Posts under ‘Michiel Brandjes’

By John Donovan

Late yesterday evening, I sent an email to Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and to the CEO of the company, Mr Peter Voser.

The email invited comment and correction in relation to a draft article focused on Bjorn Edlund (above right), who in February 2010 retired as Executive Vice President and Head of Group Communications at Royal Dutch Shell plc.

The draft article headline and content was critical in nature.

Under the circumstances, I also sent an email to Mr Edlund with the same invitation. He provided an initial response taking up the invitation and has now provided a substantive reply from his consultancy Bjorn Edlund Consulting.

It is fair to point out that many people connected with Shell would have some trepidation about replying at all, knowing that we are widely regarded as a long-term thorn in the side of Shell, having issued several high court actions against the company since 1994. The most recent proceedings, instituted by Shell, were in 2005. The acrimony has continued for nearly two decades.

Mr Edlund did not ignore my email, or engage in any prevarication, nor did he duck the issues. All tactics used previously by some of his former colleagues.

Instead, he provided a detailed polite response, with precise information, no threats, and no conditions attached.

His reply struck me as being honest, transparent and helpful. Consequently, I have no problem in accepting that some of the information in our draft was inaccurate. That article will not be published.

Mr Edlund provided a text book example of how to convert a potential critic into an admirer.

This PR guru is worth his weight in gold.

THIS ARTICLE WAS SENT TO SHELL SOME DAYS AGO GIVING SHELL THE OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT ANY INACCURACY AND PROVIDE COMMENT IF IT WISHED TO DO SO. SHELL HAS THUS FAR NOT TAKEN UP THE INVITATION.

By John Donovan

A few months ago Shell was found guilty of discrimination towards an employee by the Dutch Commission for Equal Treatment (the CGB). The decision has ramifications for over 1,100 Royal Dutch Shell employees.

Shell Global Solutions International BV subsequently decided “after careful consideration” to flout the relevant Judgement,  which confirmed discrimination by Shell against the part-time employee in question, regarding compensation relating to public holidays.

The judgement arose from a discrimination case against Shell brought by Mr Alberto Gatti, who works four days per week for Shell, thereby receiving a 20% reduction of monthly salary compared with a full time employee. He brought the case on a point of principle. Namely, fair treatment between employees.

Shell HR argued in email correspondence, which dragged out over several months, that it was a matter of “bad luck” and “all in the game“, when a Dutch public holiday coincided with the only week day on which Mr Gatti does not work – Monday in his case. This means that Mr Gatti receives no compensatory day off in respect of Easter Monday and Whit Monday, while full time employees do.

Since over 1,100 Dutch Shell part-time employees are effected, it is an ethical issue of some importance, with a huge saving for Shell, as a result of the use of blatant discrimination.  If you do a rough calculation based on a yearly salary of 60,000 EUR and part-timers working 80%, 4 days a week, you reach a saving of more than 600,000 EUR/year.

Interested parties are invited to read the extensive email correspondence, as it provides more detail about the issues and reveals an unprofessional, and at times, surprisingly cavalier attitude on the part of Shell HR department in response to a legitimate issue raised by Mr Gatti. Its legitimacy was confirmed by the CGB judgement in his favour following court proceedings.

In a letter dated 23 September 2011, signed by Jeanine van Barlingen, NL HR Manager – Projects & Technology, Mr Gatti was notified of the decision by Shell to flout the judgement of the Dutch Equal Rights Commission.

Shell has recently informed the involved parties that is not willing to rectify its wrong doing and will not take any action to prevent such discrimination from happening again.

Perhaps due to the influence that Royal Dutch Shell has with the Dutch mainstream media, attempts to have the story published in Dutch newspapers have been to no avail, which is probably unsurprising bearing in mind that the recent offshore oil spill in Nigeria had almost no coverage in the Dutch press.

The Judgement published on the CGB website

RELATED ARTICLES

Is Royal Dutch Shell a racist company?: 25 January 2011

Age and racial discrimination alleged in Shell jobs restructuring: 7 December 2009

Is Royal Dutch Shell a racist company?: 10 December 2007

Is Royal Dutch Shell Plc adopting racist policies against its Malaysian employees?: 22 September 2005

MY EMAIL TO SHELL

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Subject: Shell flouts discrimination ruling by Dutch Equal Treatment Commission
Date: 31 December 2011 22:01:57 GMT
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Cc: hugh.mitchell@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com

Dear Mr Brandjes

Printed below is a self-explanatory draft article.

Kindly let me know by close of business on Wednesday if Shell wishes to point out any inaccuracy in relation to the stated facts and/or provide comment for publication alongside the article.

If Shell does wish to respond, kindly provide an indication of when we can reasonably expect a substantive response (there is no great urgency attached provided we know Shell will be responding).

With your permission, we continue to receive job applications and business proposals meant for Shell using the agreed latitude to sift out junk mail and deal with the remainder as we deem appropriate, including providing correct contact information, or putting parties into direct contact with you.

