By John Donovan

The email printed below from Shell Malaysia whistleblower Dr John Huong (right) to his lawyer, Trevor George De Silva, confirms that the High Court judge dealing with the defamation action brought against Dr Huong by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies, told Shell that “they should sue John Donovan in the UK”.

Since that course of action was not one Shell lawyers wished to pursue, Shell eventually had to settle with Dr Huong. Shell lawyers had also undermined their case by engaging in criminal tampering of evidence to hide important information from the judge. In other words, Shell had perverted the course of justice.

Shell had terrorised Dr Huong to the extent that he had to use bodyguards, two of whom were present to protect him when he went to court on 15 July 2004, as stated in his email to us the same day. His house and family were also guarded as a result of certain sinister events including burglaries, phone tampering, surveillance and an unwelcome night-time visit from a Shell agent, which frightened Dr Huong’s children.

The then Shell Country Chairman, Jon Chadwick, was personally involved in the draconian litigation, which has spectacularly backfired on Shell. Perhaps that explains his departure from Shell?

All of the whistleblower information is being published again on the same website by the same publisher but this time backed up with related correspondence, which previously was privileged and could not be published until after the litigation had been concluded.

Shell senior management was sufficiently irate to institute collective legal proceedings by EIGHT RDS companies when it was just the whistleblower comments that had been published.  Imagine how angry Shell top is now, exposed as incompetents, recklessly spending shareholder funds on foolhardy litigation against the wrong person and unwilling to sue the party – the Donovans – who actually published the alleged defamatory comments, which in fact were true.

EMAIL DATED 12 February 2007

Dear Mr Trevor,

The following are some of the facts.

1. John and Alfred Donovan jointly own, operate and publish in their website on a daily basis. I also agree with the Judge that when Shell takes issues with what were and are currently published in the website, ‘they should sue John Donovan in the UK’.

2. John and Alfred Donovan are not my agent and/or servants and therefore I cannot undertake the suggestion to cooperate in checking with them an arrangement for a teleconferencing from the UK.  In the past I was trying to be helpful and cooperative with my lawyer Mr. Eric Siow to produce a draft affidavit for which Shell picked on me and served me interim ex-parte injunction which was corrected to inter-parte injunction and served on me as a surprise.

3.  Furthermore, Malaysia has diplomatic relations with UK and if shell takes issue wanting to cross examine John Donovan, an alternative way for Shell is to conduct the cross examination at the Malaysian Embassy in UK – all expenses incurred for which Shell is to pay.

4. As I have mentioned to you earlier by telephone conversation, the last submission of Shell, for example in paragraph 2 had accused me of unaccounted absence from work and for insubordination.  This is flawed and untrue because the unaccounted absence is an allegation resulting from Shell’s failure to conduct an investigation into an alleged misconduct.  In addition Shell lawyers had said that there was an insubordination, a serious misconduct, for which I was never charged at the domestic inquiry.  The case concerning misconduct is still ongoing and I cannot see how Shell lawyers can make such allegations to churn out injunctions.

5. I agree the injunctions made against me are hanging over my head for far too long amounting to human right abuses and need to be disposed off quickly so that we can begin the main trial accusing me of defaming Shell’s good name.

6. Please contact John Donovan and discuss with him what the High Court Judge require.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

RELATED ARTICLE: Royal Dutch Shell terrorist tactics against Malaysian whistleblower

Patti Epler | Jan 24, 2011

The federal government says it’s fallen behind in efforts to complete a final environmental impact statement for a controversial oil and gas lease sale in the Chukchi Sea.

The statement was due to be finished Jan. 21. Instead, a status report filed with the U.S. District Court in Anchorage doesn’t give a date for the environmental impact statement to be released, but says the government will file another status report by Feb. 25.

In 2008, the government sold about $2.6 billion in leases to a number of oil companies, although Royal Dutch Shell was the predominant bidder. But the lease sale was challenged by Native organizations and some environmental groups on the grounds that the original statement didn’t adequately consider the impact of natural gas development in the Chukchi. A federal judge ordered the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to produce a second environmental impact statement that looked at the natural gas issue.

Meanwhile, any exploratory work in the Chukchi has been put on hold pending the new report. A public comment period that ended in late December drew more than 150,000 comments, the bureau said in its status report.

SOURCE ARTICLE

The agency acknowledges that most of those are just “form submittals.” But many were substantive and required detailed response and consideration, the agency said.

Contact Patti Epler at patti(at)alaskadispatch.com.

Jan. 24, 2011, 8:36 p.m. EST

By James Herron

LONDON (MarketWatch) — Friends of the Earth and Amnesty International said Tuesday they have filed a complaint against Royal Dutch Shell PLC with the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, alleging the oil giant has published misleading data about oil spills in Nigeria.

