Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts from ‘June, 2011’

Class action suit targets benzene spill

Claims contamination has hurt property values

June 06, 2011 9:13 PM

The Telegraph

EDWARDSVILLE – Three law firms have filed a class action lawsuit in Madison County, alleging a 1986 Shell Oil Co. benzene spill and intrusion into residences have damaged the groundwater and reduced the value of people’s homes.

The suit is different from other benzene suits in that it seeks compensation for property damage, rather than damages for health effects, including cancer.

Property values have dropped, and residents cannot sell their homes, leaving them “trapped in their homes,” the suit claims.

The suit includes nine counts but does not ask for a specific dollar amount of damages. Besides Shell, BP Products and several people referred to as “John Doe” are named as defendants. The John Does are various designers and engineers in the refining business.

“Benzene and other poisonous hydrocarbons are floating on the groundwater and are in the soil located directly under the village of Roxana. Shell, BP Products and the Does have each caused, or contributed to cause, the formation of the underground plume of benzene and other toxic hydrocarbons (the Benzene Plume), which has destroyed the value of the real estate in Roxana and has placed in serious jeopardy the health of Roxana’s residents,” the suit claims.

The complaint alleges that among the toxic chemicals released, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency documented the release of 8,400 gallons of pure benzene in 1986 from an underground pipeline that extended from the Wood River Refinery in Roxana to a barge-loading facility on the Mississippi River.

“Another Illinois EPA documented release of pure benzene occurred in February 1986,” a spokesman for one of the plaintiffs’ law firms said.

The complaint alleges that the defendants did nothing to clean up or otherwise address the toxic chemicals, including benzene, for more than 20 years.

The refinery continued its groundwater pumping activities, pulling benzene from the 1986 leak under the homes and businesses of the residents of Roxana. The benzene in the groundwater exposes the Roxana residents to benzene vapor intrusion into their homes, attorney Chris Dysart said.

The pumping has lowered the water table and caused the plume to spread, the suit alleges.

The suit alleges that Shell has known about the dangers of benzene causing cancer for decades but, despite its knowledge, it publicly minimized and hid the dangers.

The complaint also alleges Shell has known about the dangers posted by benzene vapors entering homes and other property since it performed studies concerning vapor intrusion in the 1980s.

The complaint alleges the Illinois EPA and the U.S. EPA have cited Shell for numerous environmental violations for its operations at the Wood River Refinery in Roxana.

Most recently, in May 2008, the Illinois EPA cited Shell for violating the Illinois Environmental Protection Act 41 times by exceeding the standards for the release of benzene and other chemicals into the groundwater of Roxana, Dysart said.

The suit claims that, as early as 1948, studies were published that show a link between benzene and blood cancers.

The suit claims Shell first became aware of an excess rate of leukemia at its refineries when a contract worker filed suit in 1979, alleging benzene exposure had caused the worker’s leukemia.

Shell compiled a list of leukemia cases of its past employees and allegedly was the site of the largest number of leukemia deaths, the suit claims.

In 1980, Shell calculated that there were a statistically significant number of leukemia deaths at its Wood River Refinery, the suit claims; however, Shell issued a letter to its employees minimizing the risks.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health criticized that letter, claiming that even low levels of benzene posed a risk.

The suit claims that in May 2010, the Illinois Department of Public Health sent a letter to the Illinois EPA, which states that a report dated February 2010 prepared for Shell by its contractor, URS, and posted on the Roxana Investigation website set forth misleading conclusions regarding the dangers posed by the Roxana benzene plume.

The suit also claims there have been leaks from the mothballed former BP Amoco plant in Wood River.

Dysart said he and his firm, The Dysart Firm of Chesterfield, Mo., were plaintiffs’ attorneys in a class action suit against several refiners in a suit over a plume of gasoline under Hartford. That suit was settled for $40 million, he said.

The plaintiffs also are represented by Goldenberg Heller Antognoli and Rowland of Edwardsville, lawyers who also were involved in a class action concerning the Hartford plume, and a St. Louis firm, Heraldry, Neiers and Jones.

sanfordschmidt@yahoo.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell targets $3 billion investment in domestic gas

Monday, 06 June 2011 00:00 Olusola Bello

Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) is committing over $3 billion to domestic gas projects which will help boost economic growth in the country and end gas flaring. Specifically, the gas from the projects will provide feed stocks to the power and fertiliser plants and is expected to boost power generation in the country.

