Posts from ‘January, 2011’

By John Donovan

We have hundreds of emails received from Shell Whistleblower Dr John Huong (right) during the many years when he was prohibited by the Malaysian courts from supplying information to us for publication.

This was part of the draconian defamation proceedings and related multiple injunctions brought against him by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies in respect of articles published on this website. He was also under threat of imprisonment for alleged contempt of court, again in relation to information published on this website.

Since Shell has now settled the actions (we knew they would never let the case go to trial), we are free to publish for the first time, comments we received from Dr Huong in the form of emails during the long years of litigation. Knowing Dr Huong, we are sure he has no objection to us putting into the public domain information, which at that time, was prohibited from publication under penalty of his imprisonment.

Email received from Dr John Huong; 26 November 2007 20:26:10 GMT

Subject: What Mr. Bill Campbell at www.royaldutchshellplc have done to inform stakeholders on Health, Safety, Security and Environmental issues

Dear Mr. Donovans,

Good day.

It is very interesting to note from today’s (25 Nov. 2007) article “BBC News: Scots should handle oil safety: *safer than leaving it to Shell which puts production and profit before employee lives” to note the reality that exists in Shell Practices as recorded – unfortunately negative!

Here are the chronological events over the HSE issues.

Around 17 August 2005, Dr John Huong, is in correspondence with the Scottish Authorities and has offered to give evidence to the recently announced Brent Bravo Public Inquiry into the deaths of two Shell employees on the Brent Bravo oil platform. http://www.shell2004.com/week33/shellnewsdrhuongshellbrentbavoinquiry17august2005.htm

On 18th March 2007, a Wall Street Journal carried an article where guests on Live Chat had accused you of making monies out of the unfortunate Shell Management over safety issues and at the same time they had vigorously tried to demean Mr. Bill Campbell and all those allegations were put clearly in correct perspective by you.
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/03/18/the-wall-street-journal-shell%e2%80%99s-safety-problem-i-am-suspicious-of-you-mr-donovan/

On 4th May 2007. two guests at Live Chat had seriously accused you of a smear campaign against Shell and that needed to be stopped at http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/05/04/shellnewsnet-response-to-recent-postings-on-live-chat/

On 24 July 2007, the matter of HSE became so serious because Shell is in a denial that the Former Shell International Group Auditor, Bill Campbell takes action against Shell before the Members of the British Parliament. http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/07/24/former-shell-international-group-auditor-bill-campbell-takes-action-against-shell/

On 22 Nov 2007, the Guardian reported “More than half of North Sea oil rigs fail safety checks” http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/22/the-guardian-more-than-half-of-north-sea-oil-rigs-fail-safety-checks/

Unfortunately, days later on 25 November 2007, BBC reported a very serious fire on a North Sea oil platform with 159 people on board were evacuated from the Thistle Alpha platform after smoke and flames were seen… Was this platform one of those that had failed safety checks? This is bad enough if it was on the list of failing the checks and is deemed even very much more serious if it was not on the list! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7111750.stm

This only shows that the famous Shell site, the www.royaldutchshellplc.com was correct all along with respect to informing Shell’s stakeholders on the pervasive erosion of Shell top management for failing to walk the talk concerning Shell General Business Principles and to institute discipline at workplace.  Shell has a way of killing the messenger like Mr. Bill Campbell.  However, the current employees have only nice words for a professional who cares for their lives in service proving a Mr. Bill Freeman very wrong in his assessment of Mr. Bill Campbell.
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/26/from-a-shell-north-sea-platform-insider-words-of-encouragement-and-support-for-bill-campbell%e2%80%99s-hse-campaign/

Thank you
Cordially,
John

RELATED ARTICLE: Royal Dutch Shell terrorist tactics against Malaysian whistleblower

Extract from: Investor advice from a Shell insider of almost 30 years

SOME ADVICE FOR INVESTORS AND POTENTIAL SHELL EMPLOYEES FROM DR JOHN HUONG, A SENIOR 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.

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Thursday adjourned till February 3 further hearing in the suit filed by a Lagos-based arms dealer, Gabriel Akinluyi, against Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC).