The two groups allege Shell has used “discredited and misleading information to blame the majority of oil pollution on saboteurs in its Niger Delta operations,” and that use of this flawed data breaches the OECD’s guidelines for multinational companies.

Shell has previously estimated sabotage or attempts at oil theft were responsible for 98% of recent oil spills facilities it operates in the Niger Delta.

Audrey Gaughran, Amnesty International’s Director of Global Issues, said in a statement the figure was “totally lacking credibility” because the system for investigating spills isn’t independent of Shell.

“We monitor spills regularly and our observations often contradict information produced by Shell,” said Nnimmo Bassey, director of Friends of the Earth Nigeria, in a statement.

Shell has reported big increases in the volume of oil spilled in the Niger Delta in recent years, but said they were mostly due to deliberate damage inflicted on its facilities.

In 2009, 13,900 metric tons of oil were spilled into the Niger Delta as a result of sabotage or theft, more than double the 2008 total and four times the 2007 figure, Shell said in its annual sustainability report last year.

Shell’s report said operational spills in 2009 totaled 1,300 tons, the lowest ever for the company. However, it also acknowledged figures for the previous year were inaccurate and was forced to quadruple its estimate of the amount spilled because of accidents in 2008 to 8,800 tons.

OECD complaints have been used regularly by environmental and human rights advocacy groups to raise grievances against large multinationals, notably mining companies. The guidelines for multinational enterprises are voluntary principles and standards for responsible business conduct, according to the OECD website.

SOURCE ARTICLE

23 January 2011 By Nicola Cooke and John Burke

According to the report, prepared by health and safety expert Niall Wright, Shell should redesign the security fencing ‘‘to include a double high security fence and gates with a suitable floodlit deadzone between the inner and outer fencing.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

Jaipur, January 24, 2011: Vaiju Naravane

The question takes on great poignancy since the conclusion of the festival coincides, almost to the day, with hearings in the Dutch parliament on the alleged involvement of the Royal Dutch Shell company in the execution of Nigerian playwright, human rights activist and environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa who was put to death with eight others after a hurried military trial in November 1995.

At his trial, Ken Saro Wiwa pointed a finger at Shell for what it had done to his people and his country: “We all stand before history. I and my colleagues are not the only ones on trial. Shell is here on trial…there is no doubt in my mind that the ecological war that the Company has waged in the Delta will be called to question sooner than later and the crimes of that war be duly punished. The crime of the Company’s dirty wars against the Ogoni people will also be punished.”

Asked about her feelings on what was still going on in the Niger Delta where Shell’s anti-environmental activities have played havoc with the region’s ecosystems, noted Nigerian writer Chimamanda Adicie, who won the Orange Prize for her book on the Biafran War, told The Hindu: “I think it’s horrific, what’s going on in the Niger Delta as do most Nigerians. I think that the multinational oil companies are in collusion with the Nigerian government and I think that in some way we still have not exhibited the political will to make a difference in the Niger Delta. And it’s possible and it’s doable but it just hasn’t been done because the political will is just not there. I am hoping it will change with the elections that are coming up in April. But I do not know.”

FULL ARTICLE

When Tony Hayward took over BP in 2007 – after the oil giant had experienced a series of calamitous accidents – he vowed that safety would be his top priority. So how did he come to preside over one of the worst industrial disasters in history? A Fortune investigation reveals a saga of hubris, ambition, and a safety philosophy that focused too much on spilled coffee and not enough on drilling disasters.

GARDA chiefs are preparing a report for new Justice Minister Brendan Smith on the activities of an undercover British police officer who infiltrated environmental protest groups here.

The report is being drawn up after concerns were expressed that Mark Kennedy had been involved in protests over the Corrib gas pipeline in north Mayo.

He is also said to have taken part in other major protests including the May Day clashes in Dublin in 2004 and demonstrations against the use of Shannon Airport by US military aircraft.

Mr Kennedy, whose family live in Co Cork, was known to protesters here and in Britain as Mark Stone and was nicknamed ‘Flash’.

He lived a double life as a member of a national intelligence unit with the Metropolitan Police and as a green activist, based in Nottingham.

The garda report had been sought by former Justice Minister Dermot Ahern, who said that if Mr Kennedy had been active here, he would have been subject to Irish law like any other person.

He appealed to anyone with information that suggested Mr Kennedy had broken the law to make it available to gardai.

Mr Ahern said he was also aware a series of investigations were under way in the UK into Mr Kennedy’s activities to establish the role he might have played in protests.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has also been in touch with the British Embassy in Dublin about the reports.

Labour TD Michael D Higgins has written to the Department of Justice to voice his “grave concern” at Mr Kennedy’s activities here.

