Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Rotating Header Image

Posts under ‘Leaked Shell Emails’

Old stories and anti-Shell propaganda

By John Donovan

A regular contributor to our “Shell Blog” recently criticized the mix of postings on this website.

“LondonLad” said:

I am afraid that there clearly is very little news (i.e. aspects of Shell’s work) for the Donovan’s to rant on about recently. A great deal is re-printed as though it’s new but is merely old stories and anti-Shell propoganda that is old history.

Since we have over many years built an archive of over 28,000 articles, documents and advertising relating to Shell stretching back to the 1920′s, including Shell internal documents and communications, we have a wealth of information to draw on in providing related historical context to current news events.

Seems to be a winning formula given the increased traffic – 2,545,430 million hits and 1,513,016 million page views in January 2012.

ALL Royal Dutch Shell news, positive and negative, is accessible on this website.

The advertisement displayed was published in The Scotsman on 31 December 1923.

Shell arch-critic emailed over 400 Royal Dutch Shell senior execs

In a front page lead story in the Financial Times, our site was properly credited with breaking news of the restructuring plans of Peter Voser.

FROM OUR ARCHIVE: EXTRACT FROM A RELATED EMAIL MESSAGE SENT BY JOHN DONOVAN TO OVER 400 SENIOR SHELL EXECUTIVES

Congratulations!

I am writing to offer our best wishes on your appointment/new title, as announced on our website royaldutchshellplc.com within the lists of Shell senior executive appointments we published on 22 June and 3 August.

The unauthorised publication of leaked Shell confidential information on our site has become a news event in its own right, regularly reported by The Wall Street Journal and other news organisations.

In a front page lead story in the Financial Times, our site was credited with breaking news of the restructuring plans of Peter Voser.

Our role was acknowledged in many other news stories including, for example, the London Evening Standard which reported:

“Meanwhile, staff flocked to Royaldutchshell.com to attack the group’s management.”

Reuters also acknowledged “The Royaldutchshellplc.com website was the first to reveal news of the planned restructuring.”

Our insider sources know that we will protect anonymity.  If you ever feel the need to supply information, please contact me and I will advise on setting up secure communications.

SHELL BLOG

Comments posted by Shell employees on our “Shell Blog” have been quoted in many news articles.

If you want to keep in touch with uncensored grassroots opinion of Shell stakeholders, I would strongly recommend regular visits to the facility, as the comments are often insightful and reflect all shades of opinion. Why not post your own views? You can do so anonymously. What do you think about Shell executives being forced to reapply for their jobs? What do you make of the callous comment by Peter Voser that asking staff to reapply had been “an interesting exercise“?

You are also welcome to supply Shell related articles for unedited publication under your own name. We have published numerous articles on this basis from eminent Shell retirees, Shell executive Paddy Briggs, Shell International HSE Group Auditor, Bill Campbell, and Royal Dutch Shell Global Chief Petroleum Engineer, Iain Percival.

The Shell Blog has replaced “Tell Shell”, the official Shell Internet forum for open and lively debate, “temporarily suspended” (permanently) after we exposed the secret censorship of postings considered too open and too lively.

Shell General Counsel Richard Wiseman (now RDS Plc Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer) confirmed to us in an email dated 11 November 2005 Shell’s censorship of Tell Shell postings.

In the same email, Mr Wiseman stated:

The extraordinary tolerance shown to your internet activities ought to demonstrate better than anything else the fact that we are uninterested in, and unmoved by, your current activities

Richard Wiseman subsequently, at his own initiative, sent us an updated photograph of himself to display on our website (left).

In a further development revealing the truth, as opposed to the spin, we found out from documents obtained under the Data Protection Act that Shell set up a team in an attempt to counter our activities. The relevant internal email exposes the hostility towards us and the fact that it is is held in check by fear of reprisal on our part. If you find this difficult to believe, read the email.

So much for being uninterested and unmoved!

Update: Richard Wiseman retired from Shell in March 2011.

Malaysian Judge told Shell that they should sue John Donovan in the UK

Dr Huong was buried in multiple injunctions arising from alleged defamatory postings on our website. Shell also attempted to have him committed to prison and was apparently keen that I should become a fellow prisoner, after they gave up trying to lure my father to Malaysia.