Mr Akinluyi had in 1994 sued SPDC over an alleged breach of contract on arms deal. The plaintiff, who also joined XM Federal Ltd and one Mr V. Oteri in the suit, wants the defendants to pay him the sum of $2 million (about N300 million) for the services he rendered.

He also sought a declaration that by the letters dated April 4, 1994, from Shell to its agents, the Inspector General of Police(IGP) letter dated April 24, 1994 from Shell to its agents, should act as two binding and enforceable contracts to him.

The plaintiff also sought the sum of $216,262.31 or its naira equivalent being damages for breach of the said contract with interest rate of 21 per cent per annum from October 1, 1994 until payment is made.

However, the defence said they never at any time sought the assistance of the plaintiff in securing approval of the arms upgrade from the IGP or agreed to pay any compensation to him.They contended that the plaintiff did not play any role whatsoever in securing the approval contained in the IGP’s letter dated July 27, 1994 or any approval at all.

At the resumed hearing of the case on Thursday, Akinluyi, under cross-examination by the defence counsel, Olu Daramola (SAN), said that he facilitated the contract and supplied some arms to Shell.“I was told that I would be paid some percentage in facilitating and ensuring that the IGP grants the approval to Shell for Spy Police Quota and Semi Automatic weapons upgrade in July 1999,” he said.

According to him, when the defendant failed to pay, he secured the consent of his foreign partners, XM Federal Limited, the first plaintiff in the matter, to file the suit against the defendants.

He also said he had a contract with SPDC through the IGP which directed him to send quotations and invoice to the defendants.

SOURCE ARTICLE

By Lucy Meakin – Jan 16, 2011 1:35 PM GMT+0000

India’s Essar Oil Ltd. reopened talks to buy Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s Stanlow refinery, the Sunday Times reported, citing an unidentified company spokesman.

Shell has given Essar six weeks to submit a firm bid for the U.K. facility, the London-based newspaper said, citing people close to the situation.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lucy Meakin in London at lmeakin1@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Tilles at dtilles@bloomberg.net.

SOURCE ARTICLE

With COST-CUTTING now everywhere, where are the cuts in IT spending ? The ‘dinosaur in the room’ of Downstream IT has long been GSAP. Why after 5 years of heroic spending for such pitiful results has GSAP not been stopped ?

Hi John,

‘The Pipe’ is showing at the Palm Springs International Film Festival in California at the moment:
http://www.psfilmfest.org/festival/film/detail.aspx?id=22366&fid=43

It will get a great profile in the US especially due to the Gulf of Mexico disaster, could you possibly post the Palm Springs Festival link and embed the trailer?

Synopsis:
In a remote corner of the West of Ireland sits Broadhaven Bay. It is the perfect picture postcard, where the high cliffs of Erris Head and the Stags of Broadhaven stand sentry at the mouth of the bay against the mighty Atlantic, as if protecting the delicate golden sands of Glengad beach and the tiny village of Rossport, which nestles behind the dunes. However, this peaceful tranquility belies the turmoil that lies beneath, and the unique nature of the coastline which has sustained generations of farmers and fishermen, has also delivered to Shell Oil the perfect landfall for the Corrib Gas Pipeline.

‘The Pipe’ follows 3 members of this small community from a quiet rural life to the arrival of Shell into their community, and the fear and anxiety which the impending project brings. Not only are they flung into a tumultuous struggle with Shell and the state, but they are also forced to battle with elements within their own campaign who seek to divide and control, as their community is torn apart by the stresses of choosing to support or oppose the oil company. Yet, despite the seriousness of the events surrounding them, their resilience and humanity never wains, and even in their darkest moments their wit and humour has an uncanny ability to counter the despair.

In the most dramatic clash of cultures in modern Ireland, the rights of farmers over their fields, and of fishermen to their fishing grounds, has come in direct conflict with one of the worlds most powerful oil companies. When the citizens look to their state to protect their rights, they find that the state has put Shell’s right to lay a pipeline over their own.

The Pipe is a story of a community tragically divided, and how they deal with a pipe that could bring economic prosperity or destruction of a way of life shared for generations.