Mutiu Sunmonu, chairman, Shell Group of Companies in Nigeria and also managing director of Shell Petroleum Development Company, who confirmed this to BusinessDay, observed that the company’s gas gathering project had suffered significantly in the last four to five years due to insecurity in the Niger Delta and funding challenges on the part of the Federal Government.

However, according to Sunmonu, in the last one or two years, the government has improved its funding on domestic gas related projects while peace has also returned to the region.

“Because of these, the company is embarking on gas projects in addition to what has been done in the past. Over $3 billion has been spent in the past, and is again committing about $2 to $3 billion to the projects.”

Sunmonu assured that Shell is determined to go on with most of its plans for the future and to raise its production volume in Nigeria and ensure that it continues to meet all of its obligations to its customers. This, he added, is subject to sustaining the peace in the Niger Delta.
The Shell boss who stated that by the time all these projects are completed, the company will have covered over 90 percent of the gas projects, would however not be categorical on when Shell will end gas flaring, which he insisted is linked to issues of funding and insecurity in Niger Delta.

As part of efforts to end gas flaring by 2013, the Federal Government last week entered into a gas purchase agreement with some oil companies to provide gas to some of the power plants.

The signing of the agreement between the Federal Government and international oil companies (IOCs) has guaranteed 70 percent supply of total power sector gas requirements to the country.

Meanwhile, the gas supply agreement negotiations between Chevron joint venture and Nigarjura fertiliser company has also been finalised to pave the way for the take off of the fertiliser project, while the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Chevron, Xenel of Saudi Arabia are currently in Houston, Texas to take a look at the conceptual engineering options for the petrochemical and central processing facility.

SPDC, it is expected, would supply 90 million standard cubic feet of gas to Egbin which would translate to improved electricity supply in the country.

Meanwhile, the chief executive of officer, Shell International, Peter Voser, has said the operations of Shell companies in Nigeria remain an important part of the portfolio and as such, they (Shell) are determined to keep improving their business here.

Voser, who spoke in an interview, said, “Over the past years, we’ve seen good progress in security and increased production,” adding that, he feels encouraged by the support the Shell companies in Nigeria get from Niger Delta people and from people outside Shell who have actually been there. This, he said, has convinced him that (Shell) they are on the right track.

“But Nigeria, especially the Niger Delta, remains a challenging operational environment. We must continue to tell the story honestly. The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC) calculates that 98 percent of the oil spills in Nigeria in 2009 involving the joint venture it operates were due to sabotage and theft damage. Whatever the cause of the spill, SPDC is cleaning up the sites that it can access. But it can only do so if it’s safe for its people and they’re allowed in by the local communities.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

Sex scandal allegations against a Shell executive

EMAIL SENT TO MICHIEL BRANDJES, COMPANY SECRETARY & GENERAL COUNSEL CORPORATE, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 6 June 2011 12:45:23 GMT+01:00
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: Sex scandal allegations against a Shell executive

Dear Mr Brandjes

You may be aware of the article we published on 2nd June concerning allegations against one of your colleagues:

Serious allegations against a Senior Shell Executive

EXTRACT FROM THE ALLEGATIONS”

“He is widely known among Shell employees to have had affairs with people on his staff, and when the relationship goes sour, they are put on leave and ultimately terminated from the company. All seems to be done hush-hush to maintain appearance…”

We had intended to send you copies of the emails we sent to your colleague containing detailed information supplied by a Shell insider source.  He had the opportunity to deny the allegations, but did not respond.

On reflection, it seems safe to assume that your colleague would have already supplied you with the relevant emails.

Please let me know if this assumption is wrong and I will immediately supply you with the emails.

Best Regards

John Donovan

EMAIL ENDS

We eagerly await the imminent delivery to us of relevant internal documents from the Shell companies in the Netherlands in response to an application we made under the provisions of the Dutch Data Protection Act. The information should contain correspondence that Mr Brandjes had in March 2011 with historians responsible for “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” in reference to our articles about Shell’s financial support for Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Shell in Nigeria

From page 6 of “Royal Dutch Shell and its sustainability troubles” – Background report to the Erratum of Shell’s Annual Report 2010

The report is made on behalf of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands)
Author: Albert ten Kate: May 2011.

