Posts from ‘March, 2011’

Sunday March 20, 2011

BEIJING, March 20 (Reuters) – A rethink about nuclear energy after Japan’s earthquake could boost demand for natural gas, the head of Royal Dutch Shell said on Sunday.

This would play to Shell’s strength because it produces more gas than oil, Chief Executive Peter Voser told Reuters.

But he cautioned that it would take time to draw firm conclusions about the impact of Japan’s nuclear crisis on global energy markets.

“We need to see how the nuclear policies of various governments and countries will evolve and the lessons that need to be taken into account from Japan,” he said. “There will be higher demand for gas in the medium term and longer term.”

Both global oil and gas prices will rise in the medium term because of increase demand and falling investment in recent years, he said on the sidelines of a forum in Beijing.

“I see in the medium and longer term clearly some potential difficulties as demand is growing faster than supply,” Voser said. “It takes quite a while before supply can actually react to a higher demand. Investment levels over the past two or three years were falling.”

In the aftermath of Japan’s devastating earthquake and loss of nuclear power, Shell has been rushing to deliver liquefied natural gas. Two extra shipments arrived last week and Voser said another two were likely to arrive in April.

“We are together with our customers looking to further (increase) supply so that we can help the Japanese economy to restart,” he said.

(Reporting by Koh Gui Qing; Editing by Richard Borsuk)

© Thomson Reuters 2011 All rights reserved

SOURCE ARTICLE

“I also have doubts about the wisdom of allying yourself so closely and obviously to the Donovans, who seem to have raised Shell-baiting to such a level of vituperation (cleverly mixed with plenty of apparent balance and reasonableness) that it is difficult to see how either side can compromise without losing an unacceptable amount of face (Shell) or a rich and ongoing stream of damages (the Donovans).”

Richard

INTERESTING POSTINGS ON THE “TELL SHELL” INTERNET DISCUSSION FORUM FOR UNCENSORED, OPEN AND LIVELY DEBATE (BEFORE IT WAS FIRST SECRETLY CENSORED BY SHELL LAWYERS AND THEN CLOSED DOWN BY SHELL). POSTINGS MADE IN OCT 2005

Posted By Dr. John Huong (right) nickname: “none”: Subject:  Wakey Wakey on Freedom of Expression under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (United Nations): 01/10/2005 14:53:23

Wow, I’ve just read the posting below about the 2005 Accountability Rating – the article by Alfred Donovan- the owner of the worlds self proclaimed ultimate gripe site, ShellNews.net. I am baffled why Shell allows him to comprehensively tear Shell management to pieces on countless postings all over the Internet, including Shell’s own website – while I am not allowed the freedom to make criticism of Shell, my former employer of 29 years.

There has not been a peep from the Shell webmaster on this or any other issue for some time as fellow contributors have noticed. We seem to be on our own here guys!

For anyone who doesn’t know, it is a matter of public record that I am currently the subject of a High Court Injunction and a Restraining Order obtained collectively against me by eight Royal Dutch Shell Companies. As far as I know, I am the only person on the entire planet whose freedom of expression is being curtailed by a multinational goliath. It ís a strange feeling. I suppose that I should count myself lucky that unlike the Rossport Five, I was not imprisoned. I am not criticising Shell for having Irish citizens jailed but merely pointing out the fact that they put in jail for three months. I am regretfully not in a position to express my comments about Shell one way or the other (although I would love to do so) though I trust that it is in order for me to congratulate the Rossport Five on their release from prison.

I have read on ShellNews.net that the Rossport Five may have a case against Shell for wrongful imprisonment. Now that Shell has reversed course in respect of the Rossport Five, it might wish to withdraw its legal action against me, in which event I too would seek legal advice about the question of appropriate redress, as part of any resolution of Shell’s action against me.

Returning to the question of my freedom of speech on the Internet, why is it that Mr Donovan is astonishingly candid and damaging commentary about Royal Dutch Shell is allowed by Shell lawyers? I have a copy of the legal statement made by Shell International Petroleum Company Limited in May 2005 recognising HIS rights to say anything he likes about Shell on his website. This just happens to be the same website where the posting of articles under my name led to Shell commencing proceedings against me. As indicated, for some unknown reason I do not enjoy the same basic human rights as Mr Donovan.

Does he get special treatment because of his age (88), race, nationality, or perhaps because he is a Shell shareholder? I am baffled. Is it proper that his rights are deemed to be different and superior to mine? I am not criticising the fact that I am being penalised because it would be dangerous for me to say anything about Shell – merely trying to fathom out why I have been singled out. There must be some valid reason which has not occurred to me although I cannot imagine what it could be.

Perhaps the hibernating Tell Shell webmaster will enlighten me on this matter? Wakey Wakey!!!

Or does anyone else have any suggestions????????

Posted By Richard: Re: posting by none: 02/10/2005 10:24:41

none, (or should I call you John?),

You say:

“Perhaps the hibernating Tell Shell webmaster will enlighten me on this matter? Wakey Wakey!!!

Or does anyone else have any suggestions????????”