By John Donovan

In 2004, EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group collectively took legal action against Dr John Huong (above), a former Shell production geologist who blew the whistle on the reserves scandal and other nefarious activities carried out by Shell executives in breach of the much proclaimed Shell General Business Principles.

Dr Huong was buried in multiple injunctions arising from alleged defamatory postings on our website. Shell also attempted to have him committed to prison in Malaysia and was apparently keen that I should become a fellow prisoner, after they gave up trying to lure my father to Malaysia.

An email printed below from Dr Huong to his lawyer, Trevor George De Silva, confirms that a Malaysian High Court judge dealing with the litigation told Shell that “they should sue John Donovan in the UK”.

Since that course of action was *not one Shell lawyers wished to pursue, Shell eventually, after 6 years of litigation, had to settle with Dr Huong to stop the case from going to trial. Shell lawyers had undermined their situation by engaging in criminal tampering of evidence to hide important information from the judge.

That was not the only action that perverted the course of justice.

During the course of the litigation, Shell terrorised Dr Huong to the extent that he had to use bodyguards, two of whom were present to protect him when he went to court on 15 July 2004, as stated in his email to us the same day. His house and family were also guarded as a result of sinister events including burglaries, phone tampering, surveillance and an unwelcome night-time visit from a Shell agent, which frightened Dr Huong’s children.

The then Shell Country Chairman, Jon Chadwick, was personally involved in the draconian litigation, which spectacularly backfired on Shell. Perhaps that explains his departure from Shell?

EMAIL DATED 12 February 2007

Dear Mr Trevor,

The following are some of the facts.

1. John and Alfred Donovan jointly own, operate and publish in their website on a daily basis. I also agree with the Judge that when Shell takes issues with what were and are currently published in the website, ‘they should sue John Donovan in the UK’.

2. John and Alfred Donovan are not my agent and/or servants and therefore I cannot undertake the suggestion to cooperate in checking with them an arrangement for a teleconferencing from the UK.  In the past I was trying to be helpful and cooperative with my lawyer Mr. Eric Siow to produce a draft affidavit for which Shell picked on me and served me interim ex-parte injunction which was corrected to inter-parte injunction and served on me as a surprise.

3.  Furthermore, Malaysia has diplomatic relations with UK and if shell takes issue wanting to cross examine John Donovan, an alternative way for Shell is to conduct the cross examination at the Malaysian Embassy in UK – all expenses incurred for which Shell is to pay.

4. As I have mentioned to you earlier by telephone conversation, the last submission of Shell, for example in paragraph 2 had accused me of unaccounted absence from work and for insubordination.  This is flawed and untrue because the unaccounted absence is an allegation resulting from Shell’s failure to conduct an investigation into an alleged misconduct.  In addition Shell lawyers had said that there was an insubordination, a serious misconduct, for which I was never charged at the domestic inquiry.  The case concerning misconduct is still ongoing and I cannot see how Shell lawyers can make such allegations to churn out injunctions.

5. I agree the injunctions made against me are hanging over my head for far too long amounting to human right abuses and need to be disposed off quickly so that we can begin the main trial accusing me of defaming Shell’s good name.

6. Please contact John Donovan and discuss with him what the High Court Judge require.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

RELATED ARTICLES:

Royal Dutch Shell terrorist tactics against Malaysian whistleblower

Invitation by Shell to a Malaysian jail cell

More Information, including legal documents…

*We now know from Shell internal documents the company was obliged to supply to us following an application under the UK Data Protection Act, that Shell decided long ago that it would never take legal action against our website. See Shell internal email dated 19 June 2009. Shell was concerned about the airing of “internal laundry” online. The documents also reveal sinister undercover activity against us by Shell spooks on a global basis in an effort to trace our sources.

Royal Dutch Shell and Iran Oil

By John Donovan: 12 January 2012

The front page lead story published by the Financial Times newspaper today reports that European refiners have begun to sever links with Iran ahead of an EU meeting, which could impose a full oil embargo on the Iranian regime.

(A version of the article is also published on ft.com)

Iran is the world’s third-largest oil exporter.

Tensions and oil prices are heightened by the regimes threat to close the Strait of Hormuz.

The article reports that according to Argus Media, Royal Dutch Shell is the biggest supplier of Iranian crude.

As could be expected, Shell has been extremely sensitive about purchasing oil from the fanatical Iranian regime supplying road side bombs, which have maimed and killed many US and British soldiers, but has continued to do so. With Shell, money wins out over mere moral considerations.