Best Regards for 2012
John Donovan

Shell Tanker ‘Capulonix’

By Alfred & John Donovan

An article on an alleged murder and cover-up, which allegedly took place on the Shell tanker ‘Capulnix’ many years ago, was republished yesterday on a Dutch website.

It therefore seem appropriate to republish our own article on the subject.

In 1974 it was reported that a Shell employee, Leo Rapmund (36), a crewmember on the Shell tanker, ‘Capulonix’, had gone missing, presumed lost overboard.

Over two decades later Rapmund’s family was contacted by a fellow crewmember at the time of the tragedy who wanted to clear his conscience about his knowledge of what really happened. Basically he revealed that Leo Rapmund had been murdered and there were many eyewitnesses to the crime.

The family claim that when they contacted Shell in 1995 with this alarming news, Shell and its lawyers (the most prestigious and expensive law firm in the Netherlands,  De Braauw, Blackstone & Westbroek) denied any knowledge or responsibility and treated them in a disgusting and arrogant manner. All responsibility and accountability were rejected. The family was fobbed-off like a bunch of nagging children.

In 2008, the family contacted the acclaimed Dutch investigative crime reporter Peter R. de Vries who has his own Emmy Award winning TV programme.  De Vries has been involved in a number of high profile cases including that of Natalee Holloway, the American student who mysteriously disappeared in 2005 while on a high school graduation trip to the Caribbean Island of Aruba.

De Vries approached Shell HQ in The Hague on 23 February 2009 and spoke with a senior Shell Public Relations official, Herman Kievits. His response was described as arrogant, at arms length and mainly on the lines that ‘we know nothing’.  The same holds true for the lawyers.

On 26 April 2009 Peter R. de Vries presented the case in his TV programme. Afterwards a number of viewers contacted Shell and expressed disgust at these cover-ups by the oil company.

The viewers who reacted towards Shell, all received a rather clumsy standard reaction with many half-truths. The facts however are totally different and in his unique manner Peter R. de Vries dissects all the nonsense by Shell and provides substantial evidence on what really happened. He tracked down a dozen witnesses of the murder. They all confirmed that Leo Rapmund had been in a fight on board and was shoved overboard. He managed to just hang on to the railing but his assailant had kicked his hands so long that he had to let go and disappeared forever in the waves. This act was unanimously described as ‘murder’. The witnesses were greatly surprised that they never have been formally heard nor summoned in a court case.

De Vries also makes mincemeat of all the statements by Shell and detailed evidence is provided on his website. He exposes Shell as a bunch of liars. In the end Shell even had to admit in a letter to him that they ‘did not know’ what happened to the assailant and why he had not been charged. Shell even did not know whether the man had been fired or not. That in itself is strange: on a tanker of Shell a Shell employee is literally kicked overboard by another Shell employee, but Shell subsequently never informs how all this has been handled in a legal matter.

Therefore it was nice that in the meantime aging offender is still alive. He told de Vries that the handling of the case also amazed him. After the incident he was taken from Singapore to the head office in Rotterdam. There he had to hand-over his passport and was sent home on extended leave. After half a year he was summoned again, received his passport back as well as six months of pay, was in a proper manner shown the door by Shell and subsequently signed on immediately with another company as a sailor. Done. Never heard anything anymore.

In his summary de Vries states:
It is simply embarrassing that Shell tried to blame the relatives of Leo that they all that time have not understood and that they more or less tried to misuse the situation for their own benefit.

De Vries points out that a multinational faced with such unfortunate circumstances can apologise and compensate the victims family or deny all allegations and NEVER admit to anything.  He concludes Shell is in the latter category behaving in a vicious and shameful manner.

After Leo Rapmund was killed, this is another form of character murder on the next of kin, which also remains unpunished. In that sense de Vries claims to have more respect for the aging assailant, who after so many years admits his act and honestly says he deserved prison. That Shell kicks the family and refrains from any form of an apology is a scandal. And it shows very clearly how the next biggest oil company of the world can be very small…..

The information comes from an article publish by Peter R. De Vries in Dutch. It includes reference to a long email to Shell setting out facts and evidence, which Shell ultimately agreed was basically correct.

http://www.peterrdevries.nl/

ARTICLE ENDS

The above article was sent in advance of publication to Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel, Royal Dutch Shell Plc. The relevant email is printed below. Since Shell chose not to reply on this occasion, we assume this is one of the  times when Shell decided the safest thing to do is to say nothing.

From: Alfred Donovan <alfred@shellnews.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:36:37 +0100
To: “michiel.brandjes@shell.com” <michiel.brandjes@shell.com>
Conversation: SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT
Subject: SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT

Dear Mr Brandjes

The draft article below is based on the article in Dutch recently published by Peter R. de Vries…

SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT…. Shell, half the truth and the cover-up….

http://www.peterrdevries.nl/

The gist of the content was kindly provided by a Dutch Shell insider. Although not having time to provide a full translation, the draft does contain some translated passages.

