By Nasreen Seria – Jan 31, 2011 7:05 AM GMT

Cie. Financiere Richemont SA Chairman Johann Rupert is opposed to a plan by Royal Dutch Shell Plc to explore for gas in South Africa’s Karoo region until further environmental studies are conducted, the Star reported, citing Rupert.

Shell must do further tests on the possible impact of its exploration on the water systems, geology and environment, Rupert told a public meeting in the Karoo town of Graaff-Reinet on Jan. 28, the Johannesburg-based newspaper said. Rupert, who owns farms in the area, said Shell could risk “ecological damage” that could be worse than BP Plc’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Star reported.

Shell, Europe’s largest oil company, secured a permit to explore for shale gas over 185,000 square kilometers (71,000 square miles) in the Karoo Basin in December 2009. Dennis Matsane, a spokesman for Shell in South Africa, wasn’t immediately available to comment when called by Bloomberg News.

To contact the reporter on this story: Nasreen Seria in Johannesburg at nseria@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Andrew J. Barden at barden@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

THE MOSCOW TIMES

31 January 2011
Bloomberg

DAVOS, Switzerland — Peter Voser, chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, said he’s looking at a partnership with Rosneft to hunt for oil reserves.

“We are talking about potential exploration” together, Voser said Friday in Davos, Switzerland. “Partnership with national oil companies is part of our business model.”

Shell, ExxonMobil and BP are teaming up with government-controlled companies in oil-rich countries to gain access to resources. Rosneft, Russia’s biggest energy company, this month agreed to swap $8 billion in shares with BP and explore Russia’s Kara Sea.

The challenge for producers is to expand output enough to meet global energy demand, which is likely to increase 50 percent by 2030 and double by 2050, Voser said.

Shell’s projects are designed to be profitable with an oil price between $50 and $90 a barrel, he said. The company last year agreed to expand cooperation with Gazprom, both inside and outside of Russia.

SOURCE ARTICLE

John, he sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and they have already received your email with that Navy/ONR memo.

http://begich.senate.gov/public/

I read the article about Begich of Alaska trying to strong-arm the EPA on behalf of RD Shell.  I have attached a link to his webpage.

This is just a suggestion, but you may want to drop him a line and let him know about the email received from the DoI’s Inspector General office regarding the ongoing DoI investigation of RD Shell as it pertains to the Navy’s espionage investigation of RD Shell. You could include a link to that Navy/ONR memo listing the classification authorities. Just a suggestion, but there is no harm in stirring the pot.

He may not want to get on the wrong side of this issue and end up looking like he was ‘RD Shell’s Boy’.  Espionage is nasty business. You could also send a list of those folks who have already received notification. Let him chew on that for awhile. Politicians don’t like to be ‘played’.

If you haven’t seen the attached, it may interest you to know that the attached is a copy of Sarawak Shell Berhad/Sabah Shell Petroleum Company’s internal management exchange which was leaked by one of the employees who is disgusted with Shell. You may take note that Shell cheats on paying the Retirement Benefit Fund resulting in the class action at Miri High Court by ex and current staff of Sarawak Shell Berhad/Sabah Shell Petroleum Company.

Shell lawyers to Dr Huong:

…positive steps must be taken by you to ensure that these notices must be given to all persons’, not only Donovan, who are able to operate and maintain the web site. As such by simply writing to Donovan to request him to remove your postings as you have done is not in full compliance with para 3 of the order of court. We therefore expect you to take all positive steps to ensure the postings are removed and deleted immediately.

By John Donovan

In June 2004, EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively sued a former Shell Malaysia employee, Dr John Huong (above), for alleged defamation in respect of articles published on this website owned and operated by Alfred and John Donovan. The litigation involved multiple injunctions served against Dr Huong, including  committal proceedings demanding his imprisonment for exposing serious misdeeds by Shell senior management, including the filing of false information about claimed hydrocarbon reserves.

It is evident from the email Dr Huong sent to us in July 2004, attaching an email he had received from the sleazy lawyers (TH Liew & Partners) acting for the EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies, that significant pressure (blackmail) was applied to Dr Huong in a Machiavellian attempt to control what we publish.

Since Shell was aware that no other parties were involved in the ownership and operation of this website, only one conclusion is possible. Shell was trying to frighten Dr Huong into serving notice on the then website hosting company of the draconian litigation relating to the Donovan website, hoping that this news would in turn scare the sh** out of the hosting company, causing them to shut the site down. And all without Shell potentially exposing itself to negative media coverage by contacting the hosting company directly.

The blackmail – the threat of the Shell collective returning to the courts alleging that court orders had been flouted – did not work, and later Shell lawyers did secretly threaten our hosting companies, briefly succeeding in closing down the website. The hosting companies, one in Canada and the other in the USA, both initially refused to disclose who had been making threats to them. However, we did subsequently establish that it was Shell and a Royal Dutch Shell General Counsel, Keith Ruddock, confirmed this in writing.

THE EMAILS

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:42:25 +0800
From: johnhu@my
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Court Order and Removal of Postings at www.shell2004.com]

To: thliew_p@linersys.net; alfrededonovan@hotmail.com

Dear Mr. Donovan,

Good evening.

I am forwarding an email from the Plaintiff’s lawyers and the explanation contained therein.

Sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

TH Liew & Partners wrote:

Dear Sir,

We have seen your emails to Mr. Donovan sent on 30 June 2004, 1 and 2nd July 2004.

We write to remind you that para 3 of the order of court requires you to take all necessary steps to give notice to person or persons’ to remove the web postings dated 10, 13 and 16 June 2004. This means that positive steps must be taken by you to ensure that these notices must be given to all persons’, not only Donovan, who are able to operate and maintain the web site. As such by simply writing to Donovan to request him to remove your postings as you have done is not in full compliance with para 3 of the order of court.

We therefore expect you to take all positive steps to ensure the postings are removed and deleted immediately.

Our clients expressly reserves all their rights.