PART ONE

Shell in Nigeria

In oil production, Nigeria is the most important country for Shell. During the period 2006-2010, Nigeria accounted for about 16% of Shell’s worldwide production of oil and liquid natural gas. During the year 2009, production falls due to disrupting activities by militant groups in the Niger Delta reached their peak for the time being. During the year 2010, production climbed back again, with Nigeria accounting for almost 19% of Shell’s worldwide production of oil and liquid natural gas.

Nigeria’s share in the profits of Royal Dutch Shell has been estimated at an annual average of USD 1.8 billion over the period 2005–2009, representing 7.3% of Shell’s total profit and 10.4% of its profits from upstream operations. Shell’s business in Nigeria seems to do well.

Shell’s Nigerian activities are divided among three companies. The largest is the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (SPDC). SPDC is also Nigeria’s largest oil and gas joint venture. Most of its oil production takes place onshore in the Niger Delta. Shell is the operator of SPDC and has a 30% stake in the joint venture. SPDC has been pumping oil for more than 50 years in the Niger Delta. The other businesses of Shell in Nigeria refer to liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export, and offshore oil operations (among other the Bonga field). This case focuses on Shell’s onshore activities in the Niger Delta. This is the area where most environmental problems are manifested (such as oil spills and gas flares) and where oil production has caused severe conflicts.

The Niger Delta, resembling the South of Nigeria, is made up of fertile wetlands. It is one of the most densely populated regions of Africa. It has more than 30 million inhabitants. Subsistence farming and fishing are the mainstay of the people. The number of communities hosting oil / gas facilities in the Niger Delta is estimated at 1,500.

The SPDC-activities in the Niger Delta, as operated by Shell, are spread over some 30,000 square kilometres (about three-quarters the size of the Netherlands) and include a network of more than 6,000 kilometres of flowlines and pipelines, 86 oil fields, 1,000 producing wells, 68 flowstations, 10 gas plants and two major oil export terminals at Bonny and Forcados.

Nigeria is a poor en corrupt country. It ranks number 142 (out of 169 countries) in the Human Development Index of the United Nations6 and number 134 (out of 178 countries) in the Corruption Perceptions Index.7 Over-reliance on crude oil and gas (accounting for about 95 per cent of foreign earnings and over 80 per cent of federal budget) has weakened investment in other vibrant sectors of the economy, including agriculture. The oil sector employs just one per cent of the labour force. Many reports and studies have reiterated that, despite its vast resources, Nigeria ranks among the countries with the widest gap between their poorest and richest citizens. Its 54.4 percent official poverty prevalence translates to about 70 million poor persons. Within the last decade the traditional challenges facing Nigeria – mass poverty and unemployment, absence of transformation and prevalence of high inequality – have remained largely unchanged.

THE COMPLETE 73 PAGE REPORT (with reference sources)

Further examples from this section of the report will be published in the coming days.

Shell in Syria

A research paper prepared for IKV Pax Christi
Final version: 13 May 2011
Jan Willem van Gelder Anna van Ojik

Profundo Radarweg 60 1043 NT Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel: +31-20-820 83 20 E-mail: profundo@profundo.nl Website: www.profundo.nl (English)

RELATED ARTICLES:

Shell must suspend operations in Syria

Shell accused of supporting Syrian regime

Shell accused over Syrian oil exports

Shell Faces NGO Pressure To Withdraw From Syria

Shell in Syria

1.1    Introduction

Shell has a long history in Syria. It has had a presence in the country since the 1940s and has been a shareholder in Al Furat Petroleum Company (AFPC) for some 25 years.1 In Syria, Shell is only active in the upstream segment of the oil sector.2 The two subsidiaries of Shell active in Syria’s upstream oil sector, Syria Shell Petroleum Development and Shell South Syria Exploration, are discussed in the following paragraphs.

1.2 Syria Shell Petroleum Development

1.2.1 General overview

Shell’s principal operations in Syria are conducted by Shell’s subsidiary Syria Shell Petroleum Development BV (SSPD):

Syria Shell Petroleum Development BV P.O. Box 3663 Damascus Syria

Tel: +963 11 2217220 Fax: +963 11 2217156

The company performs exploration and production activities in Syria and has its statutory seat in The Hague. It is registered at the Dutch company register (Kamer van Koophandel).

