Posts under ‘Jeroen van der Veer’

Introduction by John Donovan

I have published below a self-explanatory statement by Bill Campbell (right), the retired HSE Group Auditor of Shell International. I will email this statement and a more detailed version to Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary of Royal Dutch Shell Plc and forward the same information to the senior Shell executives and the non Executive Chairman, Jorma Ollila, named in the statement.

The more detailed version will be published on this website after Shell has had an opportunity to comment and/or take legal action. Shell issued threats of legal action against us yesterday and may wish to add this matter if briefing Counsel.

STATEMENT BY BILL CAMPBELL, RETIRED HSE GROUP AUDITOR OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL

Some time ago the police in Aberdeen passed a report to the Procurator Fiscal (public prosecutor).  A criminal investigation commenced based on these allegations. The Procurator Fiscal are part of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), reference to the Crown is simply because the UK has a monarchy.

The investigation has focused to date on the role of HSE officials. These officials are UK Government employees.  Since the investigation is ongoing it is inappropriate to comment on what has, or has not been established with regards to HSE.  The CPS investigation to date however has confirmed that Shell repeatedly made false and misleading statements about its part in these affairs.

The Fatal Accident Inquiry into deaths on Brent Bravo

What has been established is that the HSE, whether in collusion with Shell or not, failed to pass vital evidence to the CPS in 2003 prior to the Fatal Accident Inquiry.  HSE had obtained this evidence directly from Shell only days after the fatalities.  This evidence given to HSE was from Greg Hill, the Production Director in Aberdeen, and was from his internal Technical Integrity Review implemented immediately after the deaths. Hill implemented the Review to ascertain whether Brent Bravo was an unfortunate, but isolated incident, or was there a general malaise offshore.  The Review found chronic weakness in management controls resulting in the deaths on Brent Bravo, for which Shell were prosecuted.  The Review confirmed that Brent Bravo was not an isolated incident as similar conditions were found on many of the Shell North Sea installations.

What were the consequences flowing from this?

My most recent meeting with CPS was on the 18th February 2011.  The CPS position is that if they had been in possession of the evidence given by Greg Hill to HSE in 2003, as they should have been, this would most likely have led to a more general Inquiry into how Shell had operated across the oilfield and over the prolonged period from 1999.  There was considerable public interest in the Brent Bravo fatalities, and this combined with the evidence of a negative safety culture, may have influenced the Lord Advocate (in US parlance an Attorney General) who heads up the CPS in Scotland, to order such Inquiry.  This Inquiry would have covered how technical and operations integrity of Shell facilities, not just Brent Bravo, had degraded over a prolonged period, and how this degradation had not been halted or reversed, despite many HSE enforcement actions being applied on Shell over this period.

2006 – After the Fatal Accident Inquiry into Brent Bravo

When the Sheriff (a Judge) reported the results of his Inquiry there was significant public concern from Trade Unions and politicians, The Sheriff had determined how the deaths had taken place by after a 38 day Inquiry had made no recommendations.  He did however make the significant suggestion that factors he had not covered, because of the restrictions of the relevant Act concerning such Inquiries, could merit a more General Inquiry, but to date no such Inquiry has taken place.

BBC Scotland encapsulated the public concerns on a programme aired on 14th June 2006.  Prior to the programme going on air BBC offered both Shell and HSE right of reply but they declined to comment despite the programme content being critical of both parties.  On the 16th June 2006 significant media interest was stirred up by the oil industry Magazine Upstream articles.  Shell issued a rebuttal in the form of press releases by their Crisis Management Team which were also copied internally to its employees across the World.

How did Shell respond to the critical media coverage?

Their Press Releases on 16 June 2006 stated that

Safety is Shell’s foremost priority at all times and we absolutely reject any suggestion that we would compromise safety offshore. In 1999, Shell initiated the Platform Safety Management Review (PSMR),  and responded vigorously to its findings. A follow up implementation audit conducted at the end of 2000 confirmed significant progress had been made on both asset integrity and management systems. This contributed to the continuous improvement in Shell’s safety performance that has been achieved since 1999 in the North Sea.

With the Press Releases the cover-up commenced

It was Greg Hill who led the Crisis Management Team and it was he who way back in 2003 had presented the evidence of the appalling conditions on many of his offshore installations to HSE.  The press release also ignored the findings of their own internal investigation completed in 2005, into the conduct of Directors in 1999.  This investigation concluded that the 1999 PSMR follow-up was ineffective.  The investigation was critical of Malcolm Brinded for dispensing with the services of the SIEP Lead Auditor of the PSMR in 1999 which effectively halted the PSMR in midstream.   Brinded was also criticised for not taking the immediate actions, as recommended by his Platform Safety Management Review (PSMR) in 1999, to reduce the risks on Brent Bravo, which was operating in a dangerous condition.

Why did Greg Hill lie?

Greg Hill was put in charge of the Crisis Management Team in June 2006 with instructions from above to sort this problem out or else!  As evidence of a hostile environment of extreme denial Hill was given no choice being intimidated to lie, and lie again, do anything that was needed to protect Shell from public ridicule and potential prosecution. Jacob Stausholm, the SIEP Chief Auditor who had led the 2005 internal investigation into the behaviour of Brinded and Finlayson at the time of the PSMR, was also threatened. He was to bury his report and raise no objections to the press releases.  Within a few years both Hill and Stausholm had left Shell.   Hill went to the Hess Corporation as President of their EP division and Stausholm joined Statoil Hydro as a non-executive Director.  Both these organisations raised no legal or other objections to the comments made about their employees.