On 28 October 2010, Shell CFO Simon Henry came clean after press reports on the subject and admitted that Shell has continued to trade with Iran:

“Simon Henry, Shell’s top financial official, said his company was still taking delivery of Iranian crude oil under the terms of its existing contracts with the Islamic republic.” (extract from UPI article)

The following month, November 2010, Reuters published an article which stated:

“Companies are still finding ways to buy Iranian oil. Royal Dutch Shell and some Italian and Spanish refiners buy Iranian barrels with finance coming from Chinese and Italian banks…”

Shell has in fact continued to buy oil from the Iranian regime for many years and and because of the obvious sensitivity, has on occasion used subterfuge to disguise shipping movements.

I discovered just how sensitive the issue is after sending an email in March 2007 to Bill O’Reilly at Fox News, under the innocuous subject heading “Shell’s treachery in Iran“.

As a result of making an application to Shell under the Data Protection Act, we discovered from Shell internal communications the company was compelled to supply, that my email had sent Shell into a panic on both sides of the Atlantic. This was out of concern that if the story was taken up by Fox News, it could result in a US boycott of Shell gasoline.

The internal emails also revealed anxiety over information being leaked to us:

“They are a continued source of leaks from inside Shell – if you read their on line blog you will see a lot of insider material”.

A media statement was drafted on a contingency basis.

As can be seen from the covering message, it contained the usual spin and was founded on deception:

“Greetings all – The lawyers are happy with the following response statement no changes from the draft I sent you yesterday). As discussed with xxxxxxx, we have phrased this as coming from Shell in the US, and have aimed to distance you as much as possible from what is essentially a dispute originating in the UK. Let’s hope there is no follow up and we don’t have to use anything.”

The Shell internal emails focused on our Iran initiative with Fox News, but also mentioned a surge in our activities relating to Sakhalin 2 and Shell North Sea “TFA” safety culture, as exposed by Bill Campbell, the former Group HSE Auditor of Shell International.

That same month, Shell set up an aggressive team to combat our activities. This was followed by an attempt to close down this website and the setting up of a related global spying operation targeting my family and all Shell employees, in conjunction with a US cyber intelligence unit partly staffed and funded by the FBI.

All in response to an entirely non commercial website publishing the truth about the dark side of Royal Dutch Shell, including its relationship with the Iranian regime.

RELATED

Royal Dutch Shell Iranian treachery

Another shell director playing General Patton?

Purported leaked email with video link received from an anonymous source with the covering message:

“Potential for another Shell director playing *General Patton…listen to the video…”

THE INTERNAL EMAIL

On behalf of Bob Turner,

All,
We have just posted the latest video clip on the IPO website. In this clip I talk about Gas to Offshore and our preparations and some issues around our culture which I call “NO” will no longer be the low risk option”.

Please have a look. I hope you find it informative and topical. My previous clips will be archived in the Library folder.

As always I welcome your feedback.

Have a safe day

Bob.

Bob Turner Video

ENDS

*From Wikipedia article “List of plagiarism controversies

On 6 June 2007, the Financial Times published a front page article under the headline: “‘Pipeliners All!’ Shell’s memo to Sakhalin”[24]

The article was about a leaked motivational memo in the form of an email from David Greer, the deputy chief executive of Sakhalin Energy circulated to Sakhalin-2 staff. Some keen eyed readers noticed that inspirational passages were appropriated from a famous speech given by the legendary U.S. General George S. Patton, on 5 June 1944 on the eve of D-Day the Sixth of June. On 7 June 2007, a quarter page follow-up article was published in the Financial Times newspaper and on the FT.com website, under the headline: “Sakhalin motivational memo borrows heavily from Patton”[25][citation needed]

On Monday 11 June 2007, the Financial Times published another article at[26] on the subject, this time headlined: “Motivational memos must make their message clear”. One of the opening paragraphs stated: “The memo (www.ft.com/shell) is crass, poorly punctuated and most of it wasn’t even written by its author, David Greer, deputy chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell‘s Sakhalin Energy Investment Company. He had lifted the words of General George S. Patton with no attribution, and clumsily adapted them to spur on his team of recalcitrant pipeline engineers”.[citation needed]

On 9 June 2007, The Moscow Times published a front page article on the controversy headlined: Sakhalin Pep Talk From ‘Old Blood and Guts’.