In May 2010 Shell announced that the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has acquired 35% in SSPD.3 Shell and CNPC stated that they will continue to look for attractive investment opportunities in Syria’s upstream industry together. 4

1.2.2 SSPD’s activities in Syria

SSPD undertakes the following activities in Syria:

• SSPD has interests ranging from 62.5% to 66.67%, in three production licences in Syria:5 • Deir-Ez-Zor • Fourth Annex • Ash Sham

Shell’s interests in the licences expire between 2018 and 2024.6 All three contracts are concluded with the Syrian government and the state owned General Petroleum Corporation (GPC; previously Syrian Petroleum Company). The oil fields are operated by Al Furat Petroleum Company, in which SSPD holds a 31.25% interest. SSPD’s partner in the joint ventures is Himalaya Energy Syria B.V. which is a joint venture between the Indian ONGC Videsh and CNPC from China.7

• The three licenses contain about 38 producing oil fields (see Figure 1), which are operated by the consortium Al Furat Petroleum Company (AFPC). SSPD has a 31.25% share in AFPC, the state-owned General Petroleum Corporation holds 50% and Himalaya Energy Syria B.V. holds the other 18.75%. Currently, AFPC produces some 100,000 barrels a day.8

• AFPC also carries out development operations in Syria together with Al Badish Petroleum Company (ABPC), of which AFPC is the exclusive agent. SSPD holds a 33.33% interest in in ABPC.9

• SSPD is also party to a gas utilisation agreement for the collection, processing and sharing of natural gas from designated fields for use in Syrian power generation and other industrial plants. AFPC performs operations under these contracts.10

Figure 1 gives an overview of the oil and gas fields operated by AFPC as at February 2005.

Figure 1. Oil and gas fields operated by AFPC

Shell describes its investment in Syria as among the risk factors and uncertainties affecting the company. As Syria is among the countries against which the US government imposed sanctions, Shell could be subject to sanctions or other penalties in connection with its activities in Syria.11

1.2.3 Production of SSPD

The volumes of oil and gas attributable to SSPD are shown in Table 1. To add up oil and gas production, cubic meters of gas are converted into barrels of oil equivalents.

The numbers in Table 1 reflect 100% of the production attributable to Shell’s subsidiaries. Since 2010, 35% of these figures is attributable to CNPC. As the table shows, both oil and gas production of SSPD have decreased sharply over the last five years. It is also clear that gas production only accounts for a small part of SSPD’s total production.

To get a better picture of the importance of SSPD’s production on the Syrian market, Table 2 compares the total oil production in Syria with the oil production of SSPD.

As Table 2 shows, SSPD’s share in the Syrian oil production decreased from 8 to 6% over the last few years. Table 2 also shows that the total oil production in Syria has decreased considerably between 2005 and 2009.

To assess how important SSPD’s production is for Shell, Table 3 puts the production of SSPD in Syria in perspective with Shell’s total oil production.

As Table 3 shows, between 2005 and 2009 SSPD has accounted for around 2% of Shell’s total oil production.

1.2.4 Financial information

At the end of 2009, SSPD owned total assets worth € 216.8 million. The net profit of SSPD over 2009 amounted to € 124.7 million, compared to € 205.3 million in 2008.12

SSPD pays tax in accordance with Syrian tax law under a rate that represents Syrian Corporation Tax. In 2009 the effective tax rate that SSPD had to pay was 36.3%. Over earnings before tax of € 195.9 million in 2009, SSPD had to pay € 71.2 million tax to the Syrian authorities. In 2008, the company paid € 122.3 million in taxes.13

1.3 Shell South Syria Exploration

Shell South Syria Exploration (SSE) is a 100% Shell subsidiary registered in Bermuda. It has exploration interests in two production-sharing contracts for blocks 13 and 15 in the south of Syria, expiring in 2011 and 2014 respectively. A one-year extension for block 13 has been requested and is pending government approval. Seismic data acquisition was completed in 2008 and exploration drilling commenced in 2010. Shell is the operator with a 70% interest.14

Figure 2 gives an overview of the division of oil fields in Syria. The exploration blocks of SSE are clearly shown in yellow.

