News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
Dear John
Hope you are keeping well.
Just yesterday, I came across the story of Carol Tan who recorded her experience in a website (link below).
http://shelledfordepression.com/openletter.html
I was not sure if you had run her story before….but if not, I think this was a well written and important piece, that would promote greater awareness among readers.
Regards
Results clouded by rivals and identity crisis! Titanic court battle looms for oil company! Executives may face charges!By Rowena Mason: 9:33PM BST 30 Jul 2011
If those headlines were meant for readers in 2011, the subject could be only one sorry corporate story: BP and its $40bn (£24bn) Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.
However, the real answer lies six years earlier in another just as painful oil scandal that hit BP’s nearest rival, Royal Dutch Shell. This was the heated reaction to news that Shell had over-stated its oil reserves by a third in the years leading to 2004.
Downgrade after downgrade kept hitting the company’s share price until matters came to a head over an email from Shell’s head of exploration to the chief executive.
“I am becoming sick and tired of lying about the extent of our reserves issues and the downward revisions that need to be done because of far too optimistic bookings,” it said.
Chief executive Sir Phillip Watts resigned and was escorted from the premises. No further action was taken against management, with official Financial Services Authority and US Securities and Exchange Commission inquiries into their roles dropped.
For a short period, this corporate giant, on which 1m people rely for employment, was run by just three interim leaders while there was a management clear-out at the top and merger between its Dutch and British divisions with Jeroen van der Veer taking the helm.
An array of authorities started launching investigations and the company began an amnesty, where all departments could take a cold hard look at their numbers and declare any discrepancies.
By its own admission, the energy major has really only just recovered from the scarring restructuring, cultural change and executive hand-wringing that ensued.
Now powering ahead of BP with profits of $8bn in the past three months alone, Shell is the largest oil company in Europe with an enviable pipeline of new oil and gas projects due to boost production this year. Lauded by investors and analysts, these are the same City faces who were back then pressing for the company to be taken over or split up – much like for BP today.
Although BP’s accident is a completely different, more expensive problem, there are still parallels with Shell’s historic corporate scandal – most notably its probable longevity. Herein lies the tale of how Shell regrouped from one scandal, to transform itself into a company that is today worth twice as much as BP, even though the pair are often mentioned in the same breath.
Despite today’s differences, industry insiders argue that both companies began to lose their way years before their respective disasters struck.
According to former Shell executives at the time the scandal hit, the seeds of the crisis were sown when the company started to base its business around trading and becoming more “asset-light”, cutting costs aggressively and setting tough bonus-related targets. The focus had shifted away from its historical expertise in engineering and operations, in much the same way that BP has been criticised for neglecting its traditional strengths.
What’s more, one disaster followed another, much like BP stumbled out of the Gulf of Mexico straight into an almighty row with its Russian billionaire partners and Kremlin-backed oil company Rosneft.
“Do we spy another PR disaster on Shell’s horizon after Nigeria, Brent Spar and the reserves debacle?” one Sunday newspaper asked in 2005. Environmental and security problems in Nigeria followed hot on the heels of the reserves scandal in the wake of greater public scrutiny and mistrust.
Shell’s ultimate solution for regaining the trust of the market was to go back to basics – investing billions of dollars in new production of oil and gas, particularly in “unconventional” extraction. Its management repeated buzz words such as “technology” and “engineering” to reassure investors the company was going back to its dependable core strengths.
It pushed into North American deepwater, pioneering liquid gas projects in Australia and Qatar, plus development in Russia’s remote Sakhalin region. All were technically complex, some suffered delays and cost over-runs, and in total, they needed $150bn of capital, but the gamble, supported by oil prices at near record highs, is on the brink of paying off.
Insiders say investors were not always supportive, pushing for immediate improvements and near-term returns, but in the end, Shell’s new management persuaded the market to endure years of patient faith in its turnaround.
The question is now whether BP’s shareholders, bewitched by the possible £180bn break-up value of the company, will be willing to grant it such leeway. BP has promised “consolidation” and extra capital investment in exploration and production, having completed a promising $7bn deal in India.
Yet some analysts are sceptical that BP has acted quickly enough in clearing out the old management and realising the scale of its problems, which could hinder any attempts to keep the 100-year-old corporate behemoth in one piece.