On Friday 22 June 2007, The Moscow Times published a front page story with the headline: “Sakhalin Energy’s Greer Steps Down”. The newspaper reported that “David Greer, the Sakhalin Energy deputy CEO running the giant Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project, has left the company unexpectedly just weeks after a leaked e-mail he wrote revealed the pressure that managers working there were facing”. The article said that Greer had been a 27-year Shell veteran, and was leaving to pursue other business interests.

6 Oil Wells On Sakhalin Go Offline

14 October 2011
Vedomosti

Dysfunctional oil wells at Sakhalin-2 are threatening to decrease production at the field in Russia’s Far East and could be indicative of more serious problems.

The problems on Sakhalin-2 in the Piltun-Astokhskoye oil field were documented in a government report to the State Duma on the implementation of the production sharing agreement, a copy of which was obtained by Vedomosti.

According to the report, the wells are not functioning “due to the need to remove a significant amount of sand after a water breakthrough.” This mishap prompted a shutdown of six of the 13 oil wells on the Astokhskoye section, where the Molikpaq Platform extracts oil.

The unexpected impediment diminished planned production by more than 20 percent over the first two quarters of this year. The report did not elucidate the amount expected.

It is possible they are referring to a loss of pressure, said an official at the Natural Resources Ministry. The situation is not common, he said. Until now, there have only been problems in one or two wells.

The depressurization may be caused by a breakthrough of ground water, said a member of a major oil holding company. This is something that happens during oil spills, he warned. The most recent case similar to this incident is the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

There has not been an oil spill at the platform, said Ivan Chernyakhovsky, a spokesman for Sakhalin Energy, operator of Sakhalin-2. Despite the failure of the well’s seal, he continued, “the release from a few of the wells was part of a planned process.”

Sakhalin Energy exploits the Lunskoye gas field and Piltun-Astokhskoye oil field in the Sea of Okhotsk. Three platforms extract natural resources — Lunskloye-A with seven gas wells, Piltun-Astokhskoye operating eight oil wells and Molikpaq.

Last year Sakhalin Energy extracted 6.1 million tons of oil, while Molikpaq yielded 2.2 million tons. If all factors remain the same, Molikpaq will be short 440,000 tons of oil this year, and the production for the entire project will fall short 7 percent.

ENDS

SOURCE

RELATED ARTICLES

(1) The inside story of Shell’s Sakhalin II debacle

(2) Shell Fixes Sakhalin Violations (Moscow Times)

(3) Sakhalin Pep Talk From ‘Old Blood and Guts’ (Moscow Times)

(4) Sakhalin Energy’s Greer Steps Down (Moscow Times

Sakhalin Energy’s Greer Steps Down

Friday, June 22, 2007. Issue 3683. Page 5.
By Max Delany
Staff Writer

David Greer, the Sakhalin Energy deputy CEO running the giant Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project, has left the company unexpectedly just weeks after a leaked e-mail he wrote revealed the pressure that managers working there were facing.

Greer’s departure comes as Shell is adjusting to ceding control of the $20 billion project to Gazprom after sustained state pressure.

“I can confirm that David Greer has left the company to pursue other business interests,” Sakhalin Energy spokesman Ivan Chernyakhovsky said Thursday. He did not elaborate on Greer’s future plans.

“He decided to leave the company and left the company,” Chernyakovsky said. “We wish him well in his future after working at Sakhalin Energy for 3 1/2 years.”

Chernyakovsky said any suggestion that the departure of Greer, a 27-year Shell veteran, was connected to the leaked e-mail was “pure speculation.”

Shell spokesman Maxim Shub could not say when Greer had offered his resignation, saying only that the announcement was made Thursday.

Greer could not be reached by cell phone Thursday evening.

Sakhalin Energy’s technical director, Jaap Huijskes, has been appointed as the new project director for the remainder of the Phase-2 development, a source inside Shell confirmed.

A motivational e-mail written by Greer to staff working on the project, originally leaked to an anti-Shell web site, Royaldutchshellplc.com, was the subject of a front-page story in the Financial Times earlier this month.

It also emerged that Greer had borrowed heavily in the e-mail from a speech made by U.S. General George Patton on the eve of the D-Day landings in World War II, with phrases such as “Lead me, follow me or get out of my way.”