In March 2006 Mr Kennedy spent several days in north Mayo and offered advice on protest action at a Shell to Sea workshop.

He also paid a visit to the home of Rossport Five member Willie Corduff with a group of British and Icelandic activists.

- Tom Brady Security Editor

SOURCE ARTICLE

THE LAWYER

24 January 2011 | By Catrin Griffiths

Shell has upped the ante on anti-corruption prior to this year’s implementation of the Bribery Act by extending its scrutiny to law firms that advise third parties involved in joint ventures, and therefore are not employed by the company.

Shell chief ethics and compliance officer Richard Wiseman and global legal services coordinator Leanne Geale are asking non-panel firms with which Shell does business for details of their anti-corruption compliance procedures.

As part of the tender process concluded in May 2010, all panel firms were asked about their compliance ­procedures. However, this is thought to be the first time an organisation has extended enquiries to third parties.

Shell’s move, which will be watched closely by in-house lawyers at other companies, is designed to address Section 7 of the Bribery Act, a controversial clause that states a ­commercial organisation is guilty of an offence if ­someone associated with it bribes another person.

Wiseman  told The Lawyer: “What we have in mind is a firm acting for us as an intermediary with a foreign government, negotiating a contract or licence on our behalf, for example.

“[Our] enquiry is about the law firm’s own ­programme for compliance with anti-bribery and ­corruption laws and extends to all countries in which the law firm practises. We’ve had no objections [about these firms] so far, but we know that other companies have found that law firms had obtained advantages for them by unauthorised improper means.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES

Shell to investigate fraud, contract corruption, bribery, money-laundering and organised crime inside the Shell Group

Shell’s poacher turned gamekeeper ethics chief giving anti-corruption speech

By Liz Colad: 23 January 2011

The United States will soon be under the control of a foreign leader.  His name: Vladimir Putin (Photo Right – Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

Sound outrageous?  This is common sense—he will have control of the energy fields and the distribution of gas and oil.  He who controls the energy, controls the world.  I would even dare to say that this situation is already cemented in place.

And only one Congressman is pointing out the facts.

The Trumpet reports that Vladimir Putin has forged an alliance with BP to “explore” the Arctic. “In Washington, the State Department is already facing calls to investigate whether the Russian government’s links with BP pose a national security threat. As Republican Congressman Michael Burgess pointed out, BP is one of the biggest energy suppliers of the U.S. military.”(1)

BP’s website states, “BP is the leading producer of oil and natural gas in the United States and the largest investor in U.S. energy development.”  (Amoco, ARCO, BP, Castrol motor oil) Their refineries are in Texas City, TX; Carson, CA; Cherry Point, WA; Whiting , IN and Toledo, OH.  Employing approximately 23,000—“We’re also the second largest gasoline marketer in the US.”(2)

If you recall, it was their oil rig which blew up in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

Regarding the development of a Russian/BP alliance in the Arctic, Rowena Marson of the Telegraph writes, “Only BP has the cutting-edge technical expertise to get the black gold out of the deep, icy wastes.” (3)

Is it surprising that BP is the company of focus in this deal with the Russians?  I think not.  Apparently the Russians believe that if they say that they own the Arctic enough, everyone will believe it.  But they DO NOT.  The U.S. Geological Survey states that there is a vast wealth of ‘untapped oil and natural gas’ beneath the surface of the Arctic.  Approximately three times more gas than oil lies in the Russian Arctic. The wealth of previously inaccessible energy reserves (now beginning to be accessible because of a thinning polar ice cap), is valued at approximately $90 billion dollars.

The Russians wish to not only take the Arctic, but Alaska as well.

(Read a history of Gazprom and the Arctic)

They will do this with the help of the United Nations:

The Arctic Shelf is currently an area of energy resources which is being disputed by major countries: United States (Alaska), Russia, Denmark (Greenland), Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

“Upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a country has a ten year period to make claims to an extended continental shelf which, if approved, gives it exclusive rights to resources on or below the seabed.” (4)

“Party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea (date of ratification in parentheses): Norway (1996), Russia (1997), Canada (2003) and Denmark (2004).” (5)

Canada, the United States, Denmark, and Norway are all NATO members.  Of these NATO members, three have ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (highlighted).  Canada has foolishly already made a separate agreement with Russia about the settling of disputed territory—through the UN, and Norway has agreed to abide by the UN’s Convention on the Law of the Sea.