Why did the HSE not respond to the Shell Press Releases?

One of the examples of collusion between Shell and HSE was that HSE were aware that the Press Releases by Shell were false. From the feedback from the CPS investigation they confirmed that the CEO of the HSE was aware that the statements made by Shell in the Press Releases in 2006 were totally false and misleading. His defence apparently was that the Shell statement put HSE in a difficult position as their Policy does not allow them to comment of the performance of individual organisations.  A pretty lame excuse.  So the CPS accept that the public statements made by Shell did not reflect the reality of the situation and that HSE allowed these comments to go unchallenged, all this still subject to investigation.

So what lies have been uncovered?

Lie 1

It is not contentious that Shell neglected to inform HSE about the 1999 PSMR and its findings.  In 2006, Shell defended this by stating that the PSMR was just a Review and not an audit.  The facts established and accepted by the CPS is that the PSMR was conducted by Auditors, was based on seven offshore audits, the PSMR report was issued by the Internal Audit Manager and was ipso facto an audit.  Not to inform HSE and the offshore workers about the results of a health and safety Audit is an offence under Safety Case Regulations. The PSMR produced many recommended actions, these were accepted by Shell Expro, but not effectively implemented.  This contributing to the deaths on Brent Bravo and to the chronic weaknesses in essential controls across the oilfield as witnessed in 2003.  As previously stated if the full facts had been known by the CPS at the time it is likely that a more general Inquiry would have been held.

Lie 2

It is not contentious that rather than a continuos improvement from 1999 till the deaths there had been continuos degradation of standards due to the imposed negative safety culture and the failure to implement the PSMR findings.  In the words of the Lord Advocate, it was clear from the conditions on Brent Bravo that the deaths had resulted from ineffective management of Shell’s offshore operations over a prolonged period of time.

Lie 3

In 2006, under intense media pressure van der Veer responded to critical media comments, and separately in correspondence with me (held by the CPS), that there was no evidence that the performance results of ESD valves had been falsified in 1999.  Another blatant lie now uncovered.

Lie 4

Asked to investigate the role of van der Veer and Brinded by me, the RDS Chairman Jorma Ollila in writing replied that he was satisfied with the statements made in the Shell 2006 Press Releases and the Shell position was supported by their internal investigation.  He now accepts that his statements were not factual. Although he has been bestowed with nine badges of honour by various agencies this did not stop dispensing with the truth to protect the Shell reputation.

STATEMENT ENDS

THE EVIDENCE ASSEMBLED BY BILL CAMPBELL: READ

SELECTION OF ARTICLES RELATING TO BRENT BRAVO FATALITIES: READ

RELATED EMAIL/LETTER SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE UK HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: READ

THE FULL FILE OF BRENT BRAVO ARTICLES

Patti Epler | Jan 24, 2011

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

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

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

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

SOURCE ARTICLE

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

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

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

By James Herron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOURCE ARTICLE

At the age of 90 and with numerous aliments, the thought of ending up in a small room with only iron bars for a view and without air conditioning in a tropical climate, is not much of an incentive to make the trip. In other words, while pretending that my presence in court in Malaysian legal jurisdiction is essential, there is also more than a hint of intimidation attached to deter me from giving evidence in support of my sworn affidavit, which quite frankly, completely destroys Shell’s defamation case against Dr Huong. (Head cut image of Alfred Donovan courtesy of The Wall Street Journal)

Self-explanatory email correspondence between royaldutchshellplc.com owner Alfred Donovan and Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

—–Original Message—–
From: Alfred Donovan [mailto:alfred@shellnews.net]
Sent: vrijdag 3 augustus 2007 12:26
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LC
Cc: van der Veer, Jeroen J RDS-CEJV; Ollila, Jorma RDS-RDS/CH; Brinded, Malcolm A RDS-ECMB; Wiseman, Richard RM SI-LMAPF; ‘John Donovan’

Subject: THE DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DR JOHN HUONG BROUGHT BY EIGHT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL COMPANIES

Dear Mr Brandjes

My name is Alfred Donovan. I am writing to you directly because my son, John, speaks highly of you and because you seem to be the right person to contact on this matter given that you are Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

I am 90 years old. For over a year, I have had the prospect of a cross-examination by Shell barristers hanging over my head. This is in respect of the defamation case brought in June 2004 by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies against the former Shell production geologist, Dr John Huong.

This is a link to the relevant Summons in Chambers:
http://shellnews.net/2006affidavit/shell-summons-in-chambers-june-2006.htm

Below is an extract from related “Show Cause” contempt proceedings launched against Dr Huong in March 2006 by the Malaysian solicitors representing the eight Shell Group plaintiff companies. It confirms the extremely serious nature of the case, with the freedom and reputation of Dr Huong being at stake.

19. We therefore now provide you with this formal notice for you to show cause within 10 days of its service on you, why you should not be committed to prison or fined for the above contempt.

Dated this 9* day of March, 2006.