“It took Shell a long time to recover, but the Shell machine went into action quickly,” says Malcolm Graham-Wood, a long-time BP watcher from VSA Capital. “They found out what was wrong and they rectified it. The depth and breadth of management within Shell sorted it out. What’s a shame is that BP have not got depth or breadth of management and they’re making a mess of it. I think it will take them years to get back to the state they were in before. The Shell story is, and has been to me for a couple of years now, about the huge projects which have come on stream in this quarter,” he adds.
“Shell has not been distracted by any of the self-inflicted grief affecting BP and has outperformed accordingly.”
Stuart Joyner, analyst at Investec, agrees that it will take years for BP to recover.
“I think we have to be patient. In fact management has been quite explicit about telling investors that at least for the remainder of this year, and possibly into next year.
“In terms of when BP will organically start to improve, I think we’re looking at a couple of years out. It could take even longer than that if you look at the two key strategic plans [CEO Bob] Dudley has made. By their very nature they are very long-term, which is not to criticise, but realistically it means that anything they do in India and Russia will probably not impact the portfolio for the best part of a decade.
“Shell has really only just – in 2011 – started to reap benefits from what it put in place after the reserve scandal. It’s taken the best part of a decade for them to change the portfolio and that’s partly because their strategy was to invest in long-lived assets like Qatar, and obviously that has taken longer for them to turn around. But they are producing an enormous amount of cash at the moment and we saw that in both quarters.”
Now that Shell has won round its critics, the challenge will be to keep up the momentum and stave off those who believe BP’s crisis has exposed cracks in the over-sized, integrated oil major.
Shell’s chief executive, Peter Voser, argues that the company has proved the worth of owning both production and refineries through projects like the Canadian oil sands and Qatari developments. These look after oil and gas from extraction to point of sale. And he claims national oil company partners value the versatility of Shell’s skills across upstream and downstream and ability to invest in both areas.
The question now for oil investors is whether BP’s depressed share price offers more of an opportunity for increasing value than Shell, which must keep up its production growth and reserve replacement.
The jury is still out in the City, with little faith in BP’s management team in evidence at this early stage in its turnaround.
2000 BP unveils its new sunflower logo to symbolise “dynamic energy” and green sympathies, after a period of acquisitions and quick profits. Shell cuts costs, makes record profits.
2002 Low oil prices and new North Sea taxes hit profits at both companies. Shell says it is “uncertain about meeting output targets”.
2004 Shell reveals that reserves have been over-stated and merges its Dutch and UK divisions, with Jeroen van der Veer taking the helm. BP buys back $5bn (£3bn) of shares after moving into Russian oil with TNK-BP partnership.
2005 BP and Shell conduct secret early merger discussions, revealed years later by former BP chief Lord Browne. BP suffers blast at Texas refinery, which kills 15 people.
2006 Russia seizes Shell’s oil assets at Sakhalin. BP suffers oil leaks in Alaska and Lord Browne fights push for his retirement.
2007 Investigation into Texas blast points to serious safety failings at BP and Lord Browne steps down after lying about how he met a lover. Shell pays $350m to settle reserve scandal cases.
2008 Shell sets new record for company profits. New BP boss Tony Hayward embarks on round of cost-cutting.
2009 Shell suffers revolt over high executive pay. Plunge in oil prices prompts job losses at both companies. BP overtakes Shell to be biggest European major.
2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill floors BP, as share price dives and losses accrue. Shell sheds more jobs and focuses on big projects coming on stream.
RELATED ARTICLE
EMAIL RECEIVED BY JOHN DONOVANAfter 82 years Sunday 31st July is the last day of Shell’s ownership of Stanlow.
Can I thank you for all the help, and publicity, you have given us over the last few years. We are looking forward to becoming part of Essar and are not sorry to see Shell go.
Keep up the good work.Regards
ENDS
By IAN URBINA
WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission sent subpoenas this week to energy companies asking them for documents about how they calculate and publicly disclose the performance of their shale gas wells, according to oil and gas industry lawyers.
The subpoenas reflect the regulators’ interest in determining whether companies are overstating how their gas wells perform and how much gas these companies can profitably extract over the long term.
It is not clear how many subpoenas were sent. John Nester, a spokesman for the commission, declined to comment.
“The use of subpoenas makes clear that the S.E.C. is taking a formal, not a casual, look at the matter,” said a market research report on Thursday by Robert W. Baird & Co., an international financial services firm. The report also noted that subpoenas do not mean that the commission intends to take action against any particular company, and that estimating reserves is not an exact science.