Regards,
Liew Teck Huat

cc. clients

THE FIRST POSTING

INSTALLMENT ONE

FEATURE: SHELL WHISTLEBLOWER No 2: Shell Geologist/insider Dr John Huong, fires a broadside at Shell

Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong

Miri, Sarawak, East Malaysia

10 June 2004

Dear Mr Alfred Donovan.

I will appreciate very much if you can help me to post my initial article at your website.

This article is only the appetiser…

I will supply for publication further informed comment and revelations in the run up to Shell’s AGM on 28 June. It will include examples of the toxic combination of arrogance, greed. dishonesty, and blatant disregard for all ethical norms by Shell Management, that has culminated in the current shame heaped upon the once proud Shell name.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

SUBJECT: WHY I AM GOING INTERNATIONAL?

20040610Dic

Along the profound story lines (italics bold) by eminent Mr. Alfred Ernest Donovan representing Shell Shareholders, I have integrated my personal insights as seen from the perspective of a former Shell employee – a Shell geologist for almost 30 years – who was unfairly axed by Shell management. I was punished because I insisted on working within the ethical boundaries of Shell’s “Statement of General Business Principles” (SGBP) which is supposed to protect shareholder, national and other stakeholder interests.

“In my experience Shell directors” and Shell managers, “believe that truth is a precious commodity to be used as a last resort. It has to be squeezed out of them. They prefer to deceive, make empty pledges  (Shell’s code of ethics), intimidate,” ostracize, “hide information from their own shareholders”, employees, the government who gave them the license to operate and, and finally “retreating behind their army of lawyers” for shelter “whenever there is a prospect that management misdeeds will be exposed.”

http://www.shell2004.com/2004%20Documents/emailtothedti.htm

I was not the only member of staff at Shell who was fired for up-holding Shell’s SGBP. That document had caused untold damage and suffering to many Shell employees. I strongly suggest that Shell suspends the SGBP until such time as Shell management is prepared to honour the noble pledges proclaimed therein. In other words, until the written pledges of integrity and transparency are matched by the actions of Shell management.  In this connection, it was reported by Al-Jazeera (“Shell Oil Lies – A tip of the iceberg as World Oil crisis looms?”) that “The Oman estimates were based on assessments made in May 2000 by a senior Shell executive who was subsequently fired. He was among several executives who were said to have known about the unrealistic estimates of reserves and to have done nothing about it.”

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=102.

It stated in the same article, “Geologists and analysts have been saying for some time that estimates of global oil reserves may be dangerously exaggerated.”

Correspondence between Sir Mark Moody Stuart and Mr. Richard Wiseman below shows the actual mentality of Shell Management in high places. This behavior was inevitably imitated by executives in operating companies who followed and adopted the example of a ruthless and deceitful corporate culture practiced by those at the very top of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell’s ethical code was and is not worth listening to unless top management becomes a role model for integrity and transparency. Under current circumstances what is the point of having an annual ritual performed for the CEO at operating companies, where it is a mandatory requirement for staff to sign off their ethical health forms (ie Conflict of Interest) irrespective of compliance with Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles”.

For examples read the Shell Shareholder.org section of the website.

“No amount of spin and hype can hide the fact that Shell’s claimed core principle of truth and honesty in all of its dealings is unadulterated propaganda. Like Enron and WorldCom executives, Shell senior management obviously feels that it is okay to hide the truth from its shareholders and the public. This has been proven time and time again in our dealings with them – as the gagging agreements drafted by Shell lawyers at the insistence of Shell senior management prove”.

http://www.shellnews.net/2004%20Documents/nopodds/pressrelease26april.htm

Below is a letter I last wrote on 3^rd June 2004 to Shell Malaysian Management, hoping that if both sides entered into a constructive dialogue on a “without prejudice” basis, the matter could be resolved amicably despite the threats I had received on 17^th May 2004 from their legal Manager Mr. Thavakumar Kandiahpillai. It is significant that legitimate questions (“Confidentiality versus Shareholder’s interests”-25^th May 2004) I posed to him about Shell’s ethical practices have remained unanswered.

I am still waiting for a reply to both of my letters from you Thavakumar and/or those in authority above you!

Date: 3^rd June 2004

SUBJECT: WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Mr. Kandiahpillai and et.al. (including Jeroen Van der Veer, Malcolm Brinded, Jon Chadwick, etc.)

It is obvious that I posed some difficult questions as I have not received any response. I was not trying to be awkward.

I simply want Shell to deal with me sympathetically as a long-term employee who was very deeply hurt by the unfortunate way my employment with Shell ended. It was terribly distressing for me after so many decades.

Frankly it would be much preferable for this matter to be resolved directly with Shell if that is at all possible, rather than continuing to be embroiled in acrimony.

On my part, I am very willing to make in good faith attempt to resolve the matter amicably if Shell is willing to do likewise. As they say, it takes two to tango.

If we could find a solution from discussions held on a “without prejudice” basis, it would save further Shell management time and avoid potentially substantial lawyers’ fees.  It would also bring me some peace of mind.

I therefore believe that this is a sensible proposal which could produce a mutually beneficial result.

I am making this proposal to demonstrate that I am a reasonable person seeking a reasonable solution.

Sincerely,

John Huong

Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong

20040603Dic

It seems that my letters including the above were not good enough for Shell management to take steps in resolving the conflicts.  I have not even received the courtesy of a response to the above proposal made in good faith. As a loyal and faithful employee of nearly 30 years standing I was unreasonably axed while protecting the shareholder, national and stakeholders interests. I am now taking steps to reveal to my extended family, the international audience, the predicaments and nightmares I have to go through in trying to abide with Shell’s SGBP. At the end of the story you will understand the pervasive nature of Shell’s corporate culture which has unfortunately escalated to appalling gigantic proportions, resulting in the repeated downgrades of Shell oil and gas volumes which have made headlines around the globe.

If a company loses the trust and respect of its shareholders, employees, and customers, as Shell Management has done on a truly spectacular basis, then there’s only going to be a rather empty shell left.  It will obviously be a very long time before Shell could ever again use the famous advertising slogan “you can be sure of Shell”.