MESSRS T H LIEW & PARTNERS
SOLICITORS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

This Notice to Show Cause is issued by Messrs T H Liew & Partners, solicitors for the Plaintiffs abovenamed and whose address for service is at 4-02, 4* Floor, Straits Trading Building, 2, Lebuh Pasar Besar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur. Tel : 03-26129000 Fax : 03-26129001

In this connection, please be aware that there is a clear implication from TH Liew that if I do travel to Malaysia for cross-examination, as demanded by Shell, I will run the risk of a contempt action being brought against me. At the age of 90 and with numerous aliments, the thought of ending up in a small room with only iron bars for a view and without air conditioning in a tropical climate, is not much of an incentive to make the trip. In other words, while pretending that my presence in court in Malaysian legal jurisdiction is essential, there is also more than a hint of intimidation attached to deter me from giving evidence in support of my sworn affidavit, which quite frankly, completely destroys Shell’s defamation case against Dr Huong. The last thing the plaintiff companies really want is for me to actually give evidence confirming my sworn testimony.

I was given to understand several months ago that Shell’s application for my cross-examination would be heard this month: August. However, the law firms involved and Dr Huong himself seem frightened about giving me any information.  Dr Huong is presumably concerned about attracting any further injunctions from Shell in respect of information allegedly passed to us and hence is simply too intimidated to say anything, as are his lawyers.

Although I have written several times to TH Liew in the past, I have never received the courtesy of an acknowledgment, let alone a reply. Consequently there is no point in me writing to them now. If they had taken note of my first letter in June 2004, your shareholders could have been spared what must by now be a huge legal bill for the deluge of proceedings launched against Dr Huong.

I am therefore asking you if you could kindly find out and advise me of whether Shell is still pursuing the application before the High Court for me to be cross-examined? If so, when is the date of the hearing? Is it still taking place this month?

As Shell is aware, I receive a war disability pension from the British Army arising from fighting in the Burma Campaign against the Japanese some 60 years ago. I had half of one lung removed in a related operation. Among other ailments associated with my age, I have diabetes, angina and poor hearing. I also suffer from stress  generated by the bouts of litigation with Shell over the years, including the ill-considered current proceedings.

Since I am sure you would agree that it is morally wrong for me to be left completely in the dark in such circumstances, I hope that you will kindly find out what is happening and advise me accordingly.  Bearing in mind that the application relating to me was instigated and filed collectively on behalf of EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, as the parent company of all eight plaintiff companies, can hardly claim that it has no involvement.

Please note that John has been involved in all of the events relating to Dr Huong, right from the outset, and because of my fading hearing, had all of the material telephone conversations with him. I have only spoken briefly with Dr Huong. John is willing to give evidence and be cross-examined. His affidavit was prepared at the same time as mine.  However under the circumstances, he would obviously require undertakings from Shell before stepping foot in Malaysia. There is of course the alternative possibility of cross-examination taking place in a video conference setting, perhaps in the Malaysian Embassy in London? As you can see, we are trying to be constructive. I trust that this communication will be passed to the parties involved and disclosed to the trial judge.

Regards
Alfred Donovan

RESPONSE FROM MICHIEL BRANDJES

From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com [mailto:michiel.brandjes@shell.com]
Sent: 03 August 2007 16:59
To: alfred@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: THE DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DR JOHN HUONG BROUGHT BY EIGHT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL COMPANIES

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your kind introductory words. I will enquire within Shell about the matter you have raised and revert to you.

Best Regards,
Michiel Brandjes
Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Registered office: Shell Centre London SE1 7NA UK
Place of registration and number: England 4366849
Correspondence address: PO Box 162, 2501 AN  The Hague,
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 377 2625 Fax: 3687
Email: Michiel.Brandjes@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

EMAIL ENDS

Mr Brandjes subsequently confirmed that Shell would abandon its demand for Alfred Donovan to travel to Malaysia for cross-examination. Shell later settled with Dr Huong on an out-of-court basis because its defamation case was a complete shambles brought by incompetent Shell lawyers in Malaysia at the behest of Shell Malaysia Country Chairman, Jon Chadwick.

It will soon be apparent to our readers from the extracts below, why Shell settled the Dr Huong litigation out of court. A very considerable pile of extremely smelly internal dirty laundry that Shell definitely did not want aired in open court, even in Malaysia.

By John Donovan

Dr John Huong, a former Shell geologist of almost 30 years standing was the FIRST SHELL employee to blow the whistle on the Shell reserves fraud (and other important issues relating to the misdeeds of Royal Dutch Shell management). He was not prepared to tolerate  the lives of Shell employees being recklessly put at risk.

As a result Shell was determined to silence him at all costs. Hence the unprecedented spectacle of EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively bringing a defamation action against one former employee – an unemployed Malaysian who had no prospect whatsoever of finding alternative employment in his profession while the litigation cloud hung over the heads of himself and his family for several years.

Dr Huong made the mistake of believing in Shell’s STATEMENT OF GENERAL BUSINESS PRINCIPLES and in particular the pledges of “honesty, integrity, respect for people” in all of Shell’s dealings. He was also impressed by Shell’s philosophy in the claimed new ways of working, including the promotion of trust, openness, teamwork, professionalism and pride in what Shell does.  He did not realise until more recent years that all of the pledges and claims were purely hype and spin meant for use in global PR campaigns such as “Profits and Principles” i.e. for the consumption of gullible consumers and stakeholders.