**** 4 Stars -- The Irish Times

**** 4 Stars -- The Irish Independent

VARIETY “stirring… astute… first-rate”
SCREEN DAILY “provocative… challenging… engrossing”
TIME OUT “compelling… startlingly honest”

www.thepipethefilm.com
www.facebook.com/pages/The-Pipe-The-Film
www.variety.com/review/VE1117943512.html?categoryid=2863&cs=1&query=The+Pipe+the+film
www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Featured_Videos/ID=1590885523
www.thepipethefilm.com/main-sect/the-pipe-reviewed-by-screen-daily/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMSLuxuf_iE
-
Risteard Ó Domhnaill (Director of ‘The Pipe’)

Companies like BP and Shell fetch top prices for assets many thought they’d struggle to discard

By Stanley Reed, Brian Swint and Edward Klump January 13, 2011

To pay tens of billions of dollars in costs from the Deepwater Horizon disaster and spill, BP (BP) has been forced to ditch oil fields and other energy properties across the globe. Far from the predicted firesale, BP’s housecleaning has been a huge success. It has brought in $22 billion so far, fetching double the values on BP’s books for some assets. Now other companies including Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A) and ExxonMobil (XOM), which sold nine of its Gulf of Mexico fields for about $1 billion last year, are also making divestitures of their less-attractive assets.

Asset sales by the world’s oil majors exceeded $50 billion last year, the most in at least 12 years. It’s not over. Jerry Kepes, a partner at consultants PFC Energy, estimates the oil majors have $150 billion to $200 billion worth of properties on their books that they could sell without an appreciable negative impact on their current performance or long-term outlook. “They are not getting any value in the stock market for having these assets around,” he says.

The sales are being prompted by several factors, including an abundance of buyers, stable oil prices that make deals easier, and a continuing shortage of the skilled staff needed to develop and operate oil fields. The most important factor may be a kind of identity crisis the big companies are struggling through. The markets used to reward the majors with higher share prices than their smaller competitors. No longer. Investors today see these companies as unwieldy conglomerates with little potential for growth. “There has been deep skepticism that the supermajor model adds value,” says Theepan Jothilingam, an oil analyst at Morgan Stanley (MS) in London.

Over the last five years, stocks of the six largest Western oil companies—ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Total (TOT), Chevron (CVX), and ConocoPhillips (COP)—have logged an average annual return of just 5 percent. That’s considerably less than the 8.3 percent returned by an index of smaller oil companies, including Anadarko Petroleum (APC) and Apache (APA), and downright puny compared with the rocket-propelled performance of some smaller exploration companies such as Africa specialist Tullow Oil, which averaged 38 percent. Crude oil itself was a better investment than the majors, returning 9 percent.

The energy giants are beginning to get the message. They’re putting low-growth or marginal businesses on the block to raise money to plow into exploration, liquefied natural gas, and deepwater drilling activities that bring higher risks along with the possibility of better returns. Shell has turned more aggressive under new Chief Executive Peter Voser. The company has already exceeded a target of $8 billion in divestments. Among the highlights: the sale of a 10 percent stake in Australia’s Woodside Petroleum for $3.35 billion and a sale of Texas gas fields to Occidental Petroleum (OXY) for $1.8 billion.

Shell needs capital for what may turn out to be as much as $50 billion in new Australian gas projects as well as a huge $19 billion plant in Qatar that converts natural gas to diesel and jet fuel. “The divestments are in areas where we either see limited growth potential or other people may be prepared to invest more,” says Chief Financial Officer Simon Henry.

SOURCE ARTICLE

It is surely essential… that an even-handed approach is adopted… so that would be whistleblowers and parties with genuine grievances are not deterred by the prospect that they could be ostracized, victimized, sacked and/or sued if they do come forward.

2 February 2006

Jyoti Munsiff SCO
Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Tel: +44 020 7934 3080 Fax: +44 20 7934 5140 Mobile: +44 7768 993 600
Email: jyoti.munsiff@shell.com

Jyoti Munsiff,

Congratulations on your appointment as Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer for Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

As you know I am being sued by eight companies of the Royal Dutch Shell Group for alleged defamation. The relevant Shell companies have obtained a restraining order which prevents me for speaking the TRUTH in line with the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. My rights to freedom of expression have in fact been restrained for over 18 months. I had thought that Shell supported this UN Declaration, but it seems that this assumption must be incorrect. I would welcome your clarification on this point as I am sure that my analysis must be at fault?