Greer’s memo, written shortly after Gazprom officially took control of the Sakhalin-2 project this spring, took the form of a bombastic pep talk.

Citing bad body language and comments at a biannual meeting, the e-mail said that senior managers at Sakhalin Energy were running “the risk of becoming a team that doesn’t want to fight and lacks confidence in its own ability.”

Last December, Shell and its Japanese partners ceded majority control of the project, Russia’s first to process and export liquefied natural gas, to Gazprom after a sustained 1 1/2-year campaign of state pressure over purported environmental violations.

Ian Craig, head of Sakhalin Energy, the project operator, is due to be replaced by a Gazprom manager once the project comes on line. LNG shipments to Asia are due to begin next year.

Shell fuels Syrian Tanks?

By John Donovan

SHELL IS A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER, PARTNER, OWNER AND MANAGEMENT PARTICIPANT IN A COMPANY SUPPLYING THE FUEL FOR SYRIAN TANKS USED TO CRUSH THE UPRISING

On Wednesday 24 August 2011, I sent an email to Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

I asked him whether an email sent earlier that same day to a third party, purportedly by Graham Henley, General Manager of Syria Shell Petroleum Development B.V. was authentic. I supplied a copy.

I also advised him of an allegation that Shell fuel has been used in  Syrian army tanks active in the current uprising.

I received an immediate automated acknowledgement from Mr. Brandjes indicating that although on a business trip until 29 August, he would be checking urgent emails on his Blackberry. The following day I sent an email to another Shell email address asking the same questions.

There was no response from Shell, possibly because the subject is one of great sensitivity.

On 26 August I sent a follow-up email to Mr Brandjes:

Since you have not responded to my email of 24 August, I take it that the email response below from Graham Henley is authentic and the allegation is true.

If I do not receive a response today indicating otherwise, I will proceed on that basis.

There has been no response from Mr Brandjes even though we were officially notified that he is our designated contact at Shell.

The email purportedly from Mr Henley, which I believe to be authentic, is printed below. It was a reply sent on behalf of Shell CEO Peter Voser. It seeks to justify Shell’s continuing presence in Syria despite the crimes against humanity being committed against peaceful Syrian protestors by the despotic regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

It says that Shell has publicly expressed concern over the current situation in Syria.

If the allegation that Shell fuel has been used in the Syrian army tanks suppressing the uprising is true, then that would completely undermine Shell’s attempt to distance itself from the Syrian regime, while continuing to do business with them. The business activity includes fueling the tanks via Al Furat Petroleum Company, in which Shell is a major shareholder. Does this not make Shell an accomplice in crimes against humanity?

If the allegation is unfounded, Shell should quickly say so in unequivocal terms.

We note that when the Daily Mail recently accused Shell of working ‘hand in glove’ with the Syrian regime, Shell also refused to comment on that occasion:

Extract

Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of working ‘hand in glove’ with the government in Syria where hundreds of unarmed demonstrators have been killed during protests against the regime.

The firm chartered a tanker to export almost 600,000 barrels of the country’s oil worth $55m, according to campaign group Platform. Shell declined to comment.

THE SHELL EMAIL DATED 24 August 2011 SENT TO THE THIRD PARTY

From: <Shell-Responds@shell.com>

Date: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:22 AM

Subject: Shell in Syria

Thank you for your letter to Peter Voser, to which he has asked me to respond. I understand your concern over the current situation in Syria. We are also concerned. We have publicly condemned the current violence and deeply regret the loss of life in the country. We are monitoring the situation in Syria closely and ensuring the safety and security of our staff, who are our main concern.

Our involvement in oil production in Syria is through a share in a joint venture company, Al Furat Petroleum Company. We do not operate this joint venture but are proud that the over 3000 staff it employs reflect the rich cultural and religious diversity of the country. We are heavily involved in the development of those staff. In the last five years Shell has played a significant role in training more than 400 Syrian graduate staff in the joint venture.

In the last 25 years Shell through Al-Furat Petroleum Company has contributed to the development of the oil and gas industry in Syria, providing income to the country and employment for a generation of Syrians, who have acquired skills and long term employment in a remote area of Syria where there are few other opportunities for employment.