I think that many will empathise with your Wakey Wakey message. It is quite frankly embarrassing that the webmaster has failed of late to respond to any postings. Failure to respond to postings which are illiterate or offensive is understandable, but there are plenty of recent postings which made valid points which should have drawn a response even if only “working, reverting”. Perhaps when and if Shell confirms the appointment of its new outside PR adviser we will get some response, though it may well be that the corporate attitude is: “Lie low and say nothing; they’ll soon get bored”. (I hope we don’t).

With regard to your request for suggestions, my advice would be that it would be in everyone’s interest to seek an amicable resolution of your differences with Shell informally and outside a public forum. Regardless of your perception of the rights and wrongs, hurling abuse at Shell is unlikely to produce a positive result when you are a single individual up against a phalanx of Shell lawyers who are spending shareholders’ money rather than their own.

I also have doubts about the wisdom of allying yourself so closely and obviously to the Donovans, who seem to have raised Shell-baiting to such a level of vituperation (cleverly mixed with plenty of apparent balance and reasonableness) that it is difficult to see how either side can compromise without losing an unacceptable amount of face (Shell) or a rich and ongoing stream of damages (the Donovans).

Having said all that, there are probably quite a few people who would sympathise with your view that it is, shall we say, odd that you are effectively gagged and they are not.

Posted By Dr John Huong: In response to Mr. Richard’s message ìnoneî: 03/10/2005 16:17:50

Dear Richard,

It amuses me how I ended up as “none” and that is very appropriate to my career- a man with no name (and no job). It brings to mind a character played by Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti Western. When I logged onto TellShell, I was asked to provide a nickname and since I do not have one, my reply was “none”. Had I been asked for my pen name, my reply would probably be John Huong. So yes, please call me John in short.

I am grateful to you for your empathy. As a former Shell employee, you may have some idea of what it means to be in my shoes, investing some 29 years with Shell. For the first 23 years I received excellent-outstanding staff appraisals before my career came to an abrupt stop. I am not in the position to say more about the circumstances of my sad departure from Shell because I do not want to breach the current Malaysian High Court Injunction. The situation is serious, as I have been threatened by Shell with imprisonment if I were to exercise my human right to freedom of speech, for example by making any insightful criticism in a healthy exchange of views about Shell management, or Shell activities – the supposed purpose of this Internet forum.

As a former hard working and loyal Shell employee, I have empathy with the TellShell webmaster and the predicament he or she is in. I was once assigned to Shell corporate affairs dealing with issues management and if I were given the same difficult and almost impossible task which the TellShell webmaster has, I would probably be busy looking for another job (that may be what the webmaster is currently doing).

You mention Shell’s new PR advisers. They will also have a challenging and daunting task ahead of them in view of recent events reported in the news, including spectacular Shell management climb-downs on potential tax liabilities for UK shareholders in Royal Dutch Shell and the release from prison of the “Rossport Five” following which Shell is now faced with the apparent prospect of a contempt hearing for allegedly supplying false information to the court.

I must again thank you Richard for a mature gentlemanly approach to resolving differences with Shell on an informal internal basis. I can tell you wholeheartedly and sincerely that it was always my wish to resolve matters on that eminently sensible basis. I consistently pleaded with Shell Management to resolve the difficulties in an amicable way – the very words contained in an email from me to Shell management in 1997. For now, I cannot say anything that may be construed as damaging to Shell’s reputation and in any event, would not wish to hurl unfounded abuse at Shell, as I do not need to. I note your comment that I am “a single individual up against a phalanx of Shell lawyers who are spending shareholders’ money rather than their own.” Indeed Shell has all the necessary resources of one kind or the other, a proxy given by many shareholders to their Directors and that may perhaps change with resolutions made at the next AGM. All I can say is that I trust in God and His power in all circumstances and I am not going to contest that luminous statement of yours. Maybe Shell will take action against you for suggesting that naughty statement of yours, which you have put as a matter of fact. Is it the Donovans who are leading you from the path of righteousness or maybe Tippi can provide some insight?

I first stumbled in amazement across Chapter 22 in the Donovan website while surfing the net a couple of years ago. Via their good offices, my predicament was quickly made known around the world. Since then I have come to have a deep respect and affection for Alfred and John Donovan. I thank God Almighty for putting us into contact. I have never met either of them, but would trust them with my life. I hope and believe that they feel the same about me. Please believe me Richard when I say that I have come to know these gentlemen very well and I know them to be men of the very highest integrity who, contrary to the implication behind your assertions, put principles before money. They, like the Rossport Five, will fight for their rights, principles and beliefs irrespective of the size, power and influence of an opponent.

As to your comment about “a level of vituperation”, that seems to me with all due respect to be a rather sweeping generalisation. Specific examples would assist me in an assessment as to whether that comment is well-founded. It is true to say that there has been extensive negative commentary from the Donovans about Shell, but at the same it also applies to commentary from all news sources that have covered stories about Shell since January 2004. Is it the Donovans and the news media who have fabricated a string of negative stories about Shell, or were the stories well-founded i.e. has there been a high level of management misdeeds and incompetence which created the events which led to the proliferation of negative reports? If you don’t mind, I will not answer my own question. I have no appetite for imprisonment in the event that I should say the wrong thing.

