view. The so-called “refiners margin” is a myth. The margin comes not from the refining activity per se but from the difference between crude costs and market realisations for produced products – both of which are market driven. Obviously refineries that are efficient, which can process a wide range of crudes, which have flexible upgrading capacity etc. will be preferable to simple refineries or high cost plants. But in essence refineries are manufacturing plants and as such cannot be seen as profit centres. The challenge is not to try and make a refinery make more “profits” but to try and make it lower unit cost or more efficient.

And a further comment from “Jo Blow”

To MotivaMan:  I wanted to clarify a point in one of your earlier posts, the item in question is quoted as

“Did I also mention that the salary employee in question’s father was a past Shell plant manager.”

Just a clarification, Mr. Townsend was the Plant Manager at Port Arthur refinery in the late 80 and early 90s, this time as you well remember was the waning years of Texaco and the early years of Star Enterprise.  I am sure this was a slight oversight.

Kind Regards,

Jo Blow

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:20 PM on 09th August 2009

The Libyans could be in charge of over a sixth of Britain’s petrol production if the controversial African nation wins the auction for Shell’s giant Stanlow facility near Ellesmere Port in Cheshire.

Libya’s National Oil Corporation is teaming up with Essar, the Indian mobile phone company, to make a bid.

Stanlow is being sold along with two German refineries with a price tag of £1.5billion.

The Gaddafi regime is already a big investor in the UK.

Last month it paid £155million for Portman House, an office complex on London’s Oxford Street and home to upmarket estate agent Cluttons.

Royal Dutch Shell, meanwhile, announced in July that it will axe thousands more jobs as it grapples with the deepest downturn in oil demand for almost three decades.

The oil giant’s new chief executive Peter Voser struck a resoundingly grim tone when he unveiled a 70 per cent crash in second quarter profits to £1.4billion a few weeks ago.

He will hack capital spending by 10 per cent and push through ‘substantial’ cuts to the firm’s 102,000-strong workforce.

‘We simply don’t know when the global economy will recover, and we have to plan on the basis that this downturn could last quite some time,’ said Voser.

DAILY MAIL ARTICLE MONDAY 10 AUGUST 2009