Dr Huong filed a Defence containing a staggering array of allegations, facts and evidence directed against Royal Dutch Shell Group. It represented a devastating indictment of Shell by a conscience driven former Shell insider. If filed today, much more evidence could be included about Shell misdeeds, including its involvement in murder, torture, corruption, spying inside the Nigerian government and even spying on Shell’s own employees in association with a specialist unit partly funded and staffed by the FBI.

It will soon be apparent to our readers from the extracts below, why Shell settled the Dr Huong litigation out of court. A very considerable pile of extremely smelly internal dirty laundry that Shell definitely did not want aired in open court, even in Malaysia.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR

(CIVIL DIVISION) SUIT NO.S2-23-41 OF 2004

BETWEEN

SARAWAK SHELL BHD. (71978-W)

SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING SENDIRIAN BERHAD (6078-M)

SHELL REFINING COMPANY (FEDERATION OF MALAYA) BHD. (3926-U)

SHELL TIMUR SDN. BHD. ( 113304-H)

SHELL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION MALAYSIA B.V. (993963-V)

SHELL OIL AND GAS (MALAYSIA) LLC (993830-X)

SHELL SABAH SELATAN SDN. BHD. (228504-T)

SABAH SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD. (993229-W)

In the event that the Alleged Defamatory Statements, in their natural and ordinary meaning, mean or are capable of conveying the meanings pleaded in paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim and are found to refer to the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group, the Defendant avers that the Alleged Defamatory Statements are true in substance and fact.

23.1  Particulars the Defendant repeats the particulars pleaded in paragraph P6 above;

23.2  on 9.1.2004, the Shell Group disclosed to the public that in the period from 1997 to 2003,the Shell Group had deliberately and falsely made misleading statements by over declaring the quantities and/or values of their petroleum reserves. The Shell Group subsequently made 5 announcements on the devaluation of their petroleum reserves. The first announcement alone devalued the said petroleum reserves by at least 20%. As a result of the false and misleading declarations, the Shell Group was fined by the Securities & Exchange Commission in the United States of America and the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as “the Reserves Scandal”);

23.3  as a result of the Reserves Scandal, shares of the Shell Group being publicly traded dropped in value substantially, thus causing their shareholders to suffer very considerable losses;

23.4  shareholders of Royal Dutch Petroleum, a company within the Shell Group, in the United Kingdom are threatening legal action in regards to tax penalties arising from the unification of Shell Transport and Trading Company plc and Royal Dutch Shell, both companies within the Shell Group. This said unification was due to the restructuring of the Shell Group following the Reserves Scandal;

23.5 the Shell Group is faced with a continuing criminal investigation by the justice Department, United States of America into the actions of former and current members of the senior executives o f the Shell Group;

23.6  the Shell Group is faced with a public inquiry after the deaths of two workers in an accident on the Brent Bravo offshore platform in the United Kingdom, for which the Shell Group has already admitted liability and paid a record high fine;

23.7 the Shell Group has agreed to a proposal to pay a USD90 million settlement in respect of a class action lawsuit in relation to the Reserves Scandal, which was brought against the Shell Group by its own employees who were prejudiced by the materially false and misleading statements of the of the Shell Group on the reported proven oil and natural gas reserves;

23.8  on 31.8.2005, the Shell Group had announced a USD9.2 million dollar settlement of a shareholder derivative class action lawsuit in the United States of America, in relation to the Reserves Scandal. The lead plaintiffs therein are the Unite National Retirement Fund and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund. The action is against named individual defendants including current directors of the unified new company, Royal Dutch Shell plc – including its CEO Jeroen van der Veer, Executive Director Malcolm Brinded and Maarten van den Berg. The plaintiffs allege that the said persons acted in breach of their fiduciary duties owed to companies in the Shell Group, abused their control over the said companies, aided and abetted breaches by others, and/or committed gross mismanagement and/or constructive fraud;

23.9 the Shell Group is facing another class action in the United States of America in relation to securities fraud, which has been granted leave to proceed by a Federal Judge, who has made a finding that the She11 Group and certain named directors including Jerocn van der Veer have a case to answer for alleged securities fraud in relation to the Reserves Scandal. The lead plaintiffs are the Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System and the Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System;

23.10 the Shell Group is also facing another class action lawsuit in the United States of America for alien tort, where 14 individual plaintiffs therein are suing the Shell Group for violations of customary international law in relation the She11 Group’s petroleum producing operations in Ogoniland, Nigeria. The plaintiffs allege that the Shell Group engaged in militarised commerce in a conspiracy with the former Military Government of Nigeria and that the Shell Group knowingly instigated, planned, facilitated, and participated in unprovoked attacks by the Nigerian military against the unarmed residents of Ogoniland, resulting in extrajudicial murder, crimes against humanity, torture, rape, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced exile and the deliberate destruction of private property. The Shell Group had admitted after the leaking of an internal report that the corporate behaviour of the Shell Group in Nigeria fed a vicious cycle of violence and corruption;

23.11  the Shell Group is also facing a class action in the United States of America by 26 plaintiffs, mostly Dutch pension funds, in relation to the Reserves Scandal, where the plaintiffs therein are suing in respect of losses suffered as a result of the purchase of shares in the Shell Group at artificially inflated prices and the subsequent drop in value of their investments when it was discovered that the Shell Group had deliberately and falsely over declared the quantities and/or values of their petroleum reserves;