In a separate note, Gerard G. Pecht, a lawyer with Fulbright & Jaworski, told clients that the subpoenas were focused on the actual performance of shale gas wells compared with how companies were projecting their performance, according to an article on FuelFix.com, an energy news Web site. Mr. Pecht did not respond to messages seeking comment.
The subpoenas also request documents related to discrepancies between what companies are telling investors about the costs of shale gas versus what they are reporting in federal filings.
Large natural gas companies, including Chesapeake Energy, EOG Resources and the Petrohawk Energy Corporation, did not return calls seeking comment. Alan T. Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, the largest natural gas producer in the country, said the company had not received a subpoena.
One oil and gas industry consultant said that he was called to a meeting in mid-June with investigators from the Fort Worth office of the S.E.C. The investigators, he said, wanted to discuss a range of shale gas companies, and discrepancies between data reported to federal officials and what these companies had told investors about profit and well performance. The consultant asked not to be identified, to avoid alienating the energy companies that are his clients.
According to several oil and gas industry lawyers, the subpoenas are in response to articles published in June in The New York Times, which showed that a range of industry and federal officials had questioned whether shale gas companies might be playing down costs or inflating their predictions about well performance.
Some federal agencies have also begun discussing concerns about the long-term productivity of shale gas wells.
For example, the 2011 summer newsletter of the National Energy Technology Laboratory, a research arm of the Department of Energy, says that technology needs to improve in the Barnett shale in Texas, and in other shale gas areas, for these shale gas wells to be more economically viable.
Shale gas wells often decline sharply after their first year, but many in the industry had remained optimistic about the wells’ ability to produce at a slow but steady rate for decades. Others have doubted these assumptions, which may not be holding up.
“A crucial challenge for the industry today,” the newsletter said, is that only a “fraction” — a third or less — of wells show “sustained long-term production,” which makes it difficult for companies to make money on this drilling.
The newsletter added that many of the wells produce poorly and others drop in production sharply after an early period of heavy production.
By Ross Davidson and Elaine Maslin
Published: 30/07/2011
THE UK Government’s £10billion tax raid on North Sea operators has cast doubt on the future of another significant discovery.
Oil and gas giant Royal Dutch Shell said yesterday it would not develop the Fram field, which holds hundreds of millions of barrels of oil, until it had assessed the full extent of the tax impact.
The firm said it had submitted a field-development plan to the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but the tax rise had made even that decision more difficult.
Shell operates Fram, which is thought to hold up to 300million barrels of oil, on behalf of a joint venture with Esso.
The field was discovered in 1969 but Shell only realised its full potential 40 years later after drilling a fresh appraisal well.
A Shell spokeswoman said a floating production vessel would be used to extract oil from between six and 10 wells, achieving a peak production of 20,000 barrels of oil and 150million cubic feet of gas per day.
Should the development go ahead, production could start in 2014. Shell declined to disclose the value of Fram.
The spokeswoman said the tax rise meant the future of the development was still unclear despite the submission of a field development plan.
She added: “The supplementary tax increase and uncertainties in future returns have made the recent decision to proceed more difficult.
“The full extent of the tax impact on the Fram field will be assessed before the final investment decision.”
The discovery is the latest to be thrown into doubt by Chancellor George Osborne’s surprise decision to increase the levy by 12% in March.
Although progress on Statoil’s £6billion Mariner and Bressay developments has resumed, both were put on hold in the wake of the Budget announcement and Centrica’s South Morecambe Bay gas development was shut down for nearly two months.
Shell has said previously the extra tax would add £366million to its bill by the end of next year.
Meanwhile, the fourth-largest operator in the UK North Sea became the latest firm to reveal the cost of the levy increase.
Total revealed the levy rise had cost it an additional £52million in the second quarter of the year.
The French company reported a year-on-year drop in profits despite sales rising 9% to £39billion. Adjusted net income fell 6% in the second quarter, to £2.4billion.
Chief executive Christophe de Margerie said higher maintenance, including in the North Sea, shutdowns in Libya and weak refining margins in Europe had impacted the business.
Oil and gas production fell 2% in the period and refining margins slumped.
By STEVE HAWKES Business Editor
SHELL revealed profits of £37,347 a MINUTE yesterday – as petrol prices soared back to within a PENNY of record levels.The oil giant raked in an incredible £4.9billion from April to June – up 77 per cent on last year.