In addition we have an active social investment programme in the country. We and our partners manage a fund in the remote area where Al Furat operates providing amenities such as water schemes. We also have a training programme for entrepreneurs in Damascus, Homs, Hama and Deir Ez Zor, helping Syrians start up their own businesses and create wealth for themselves and the country. In the last three years we have trained 750 people who have set up more than 150 businesses.

We estimate that indirectly more than 30,000 people are touched and benefit through employment and our other activities. Our Syrian staff are supportive of Shell’s continued presence in the country.

We believe these are all positive contributions to the country that should continue as long as we can continue to operate in the country according to our business principles, international and local laws and we can respect human rights, as set out in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core conventions of the International Labour Organisation. We are committed to conducting business as responsible corporate members of society, complying with applicable laws and regulations, including international sanctions.

I hope this explains our presence in Syria and the contribution we make.

Graham Henley,

General Manager

Syria Shell Petroleum Development B.V.

EMAIL ENDS

Basically, Shell is demonstrating once again that it is willing to deal with the devil incarnate, whether in the guise of Hitler, the corrupt Nigerian dictator, General Sani Abachato, the apartheid regime in South Africa, “Mad Dog” Gaddafi, the Iranian Mad Mullahs, Saddam Hussein, or the current Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, killing peaceful protestors on a daily basis.

RELATED ARTICLES

Why is Shell still present and operating in Syria?: RoyalDutchShellPlc.com

UN to investigate ‘crimes against humanity’ in Syria: Telegraph 23 August 2011

EU prepares to embargo Syrian oil in line with US: The Scotsman 25 August 2011

EU Embargo on Syrian Crude Likely to Hurt Italy Most: Wall Street Journal 26 August 2011

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″

Shell embedded spies in host governments of Nigeria, Dubai and Iraq

By John Donovan

Today we provide a unique insight into the shadowy world of Shell Corporate Security, formerly known as “CAS” – Shell Corporate Affairs Security.

Shell has had advance sight of everything you are about to read and therefore the opportunity to challenge authenticity of the featured CAS Intel Summary, correct any inaccuracies and provide comment for unedited publication with the article. Shell has also had the opportunity to obtain an injunction to prevent publication.

Shell’s private army of security specialists has expanded its activities far beyond what is necessary in a defensive posture to protect company assets and employees against potential internal and external threats.

Shell has taken a proactive approach to intelligence led security, for example by infiltrating spies into host governments, including Nigeria, Dubai and Iraq, seeking to gather intelligence and influence events.

Prime sources of information include government security and intelligence agencies, Shell Regional Security Advisers and commercial security companies, such as Hakluyt, in which titled Shell directors have been major shareholders, directors and the ultimate spymasters. Hakluyt undercover operations on Shell’s behalf have been directed against the oil giants perceived enemies, including Nigerian activists associated with Ken Saro-Wiwa.

So-called “proactive intelligence” is also relevant to Shell’s quest for commercial opportunities. Last year, US Defense Dept Attorneys confirmed to me, via a senior US intelligence source, that Shell has been investigated on allegations of industrial espionage relating to potentially valuable Intellectual Property, which has commercial and military applications. The ramifications are still in progress.

We have provided an example of a top secret Shell Intelligence document supplied to us by our source. It is 22 pages long, was originated inside Shell Corporate Security and relates to Shell operations in Nigeria. It shows how closely Shell has worked with the Nigerian Federal Government and its security forces. It also provides an indication of the role of intelligence gathering in Nigeria, which is routinely shared with the US, UK and Dutch Embassies. The revelations about Shell spies embedded in the Nigerian government resulted from Shell sharing information with the US Embassy in Nigeria.

The extract below is proof of the secrecy classification attached to the Intel Summary document. Shell will be distressed by the news that the Shell intel information/documents in our possession cover Shell’s security plans stretching forward to 2014.

THIS IS THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT

It can be seen that intel developments and related perceived threats are itemized in date order and analyzed by SINC (Security Information Network) and when appropriate, recommendations made.

The document provides evidence that in the lead up to the trial in the USA in June 2009, when Shell was accused of human rights abuses in Nigeria, the actions and movement of Ken Sar-Wiwa’s supporters and Ogoni groups, “in particular MOSOP”, were “closely monitored” by CAS operatives.

Shell settled the case for $15.5 million.

In November 2010, Shell’s underhand activities in Nigeria led to a $30 million “criminal penalty” being imposed on Shell in relation to the bribery of Nigerian officials.