Like many other Shell stakeholders I have been astonished and amused by how Alfred Donovan has managed to end up with the dotcom domain name for the $200 billion company Royal Dutch Shell Plc even after Shell launched proceedings against him through the World Intellectual Property Organisation. At the venerable age of 88, he miraculously achieved a unanimous verdict in his favour in August without even having any legal representation. Alfred really is a giant slayer par excellence. When will he be receiving his knighthood?

There is one other point to make. I view these matters from a different perspective to anyone else in the world. I am, to the best of my knowledge, the only person of any nationality who is under potential penalty of being thrown in prison if I were to criticise Shell on the Internet (and you are correct in saying that they are people who sympathise and empathise with me). I am, as is already indicated, also the only person who is currently the subject of an ongoing libel action by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies. This fact confirms beyond any doubt that Shell DOES take legal action against anyone it believes has stated falsehoods about Shell management or stands in the way of their project plans for principled reasons. (Of course the libel action will not succeed if my comments are judged to be well-founded, but that issue is not material to the point I am making.) If Shell truly believes and can prove that anything alleged or stated as fact by Alfred Donovan is untrue, then Shell would surely have sued him for libel. If it does not wish to do so because of his age, then they could sue his son John as he has also been very forthright in his many published comments about Shell. In this connection, I draw your attention to the following legal statement displayed on the home page of the Donovan website, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com (AKA ShellNews.net): (SHELL IS OF COURSE FREE TO ISSUE LIBEL PROCEEDINGS IF ANYTHING PUBLISHED HEREIN IS UNTRUE). You and the world must draw your own conclusions about Shell’s reticence to take up the invitation.

Dr John Huong
Miri, Malaysia

PS. I am aware that an independent mediator is being sought to help resolve the Rossport Five controversy. Like Alfred Donovan, I am readily available to provide my impartial services Ö

EXTRACTS FROM A RESPONSE POSTED BY ALFRED DONOVAN

REPLY TO RICHARD, DR HUONG & “COMMONSENSE”  FROM ALFRED DONOVAN: 10/10/2005 00:01:09

Dr Huong has already pointed out, as my son and I have previously, that we do not create bad news about Shell. We leave that function to Shell management. It is not our fault that there has been so much bad news over such a long period. That too is down to an incompetent dishonest Shell management.

We are certainly more consistently outspoken about the failings of Shell management than any other news source. That is partly because we feel more involved and frustrated by the reserves fraud, bearing in mind that no one listened when we rang the alarm bells far and wide about a corporate culture of cover-up and deceit deeply ingrained at the highly levels of Shell management.

DR JOHN HUONG

We do reciprocate the sentiment expressed by Dr Huong in terms of regard, respect and affection. We have always found him to be a man of unbending principles. This was his undoing at Shell. He insisted on working within Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles, pledging honesty, openness and integrity in all of Shell’s dealings. That was a huge mistake in view of the then prevailing corporate culture as mentioned above. In other words, the hard reality rather than the PR spin and hype. If people in high places, such as Sir Philip Watts, had displayed the same integrity, the reserves fraud would never have happened.

Dr Huong has been victimised by Shell. He has been robbed of his human rights and humiliated by Shell. His perilous legal position has already been mentioned in his posting. No oil company will employ him while the defamation action brought by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies remains hanging over his head, possibly for years given the slow legal process in Malaysia. How is it possible that this one individual could have destroyed Shell’s reputation, as is claimed by Shell in its High Court Writ? Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of Shell is aware of the people responsible for leaving Shell’s reputation in tatters. Dr Huong is not one of them. With all due respect, he was a lowly Shell geologist.

I am also baffled, like Dr Huong, on why I have Shell’s written permission to castigate Shell management on the Internet while he is sued by them for doing a lot less. I have been publishing very forthright articles for several years (Richard has been aware of my track record for over a year). In comparison, Dr Huong has published nothing on the net. I published a few articles under his name. That is the extent of his crime. It is inexplicable that Shell has taken draconian legal measures against Dr Huong, even threatening him with imprisonment, while encouraging me, the publisher of his alleged libel, to exercise my right to freedom of speech on the Internet and to continue my Shell commentary activities at full throttle. I am British, he is a Malaysian. I am ancient, he is in his forties. So is it ageism or racism? We still have no answer.

Shell directors have used shareholders money like confetti to escape penalty for their disgraceful behaviour (settling one US class action lawsuit after another and paying SEC and FSA fines) while at the same time persecuting an honest man, who like the Rossport Five, has stood up for his principles.

As to whether our litigation against Shell has been a profitable exercise, the answer is no. Spread over so many years the compensation has not been worth the effort in monetary terms, but there is more at stake than money.

Some multinationals have more power and influence than many Countries and someone has to be prepared to stand up to them if they trample on the rights of ordinary people, whether they be stakeholders or otherwise. It is fair to say that the Internet has helped to redress the balance between the weak and the rich and powerful of this world, who must not be allowed to use their financial clout to suppress freedom of speech, as Shell has successfully done thus far with Dr Huong.