Chief executive Peter Voser insisted the petrol price rise was down to sky-high oil prices.
He said Shell made “virtually nothing” on the forecourt – and told motorists to take their complaints to the Government.
Mr Voser said: “We are very competitive on the forecourt. And remember, 60 to 70 per cent of the price people pay at the pump is tax. The vast majority of our profits come outside the UK – in 89 to 90 other countries.”
But the AA last night said motorists would be furious as petrol prices neared all-time highs.
Unleaded is averaging 136.40p per litre – against the record of 137.43p on May 9. Diesel is trading at 140.73p per litre.
An AA spokesman said: “In a worst case scenario we could be at record levels in a fortnight.”
The motoring organisation added that figures showed typical one-car households made 4.3 per cent fewer trips last year than in 2008. And annual mileage was down by 120 miles to 6,251.
AA chiefs believe motorists are already spending £12million a day more than last year to fill up.
Shell’s mega profits for the second quarter leave it on track to smash the all-time high annual profits by a UK firm – the £19billion it set in 2008.
Mr Voser said billions were being re-invested into finding new oil and gas.
But he warned oil prices will only go up.
He added: “It’s the end of low-cost oil and gas. We are going into a new world where it’s going to need more money and investment to find more oil and gas. It will mean energy prices increase.”
By Steve Evans: Published 8 July 2011
Thanks to WikiLeaks and hacktivists Anonymous, data breaches have never been higher up the agenda.
CBR looks at some of the more infamous incidents of data loss.
Extract
Shell, 2010
Keep your workers happy seems to be the message behind this leak. Energy giant Shell was rocked in early 2010 when a database of 170,000 of its workers was emailed out to human rights groups and environmental activists, including Greenpeace and royaldutchshellplc.com, a website run by anti-Shell campaigners. It was rumoured that the database was emailed out of the company by a disgruntled employee. According to The Times, a covering letter criticising Shell’s activities in Nigeria was sent out with the database, apparently signed by more than 100 workers in the US, Holland and the UK.
The company admitted the list was genuine but pointed out that the data it contained was email details and phone numbers rather than physical addresses, minimizing the risk to staff.
Profits at Shell soared 77% to nearly £5bn in the last three months, but the oil group said there was little chance of lower prices for motorists, with energy prices due to rise even further in the long term.
Chief executive Peter Voser said there was no point in blaming Shell for high pump prices given that the company made virtually “nothing” on petrol and 60% to 70% of the price for each litre went to the government in taxes.
“It’s the end of low-cost oil and gas. I think we are going into a world where finding the oil and gas is going to be more complex. It needs more money, needs more investment,” said Voser.
The AA motoring group recently said it wanted the European commission to investigate competition in the oil and petrol markets but Shell said only 2% of profits came from any part of its British operations and it mainly benefited from a 49% rise in global crude prices as a result of unrest in the Middle East and Africa.
The enormous earnings – at a time when production actually fell – come two days after BP reported profits for the three months to June of £3.2bn, showing the widening gap between the two, which have been repeatedly mentioned as potential merger partners in recent years.
Voser brushed aside suggestions he might be interested in taking over BP, saying Shell had “more than enough on its plate”, and expressed no enthusiasm for plans being prepared by US rival ConocoPhillips, and also under consideration at BP, to split the business into two companies: one upstream exploration firm, the other a downstream refining operation.
Foreign governments and oil companies wanted Shell as a partner just because of the fact that it had an “integrated” approach, he said. “It would be wrong to lose that. It adds so much value,” Voser added in what looked like a riposte to BP boss Bob Dudley, who indicated a break-up at his company could not be ruled out.
But the Shell chief executive made it clear that talks with Rosneft and the Russian government, once potential strategic partners of BP, were continuing and serious. One of the attractions was to move into the Russian Arctic, said Voser, adding that the company was also keen to expand in Greenland and Alaska.
Shell said it still hoped to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas next year and has been in talks with the US government about lifting a ban on that area, imposed following BP’s Deepwater Explorer accident in the Gulf of Mexico. Discussions on new permits were, said Voser, “moving in the right direction”.
The moratorium, now lifted, in the gulf had lopped 50,000 barrels off Shell’s expected production volumes in the second quarter, while asset sales added to the problem. Shell’s output overall was up 2% with new projects coming on stream in the tar sands of Canada.