23.12  legal proceedings have been commenced against the Shell Group and its senior executives in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, the United States of America for remedies under the Security Exchange Act of 1934 in relation to the Reserves Scandal, where the plaintiffs complain that the She11 Group had violated federal securities law by issuing material misrepresentations on the quantities and/or values of their petroleum reserves and that the Shell Group had violated accounting rules and guidelines relating to the declaration of oil and gas reserves, resulting in a material over declaration of oil and gas reserves and causing its shareholders to suffer loss when the Reserves Scandal occurred and the value of publicly traded shares of the Shell Group fell;

23.13 the Shell Group is also facing various other lcgal proceedings in the United States of America in relation to the Reserves Scandal;

23.14  AE Donovan, JA Donovan and/or Don Marketing Limited had commenced court proceedings against the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by in respect of breaches of confidence and/or breaches of contract in respect of 4 marketing proposals forwarded by Don Marketing Limited to the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom, which the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom had made use of without the consent or knowledge of Don Marketing Limited. The Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom eventually settled the said 4 court proceedings brought by AE Donovan, JA Donovan and Don Marketing Limited by making payments of substantial sums in respect of the claims and costs;

23.15  in or around 1 994, AE Donovan, JA Donovan and Don Marketing Limited has commenced court proceedings against the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by in respect of the breach of the terns of a mediation agreement by the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom. The Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom settled this court proceedings by making payments of substantia1 sums in respect of the claim and costs;

23.16   in or around 1994, AE Donovan had also sued the Shell: Group companies operating in the United Kingdom for libel, which suit was also settled by the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by making payments of substantial sums in respect of the claim and costs;

23.17 JA Donovan had also sued the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom for libel, which suit was also settled by the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by making payments of substantial sums in respect of the claim and costs;

23.18 the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom had admitted to hiring a private security firm which engaged in undercover activities against AE Donovan, JA Donovan and Don Marketing during the course of the litigation between the parties;

23.19 the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom had admitted to hiring a private security firms which engaged in undercover activities against environmental groups active in the United Kingdom and in other countries;

23.20 the Shell Group had been fined a substantial sum by the United Nations when it was found that an oil tanker chartered by the Shell Group had violated the international trade embargo against Iraq by transporting petroleum which had originated from Iraq;

23.21 a prosecution that was brought by the Department of Justice of the United States of America against the Shell Group in respect of the Shell Group having repeatedly and deliberately under declared the value of natuml gas extracted in the Gulf of Mexico to avoid the payment of royalties, was settled by the She11 Group by making a substantial payment;

23.22 the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica of California, the United States of America has accused the Shell Group o f deliberately taking action to reduce its production of petroleum fuel products during periods of high demand so as to cause a shortage of fuel in California;

23.23  while the Shell:Group have at various times publicised that they operate and manage their businesses subject to their Statement of General Business Principles, the Shell Group has also subsequently denied that the said Statement of General Business Principles were intended to be enforceable against the Shell Group;

23.24 the Shell Group had settled class actions in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada in respect of damage suffered by vehicles which had used petrol sold by the Shell Group which contained an additive that caused the said damage;

23.25 the Shell Group faced a claim in Florida, the United States of America in respect of damage suffered by vehicles which had used petrel sold by the Shell Group which contained sulphur that caused the said damage;

23.26  in or about December 2002 in Nicaragua, the Shell Group was ordered by a court to pay substantial compensation to banana plantation workers who had suffered permanent and serious injury and/or disease and/or death as a result of being exposed to a pesticide which was sold by the Shell Group in Nicaragua subsequent to the banning of the said pesticide in the United States of America in 1979, with full knowledge that the said pesticide would cause permanent and serious injury and/or disease and/or death to persons exposed to it;

23.27  at various times, the Shell Group had caused and/or allowed petroleum producing and/or storage and/or transporting and/or processing and/or refining facilities,which are owned by the Shell Group and/or partly owned by the Shell Group, to cause wide spread pollution, resulting in damage to the environment and/or illness and disease to the local populations and/or destruction of property, in the following places:

23.27.1 Norco, Louisiana in the United States of America;

23.27.2 Port Arthur and Texas Deer Park, Texas in the United States of America

23.27.3 Rukpokwu and various petroleum production facilities in Nigeria;

23.27.4 Vila Carioca, San Paulo in Brazil;

23.27.5 Curacao;

23.27.6 Durban in South Africa;

23.28  at various times, the Shell Group, by their activities in petroleum-producing and/or storage and/or transporting and/or processing and/or refining facilities, which arc owned by the Shell Group and/or partly owned by the Shell Group, continued to put the local population at risk of damage to the environment and/or illness and disease and/or destruction of property, in the following places:

23.28.I    Pandacan, Manila in the Philippines;

23.28.2    Sakhalin IsIand in Russia.

In the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Alleged Defamatory Statements constitute fair comment on matters of public interest, namely that the Shell Group has been involved in numerous scandals and/or controversies and/or prosecutions worldwide, including the Reserves Scandal.

Particulars

24. 1  the Defendant repeats the particulars pleaded in paragraph 16 above;

24.2 the Defendant repeats the particulars pleaded in paragraph 23 above.

25. Paragraph 21 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant avers that by reason of the facts and matters pleaded in paragraphs 9 to 24 above, the Alleged Defamatory Statements have not caused any further damage and/or injury to the reputations of the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group.