By Tom Mcghie
Last updated at 10:15 PM on 19th March 2011

Attractive prospects: Stanlow oil refinery in Cheshire has huge storage depots

Shell is to sell its Stanlow oil refinery, the second-biggest in Britain, to fledgling Indian energy giant Essar Energy in a deal worth more than £700 million.

The refinery on the 1,900-acre site in Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, will be sold for £217 million while the oil and petrol in the refinery will be sold off separately for nearly £500 million.

When the deal is completed all 960 workers will be retained and, in an unusual concession by an employer, will be able to keep their generous and increasingly rare final salary pension scheme.

Essar, 25 per cent of which was floated on the London Stock Exchange for £1.8 billion last year, plans to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in the plant to allow it to make top-grade petrol from ‘heavy’ oil rather than the more expensive ‘sweet’ oil favoured in Britain.

Essar is owned by the Ruia family, which is conservatively valued at more than £8 billion and owns businesses ranging from steel-making and retail outlets to Canadian newspapers.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Just four years after the merger of Royal Dutch and the Shell Transport and Trading Company, Shell Canada was incorporated in Montreal in 1911 with startup capital of $50,000 and six employees.

When the company that was to become Shell Canada Ltd. was established in Montreal 100 years ago, on March 21, 1911, the potential for the country’s energy industry was in its infancy, with few aware of the vast resources Canada had locked away.

LONDON (Dow Jones)–U.K. energy giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) said Friday it is working to bring increased supplies of liquefied natural gas to help meet the expected rise in Japanese demand, as the world’s third-largest economy scrambles to cover its power requirements following the shutdown of nuclear plants across the country.

Shell said two shipments of LNG from Brunei have unloaded in Tokyo in the last 24 hours, with further cargoes from other locations to follow in the coming days.

“Shell and its LNG joint ventures are working with their Japanese customers to help bring additional supplies of LNG into the country to meet [the country's] critical requirements,” the company said in a statement emailed to Dow Jones Newswires.

The 8.9-magnitude earthquake that struck Japan March 11 has led to the shutdown of 9.7 gigawatts of the country’s nuclear capacity, sending the cost of natural gas, and other fuels used for power generation, soaring.

At 1459 GMT, the U.K. natural gas April Futures contract on ICE was 62.75 pence a therm, around 8% higher than March 10.

-By Alexis Flynn, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 2078429471, alexis.flynn@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

Patti Epler | Mar 17, 2011

Shell Oil Co. wants a federal judge to speed up the government’s process for dealing with oil exploration in the Chukchi Sea.

The oil company on Thursday filed a motion in the ongoing court battle over Lease Sale 193. The company is protesting a schedule set out in an earlier filing by the federal Interior Department that stretches out the government’s plans to make a decision on Chukchi Sea oil drilling until late October.

Shell has already said that long of a delay would jeopardize its plans to explore for oil in the area in 2012. Now, according to the new court filing, the company wants the court to order the government to be done with a new environmental impact statement by July.

“Steps must be taken to reign (sic) in this process lest this … devolve into a multi-year process,” the oil company said.

Shell purchased leases in the Chukchi sale in 2008, paying more than $2 billion. Lawsuits filed by Native and environmental organizations have derailed drilling plans because the federal court ordered the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to conduct a more thorough environmental analysis of potential impacts on local communities and the environment.

BOEMRE sought new public comment on the new environmental study last year and earlier this month filed a document in the case saying that it had received more than 150,000 comments. Many people asked the agency to examine the industry’s ability to clean up a very large oil spill in light of BP’s Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico last spring. BOEMRE decided it would do the new oil spill response review, but that it would take the agency until late October to finish the new analysis.

Shell argues that the agency has already done an adequate review of the industry’s response capabilities and that is has had plenty of opportunity before now to decide to undertake a bigger review.

The company wants the court to “place BOEMRE on a firm schedule by which to complete the supplemental analysis,” the filing said.

Brendan Cummings, senior counsel for the Center For Biological Diversity, one of the groups that is challenging oil activities in the Arctic, said Thursday that  Shell is demanding a “rushed and cursory oil spill analysis that only makes sense in its fantasy world where the Deepwater Horizon spill did not occur.”

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

SOURCE ARTICLE

By John Donovan

Criminal Investigation arising from Shell Brent Bravo Explosion

On 17 March 2011, I sent an email to Mrs Anne Currie (right), the Area Procurator Fiscal for Grampion in Scotland.

Its purpose was to find out why the accused company Shell, not the Procurator Fiscal, notified former Shell International Group HSE Auditor, Mr Bill Campbell, of the outcome of the investigation.

This seemed odd to say the least, bearing in mind that it was his complaint to Grampion Police, which sparked the corruption investigation allegedly involving Shell and HSE officials.

The efficiency of Shell in routinely destroying records, which were potential evidence, may have helped them escape possible criminal prosecution for the alleged corruption arising from the reckless “Touch F*** All” safety culture on the Shell Brent Bravo North Sea Rig.  An explosion on the Rig cost the lives of two Shell offshore workers.