I am also perplexed by the fact that Shell apparently allows Mr. Alfred Donovan to publish negative commentary about Shell on his website unhindered while I have been sued for articles posted by him on his website under my name? Mr. Donovan has also published an extract from a legal submission purportedly made by Shell International to the World Intellectual Property Organisation in which Shell stated that it supports the right of Mr. Alfred Donovan to criticise Shell on his website. I have also read the November 2005 email to Alfred Donovan from Shell International General Counsel Mr. Richard Wiseman in which Mr Wiseman confirms how tolerant Shell is of Mr. Donovan’s postings on his website. I trust that you can appreciate why I am so puzzled at the apparent disparity in treatment. I am sure there must be a logical explanation?

It therefore seems appropriate to ask you in your new capacity whether the relevant postings by Mr. Donovan i.e. the claimed extract from Shell’s submission to the WIPO and the November 2005 email from Mr. Wiseman are genuine? Surely they must be false??? Why would Shell encourage Mr. Donovan to indulge in his rights to freedom of expression while simultaneously adopting a totally different approach towards me? Something really must be seriously amiss. The answers to my questions are important if – as I assume must be the case – you genuinely want to encourage whistleblowers to speak out if they become aware of misdeeds which are in contravention of the Shell Statement of General Business Principles (SGBP).

It is surely essential in this regard that an even-handed approach is adopted in such matters so that would be whistleblowers and parties with genuine grievances are not deterred by the prospect that they could be ostracized, victimized, sacked and/or sued if they do come forward. In regards to this paragraph I am speaking of course in general terms, not about my case, as that would be inappropriate under the current ongoing litigation.

This letter also seeks confirmation from you for me to make significant inputs for improving ethics and compliance at Shell. I sincerely believe that for obvious reasons I have a unique perspective on the question of Shell employees engaging professionally in whistle blowing when faced with ethical, moral and/or legal dilemmas.

I also believe that it is fair to make readers of this communication aware that apart from the High Court Restraining Order, I am also constrained in my comments by a threat of imprisonment.

I am sure that the eight Royal Dutch Shell companies who collectively decided to sue me believe that their action is an appropriate and proportionate response to the alleged defamatory comments by one former Malaysian employee of 29 years.

Thank you
Sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

(NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED BY DR HUONG FROM MS MUNSIFF. ONLY MORE THREATS OF IMPRISONMENT BY SHELL LAWYERS FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH)

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

The head of Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s (RDSA, RDSA.LN) U.S. entity fears difficulties in gaining a federal air-quality permit will push back its long- delayed plans to drill in Alaska’s Artic waters by another year, the Financial Times reported online Wednesday.

“It’s a significant challenge to drilling in 2011,” Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Co., told the newspaper.

The U.K.-Dutch company is halfway through 10-year leases in Alaska but continues to struggle to move ahead with its $3.5 billion investment to drill in the state’s Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The plans have been dogged by environmental lawsuits and permit issues on top of calls for better spill prevention and containment capabilities following BP PLC’s (BP, BP.LN) leaking- well disaster in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

On Dec. 30, the Environmental Appeals Board invalidated Shell’s permits, saying the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hadn’t been rigorous enough in granting the company an air-quality permit.

Odum told the FT that this was the last of 35 significant permits required to drill in the Alaskan Arctic, and that while Shell could “see the endpoint,” it might take all of 2011 or into 2012 to resolve.

He pointed out that the U.S. commission investigating the Gulf leak said in its report Tuesday that the need for additional research into drilling in Arctic conditions “should not be used as a de facto moratorium on activity in the Arctic.” The report, however, called for federal research into concerns such as marine and bird assessments, and spill and response challenges presented by the conditions.

The Shell executive said he is aware of these challenges and that the company has taken them into account, agreeing to build an Arctic-specific spill containment system and put on standby a rig in case a relief well is needed. He objected to the commission’s assertion that the BP accident indicated safety issues throughout the oil industry.

Full story at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee00768e-1e75-11e0-87d2- 00144feab49a.html#axzz1AeojfhGU

-Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2900

(END) Dow Jones Newswires
01-12-111601ET
Copyright (c) 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

SOURCE ARTICLE

FT.com

By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Published: January 12 2011 18:13

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.

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

FULL FT ARTICLE

Appearing at Shell Centre soon…