26. Paragraph 22 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant avers that:

26.1    AE Donovan and JA Donovan had sole control over the contents of the said Website and had thc right to decide on the contributions that were to be posted on the said Website and also to edit any contribution received before posting the same on the said Website;

26.2    the Defendant did not publish the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 on the said Website or any other Internet website;

26.3    the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 was published by AE Donovan and/or JA Donovan on the said Website;

26.4    the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 was the result of AE Donovan an#or JA Donovan having edited and added their own comments to the correspondences between the Defendant and AE Donovan and/or JA Donovan, before posting the same onto the said Website;

26.5    the Defendant had absolutely no control over the contents of the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 on the said Website.

27.  Paragraph 23 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant avers that by reason of the facts and matters pleaded in paragraphs 9 to 24 above, the Alleged Defamatory Statements have not caused any further damage and/or injury to the reputations of the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group and have not Further caused the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group to be brought into any further public scandal, contempt nor odium.

28. Paragraph 24 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant repeats paragraph 26 and 27 above.

29. Paragraphs 25 to 29 of the Statement of Claim are denied. The Defendant avers that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the remedies claimed therein.

30.  Save as hereinbefore expressly admitted, the Defendant denies each and every allegation of fact contained in the Statement of Claim as if the same were specifically set forth seriatim herein and specifically traversed.

Dated this 25th day of January 2006.

The above is a scanned copy, so there may be mistakes. The original can be viewed via this link.

COMPLETE DEFENCE DOCUMENT INCLUDING ABOVE INFORMATION

By Dr. John Huong (right)

Below is a letter I last wrote on 3rd June 2004 to Shell Malaysian Management, hoping that if both sides entered into a constructive dialogue on a “without prejudice” basis, the matter could be resolved amicably despite the threats I had received on 17th May 2004 from their legal Manager Mr. Thavakumar Kandiahpillai.

It is significant that legitimate questions (“Confidentiality versus Shareholder’s interests”-25th May 2004) I posed to him about Shell’s ethical practices have remained unanswered.

I am still waiting for a reply to both of my letters from you Thavakumar and/or those in authority above you!

Date: 3rd June 2004
SUBJECT: WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Mr. Kandiahpillai and et.al. (including Jeroen Van der Veer, Malcolm Brinded, Jon Chadwick, etc.)

It is obvious that I posed some difficult questions as I have not received any response. I was not trying to be awkward.

I simply want Shell to deal with me sympathetically as a long-term employee who was very deeply hurt by the unfortunate way my employment with Shell ended. It was terribly distressing for me after so many decades.

Frankly it would be much preferable for this matter to be resolved directly with Shell if that is at all possible, rather than continuing to be embroiled in acrimony.

On my part, I am very willing to make in good faith attempt to resolve the matter amicably if Shell is willing to do likewise. As they say, it takes two to tango.

If we could find a solution from discussions held on a “without prejudice” basis, it would save further Shell management time and avoid potentially substantial lawyers’ fees.  It would also bring me some peace of mind.

I therefore believe that this is a sensible proposal which could produce a mutually beneficial result.

I am making this proposal to demonstrate that I am a reasonable person seeking a reasonable solution.

Sincerely,

John Huong

Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong

LETTER ENDS

It seems that my letters including the above were not good enough for Shell management to take steps in resolving the conflicts.  I have not even received the courtesy of a response to the above proposal made in good faith. As a loyal and faithful employee of nearly 30 years standing I was unreasonably axed while protecting the shareholder, national and stakeholders interests. I am now taking steps to reveal to my extended family, the international audience, the predicaments and nightmares I have to go through in trying to abide with Shell’s SGBP.  At the end of the story you will understand the pervasive nature of Shell’s corporate culture which has unfortunately escalated to appalling gigantic proportions, resulting in the repeated downgrades of Shell oil and gas volumes which have made headlines around the globe.

If a company loses the trust and respect of its shareholders, employees, and customers, as Shell Management has done on a truly spectacular basis, then there’s only going to be a rather empty shell left.  It will obviously be a very long time before Shell could ever again use the famous advertising slogan “you can be sure of Shell”.

It seems that Mr. Jeroen van der Veer and Mr. Malcolm Brinded could not command any effective solutions to Shell management in the Operating companies in resolving my case. I am just wondering how Jeroen and Malcolm can have the time to consider the well-being of an individual axed-employee when they have to think around the clock for ways and means in undoing and/or hiding their own personal and professional wrong-doing? If only they could institute discipline and fair-minded management at the workplace, then Shell’s reputation will be given a breathing place to recover from being torn to pieces by the immoral self-serving attitude of Shell top management who appear to place their fat cat remuneration/pension packages above all other considerations, moral and legal.

By Alfred and John Donovan

Our outspoken friend, the former employee of Shell Oil USA, has raised the question of why Shell has not sued us for libel. Extracts from an article we published in February 2006 are informative on the subject. Since then, Shell was legally obliged to supply us with internal documents including one indicating that Shell decided long ago that it will never take legal action against us. Perhaps this is over concern about what Shell describes as “internal laundry” being aired in open court.

As will be seen, the attitude of Shell to free speech is unclear and seems to depend on whether they can sue in a country such as Malaysia, which has a corrupt judiciary.

With regard to its comments about Ken Saro-Wiwa, in June of this year Shell settled for $15.5 million a claim in the USA courts accusing the company of involvement in his murder.