It seems that Mr. Jeroen van der Veer and Mr. Malcolm Brinded could not command any effective solutions to Shell management in the Operating companies in resolving my case. I am just wondering how Jeroen and Malcolm can have the time to consider the well-being of an individual axed-employee when they have to think around the clock for ways and means in undoing and/or hiding their own personal and professional wrong-doing? If only they could institute discipline and fair-minded management at the workplace, then Shell’s reputation will be given a breathing place to recover from being torn to pieces by the immoral self-serving attitude of Shell top management who appear to place their fat cat remuneration/pension packages above all other considerations, moral and legal.

Mail on Sunday: Chairman Jeroen van der Veer in frame over Shell scandal – could lead to 20 years in jail

Patrick Tooher,

6 June 2004

SHELL chairman Jeroen van der Veer could face criminal prosecution in the US after signing accounts that massively overstated oil and gas reserves.

The revelation is another blow to Shell. Throughout the reserves fiasco, it has presented van der Veer as Mr Clean.

Van der Veer is bound to be questioned again about his role in the scandal when he meets leading shareholders this week.

Financial Mail has established that van de Veer, ex-chairman Sir Philip Watts and former finance director Judy Boynton put their names to statements required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Act came into force in 2002 after the WorldCom and Enron scandals.

Under it, chief executives and finance directors must certify the accuracy of financial statements and other disclosures. Miscertifying can lead to 20 years in jail and a $5 million (£2.7 million) fine.

Crucially, van der Veer, Watts and Boynton certified that the 2002 reports of Shell and sister company Royal Dutch did not contain ‘any untrue statement’.

Shell stunned investors this year by admitting that its oil and gas reserves had been overestimated by a fifth. Watts, Boynton and exploration chief Walter van de Vijver were sacked, but van der Veer survived.

A report into the scandal by US law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell appeared to pin the blame on Watts, Boynton and van de Vijver, but left van der Veer in the clear.

At the request of the US authorities, Shell has not published the full report. But even the executive summary reveals van der Veer knew early in 2002 of Shell’s precarious position over guidelines on reserves set out by the US stock market regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In March last year, van der Veer, Watts and van de Vijver signed Shell’s 2002 report and accounts for the SEC – without any adjustment for five billion barrels of overbooked oil and gas reserves.

In addition, van der Veer, Watts and Boynton separately signed the Sarbanes-Oxley statement.

Van der Veer later said he was aware that reserves were low two years before Shell admitted it, but insisted he did not know the extent of the overbooking.

A Shell spokesman said: ‘We can’t comment on matters under investigation in the US.’

http://www.thisismoney.com/20040606/nm79079.html

It is again very prophetic what Mr. Donovan had written to HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands in March 1999 and again on 21st April 2004.

http://www.shellnews.net/2004%20Documents/letters/Letter%20to%20Queen%20Beatrix%2021april2004.htm

More recently, I have also written numerous times to Mr. Jeroen van der Veer and Mr. Malcolm Brinded, of the Shell Group and other senior management under the umbrella of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. All of these letters were ignored. How could Shell management treat me so despicably, so shabbily, after I had worked for Shell so loyally and with such diligence for almost three decades?

Not too long ago, I provided to Shell Management insights of my extensive knowledge of what actually goes on behind the wall of secrecy and intimidation imposed on Shell employees. This was in a letter entitled – “The Truth Behind the Royal Dutch Shell Group icon”. The full story will appear in the next News posting!

SOME ADVICE FROM A SHELL INSIDER OF ALMOST 30 YEARS…

Investors – “You cannot be sure of Shell” growing your funds. Potential employees – do not trust your career and aspirations to Shell until you understand the true inside story. If Shell is unwilling to undergo radical change at every level in the organization for the better, Shell’s negative and evil ingrained cultures will ultimately destroy the little which remains of its former reputation.

Just consider the recent appalling headlines as follows.

The Independent: “Lies, cover-ups, fat cats and an oil giant in crisis”

The Guardian: “Trail of emails reveals depths of deceit at the heart of Shell”

The Scotsman: “Shell admits reserve ‘lies’”

Daily Telegraph:“Memos expose Shell’s years of lying”

London Evening Standard: “Shell bosses lied to the City”

Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Dutch/Shell Group exec was ‘sick and tired’ of lying”

Financial Times: “Shell had systems in place”

The Times: “Shell Legal Director “kept in the dark””

Daily Telegraph: City comment: “The invisible man from Shell”

When I started with Shell all those years ago I was proud to be an employee of what I considered to be nothing less than the best company in the world; an internationally respected brand and an equally highly respected management. It is a matter of the deepest regret to me that the company has sunk so low with its management acquiring global notoriety for participating in a disgraceful scandal which ranks alongside the likes of Enron and WorldCom.

It is ironic: If only Shell management had abided by its own ethical code – the SGBP, the humiliating reserves scandal, the results of which will inevitably drag on for many years with the investigations and ruinous class action law suits, could never have occurred. As God is my witness, that is the truth.

I am finding it hard to come to terms with the con-artist mentality of a management which thought it could say one thing in speeches and advertising – pledging “Profits and Principles” – honesty, openness, integrity etc and actually get away and rewarded with doing the exact opposite.

My recipe for recovery:  Every single member of Shell senior management who is implicated in or tainted to the least extent by the reserves debacle should do the honorable thing and resign immediately. That includes Mr van der Veer and Mr Malcolm Brinded. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading should be merged into one unified company – Shell with a single management structure.  It needs to have an entirely new management team and that will certainly have to think about  EXCLUDING Mr. Jon Chadwick – consisting of individuals who have NO possible connection with past misdeeds and who possess the integrity and dedication essential to the considerable task of restoring Shell’s reputation; all of these ingredients are needed for a genuinely fresh start.

Only then would I be prepared to invest in Shell or to recommend anyone else to so.