Financial analysts liked what they saw at Shell and said there was more good news to come. The oil team at Citigroup believed “the stage is set for an even stronger 2H11 [second half of 2011]“.
Meanwhile, ExxonMobil saw its net income rise 41% to $10.68bn, and said its oil and gas production rose 10% in the quarter, compared to the same period in 2010, entirely thanks to its purchase of XTO Corporation for $30bn last year.
By Katarzyna Klimasinska – Jul 28, 2011 5:00 PM GMT+0100
A lawsuit by environmental groups over Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA)’s oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico may become a “backdoor moratorium” that curtails U.S. development, said Marvin Odum, the company’s U.S. president.
The Natural Resources Defense Council of New York and Oakland, California-based Earthjustice said Obama administration approval of a Shell exploration plan for the Gulf’s deep waters violates environmental laws and should be withdrawn, according to June 9 petitions.
“This suit has the potential to virtually halt exploration in the Gulf, serving as a backdoor moratorium,” Odum said in remarks prepared today for a speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. “Many of us here today may have different opinions on the drilling moratorium in the Gulf after last year’s spill. But it was long and painful both in terms of jobs and economic losses.”
Shell, Europe’s largest oil company, was first to win approval for its deep-water drilling plans after the BP Plc oil spill led the U.S. to toughen the environmental reviews. The April 20, 2010, explosion of a drilling rig led President Barack Obama to ban deep-water exploration until mid-October.
Odum said the U.S. regulatory system is “reactionary” and overburdened. He cited Alaska, where The Hague-based company hasn’t been allowed to drill after spending more than $2 billion to acquire offshore leases.
“There are some encouraging signs,” he said. “The president created a cabinet-level interagency working group on energy development and permitting in Alaska. This is an important step and recognition that the current regulatory apparatus was not up to the challenge of efficiency permitting a project such as this.”
Shell needs about 35 permits to drill as many as two wells a year in the Beaufort Sea and as many as three a year in the Chukchi Sea from 2012 through 2013. These waters may produce 700,000 barrels of oil per day for 40 years, Peter Slaiby, Shell Alaska’s vice president, said yesterday.
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
: It appears that Voser finally got fed up with Mr Overpromise/Underdelivery. Despite all the nice words about him, he is clearly kicked out. Plenty of sycophants around him are now fearing for their jobs and positioning themselves whom to kow-tow now. This bearded fellow wasted his great brain on very small details and he was unable to delegate. I think his only real good project was the SLIM project. This was many moons ago and launched him to the top jobs. And there he failed as frequently and eloquently pointed out on the Donovan site. Big brain, a micromanager on par with the pointy haired boss in Dilbert, a vicious and vindictive attitude to those that were of no use to him or that might talk back. In summary: Good riddance and now the legal system of Scotland can go after him. But I doubt they will.
: What goes around comes around.... The announcement of Brinded has long been anticipated. We now wait for the next much smaller announcement.... Tom Purves to retire..... This will make our day when that moment happens. Shell never deals with the issue of bad leadership until it is too late and the havoc has been wreaked.... However, as we say in the US, Every dog has its day..... and today that was Malcolm.
: So early retirement then after all that ....... REPLY BY JOHN D. You are still playing a point scoring game. You seem to forget that the avoidable deaths of Shell offshore workers on Brent Bravo is at the heart of this matter. The deaths occurred after a safety audit led by Bill Campbell exposed a shambolic, illegal and shameful safety regime on Brent Bravo. They occurred after Shell senior Expro management had promised Bill that Shell would bring an end to the "Touch F*** All" culture and the falsification of safety records. The explosion and record breaking fine provide proof that the promises were not kept. There is NO commercial aspect to this matter as far as Mr Campbell is concerned. He is driven solely by a fear of an even worse event due to the same policy by Shell of putting production and profits before the safety of offshore workers. Please give Bill some credit for his integrity and for his long campaign, which has rightly received cross-party support from many MP's.