1.4 Chemical products

Apart from oil, Shell is also present in the Middle East with an extensive portfolio of chemicals manufacturing, storage, logistics and trading operations based in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Jordan and Egypt. Shell also sells polyurethane products in Syria. For these products Shell uses third-party bulk storage and blending facilities in Aqaba, Jordan.15

IKV Pax Christi asked Profundo to document Shell’s involvement in Syria. You can read the 19 page report here (with reference sources)

SOURCE ARTICLE

Legal loss to Shell dire for wildlife

Edmonton Journal June 3, 2011 3:21 AM

The recent rejection by a superior court justice of an appeal of an Energy Resources Conservation Board decision on Shell Canada’s application to drill in the Castle wilderness is fallacious.

Now the legal system has joined the ERCB and the provincial sustainable resource development (SRD) department in failing to block further loss of grizzly bear habitat and endangered plant communities.

The judge ruled: “The well’s opponents did not present any persuasive evidence it would endanger the bears.”

This statement is not only directly counter to the precautionary principle, but also fails to recognize that endangered species decline and go extinct by deaths of a thousand cuts. To ecologists this is the tyranny of small, incremental decisions, where each apparently insignificant decision to destroy habitat leads to an outcome that none would have planned or preferred.

The grizzly bear has been designated as endangered in Alberta. This alone should have been reason for rejecting this well application.

The area west of Pincher Creek is critically important because it is part of a narrow zone of grizzly habitat connecting populations north and south of it. If it is further degraded the potential for genetic isolation occurs.

Both the government and Shell have failed to close oil and gas roads, which has led to an explosion of offroad vehicle usage and other recreational incursions on wild land. Several recent studies reveal a massive network of illegal roads and trails, many invading streams and meadows, displacing wildlife.

This Shell drilling application should have been a no-brainer for ERCB rejection, but instead it may become the poster child for demonstrating how completely Alberta’s ERCB is captivated by Big Oil.

If endangered plants and animals and lethal threats to the health, even survival, of local residents from predictable leaks of poison gas (35 per cent hydrogen sulphide) are not sufficient reason for rejection, then one can see the legal sham prolonged hearings and full-press legal defence teams by oil companies represent.

Justice Carole Conrad, in her decision released by the Court of Appeal of Alberta, said: “There was no expert evidence that the well would molest, destroy or disturb such a den if it did exist.”

As the expert on grizzly bears at the ERCB hearing, I tried to present just such evidence, but I was censored.

There is a mountain of scientific evidence showing that grizzlies get killed on and near roads, and industrial activity, such as drilling and heavy traffic, prevents their use of habitat. SRD biologists had data on at least eight radio-collared grizzly bears using the area -SRD was nowhere to be seen at the hearing.

Albertans are sadly misled if they believe their government’s claim of balance between industrial exploitation and wildland conservation.

The legal mandate of the ERCB should be to make decisions in the best interest of Albertans, not Big Oil.

Looking back over the years, since 1974, when I was a provincial biologist in Edmonton, I see continued loss of wildlife population viability, loss of wilderness and degradation of habitat. The propaganda mantra of a “working landscape” as currently practised is cause for shame in cashrich, wildlife-poor Alberta.

Barrie K. Gilbert, PhD, wildlife scientist, Wolfe Island, Ont.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Cosan Jumps After Shifting More Debt to Raizen Venture With Shell

By Lucia Kassai and Andrew Herndon – Jun 2, 2011 8:38 PM GMT+0100

Cosan SA Industria & Comercio rose the most in a week after it transferring $3.3 billion in debt to a joint venture with Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA), more than previously announced.

Cosan rose 93 Brazilian centavos, or 4 percent, to 24.06 reais at 4:34 p.m. in Sao Paulo trading, the most since May 25. Shell’s Class A shares fell 1.7 percent in London to close at 2,122 pence.

Cosan shifted about 5.24 billion reais ($3.3 billion) in net debt to the Raizen venture, the Barra Bonita, Brazil-based company said today in a regulatory filing. That’s more than the $2.8 billion in debt it said in August that would transfer to the new company, which was formally created today.