Some relevant extracts from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (United Nations)  (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

This article is published under the universally recognised basic human rights of freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

drjohnhuong@yahoo.co.uk

PoliticalNews.me – Jan 29,2011 – In an effort to give Shell Oil the opportunity to move forward in 2011 on exploration in the Beaufort Sea, U.S. Sen. Mark Begich requested Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson swiftly resolve outstanding issues created by the recent Environmental Appeals Board’s (EAB) remand of air quality permits for exploration in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

Begich also met today with Shell President Marvin Odum about Shell’s exploration plans, the federal hurdles that remain, and Begich’s ongoing efforts to help the company with its development plans in Alaska.

In a letter to the EPA, Begich points out the issues on remand have been unresolved in one form or another since at least 2007 and expressed his growing frustration with the lack of progress.

“It is frustrating that this delay revolves around a type of permit routinely issued by the former Minerals Management Service in the Gulf of Mexico. It is further frustrating that the affected company, the State of Alaska, my Alaska Delegation colleagues and I all sought to help provide additional resources for the creation of a robust permit process and those efforts met with little interest,” Begich writes to Administrator Jackson.

Begich noted the permits are critical to Alaska’s economy and central to the nation’s domestic energy supply. He sought assurance that the EPA will resolve the outstanding issues once and for all.

“If our government cannot resolve this problem expeditiously, we stand on the threshold of sending the signal to those who have invested significant resources that we do not take their investment seriously and to the American people that we are not truly committed to maintaining our national and economic security by lessening our dependence on foreign oil,” Begich said.

Last week Begich also met with North Slope Borough Edward Itta and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation President Rex Rock to explore ways to responsibly develop North Slope reserves. And Begich on Friday is scheduled to meet with EPA Region 10 Administrator Dennis McLerran to discuss Shell’s pending permit application.

Contact: Julie Hasquet, Press Secretary
January 27, 2011
(907) 258-9304 office
2011-016

SOURCE ARTICLE

I am very disappointed with Shell in the person of Mr. Thuvakumar for the psychological torture inflicted on me for almost four years.  In his affidavit affirmed on 6.11.2007 before the Commissioner of Oath, Mr. Thuvakumar and the Shell Counsel knew very well that I was not the author of the publications – the “Corruption crisis of the Malaysian Judiciary” and the “unlawful deduction” from the Employee’s Provident Fund from ex-Shell employees. He used the same tactics used from the outset of the litigation blaming me for internet publication by the Donovan’s over which I have no influence.

Dr John Huong

Thavakumar Kandiahpillai, General Counsel, Shell Group of Companies, Malaysia.

Thavakumar obtained his LLB (Honours) from University of London in 1989 and was admitted to the English Bar at Middle Temple in 1990. He then went on to obtain his LLM from University Of London in 1991 and was admitted to the Malaysian Bar in 1992. He also became a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in 1992. Thavakumar practised in Kuala Lumpur as an Advocate & Solicitor becoming a partner in 1998. In his practice, he was actively involved in litigation, during which time he appeared in several landmark cases, and also in domestic and offshore banking, corporate and commercial work. Thavakumar joined Shell Malaysia in KL in 2000 as Senior Counsel, Corporate & Company Secretarial. In 2001, he then became the Head of Legal at Shell Malaysia Exploration & Production, based in Miri, Sarawak. He then moved to back to KL taking charge of the Downstream, GP, and Shared Services legal advisory team. Thavakumar was appointed General Counsel in August 2006.

Article by John Donovan

The email attachment printed below from Shell Malaysia whistleblower Dr John Huong to his lawyer, Trevor George De Silva, accuses Shell of psychological torture in the defamation action brought against him by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies. Shell had repeatedly attempted to have Dr Huong imprisoned for alleged contempt of court on grounds they knew to be false. Dr Huong also points out that evidence was falsified by Shell lawyers who gave perjured testimony to the Judge.

EMAIL FROM DR JOHN HUONG TO HIS LAWYER TREVOR GEORGE DE SILVA

29th April 2008

Miri, Sarawak, East Malaysia.

Dear Mr. Trevor,

Good morning.

I have not heard from you since 11th March 2008 on further development in my case, thus my email on 24th April 2008 for which I received your reply yesterday, 28th April 2008.

Could you kindly enlighten me about some details not mentioned in your email. Based on the last information available, the hearing was supposed to take place on 22 April 2008.  Did the hearing take place that day? Did you go personally go to the Court to represent me?  How long was the hearing? Assuming there is no transcript, in general terms what was stated in the exchanges that took place between the people present? Where is the written response Shell Counsel was instructed by the judge at the last hearing to produce for this hearing?  What was the outcome with respect to the application for extension of the ex-parte injunction which you told me last time for which the Court has no record?  What is the status of the committal injunction? Please let me know every important detail that transpired during the hearing before the Judge.

I am very disappointed with Shell in the person of Mr. Thuvakumar for the psychological torture inflicted on me for almost four years.  In his affidavit affirmed on 6.11.2007 before the Commissioner of Oath, Mr. Thuvakumar and the Shell Counsel knew very well that I was not the author of the publications – the “Corruption crisis of the Malaysian Judiciary” and the “unlawful deduction” from the Employee’s Provident Fund from ex-Shell employees. He used the same tactics used from the outset of the litigation blaming me for internet publication by the Donovan’s over which I have no influence.

I decided on 21st April 2008 that I should write to publisher of the articles mentioned above.  I attached herewith, the email I sent. Mr. John Donovan has kindly responded to confirm who did author the relevant articles.  If you have any opportunities, please extend that information to the attention of the Judge.

This letter to you sets out by preliminary thoughts, which came to mind as a result of your email and developments in my Industrial Court case against Shell. I will confer with my extended family and in due course, after I have received the additional information requested herein, will write again setting out important matters which I would like you to bring to the attention of the Judge and relevant parties.

Is it proper to go ahead with the defamation case bearing in mind the response to the Statement of Case had said that the findings in the Industrial Court case will have to be included?  Bear in mind that the Industrial case went to court much earlier than the defamation case.  Can you advise on this matter?