THE HYPE & SPIN

THE RIGHTS OF NOBEL LAUREATE *KEN SARO-WIWA TO FREELY HOLD AND AIR HIS VIEWS (ABOUT SHELL):

EXTRACTS FROM Shell.com website:

THE RIGHTS OF ALFRED DONOVAN TO EXPRESS HIS OPINIONS (ABOUT SHELL)

FROM SHELL INTERNATIONAL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED LEGAL SUBMISSION TO THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION REGARDING THE WEBSITE OF ALFRED DONOVAN: 18 MAY 2005

THE REALITY i.e. WHAT SHELL MANAGEMENT DOES AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IT SAYS

By John Donovan

Printed below are extracts from an email I sent on 9 August 2006 to the then CEO of Royal Dutch Shell Plc., Mr Jeroen van der Veer.

It concerned very serious published allegations against Shell management by the former HSE Group Auditor of Shell International, Mr Bill Campbell. His allegations related to the Brent Bravo explosion in which two Shell employees lost their lives as a consequence of alleged criminal negligence. It was an investigation led by Bill Campbell that revealed the notorious “Touch Fu** All” safety culture for Shell North Sea production platforms, endorsed by Shell management.

Mr Campbell has also alleged a cover-up involving senior executive directors of Royal Dutch Shell.

No reply or acknowledgment was received in response to the email. Shell did contact Mr Campbell’s solicitors in the hope of ending his contact with us. That maneuver was unsuccessful.

We understand that following a long investigation by the Grampion Police, a decision by the Scottish legal authorities on launching a prosecution is imminent.

THE EMAIL

Dear Mr Van der Veer

As a long term Shell shareholder I am extremely concerned by the serious allegations made by the former Shell International Group Auditor, Mr Bill Campbell, concerning alleged falsification of records in relation to the Shell Brent scandal.

We really cannot have a distinguished former high level Shell official being allowed to make such accusations without Shell taking action against him for defamation if, as Shell claims, they are untrue.

This is not a case of some outsider ignorant of the facts making wild accusations. The charges in this case are being made by a person of high reputation and considerable expertise following his authorised investigation as Group Auditor into the Brent safety regime.

Since a number of “accidental” deaths have occurred on Brent Bravo, two of which resulted in a record breaking £900,000 fine imposed on Shell, the allegation of falsification of records could result in criminal charges if true.

Mr Campbell is on record as claiming that he has personally met with you to discuss these matters. If this is correct, then you must be fully briefed on the issues and the allegations he has publicly made. They have been repeated in various mass media sources and in trade publications including, for example, UpstreamOnline.

Mr Campbell says that ESDV leak-off tests were purposely falsified, not once but many times. He further alleges that the inaction of the relevant Asset Manager, the General Manager, the Oil Director and the Shell Expro Managing Director in 1999 (Malcolm Brinded), contributed in some part to the unlawful killing of two persons on Brent Bravo in September 2003.

My father and I have published some outspoken articles about Shell ourselves but nothing as serious as the charges levelled against Shell management by your own former Group Auditor.  And as you are aware, we have a special dispensation from Shell International Petroleum Company to say what we like about Shell.

Surely Shell is not going to allow Mr Campbell to continue repeating these devastating allegations? If they are unfounded, why have you not already instituted libel proceedings? If they are true, why have you not sacked Malcolm Brinded? Why has he not done the honourable thing and resigned?

If you do not take action, people will naturally assume that Shell management is unwilling to do so because Mr Campbell is speaking the truth and can prove it.

If anyone says anything untrue about Shell, it is your duty Mr Van der Veer to take action to protect the reputation of the Shell brand. However, you have my sympathy to some degree because Shell management blunders and misdeeds have been so wide-ranging that people who wish to criticise have an almost unlimited supply of ammunition.

Conclusion: the fact that Shell has not obtained an injunction to prevent Mr Campbell making his allegations speaks volumes.  He is plainly a man of great courage speaking the truth.

Yours sincerely
John Donovan

By JAMES HERRON

LONDON—Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Russian gas giant OAO Gazprom signed an agreement on Tuesday that will deepen their existing partnership within Russia and see them work together outside Russia for the first time, Shell said in a statement.

The agreement promises “further development of bilateral cooperation in exploration and production of hydrocarbons in western Siberia and the far east of Russia [and] cooperation in the downstream oil products business in Russia and Europe, as well as Gazprom participation in Shell upstream projects outside of Russia,” Shell said.

The pact was signed in Moscow by Gazprom Chief Executive Alexey Miller and Shell CEO Peter Voser. It will give Gazprom “new large-scale projects and growing joint presence in new markets,” said Mr. Miller.

“This underscores the strong partnership our companies have built in recent years,” said Mr. Voser. Gazprom and Shell are already partners in the Sakhalin-2 liquefied natural-gas export project in Russia’s far east, although Gazprom’s entry only came about after sustained pressure from the Russian government for Shell to cede control of the project.

“We are happy to invite foreign partners to develop our upstream reserves, but only if in exchange we get the access to their first class projects somewhere in the world,” said Gazprom Deputy Chief Executive Alexander Medvedev on Monday. “We do know Shell has good assets, which could be of interest for us.”

Under former Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer, Shell discussed participating in the development of huge energy resources in the remote Yamal Peninsula, which are seen as vital to Russia’s ability to meet future demand for natural gas.

“Russia is an important area for new energy development for Shell and I expect it will play a big role in meeting the world’s growing demand for oil and gas in the years ahead,” said Mr. Voser.