MY EMAIL TO ANNE CURRIE

From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: 17 March 2011 12:04
To: Currie, Anne (Grampian Area PF); Grant, Andrew (Stirling PF); keith.ruddock@shell.com
Cc: CampbellXXX.com
Subject: INVESTIGATION ARISING FROM BRENT BRAVO EXPLOSION

Dear Ms Currie

Printed below for your information is the note being added to the letter from Mr Campbell. I intend to recommence circulation to SMP’s and MP’s from tomorrow. The revised letter will also be published.

Please let me know today if you wish to correct any misstatement of fact, in which case I will further delay publication pending your considered response.

Yours sincerely
John Donovan
RoyalDutchShellPlc.com

BILL CAMPBELL LETTER ENDS

There has been some recent correspondence on this matter involving Royal Dutch Shell and the Procurator Fiscal.

In an extraordinary development, after an investigation lasting over two years, a Royal Dutch Shell General Counsel, not the Procurator Fiscal, has informed Mr Campbell of a decision by the Procurator Fiscal “that, having conducted a full investigation into the allegations of bribery and corruption on the part of the HSE and Shell made by Mr Campbell, and having considered all the facts, Crown Counsel has decided that no prosecution or further investigation is justified.”

Does this direct notification by the accused company to the whistleblower, Mr Campbell, whose complaint to Grampion Police sparked the corruption investigation, not strike you as odd? Surely the Procurator Fiscal should have notified Mr Campbell at the same time as notifying Shell?

The Procurator Fiscal had assured Mr Campbell in writing that its investigation would be “meticulous”. In fact, the key officials and employees at the heart of the allegations were not even interviewed. How much did the investigation cost? Who, other than Mr Campbell, was interviewed? If, as appears to be the case, this investigation was a shambles, or even worse, a charade designed to neutralise or placate Mr Campbell, then the costs incurred by Grampion Police in their investigation, before handing the file over to the Procurator Fiscal, was public money thrown down the drain. The same applies to the costs incurred during the subsequent two year long investigation by the Procurator Fiscal.

Surely it was important that after the accusations of unsatisfactory procedures surrounding the Fatal Accident Inquiry arising from the Brent Bravo explosion, that a genuinely meticulous investigation was carried out and that proper procedure was followed? As matters stand, the credibility of the investigation and its outcome is completely undermined.

The recent correspondence, which does not change the comments made by Mr Campbell, can be viewed here.

The Procurator Fiscal has had advance sight of the Campbell letter above and this note added by John Donovan.

ENDS

(Link will be inserted)

RESPONSE FROM ANNE CURRIE

Ms Currie replied and said that during a full meeting with Mr Campbell on 18 February 2011, it was explained to him that Crown Counsel having considered all the facts, decided there was insufficient evidence to justify a criminal prosecution or any further investigation.

This was my self-explanatory response.

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 17 March 2011 18:30:07 GMT
To: “Currie, Anne (Grampian Area PF)” <Anne.Currie@copfs.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: Andrew.Grant@copfs.gsi.gov.uk, keith.ruddock@shell.com, CampbellXXXX@aol.com
Subject: Re: INVESTIGATION ARISING FROM BRENT BRAVO EXPLOSION

Dear Ms Currie

Thank you for your reply.

Printed below is a copy of an email sent to you by Mr Campbell on 9 March. He stated his assumption that “your investigation is still ongoing.”

I have not seen a copy of your response, which I would have assumed, if it were not for the current confusion, would have cleared up any misconception on the part of Mr Campbell about this fundamentally important point. When he wrote to me on 15 March, it was plain that he remained uncertain about the status of the investigation and was still awaiting clarification from you.

Has he received any written notification in the unambiguous form stated in your reply today, other than from Shell?

Yours sincerely
John Donovan

Dear Procurator Fiscal

See attached.

The attachment is self explanatory.  I still await your reply to my concerns re our discussions on 18th February but suffice to say unless otherwise stated I assume your investigation is still ongoing.

As you are aware the Chairman of Shell, and his legal counsel is aware of the allegations against them and so are the HSE.  They have been given many opportunities to respond, right of reply etc but have never done so.

Coincidentally most of the comments re Shell and HSE were covered in a House of Commons report on the role of the HSC and the HSE in workplace health and safety in their third report covering 2007-08 (HC 246 -11 refers) published on 2nd April 2008 and are thus in the public domain.

Unless any specific objections are raised arrangements are in place to distribute it to MP’s and MSP’s in the next few days.

rgds

Bill Campbell
Wednesday 9th March

This article will be updated in the event of any further reply from Anne Currie.

By John Donovan

We have published below our recent correspondence with senior officials of Royal Dutch Shell on allegations of corruption involving Shell and the Health and Safety Executive. The allegations arose from the aftermath of the deadly Brent Bravo explosion, which itself resulted from Shell’s notorious “Touch F*** All safety culture on North Sea Rigs.