We have confirmed the authenticity of our source, who has years of experience inside Shell Security and shares our conclusions about the hypocrisy, ruthlessness and greed of senior Shell management.

Our source is also concerned at a blurring of the line between state intelligence agencies (held to account by national governments) and commercial intelligence organizations, including Shell Corporate Security, which operate internationally, without independent oversight.

Shell Security staff  have worked in association with intel agencies such as MI6 for example, in restoring Shell’s relationship with governments in Libya, Iraq, and Iran. On other occasions, Shell is the target of investigations by government intel and/or investigative agencies.  As will be seen, there is also a crossover of staff.

INSIDE THE WORLD OF SHELL GLOBAL SECURITY

Shell Corporate Security is a shadowy organisation managed and staffed by former/current members of Dutch and British Intelligence, the SAS, Royal Commando’s, and SBS.

BRITISH INTEL CONNECTIONS

As already pointed out, Shell is also linked with Hakluyt, a spy firm said to be the commercial arm of MI6.

Ian Forbes McCredie OBE, the former/current MI6 senior official, who until December 2010 headed up Shell Corporate Security, has recently returned to the Hakluyt/MI6 spy nest.

US CONNECTIONS

Shell’s relationship with US law enforcement and intelligence agencies is more complex.

In the US, Shell Corporate Security is staffed by former FBI, State Dept Diplomatic Security and law enforcement officials. There are also high level links to the CIA. The current head of the Shell US Corporate Security team is a Lt Commander in US Coast Guard Intelligence.

Frank T. Garcia, a former senior FBI official until recently at the top of Shell Global Security has left the oil giant and joined Vanguard Defense, a US defense contractor which has just supplied the ShadowHawk unmanned spy plane to an oil company client for anti-piracy operations in Africa.

Royal Dutch Shell senior executives Malcolm Brinded and Roxanne Decyk, have had friendly meetings with the CIA in Langley in relation to “forecasting geopolitical security risk.” Jon Hofmeister also met with the CIA’s Directorate of Operations (when Hofmeister was President of Shell Oil).

At the same time, Shell has itself been the subject of unwelcome attention from US investigative agencies. The US Securities & Exchange Commission found Shell guilty of securities fraud in relation to deliberate overstatement of its claimed hydrocarbon reserves. We supplied insider evidence to a New York law firm acting for the lead plaintiff in a related class action lawsuit.  Shell has also been found guilty of electricity market manipulation in relation to its US subsidiary, Coral Power. More recently Shell attracted headlines in relation to its role in a Sex and Drugs Corruption scandal involving officials of the now defunct US Minerals Management Service. As previously stated, last year, US Defense Dept Attorneys confirmed that Shell has been investigated on allegations of industrial espionage relating to Intellectual Property. On a separate matter, I supplied Shell internal documents to the US government after being approached by a US investigative agency (in relation to the Shell/Gale Norton Corruption investigation).

We have a personal interest in Shell cloak and dagger operations. In the 1990′s Shell was cornered into admitting the activities of a Shell uncover agent who used fake credentials while on a mission at our offices during a period when we were besieged by clandestine activity, including a series of linked burglaries.

In more recent years, because of Shell’s US intel connections, it was able to use a Pittsburgh based specialist unit (National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance) partly funded and staffed by the FBI) in a CAS invisible investigation of me, which included a global operation spying on Shell employees. The objective of the operation was to trace my insider sources. This was all discovered from Shell internal documents the company was compelled to supply to me under UK law.

Shell’s concern at our activities was plain from a Shell internal email dated 15 July 2009.

Extract…

“…says he has about a dozen high level executive who regularly feed him inside infor. For example, he broke XXXXXX reorg plans in May. Is this worrying? are you trying to root out who these people are?

The missing name was “Vosers”.

The person who authored the email seems to agree that Shell insider information supplied to us has cost the company “many billions in lost revenue.”

It asks “… are you doing anything to get the website shut down?

The Shell spying operation against us was instigated and overseen by Ian Forbes Mcredie and Frank T. Garcia.

According to the Shell intel source, the spying operation included tracking devices being secretly implemented on the Blackberry’s of Shell managers.

The source says:

“It became apparent early on that CAS senior leadership viewed the opportunity to exploit your internal sources as a way to ingratiate themselves with the ED’s, particularly following Ian’s Chatham House debacle, whilst further promoting the longer-term desire to see CAS viewed as an internal Intelligence organization.  This was also a play toward extending the CAS hand directly into information security.”