WSJ ARTICLE

By John Donovan

Printed below is a leaked 2007 Shell internal email from the then CEO with a bike, Jeroen van der Veer. He sent it to all Shell employees in an attempt to burnish and promote Shell’s reputation just a few years after his involvement in the Shell securities fraud, which put more nails in Shell’s atrocious reputation. Must have been hoping Shell employees had a short memory about his own track record of covering up management misdeeds. No wonder one high level insider branded him “demented and delusional”.

From:  Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive
To:  All Shell employees
Date:  10 May, 2007

Subject: Shell’s Reputation – and our role as ambassadors

This letter has been translated into twelve languages.  Please click here for a translation.

Dear Colleagues,

As I said in my first-quarter note last week, this letter is about reputation, and about the role we all play as ambassadors for Shell. I will deal with four key aspects related to nurturing a good reputation. 1. Perceptions about reputation. 2. Things we should realise. 3. What can we do? 4. What should we not do?

Firstly, I see reputation as the trust we have gained with our customers, business partners, governments and other stakeholders. We earn a good reputation by doing what we say – by how we act and talk, both in good times and when we are under pressure.

Our brand is the promise we make – how we live the purpose of Shell, our values and commitments. Reputation is the result of keeping that promise. It is clear that a company can’t build its reputation on what it says it is going to do. And that it is impossible to “talk your way” out of a situation you have “behaved yourself” into.

I admit that I – and my family – get irritated when we see stories in newspapers, magazines and on television that show Shell in a way that we can’t recognise. Such stories portray us as disregarding the expectations of society. We all have examples.

Secondly, let’s not forget, Shell is often a convenient target. We have a high profile, as a hundred-year-old brand with operations in more than a 100 countries. And, due to our values, we actually engage with stakeholders more than most of our competitors.

To manage our reputation, we must be prepared to listen, and to understand what others expect and why they see us the way they do. But we must also actively tell our own story, because we “are” what people know about us.

If the public record in the media paints a picture of Shell without our input, we have left it to others to tell our story. We all know that a negative media picture can over time build political pressure that will affect our ability to do business.

Many groups with a local or single-issue agenda act with this in mind. They try to shape opinion and foster support for their goals by linking developments to build their “case”.

As an energy company, we will always be in the spotlight. It can be as simple as people in your street not wanting a gas station built on the next corner, or as complex as concerns over climate change – and who should do what about it.

We must also realise that we are not always perfect. Remember my message about safety. And that people in general – unlike those with an engineering background – don’t accept even the lowest level of probability that things can go wrong. I’m thinking about the neighbours of a refinery, for example.

Throughout my career in Shell, I have had good and bad experiences in my engagements with groups and individuals who are critical. The good experiences usually resulted from situations where we were prepared to listen to each other. We were able to establish mutual respect, agree on broad shared goals, even agree to disagree – but in the end to achieve a win-win outcome.

So, thirdly, what can you do, as ambassadors for Shell?  And we all are ambassadors, whether we realise it or not. You can listen, to understand the other point of view. And you can provide Shell’s point of view in the clearest possible way. Be succinct.

This means you have to make sure you are informed. You have to think about the Shell position and come up with short and simple explanations, which, of course, must be fact-based. Examples from your own experience will help.

I will give you an example from my experience – when I was a refinery manager people criticised us for not following the rules and regulations. So I studied all the laws and regulations myself. Based on a personal understanding of the facts, I realised that most of the criticism was wrong. It made me a better ambassador, and I took action to change what was not right.

What can the company do to keep you informed? It does a lot, but it can’t replace your own initiative. Do you read the intranet? Do you read the Annual Report, which has just been published? Do you read the Sustainability Report, released on May 8 this year? Do you look up facts to learn about our issues that play a role in your situation? Do you compare with Shell colleagues how to answer “difficult questions”?

I’m a big fan of bringing stakeholders into Shell’s operations, including the media, so they can see for themselves what we do.  But once, during my time at the Pernis refinery, a journalist wrote after a visit that it looked like “a high-tech ghost town where I saw steam and other dangerous gases escaping”. Clearly, you can’t convince them all (I’m still angry about this fellow).

But visits to operations, labs, terminals, retail stations and projects show people that Shell employees are normal people – and often truly environmentally and socially conscious and committed to the triple bottom line.

Finally, what should we not do? If Shell is criticised, we should not react with anger. We should try, by asking questions, to find the real objectives behind the criticism, and react with passion – but not with anger.

We should never over-promise. And we must never forget that although we are a company committed to securing a responsible energy future, we can’t solve all the problems of the world. Example: we share the concern over climate change, but we focus on mitigating CO2 and on reducing flaring – that is our responsibility.

So, my request to you is that you see yourself as a Shell ambassador. I think you will agree, 110,000 good ambassadors will make a real difference.

Best wishes,

Jeroen van der Veer
Chief Executive
If you have feedback, please use the feedback form

EMAIL ENDS

From a high level ‘Shell insider’: Clearly in the mind of that demented and delusional soul Jeroen van der Veer he is innocent…: 6 November 2007

Court document revelations damage Shell CEO, Jeroen van der Veer: 5 November 2007

Jeroen van der Veer cuts a deal with U.S. Attorneys: 12 February 2008

Jeroen van der Veer and the Shell reserves fraud: 22 May 2008