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO MR MICHIEL BRANDJES, COMPANY SECRETARY & GENERAL COUNSEL CORPORATE, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: donderdag 10 maart 2011 11:31
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LSC
Cc: Cambell1944@aol.com; Voser, Peter SI-GLOBAL; Ollila, Jorma RDS-RDS/CH; Brinded, Malcolm A RDS-ECMB
Subject: Letter from Bill Campbell to UK and Scottish MP’s – March 2011

Dear Mr Brandjes

Printed below is a letter we will be distributing from this weekend to UK and Scottish MP’s on behalf of Mr. Bill Campbell.

It will also be published on royaldutchshellplc.com.

Shell is invited to correct any factual inaccuracies and supply any comments the company would like included for circulation and publication on an unedited basis.

If I receive no response by tomorrow evening, I will assume Shell accepts as factually accurate the account of events as stated by Mr. Campbell.

If you need more time to consider the matter before replying, just let me know before tomorrow evening when we can expect a response.

If Shell does dispute any stated facts, please be specific, as this would be more informative and credible than providing a standard blanket denial, which seems to be Shell’s favourite option to try to create doubt about the veracity of stated facts, without actually providing any specific plausible basis for doing so.

Best Regards
John Donovan

Letter from Bill Campbell to UK and Scottish MP’s – March 2011

A Subject which Transcends Constituency Boundaries: The Safety of Royal Dutch Shell Offshore Employees

Criminal Investigation uncovers lies and deceit

My name is Bill Campbell.  I am a former Senior Operations and Maintenance Engineer who also acted as a Group Auditor for Shell International. I previously wrote to UK MP’s, and to the Lords, in July 2007.  This letter is an update on what has happened since and also what happened to the concerns raise by a number of MP’s at the time.  The key findings from the current investigation listed below are based on an update given to me by the Procurator Fiscal(s) on 18th February past.

Background

Some time ago the police in Aberdeen passed a report to the Procurator Fiscal.  Subsequently a criminal investigation commenced led by Anne Currie, Area Procurator Fiscal for Grampian Region assisted by Andrew Grant, Area Procurator Fiscal for Central Region.  The investigation has focussed to date on the role of HSE officials at the Offshore Safety Division of the HSE based in Aberdeen. The allegations against these officials were that they were unduly influenced by Shell, potential bribery and corruption, to cover up the full circumstances of a multiple fatality on the offshore installation Brent Bravo in September 2003, and the subsequent Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) held in Aberdeen.

What has the investigation established, the 7 key findings

1. HSE failed to pass vital evidence to the Procurator Fiscal in Aberdeen prior to the Fatal Accident Inquiry.  HSE had obtained this evidence directly from Shell only days after the fatalities and by November 2003. Shell informed HSE that the Brent Bravo fatalities were not just an unfortunate, but isolated incident, but there was a general malaise offshore with chronic weakness in essential management controls evident across the oilfield. The Fiscal was made aware of this evidence by me at the commencement of the FAI.  This was the time when I first became aware that HSE had not provided this evidence to the Fiscal. He then attempted to introduce this evidence belatedly, but the Sheriff desisted, due to the restrictions placed on him by the 1976 FAI Scotland Act.

2. If the Procurator Fiscal(s) had been in possession of the evidence given by Shell to HSE in 2003, as they should have been, this would most likely have led the Lord Advocate to sanction a more General Inquiry into how Shell had operated across the oilfield in the prolonged period from 1999 till the deaths.  And to how HSE had failed to reverse the degradation of facilities over this period despite issuing many Enforcement Notices and raising their ongoing concerns with Shell Directors.

3. Although Shell pled guilty to a number of serious breaches of legislation related to the deaths on Brent Bravo, their employees, and Society as a whole, were never made aware that similar breaches were apparent on 16 other offshore installations. The appalling conditions present on these installations raised risks to unacceptable levels but the workforce remained blissfully unaware of the risks they were taking, simply by being on these installations. Despite the conditions on these installations and in contravention of the HSC Enforcement Policy no formal enforcement actions were taken by HSE at the time and no attempt was made by Shell or HSE to assess the risks of continued operation.  It is estimated that some 40 prohibition and/or improvement notices would have been required to cover some 80 serious breaches apparent at the time.  Since 2003, Shell are on public record of expending to date some £800 million to return these facilities to the risk levels as stated in the offshore installation specific Safety Cases.

4. At the time the FAI results were made public the BBC in Scotland aired a TV programme on 14th June 2006 highly critical of Shell and HSE in relation to the deaths on Brent Bravo and this was picked up by Newspapers across the UK including the Times and the Guardian.  In total contradiction with the facts Shell denied wrongdoing stating that in the period 1999 to the deaths in 2003 ‘significant progress had been made on both asset integrity and management systems. This contributed to the continuous improvement in Shell’s safety performance over that period ‘.

5. HSE were aware that the Press Releases by Shell were false.  I wrote to the HSE CEO complaining about this at the time, how could HSE stay mute when they were aware that the Shell statement was a pack of lies? He did not reply.   The feedback from the ongoing investigation has confirmed that Geoffrey Podger, the CEO of the HSE, was aware that the statements made by Shell in their Press Releases of 2006 were false and misleading.  His defence is that the Shell statement put HSE in a difficult position as their Policy does not allow them to comment on the health and safety performance of individual organisations.