1. Shell’s affidavit was filed close to the hearing dates to which we have limited time to study and respond accordingly.

2. The affidavit was not filed with the High Court and therefore not given the Court reference number to be quoted in all future communication. This is clearly an abuse of the legal process and I believe previous handing of my Court documents was the same and there was a mess concerning those documents.

3. How can I have the confidence to expect the Judge to follow my case, given the huge time gap in between each hearing, poor cause paper documentation, changing of judges, etc.  The judges for both my defamation and the Industrial cases are now changed.

4. The attachment to the affirmed affidavit before the Commissioner of Oath was made in bad faith. Why is that so?

5. The document was published in the UK by Mr. Alfred and John Donovan (father and son) and was downloaded from their website, www.royaldutchshellplc.com which was operated from a server located in the USA.  I have no access to upload ANY publication, including the articles cited in Mr. Thuvakumar’s affidavit.

Shell should take issue with Mr. Alfred and John Donovan in the right jurisdiction.  The Donovan’s have informed the Malaysian lawyers concerned and the Malaysian High Court that Shell sued the wrong person, in the wrong place and for the wrong reasons.  These gentlemen have repeatedly invited Shell to seek legal redress if Shell thinks that her good reputation was injured and defamed. These invitations were made to Shell many times in the past and in the most current email dated 21st April 2008 (published on the internet) which said.

“If Shell takes issue with anything stated in the relevant articles they should take action against the authors and publishers as admitted in this email, namely Alfred Donovan and John Donovan in respect of the first article and John Donovan (me) in regards to the other two”

www.royaldutchshellplc.com <http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com> is an internet gripe website described by the Financial Times as “anti-Shell”. The Daily Mail said Shell is “rattled” and has been put on the “back foot” by the website. Reuters said that it is an “unofficial” company website with the most up to date information about Shell. Fortune Magazine has recommended two websites – Shell portal site www.shell.com <http://www.shell.com/>  and royaldutchshellplc.com for information about Shell. See The Internet humiliation of Royal Dutch Shell Plc <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/10/22/the-internet-humiliation-of-royal-dutch-shell-plc/> and  Free Research on Royal Dutch Shell Plc (over 19,000 articles) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/16/free-research-on-royal-dutch-shell-plc-over-19000-articles/> : and Nikkei BP (Japan): Gripe sites are becoming more powerful <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/13/nikkei-bp-japan-gripe-sites-are-becoming-more-powerful/> :

Testimonies concerning Shell reserve fraud are also found at the gripe site. See Royal Dutch Shell dirty washing hung out to dry here every day… <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/16/royal-dutch-shell-dirty-washing-hung-out-to-dry-here-every-day/> :and  Link to Shell Fraud Litigation Webpage updated daily  <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/12/the-link-to-the-shell-reserves-litigation-webpage-updated-daily/>  Many horrendous stories like Shell’s “Touch Fuck All” culture resulting in the death of Shell workers in Brent Bravo and a dossier of “Controversies surrounding the Royal Dutch Shell“ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Royal_Dutch_Shell> found in Wikipedia. No one else in the world was sued for defamation other than the Shell Group of Companies making allegations against me and taking out litigation against me in the Malaysian Jurisdiction.

5. Why did the Malaysian Judiciary allow the Shell Group of Companies to prefer placing the burden of Shell’s pathetic reputation on me by resorting to abuse “the legal process to prejudice the Court’s mind”? What has the 399 retirement fund case got to do with me? I am not even a member in the lawsuit. However, I did hear, the then ex-chairman, Mr. Jon Chadwick promising employees in the “Mulu Hall” forum, that should the “399” win their case, the application of the equitable outcome will be applicable to the rest of the employees which naturally includes me.

6. Mr. Thuvakumar, together with the Shell Counsel has attached a document to the affirmed affidavit deliberately removing name of the authors in the said document.  All other information and including the URLs were clearly shown.

7. Why were name of the authors deliberately removed from the article “Corruption Crisis in Malaysian Judiciary Impacts on Shell Litigation”? Why are all the discussions pertaining to the affirmed affidavit directed to Mr. Alfred Donovan only? What were the motives? Why did Shell prefer that I be dragged into matters I have nothing to do with? Such modus operandi has been consistent throughout the proceedings and are still the tactics being used against me as we progress to the trial at the Malaysian High Court.  Is it morally or legally proper for someone to be persecuted for alleged acts for which another person has repeatedly and consistently admitted responsibility? I find it hard to believe that this situation is being allowed to continue and I will make my feelings known publicly immediately I am free to do so. Frankly I am ready to explode at the injustice of the way I have been treated in blatant breach of the fundamental human rights proclaimed by the United Nations. Human rights incidentally which Shell purports to support.

In addition, such acts of injustice and including perjury, missing medical reports, tampering of records, certification of actual records, making up false tabulations, etc were also used by Thuvakumar, his counsels and witnesses in my Industrial Court Case and I will be pointing this out to the new judge. The case was scheduled for hearing on the 28th April 2008 but is now deferred to 7th May for a mention; to set a new trial date. Mr. Sim, the Shell counsel in my Industrial court case should know better since he is the President for the Sarawak Bar Association.  He ought to know better what is ethical and just of a reasonable man in the legal profession. As was replied to the Statement of Claim in the defamation lawsuit, the information obtained in the Industrial Court case will be extensive and damning for Shell.

I am afraid that the legal documents for my defamation case, so far, were also not filed properly with registration numbers, dates and time.  You just have to see how the American judiciary filed their Court papers for the reserve fraud mentioned and found in the website shown above. Here is an example to link  http://www.shellnews.net/classactiondocs/Searchable_Barendregt_Depo_OCR.pdf.  This is an “entire searchable deposition of Royal Dutch Shell Group Reserves Auditor, Anton Barendregt – 32mb pdf FILE, 965 Pages..”. Have a look at the front, body and end pages and I wish those pertinent elements were emulated in the cause papers. Who is supposed to be responsible and accountable for all these unprofessional behaviors?