By transferring the liabilities to Raizen, Cosan’s net debt dropped 69 percent to 1.63 billion reais, compared with 5.3 billion reais as of Dec. 31, 2010, the latest available figure.

“Cosan is contributing more debt as it is including debt from the Zanin mill acquisition,” chief financial officer Marcelo Martins said on a call with analysts today. “Cosan will become lighter and have an improved capital structure.”

Cosan bought in February assets from Usina Zanin Acucar & Alcool Ltda in Brazil for 142 million reais in cash and agreed to take on 236 million reais of debt.

Largest Cane Processor

Shell, Europe’s largest oil company by market value, and Cosan combined their their sugar, ethanol and fuel-distribution assets in Brazil to form Raizen, the world’s largest sugar-cane processor. Cosan contributed 23 mills, 1,730 gas stations and other assets, and Shell put up as much as $1.6 billion in cash and assets, including 2,740 stations.

As part of the agreement, The Hague-based Shell transferred a 15.7 percent stake in enzyme producer Codexis Inc. (CDXS) to Raizen, which is now its largest shareholder, Codexis said today.

The deal also includes part of Shell’s interest in Iogen Energy, a 50-50 joint venture with Ottawa-based enzyme producer Iogen Corp. that is developing cellulosic ethanol technology, Shell said today.

Brazilian billionaire Rubens Ometto Silveira Mello, who controls Cosan, will be chairman of Raizen and will have an annual compensation of about 13 million reais, Cosan said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Lucia Kassai in Sao Paulo at lkassai@bloomberg.net; Andrew Herndon in San Francisco at aherndon2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dale Crofts at dcrofts@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Shell Says Delay in U.S. Offshore Oil Drilling ‘Highly Unusual’

By Katarzyna Klimasinska – Jun 2, 2011 3:53 PM GMT+0100

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA), blocked for about four years from developing 10-year Arctic leases purchased from the U.S., said the delays are “highly unusual” and undermine confidence in the federal offshore program.

The Hague-based company acquired oil leases in the Beaufort Sea in 2005, and added Chukchi Sea leases in 2008. Since then, Shell has been pursuing permits from drilling regulators and the Environmental Protection Agency.

“Although the leases were issued to Shell, the government’s permitting and regulatory process has not been equipped to deliver,” David Lawrence, Shell’s executive vice president of exploration and commercial, said in remarks prepared today for a House Natural Resources Committee hearing in Washington. “This is highly unusual. The federal government’s decision to hold a sale is, in effect, a decision that outer continental shelf exploration and development is desired. ”

The company has said it needed two years to prepare for drilling in the Beaufort Sea and was ready in 2007.

Shell filed two exploration plans last month to drill as many as two wells a year in the Beaufort Sea, where the leases expire in 2015, and as many as three a year in the Chukchi Sea from 2012 through 2013. A delay in issuing an air permit last year forced the company to postpone exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea that was planned for this year.

The Beaufort and Chukchi seas are among “the most unique places of the planet” and oil exploration might pose a threat to polar bears and walruses, the Natural Resources Defense Council said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Katarzyna Klimasinska in Washington at kklimasinska@bloomberg.net;

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at lliebert@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

Serious allegations against a Senior Shell Executive

By John Donovan

We have received serious allegations from a purported insider directed against a senior Shell executive.

The insider equated the alleged odious activities of the relevant executive with the sex scandals surrounding Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and John Edwards. Reference was also made to a related article in Time Magazine.

The purported insider claims that the alleged serial infidelity involving Shell staff is widely known among employees within the relevant Shell company.

Last week we sent an email to the relevant Shell executive supplying extracts from detailed information provided to us in emails we have received. We said that if the executive categorically denied the allegations, we would accept his word and take no further action. There has been no response.

Under the circumstances, we will supply to Mr Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc a copy of our emails to the Shell executive in question, who has had advance sight of this article. (text only)

DONOVAN EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH SHELL INTERNATIONAL CONCLUDED ON 1 JUNE, 2011

Equally unforeseen, a CAS spook involved in the investigation of leaks to our website, has subsequently leaked information directly to us, including top secret Shell internal intel documents, one of which, we have already published.

Click to continue reading “DONOVAN EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH SHELL INTERNATIONAL CONCLUDED ON 1 JUNE, 2011″