All of this is leading into World War III—history shows us that energy and war, tied with food, go hand-in-hand-in-hand.   U.S. intelligence records which were declassified have shown that “Royal Dutch Shell was viewed as a ‘Nazi collaborator that used Hitler’s slave laborers.’”  John Donovan of RoyalDutchShellplc.com writes that at that time Sir Henri Deterding, an oil baron, considered himself to be “The Most Powerful Man in the World.”  He had a “ruthless thirst for access to new oil fields.”  Sir Henri injected Royal Dutch Shell funds into the Nazi party, indirectly causing the deaths of millions.(6)

It is interesting to note that after the Gulf Oil disaster in 2010, Royal Dutch Shell considered a takeover bid for BP reports Alex Brummer of Daily Mail. (7)

This spill has affected Royal Dutch Shell’s ability to drill in the Arctic, as US drilling policy extends itself from South to North.  Ben Geman of The Hill’s E2 Wire Energy Blog writes, “The Financial Times scored an interview with the head of Royal Dutch Shell’s U.S. branch, who fears further delays in the company’s push to drill off Alaska’s northern coast.
(subscription required)

‘Royal Dutch Shell fears difficulties in gaining an air quality permit from US federal authorities will push back its long-delayed Alaska drilling programme by another year,’ the paper reports.

‘It’s a significant challenge to drilling in 2011,’ Marvin Odum, president of Shell’s US operations, told the Financial Times.” (8)

FULL ARTICLE (with evidence notes)

FROM A SHELL INSIDER

John

Looks like you opened some floodgates on bad news for Shell the last few weeks! I don’t understand how you can keep up with all the dataflows.

The recent note from the Canadian operator is pretty serious. This obviously is a man who knows what he talks about and has high personal standards.

Shell Canada Insider Speaks Out

Exactly the type of person you would want on your plant, but dangerous and awkward for many managers who are looking for quick bucks, low hanging fruit, early success, breakthrough performance, olympic targets and whatever other jargon is used to cut costs…. I don’t know if you are aware just how toxic H2S is. Often in communications to the general public it is related to the smell of rotten eggs but in reality it is as toxic as Hydrogen Cyanide – HCN (Prussic Acid), the stuff used in detective novels…. (And by the way in the gaschambers in Germany as well as in the suicide capsules they used).

In the oil business we all know how dangerous H2S is, the public at large most likely not. Inhaling a concentration of 1000 ppm (0.1% in volume) means instantaneous death. Above 200 ppm you pass out within seconds.  In a plant where they process gas with 30% H2S this is 300.000 ppm….. And H2S has another feature: you need quite exotic (= seriously expensive) materials such as pipes and vessels to handle it, regular and higher grade steel becomes brittle in no time and cracks. This is Sulfide Stress Cracking.

To put it in simple terms: if one starts to f*ck around with maintenance standards in these type of plants, to me that is just criminal behaviour. You should always keep looking for improvements (= better at lower costs). But often it is only the costcutting that is visible in the short term, pulls in the bonus and the fellow who does this is transferred when the problems start.

Comment from a former employee of Shell Oil USA

John,

The fellow who commented on H2S and the Canadian plant maintenance conditions is absolutely correct.

On an annual basis accidental and inadvertent H2S gas poisoning is the single largest cause of worker fatalities in the oil industry.

Only certain steel alloys will tolerate high concentrations of H2S. And H2S is indeed one of the deadliest gases around. This fellow is correct when he states that Shell management is engaging in criminal negligence by neglecting plant maintenance. One pipe leak or leaky value is all it would take to kill some plant workers, and very quickly.

In the US Shell operated a field near Thomasville, Mississippi. This was where the infamous Cox #1 blowout occurred in the early 1970′s. The gas in that field had very high concentrations of H2S, over 30% as I recall. In order to produce these wells safely Shell USA (which was well managed in those days) instituted its own quality standards for piping, tubular, and well head equipment. It was called Shell N.A.C.E. Shell standards were higher than normal oil industry N.A.C.E. standards. (links available from John Donovan on request).

Shell even had its own inspectors at the Cameron Ironworks facilities checking and certifying the wellhead equipment as it came off the production line.

I began my term at Shell as a production engineer and was well versed in ‘sour gas’ production procedures and equipment standards. But that was over 20 years ago. In those days (before Shell USA was taken over by RD Shell) Shell USA did not screw around with H2S like the Canadians seem to have been doing in their gas plants recently. In fact, I will bet that Shell Canada, when is was an independent subsidiary from RD Shell, didn’t screw around either.

These sorts of maintenance shortcuts and lack of regard for worker and public safety seem to be a hallmark of the way RD Shell operates.

Local plant management clearly didn’t and probably still doesn’t give a lust crap about worker safety. The bottom line was and probably still is all that matters. Staff and public health and safety were and probably still are considered ‘expendable’, and part of the unnecessary ‘overhead’ of operation.

All levels of Shell management responsible for the decisions that have led to the poor maintenance and hazardous working conditions in those gas plants should be terminated for cause. Their lack of good judgment, and concern for the safety of their staff, and the public in general, is more that sufficient cause for such action.