8. The Donovan’s have written many articles and published many articles relating to Shell from all sources, whether, they are positive or negative, “the good, the bad and the ugly”.  If Shell is unhappy Shell ought to take issue with them.  Some of the other articles where the Donovan’s have mentioned and written about me are found in the links below.  Please bear in mind that they are neither my servants, nor my agents and as an unemployed ex-Shell employee, I have no money to hire anyone, leave alone British citizens whose hourly pay is something I do not want to think about.

06/12/2006  ShellNews.net: EMAIL TO THE BORNEO BULLETIN: NEWS BLACKOUT ON ROYAL DUTCH SHELL GROUP vs. Dr JOHN HUONG <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2006/12/06/shellnewsnet-email-to-the-borneo-bulletin-news-blackout-on-royal-dutch-shell-group-vs-dr-john-huong/>

25/02/2007: The ludicrous claim that Shell is the world’s best oil company in sustainability, CSR, governance, ethics and transparency <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/02/25/the-ludicrous-claim-that-shell-is-the-world%e2%80%99s-best-oil-company-in-sustainability-csr-governance-ethics-and-transparency/>

07/07/2007: A blunt speech about Shell and its track record in Nigeria: by Alfred Donovan <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/07/07/a-blunt-speech-about-shell-and-its-track-record-in-nigeria-by-alfred-donovan/>

28/07/2007: Reuters: Internet censorship spreading: OSCE study (*In August a Malaysian court will hear Shell’s application to have whistleblower Dr John Huong jailed) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/07/28/reuters-internet-censorship-spreading-osce-study-in-august-a-malaysian-court-will-hear-shells-application-to-have-whistleblower-dr-john-huong-jailed/>

20/03/2007  Decision day looms for 399 former Shell employees suing Shell Malaysia for unlawful deduction from retirement fund :  <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/03/20/decision-day-looms-for-399-former-shell-employees-suing-shell-malaysia-for-unlawful-deduction-from-retirement-fund/>

27/04/2007: Bernama, Malaysia: Petronas, ExxonMobil & Shell Create Merdeka Award (* will Dr John Huong be Shell’s first nomination?) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/08/27/bernama-malaysia-petronas-exxonmobil-shell-create-merdeka-award-will-dr-john-huong-will-be-shells-first-nomination/>

06/08/2007   In High Praise of Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc:  <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/08/06/in-high-praise-of-mr-michiel-brandjes-company-secretary-and-general-counsel-corporate-royal-dutch-shell-plc/>

07/08/2007  Email to Mr Saw Choo Boon, Chairman of Shell Malaysia <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/08/07/email-to-mr-saw-choo-boon-chairman-of-shell-malaysia/>

09/08/2007: Huliq News NC: Royal Dutch Shell in blog site defamation quagmire <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/08/09/huliq-news-nc-royal-dutch-shell-in-blog-site-defamation-quagmire/>

03/09/2007: New Straits Times (Malaysia): NSTP wins 6 press awards (*cosy relationship between Shell, the Malaysian Government and Malaysian Press) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/03/new-straits-times-malaysia-nstp-wins-6-press-awards-cosy-relationship-between-shell-the-malaysian-government-and-malaysian-press/>

25/09/2007  CORRUPTION CRISIS IN MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY IMPACTS ON SHELL LITIGATION <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/25/corruption-crisis-in-malaysian-judiciary-impacts-on-shell-litigation/> :

25/09/2007  Malaysia: Judiciary and corruption (For obvious reasons the legal jurisdiction of choice for Shell) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/27/malaysia-judiciary-and-corruption-for-obvious-reasons-the-legal-jurisdiction-of-choice-for-shell/> :

29/09/2007: The Times: Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year: Wildlife photos go on display <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/29/the-times-shell-wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-wildlife-photos-go-on-display/>

30/09/2007   EXTRACTS FROM POSTINGS ON OUR WEBSITE IN JUNE 2004 IN THE NAME OF FAMED SHELL WHISTLEBLOWER DR JOHN HUONG <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/30/extracts-from-postings-on-our-website-in-june-2004-in-the-name-of-famed-shell-whistleblower-dr-john-huong/> :

31/10/2007  HRH Sultan Azlan Shah speaks out on crisis in Malaysian judiciary <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/10/31/hrh-sultan-azlan-shah-speaks-out-on-crisis-in-malaysian-judiciary/> :

18/10/2007: Reckless approach of Royal Dutch Shell to HSE <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/10/18/reckless-approach-of-royal-dutch-shell-to-hse/>

6 November 2007: Shell affidavit affirmed

13/11/2007: Insight into the secret machinations of Royal Dutch Shell Execs <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/13/insight-into-the-secret-machinations-of-royal-dutch-shell-execs/>

18/11/2007:  malaysiakini.com: Empower royal panel with ‘widest terms of reference’: the ‘rot’ in Malaysian judiciary (where Shell is suing Dr John Huong) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/18/malaysiakinicom-empower-royal-panel-with-widest-terms-of-reference-the-rot-in-malaysian-judiciary-where-shell-is-suing-dr-john-huong/>

10/12/2007  Is Royal Dutch Shell a racist company? <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/12/10/is-royal-dutch-shell-a-racist-company/>

03/02/2008: Response to Live Chat Guest 6967 <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/03/response-to-live-chat-guest-6967/>

14/02/2008  Malaysia: Shell’s legal jurisdiction of choice: justice  <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/14/malaysia-shell%e2%80%99s-legal-jurisdiction-of-choice/> can be bought by the highest bidder <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/14/malaysia-shell%e2%80%99s-legal-jurisdiction-of-choice/>

16/02/2008: The Shell whistleblower buried alive in litigation by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/16/the-shell-whistleblower-buried-alive-in-litigation-by-eight-royal-dutch-shell-companies/> :

18/02/2008: A message to Shell whistleblower 5388 <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/18/a-message-to-shell-whistleblower-5388/>

01/03/2008:  Throwing mud at Shell (updated) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/03/01/throwing-mud-at-shell/>

Mr. Trevor, please keep all documentations and recordings properly on our side in your inventory.  Pending the advise of my extended family, I may lodged reports to the police, the Malaysian Judiciary and any relevant parties in due course.  This email is to get some of my thoughts out of my mind and I will be sending you a finalized copy in the future. By the way, can you please give me the name, postal address, email address and phone number for the Minister of Welfare in Kuala Lumpur?