: Agent provocateur indeed!! Never been called that before, and I am most certainly not in league with Shell in any way! I again reiterate my point : was Campbell fired or given early retirement from Shell and thereby lies his grudge or did he reach full retirement age in the company? An honest answer might convince many that his continuous aggressiveness against Shell is genuine or just an ongoing grudge. This is not a "slanging match" merely a point of clarification. REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN: Mr Campbell has made it clear that he does not wish to get into discussion with someone making insulting comments while hiding behind an alias. With regards to his comment that you may be an agent provocateur, perhaps he gained that impression from checking your history of postings. Just so there is no misunderstanding, we welcome contributors who provide a counter-balance to negative postings about Shell. I have provided some links to further information about the Brent Bravo scandal. Despite all of the promises by Shell senior management about safety, which including appointing a safety Czar, its track record remains atrocious. Years after the Brent Bravo debacle, it was revealed that the lifeboats for a Shell North Sea platform were not seaworthy. You could not make it up. “Lifeboats trouble at Brent field” published on 14 March 2008, UpstreamOnline revealed “SHELL’s safety record on its Brent Bravo platform in the UK Northern North Sea is once again under scrutiny after the discovery of technical problems with two lifeboats on the installation that resulted in both of them being removed from service.” Jake Molloy, general secretary of the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee was quoted in the article by Christopher Hopson as claiming “If they had loaded up this particular lifeboat, the chances are it could have been launched into the sea in an uncontrolled fashion which would have caused death or injury as it was held in place by corrosion and not by the designed system”. The article said that problems had been found with a second lifeboat on the Brent Bravo platform. It also reported that a lifeboat had launched itself into the sea from Shell’s Tern platform because the brakes and clutches were “dysfunctional” and had damaged the launch mechanism off the platform. Shell confirmed problems had been discovered with two lifeboats on Brent Bravo during “routine maintenance”. Shell was quoted as stating that it viewed the matter seriously and had “mobilised an investigation team on the platform”. BILL CAMPBELL EMAIL SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE UK HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL SAFETY CONCERNS
: LondonLad: In many cases "Reaching Retirement age" in Shell simply means being unable to find a position outside Shell -nowadays the most competent people generally move on long before reaching retirement age and pursue a second career elsewhere.
: To : an observer of Shell, you state "It is commonly known that a great many employees of Shell Expro are freemasons". Where did you get this "fact" from - smoking whacky backy?? I doubt very much that a great many are indeed freemasons. Even if they are (wich I seriously doubt), so what? Let's face it they are a society that provide one of the largest contributions to charities in the UK. I think you very clearly have an axe to grind against Shell. In that context why does Campbell have such a chip on his shoulder over Shell? Was he sacked for some reason? Did he actually reach his retirement age in Shell? Would be nice to know so that we can believe more that his rants are genuine problems he has with Shell rather than caused by some hidden grudge.
: GTW, I know you are right, TP and others will get their due. What is painful is that those whose lives have been changed and whose spirits have been destroyed because of his actions, will not be compensated. Tom is not the only one taking credit for this new cruel process of forced ranking, by claiming credit for what market demand has meant for profits. There are promotions taking place right now because credit is claimed by those executing Tom's plan for performance 'refirings'. I worked in manufacturing sites where management and performance was a joke, and profits were above forecast. It's always been market demand and the hard work of the folks on the ground that make manufacturing successful, Tom is not a pioneer in taking undue credit for local successes, but he has certainly been the cruelest!
: I have no proof nor will I ever find that proof, but this reprehensible conduct of the legal authorities smells to high heaven of masonic lodges. It is commonly known that a great many employees of Shell Expro are freemasons. The police forces all over the world are well presented in the various lodges. I would not be surprised if Brinded himself is a member. Bill Campbell is a very courageous man taking on these evil forces. We in Shell all knew him to be a completely honest and competent Maintenance manager and HSE auditor. But he loses against all the parasites and sycophants whose sole job is to protect the directors. And then live well on the spoils of their abhorrent activities. Top marks for the Donovans who keep this festering sore in the spotlight. To some it maybe a lot of repeating old stories, but those that want to hide and bury their bad actions know that time is on their side. And Shell has deep pockets and knows how to procrastinate.
: John, there is no issue with my post. This is the same GTW that has been providing updates for some time on the ill fated project CEP and the ill fated Tom Purves, both of which should be going fading into the background this year as old worn out news.
: I retract my previous statement. COMMENT BY JOHN DONOVAN: WE HAVE REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THIS POSTING IS NOT IN FACT FROM THE PARTY WHO USES THE ALIAS "GOLDENTRIANGLE WATCHMAN ON THIS BLOG, BUT IS FROM AN IMPOSTER.
Shell Blog RSS Feed