“The players extended beyond CAS, including ‘Business Integrity Services’ (Shell’s investigative arm led by Roger Hickman) and comprised of former senior police investigators, FBI agents (with John Estes, a former agent, leading the US team) as well as forensic auditors.  Whilst the nature of their investigations were primarily focused on violations of the GBP’S by others, it’s questionable if they held themselves or CAS to the same standards when it came to exposing your sources.”

Irish Police are currently investigating death threats allegedly made against Shell employee/whistleblowers leaking Shell emails to me about the controversial Corrib Gas Project, as reported recently in The Irish Times under the headline: “Gardaí investigate alleged death threats to Corrib whistleblowers.”

Shell cloak and dagger activity has been particularly energetic in Nigeria. In December we published secret US Embassy cables revealing that Shell had embedded spies throughout the Nigeria government. On 23 April, we published evidence of how in the 1990′s, Shell helped to organise and pay for a virtual private army of police spies in the Niger Delta. The Financial Times published an article on 27 April 2006 revealing Shell’s surprising commercial relationship with militant groups: “Shell gives Nigerian work to militants’ companies.” The attacks on Shell installations have driven up the global price of oil, which in turn has generated billions of dollars in increased profit for Shell.

Industrial espionage involving such underhand activity, is of course totally incompatible with Shell’s claimed core business principles of honesty, integrity and  transparency. Planting spies inside host governments can hardly be construed as being transparent.

Our source is also concerned at the sheer hypocrisy of it all and at the unhealthy growth of private security agencies, which in some cases have far more intelligence operatives than state intel agencies, but with no independent oversight. We share this concern, especially in view of Shell’s treacherous track record of skulduggery, aimed at friend and foe alike and used, in the case of Shell, to intimidate critics, and even its own employees.

The source is particularly concerned at the Shell/G4S relationship and the global private army that is being brokered. G4S, which has attracted controversy and criticism,  is already the world’s largest security company measured by revenue, with over 600,000 employees and operations in over 110 countries.

ARTICLE ENDS

Comment received from a former employee of Shell Oil USA in response to a related teaser article

“I am certain RD Shell hands out dart boards with your picture on it. Be careful. Shell is a snake with a nasty bite.”

Inside the Shadowy World of Shell Corporate Security

By Alfred & John Donovan

We knew that Shell took seriously the leaks of information and Shell internal documents which have been supplied to us over several years by Shell employees. This was plain from Shell internal documents the company has been legally obliged to disclose to us.

We did not know just how seriously, until information reached us recently from a Shell Corporate Security source.

Leaked Shell Corporate intelligence documents now in our possession cover Shell’s security plans until 2014.

This is evidence that Shell’s counter-measures have not been entirely successful.

The email below was sent yesterday evening to the Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.  We also sent copies to Peter Voser and Malcolm Brinded. The draft article contains revelations about Shell’s cloak and dagger activities, including infiltrating Shell spies into host governments.

The “CAS” mentioned in the email is an abbreviation for Shell Corporate Affairs Security.

We will publish the article at midnight UK time tonight unless we receive a response from Shell before then, or receive notification of a High Court Injunction blocking publication.

THE EMAIL

Dear Mr Brandjes

Printed below is a self-explanatory draft article.

I have supplied as an attachment the sample CAS Intel Summary document mentioned in the article, which we plan to make accessible online.

Please advise if Shell has any objections to publication of this document, and if so, on what grounds? Obviously we do not want to put anyone at risk, though we cannot see that this would be the case, as the intel information is not current.

As usual, Shell is invited to supply for publication on an unedited basis, any comments you wish to make on this matter. You are also invited to point out any factual inaccuracies, so that appropriate action can be taken before publication.

Please let me know if you need time to consider this matter, in which case kindly indicate when a substantive response is likely to be supplied. We are, as always, more interested in accuracy than expeditious publication.

If, however, I receive no indication from you within the next 24 hours that a substantive response is being prepared, I will assume that Shell has no objection to publication, fully accepts the accuracy of what is stated in the article and does not challenge the authenticity of the Intel Summary Document.

Best Regards

John Donovan

RELATED ARTICLE

Shell embedded spies in host governments of Nigeria, Dubai and Iraq