Related E-mails Attachments 1-4 are shown below.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

E-MAIL ATTACHMENT 1

Date:              Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:01:21 -0700 (PDT)

From:              “John Huong” <jh_.com>

Subject:         Confirm authors, changes if any?

To:                  “John Donovan” john@shellnews.net

Dear Mr. Donovans,

Good evening.

A few months ago, you wrote articles concerning the Malaysian judiciary System.  Can you confirm and tell me where the following articles were posted and the author and/or authors of those articles itemized from 1-3 below.

1. CORRUPTION CRISIS IN MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY IMPACTS ON SHELL LITIGATION

2. Malaysia: Judiciary and corruption (For obvious reasons the legal jurisdiction of choice for Shell)

3. HRH Sultan Azlan Shah speaks out on crisis in Malaysian judiciary.

Since posting those articles, were there any changes made to the document since then?

This is urgent because my lawyer will be going to the court tomorrow and I would like him to bring these information to the judge.  This is because the affirmed affidavit by one Shell’s Thuvakumar had included your article in his affidavit as a basis to giving me more injunctions.

May I asked you where you got all those information for your articles, the publication of which prompt Shell to take legal actions against me, in breach of my human rights and freedom?  I believe removing part of the documents is a criminal act of tampering a document which subsequently was affirmed before the Commissioner of Oath and the Court must know this.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. John Huong

E-MAIL ATTACHMENT 2

Date:                 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:15:03 +0100
From:                      “John Donovan” <john@shellnews.net>
To:                  “John Huong” jh_@.com
Subject:              Re: Confirm authors, changes if any?

Hello Dr Huong

It is nice to hear from you. We are extremely busy at the moment with a complete change of our IT set up so I will have to answer in a briefer form than I would ideally prefer.

The first article (1.) was authored by my father and me and the second (2) and third (3) by me alone.

I cannot recall any subsequent changes to the original publications.

The source information was brought to our attention by a Malaysian national involved in the retirement fund litigation with Shell. I believe we have email correspondence to prove this fact but I simply do not have the time tonight to check.

I am astonished that Shell is apparently taking action against you when you have absolutely no involvement or advance knowledge of the relevant articles.

If Shell takes issue with anything stated in the relevant articles they should take action against the authors and publishers as admitted in this email, namely Alfred Donovan and John Donovan in respect of the first article and John Donovan (me) in regards to the other two.

Shell cannot possibly have any evidence to prove any involvement on your part as none exists.

Yours sincerely
John Donovan

E-MAIL ATTACHMENT 3

Date:              Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:47:39 -0700 (PDT)

From:              “John Huong” <jh_@.com>

Subject:         RE: KLHC Suit No. S2 – 41 -2004 & S2 – 23 – 38 – 2006 Sarawak Shell Bhd -v- Houng Yiu Tuong

To:                  “trevorg” trevorg@leeongkandiah.com.my

CC:                 “‘Beh Chee Wei’” beh@leeongkandiah.com.my

Dear Mr, Trevor George,

Good afternoon.

What is the status on this legal matter?

Thanks

Sincerely,

Dr. John Huong

E-MAIL ATTACHMENT 4

From:              “trevorg” <trevorg@leeongkandiah.com.my>

Subject:         RE: KLHC Suit No. S2 – 41 -2004 & S2 – 23 – 38 – 2006 Sarawak Shell Bhd -v- Houng Yiu Tuong

Date:               Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:16:06 +0800

Dear Dr. Huong

I  trust all is well with you.

I am glad to inform that the Court agreed with our submission and expunged Shell’s last affidavit (i.e the one exhibiting the Donovan’s website write-up on the M’sian Judiciary).

The Judge has now fixed both injunction matters for disposal on August 27, 2008, with a mention first on August 1, 2008.

Meanwhile, we are also getting case management directions for the setting down of the matter for trial. I will contact you in this regard once the order has been made so that we can make arrangements for the collation of all documents you wish to adduce at the trial.

Best Regards

Trevor George De Silva

Partner

Suite 2.07-2.10, 2nd Floor, Wisma Mirama

Jalan Wisma Putra, 50460 Kuala Lumpur

Tel No: 03-21448336

Fax No: 03-21447336

Writer’s E-Mail: trevorg@leeongkandiah.com.my

Website: www.leeongkandiah.com

NNPC to Begin Production On Shell’s Ogoni Oil Wells

By Chika Amanze-Nwachuku Published 28 January 2011

The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) said Thursday that the Nigeria Petroleum Development Company (NPDC), its producing arm, will soon commence production from the 30 oil fields belonging to Shell Petroleum Development and Production Company (SPDC) in Ogoniland.

Group Managing Director (GMD) of NNPC, Engr. Austen Oniwon, who confirmed the development in an interview with journalists in Abuja, said the move was in line with the Corporation’s mandate to produce 250,000 barrels of crude oil per day in 2015.

Oniwon said to achieve the set mandate, the NPDC has grown its asset base in three fold preparatory to becoming a big player in the upstream sector, while the enabling environment has been provided by the Federal Government

The SPDC was forced to abandon the prolific oil wells in 1995, following the crisis that greeted the murder of former President of the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP), Ken Saro-Wiwa.

However, in 2008, the Federal Government announced that the oil fields would be handed over to another operator acceptable by the Ogonis on grounds that there was a total loss of confidence between the Ogoni people and Shell. Government reasoned that the solution to the crisis was to allow an operator acceptable to Ogonis to take over exploration activities in the area.

The pronouncement had pitched Shell against the Federal Government, as the oil giant insisted that it would not hands off those blocks to any operator, other than a Joint Venture partner. Shell had faulted government’s decision and resisted initial plans to hand over the control of the Nigerian oil fields to Chinese oil companies.