6. With respect to the allegations of bribery of HSE officials by Shell over the period 1999 till 2003 the Procurator Fiscal(s) can find no physical evidence of this.  They trawled through what records were currently still available looking at the degree and spread of hospitality given to HSE officials by Shell in this period.  However the records for this period are no longer available being routinely destroyed after a 5-year lapsed period and were thus simply not available to examine.

7. The Procurator Fiscal(s) have reviewed the results of an internal investigation carried out to ascertain if HSE could, or should have been able to foresee and prevent the Brent Bravo fatalities with the information available to them between 1999 and 2003.  The HSE internal investigation found essential weaknesses in their enforcement process resulting in 18 recommendations for improvement which have subsequently been implemented.

What happened to the concerns raised by MP’s in 2007

In August 2007 around 12 MP’s including the then Secretary of State for Scotland got involved and wrote to Bill McKenzie at that time a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Work and Pensions.  In a process that apparently by-passed Geoffrey Podger and his Head of the Offshore Safety Division, the HSE officials, against whom the allegations were made, were allowed to draft a reply directly to McKenzie.  The Procurator Fiscal(s) carrying out the current investigation have viewed the correspondence between HSE and Work and Pensions in 2007 and it is not contentious that the information provide to McKenzie by HSE officials was false and misleading.  The MP’s who had raised the mater were thus hoodwinked by a false account of events.

Bill McKenzie, who was provided with the same evidence in 2009 as currently held by the public investigators, wrote to me at that time, stating his satisfaction with the advice given to him by HSE officials in 2007.  He did this despite being aware that a criminal investigation into the conduct of those officials had commenced in March that year.  In the same letter he made clear that Geoffrey Podger did not authorise the advice given to him in 2007 and that there was no need for him to do so.  I find that statement by the Under Secretary truly remarkable.  The allegations raised by me and taken seriously by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service in Scotland were that HSE officials had in 2003 purposefully covered up the criminal neglect of Shell, either for personal gain, or to mask from public scrutiny their failures to protect workers offshore from unacceptable risk.  Could there be a more damming allegation.  Yet the reply to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the other MP’s in 2007 was not, it appears, worthy of the involvement of the HSE CEO.

Finally both Shell an HSE have been given write off reply to what is written here and have raised no legal, or other objections to it issue.  For some time I have been pressing Anne Currie to make her investigation public.  It is clearly in the public interest. Neither the Scottish or UK Government, finds argument with the proposal, that in all matters related to the health and safety of persons at work, there must be openness and transparency.  I would hope that on receipt of this letter the appropriate oversight committees at Westminster and Holyrood  would consider the implications of this letter and give the concerns raised in the letter the public exposure they merit.

Yours sincerely

Bill Campbell
March 9th 2011

REPLY FROM KEITH RUDDOCK, GENERAL COUNSEL, UPSTREAM INTERNATIONAL

On 15 Mar 2011, at 09:01, keith.ruddock@shell.com wrote:

Dear Mr Campbell and Mr Donovan,

I refer to Mr Donovan’s email of 10th March, 2011, to my colleague Mr Brandjes.  Shell has now been advised by the Procurator Fiscal that, having conducted a full investigation into the allegations of bribery and corruption on the part of the HSE and Shell made by Mr Campbell, and having considered all the facts, Crown Counsel has decided that no prosecution or further investigation is justified.

Accordingly, we view this matter as now closed.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Ruddock

Keith Ruddock
General Counsel Upstream International
Shell International B.V.
The Hague, The Netherlands – Trade Register no. 27002688
Address: Carel van Bylandtlaan 5, P.O. Box 162, 2501 AN,
The Hague, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 377 4579 Email: Keith.Ruddock@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

Dear Mr Ruddock

Thank you for your reply, the content of which I have noted.

If you had advised me that more time was needed to respond, I would not have commenced sending the Bill Campbell letter to some MSP’s on Monday 14 March.

The only change to the main content on the letters already sent was the sub-heading:

“What has the investigation established, the 7 key findings thus far (the investigation is still in progress)”

I added the text shown in red based on my then understanding of the situation.This will not be included in subsequent letters.

Mr Campbell has kindly supplied me from time to time with copies of his email correspondence with the Scottish authorities.

In view of his recent comments, it is difficult to see how the claims of a “meticulous” and “full investigation” by the Procurator Fiscal can possibly be justified.

Shell is to be congratulated in extracting what appears to be a definitive decision from the Procurator Fiscal brought into these matters by Grampian Police in December 2008. They have not been as forthright with Mr Campbell and apparently still have not advised him of the decisions mentioned in your email. He appears to have been  strung along for over two years believing that a “meticulous” investigation was being undertaken. We now know that relevant officials and employees were not even interviewed.

Mr Campbell has set out his areas of concern and is entitled to make his analysis and expert opinion known to legislators, bearing in mind the support he was given previously from some concerned MP’s after his first letter to them. The circulation process will take some days as each letter has to be sent separately. The letter will also be published. The decisions bizarrely notified to him by Shell, the company being investigated at his instigation, do not change his views. The improper way this investigation appears to have been handled and concluded will only add to unease in many quarters about the way the Scottish authorities have dealt with the Brent Bravo debacle.

Shell is free to inform us if anything stated by Mr Campbell in his letter is untrue. Shell is free to sue for defamation if anything stated as fact is untrue.

Although prior convictions could obviously not be taken into account in the Scottish investigation, it is a fact that Shell was found guilty after an official investigation of a sex, drugs, and corruption scandal involving employees of the US Minerals Management Service, the department providing a comparable oversight function in the United States. In other words Shell has form in bribing oversight officials.

In this case, potential evidence had apparently already been routinely destroyed.

It should not be forgotten that Shell was successfully prosecuted in relation to the deaths of Sean McCue and Keith Moncrieff on the Brent Bravo oil platform on 11 September 2003 and paid a record breaking £900,000 fine in addition to settling for undisclosed sums, litigation brought by the relatives of those who lost their lives. This all occurred as a result of Shell’s “Touch F*** All” safety culture on North Sea Platforms, which included falsification of safety records.

We are of course aware of the sensitivity attached by Shell to these matters and our related contact with Mr Campbell. If my memory serves me correctly, you personally wrote to Mr Campbell’s solicitors trying to poison our relationship with him. This was followed by Shell setting up an aggressive counter-measures team to combat our joint campaign for justice and integrity, after being put on the back foot.

Shell views this matter as closed. We do not.

I will add a link on the letter to this correspondence.

Further circulation will be delayed until Friday, so that any recipient of this email can advise me of any inaccuracy.

Yours sincerely
John Donovan

CORRESPONDENCE ENDS

“It is my intention, when I update Trade Union officials et al, to inform them that I made you aware of this matter and I would expect Geoffrey, if he has any of that difficult to obtain substance in our modern world, called honour, to apologise for the fact that your were duped and misled.”

Bill Campbell referring to Geoffrey Podger (right), Chief Executive of the Health & Safety Executive

This correspondence is directed to Lord Browne of Ladyton and concerns issues raised by him on my behalf in a Letter to Lord McKenzie at that time an Under Secretary of State at the DWP on 23 August 2007.  At the time Des Browne was the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Dear Mr Browne

At the time Lord McKenzie answered your letter, with the standard reply to some 15 other MP’s who had raised concerns directly with him.  This was as a result of a open letter that I had copied to all MP’s in 2007.  I have highlighted in the attachment (in bold) how these concerns were handled both by HSE and DWP but suffice to say you were given unambiguous assurances that the concerns raised by me were unfounded.

The position taken by Geoffrey Podger is described in the attachment, he was apparently not involved in the process and did not authorise the HSE information passed to DWP which was then used to give you assurance. The HSE information was also not authorised or indeed discussed by the then Head of the Offshore Division in Aberdeen, he confirmed this to me in writing.  The HSE information passed to DWP was written by an HSE official within the Offshore Division whose actions (amongst others) were the subject of the criminal investigation.  The issue is that the information passed to you was false and misleading, or lies if you like the dictionary definition.

Without boring you with great detail their were 2 principal areas of deceit in the information passed to DWP.

The official stated that the evidence I passed to HSE both in 2003 only days after the fatalities on Brent Bravo, and in the period May 2005 was for information only.  Both the Fiscal and Grampian Police were copied on the letter I passed to the same official on 22nd May 2005 where I requested that my evidence could be used in the Prosecution of Shell and more importantly be passed to the Lord Advocate who at that time was debating as to whether a FAI was to be held or not.  It is not contentious that the statement made by the HSE official was false.

Secondly the official stated in blunt terms that my evidence provided in 2003 and 2005 was not evidence, not relevant and could therefore be dismissed. As stated on the attachment that was also a false assurance.  It was the detail of that evidence that was the basis for the Police to consider it a serious matter and thus report to the Fiscal and for her investigation then to commence in March 2009.  It is speculation, but given the concerns raised publicly by prominent politicians at the time including Alex Salmond, and by Trade Unions, that if that evidence had been made available to the Procurator Fiscal Depute dealing with these matters at the time, that a more General Inquiry would have been held as discussed in the attachment.

Although it is accepted that the official passed false information to the DWP, and hence to you and others, you may be surprised to know that the official has never been subject to internal disciplinary action and was not interviewed informally, or formally under caution, to ascertain why he did this.  Either by the police or the Fiscal.

It is my intention, when I update Trade Union officials et al, to inform them that I made you aware of this matter and I would expect Geoffrey, if he has any of that difficult to obtain substance in our modern world, called honour, to apologise for the fact that your were duped and misled. I am confident if you had been made aware of the true situation you would have taken appropriate actions to fully understand the implications of the concerns raised in 2007.

I would like to thank your interest at the time and wish you well in your new role in the Lords.  I note your interest in human rights, the story in the attachment is not only about how the human rights of workers offshore were ignored but how their legal rights, under the various provisions of the H&S etc at Work Act, were also ignored by a callous employer and a non-compliant Regulator.

Yours sincerely

Bill Campbell
March 17, 2011