After intense lobbying, government named the NPDC as the new operator of the oil blocks, a development, which received the commendation of Shell, which under the NPDC’s operatorship, would continue to be a shareholder in the Ogoniland operations.

The news of the NPDC’s planned commencement of exploration has elicited reactions from Ogoni people, who vowed last month to resist any such moves.

MOSOP President, Mr. Ledum Mitee, told THISDAY recently that the Federal Government was yet to contact the Ogoni people on the planned take-over, insisting that any company that would be allowed to explore oil in Ogoniland must be acceptable by the people of Ogoni.

“I have not been contacted about the plan by the NPDC to begin production, although the government was considering appointing a new operator. Our position as always is that Shell must be replaced. So it is important that government should first discuss whoever will be coming with us. I should expect government to contact us for discussion first and for us to know who is coming what the company stands for and what they are bringing to the table. We don’t want Shell or something like Shell or a company that will work for Shell,” he said.

Also, Ogoni people, under the umbrella of National Union of Ogoni Students, USA, recently cautioned Shell, NPDC and the NNPC against what it described as the danger of back door negotiations with acclaimed stakeholders, and vowed that neither Shell, NPDC nor NNPC would be allowed to operate in the area.

The students in a statement titled “Ogoni Allegations Against the Nigerian Government and Shell”, a copy of which was made available to THISDAY warned against using the security forces to terrorise the people of Ogoni in order to start oil production.

The statement read: “We also discovered that the Rivers State government, NPDC, Shell and the federal authority are making another calculated attempt to start oil production in Ogoni without meeting the demands of the people as stated in the Ogoni Bill of Rights (OBR). They planned to do this through the use of the already established security task forces (Abacha style) coupled with some help from the deceptive works of the UNEP. We strongly advise the Rivers State government to stop using the State security taskforce to terrorise the people of Ogoni in order to start oil production.

“We abhor a repeat of state and corporate sponsored violence that characterised the 1990s’ which was used by the Nigerian government as a pretext to kill prominent Ogoni leaders and over 4000 Ogoni indigenes for demanding their rights. Ogoni students viewed these secret attacks as a sponsored activity by Shell Oil and the authority to resume oil operations in Yorla Oil Fields. We shall be forced to take civil actions against Shell and all those behind these constant threats to the peace of Ogoni”.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Latika Bourke reported this story on Friday, January 28, 2011 12:50:00

TANYA NOLAN: Dutch oil company Shell has been grilled over its operations in Africa’s Niger Delta amid claims of pollution and abuses.

Shell’s executives have been called before a parliamentary inquiry in the Hague where they’ve been asked about oil spills and gas flaring causing atmospheric pollution.

But the company’s been quick to blame Nigerian militants for much of the environmental destruction in the region.

Latika Bourke reports.

LATIKA BOURKE: Oil spills are commonplace in the Niger Delta. The Nigerian environment minister says 3,000 were recorded in the last four years.

John Ghazvinian is the author of Untapped -The Scramble for Africa’s Oil.

JOHN GHAZVINIAN: In the last 50 years over all of the Nigerian oil industry roughly the equivalent of one Exxon Valdez oil spill has been spilt every year.

LATIKA BOURKE: Statistics such as those prompted a parliamentary inquiry into Shell in the Netherlands where the company’s headquarters are based.

But Audrey Gaughran from Amnesty International says the hearing hasn’t been overly fruitful.

AUDREY GAUGHRAN: I would have to say that while we think the hearing itself and the initiative to hold the hearing was an excellent initiative of the Dutch parliament, that it was disappointing in terms of Shell’s participation.

They spoke in very general terms. They didn’t say very much. And they didn’t answer the specifics of the allegations that have been brought against them in terms of the operations in the Niger Delta.

LATIKA BOURKE: What are those allegations?

AUDREY GAUGHRAN: The allegations and they’ve been going on for many years are about the environmental impact of Shell in the Niger Delta.

Amnesty International and various other groups have documented oil related pollution that are due to Shell’s operations in the Niger Delta.

And the pollution has a really serious impact on the right to food, the right to water and the right to livelihood. And of course there are serious concerns about the right to health.

LATIKA BOURKE: But president of Shell Peter De Wit told Dutch lawmakers his company does a lot of good.

PETER DE WIT: We consider that Shell is doing a good job in West Africa and often under difficult circumstances, particularly in Nigeria.

We do provide thousands of well paid jobs which have their multiplier effects particularly in the delta.

And we launched numerous community projects in the region, some of which are highly successful.

LATIKA BOURKE: Ian Craig is Shell’s director for sub-Saharan Africa and says up to the 70 per cent of the oil spills aren’t the company’s fault. He blames sabotage.

Author John Ghazvinian says that’s partially true.

JOHN GHAZVINIAN: Oil spills in the Niger Delta are caused by a combination of either carelessness or negligence of some sort on the part of the oil companies, poor safety standards, poor government oversight, etc.

And yes sabotage is certainly responsible for a great deal of it.

LATIKA BOURKE: Shell is refusing to pay Nigerians compensation and says reparations would simply give terrorists an incentive to carry out militant attacks.

Audrey Gaughran says it’s proof corporate multinationals won’t do the right thing if they know they can get away with it.

AUDREY GAUGHRAN: The contrast that Amnesty has made has been with for example the Gulf of Mexico and BP. And the government of the United States stepped in after the disaster had occurred and required the company to do certain things, insisted on a compensation fund and insisted on investigations, demanded transparency.

And I would ask the question, does anyone think that BP would have done all of those things without the government of the United States requiring them to? I think everybody would agree the answer is no, they wouldn’t.

Companies don’t do it voluntarily. They have to be required by governments to do it. And that doesn’t happen in the case of the Niger Delta.

TANYA NOLAN: That’s Audrey Gaughran from Amnesty International ending that report from Latika Bourke.

* ©2010 ABC

SOURCE ARTICLE