Could you kindly point out any significant error of fact before I publish it? If Shell does not take issue with the facts as stated, then there is no need to reply. If I receive no response by 12 noon tomorrow UK time, I will assume that the information is true. If you need more time to check out matters, then kindly let me know when we can expect a response and we will take no further action until then.

If Shell is taking legal action challenging the facts, then please advise accordingly and we will await the outcome of any such litigation.

If you want to supply for publication with the article any related comment by Shell, we will happily publish it on an unedited basis.

This is an important story which deserves publication in the English language.

Regards
Alfred Donovan

UPDATE

We have been contacted by a close relative of the murder victim.  Extracts from the relevant self-explanatory email correspondence, which contains an appeal for information, is printed below.

Hello,

My name is Cynthia Erne’.  Leo Rapmund was my Uncle.  When he was killed I was 12 years old.  My Mother is Louise (Rapmund) VanDenEikhof, and was Leo’s sister. I had only recently found out all this information about his murder; I like the rest of the family never really understood what happened. I believe my Mother just feels too powerless to pursue anything with Shell, much to my dismay; but I wanted to thank you for your article and will continue to thank everyone who worked to bring this to light. I had been with my Uncle only a few times since we lived in the United States, but his visits were such fun, I could never forget him.

It has bothered me that nothing was done on behalf of our family, but my Grandmother has passed away, and my Aunt Emmeke passed away last year.  I would certainly like the contact information for the attorney in the US that handled the Shell case with Wiwa.  I personally am not one to let things rest, so I decided that if there is something that can be done, I would like to pursue it.

Consequently, if anyone has information on this matter kindly send it to me direct at: cfritzen2000@yahoo.com

Thank you again Alfred.

EMAIL ENDS

Some of the Capulonix crew in 1974…

• Ben Retrae (Scheepsgezel, 1974-1974)
• C.j. Bier (4th wtk, 1974-1975)
• Dick Van Eenige (Matroos, 1973-1974)
• Dirk Bakker (Hoofd bediende, 1974-1974)
• Frans Van Den Berg (Dekjongen, 1974-1974)
• Gerrit Jonkman (Scheepsvakman 2, 1974-1975)
• Jan R. Alsma (Hwtk., 1974-1975)
• Jan Smid (2e wtk, 1973-1974)
• Luuk Feunekes (3e wtk, 1973-1974)
• Pim Brandwagt (Scheepsgezel, 1973-1974)
• S. Harders (Master, 1974-1974)
• Toine Janssen (LL WTK, 1972-1973)
• Tom Scholte (2nd engineer, 1974-1974)

Oil company rejects watchdog’s claims that its local contracts made it complicit in the killing of civilians

• David Smith
• The Guardian, Monday 3 October 2011

Militants of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta travelling between camps. Photograph: Veronique de Viguerie/Getty Images

Shell has fuelled armed conflict in Nigeria by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to feuding militant groups, according to an investigation by the oil industry watchdog Platform, and a coalition of non-government organisations.

The oil giant is implicated in a decade of human rights abuses in the Niger delta, the study says, claiming that its routine payments exacerbated local violence, in one case leading to the deaths of 60 people and the destruction of an entire town.

Platform’s investigation, which includes testimony from Shell’s own managers, also alleges that government forces hired by Shell perpetrated atrocities against local civilians, including unlawful killings and systematic torture.

Shell disputes the report, defending its human rights record and questioning the accuracy of the evidence, but has pledged to study the recommendations.

In Counting the Cost: Corporations and Human Rights in the Niger Delta, Platform says that it has seen testimony and contracts that implicate Shell in the regular awarding of lucrative contracts to militants. In one case last year, Shell is said to have transferred more than $159,000 (£102,000) to a group credibly linked to militia violence.

One gang member, Chukwu Azikwe, told Platform: “We were given money and that is the money we were using to buy ammunition, to buy this bullet, and every other thing to eat and to sustain the war.” He said his gang and its leader, SK Agala, had vandalised Shell pipelines. “They will pay ransom. Some of them in the management will bring out money, dole out money into this place, in cash.”

The gang became locked in competition witha rival group over access to oil money, with payments to one faction provoking a violent reaction from the other. “The [rival gang] will come and fight, some will die, just to enable them to also get [a] share. So the place now becomes a contest ground for warring factions. Who takes over the community has the attention of the company.”

Platform alleges that it was highly likely that Shell knew that thousands of dollars paid per month to militants in the town of Rumuekpe was used to sustain a bitter conflict. “Armed gangs waged pitched battles over access to oil money, which Shell distributed to whichever gang controlled access to its infrastructure.”

Rumuekpe is “the main artery of Shell’s eastern operations in Rivers state”, with aroundabout 100,000 barrels of oil flowing per day, approximately10% of Shell’s daily production in the country. Shell distributed “community development” funds and contracts via Friday Edu, a youth leader and Shell community liaison officer, the report said, an exclusive arrangement that magnified the risk of communal tension and conflict.

By 2005, Edu’s monopoly over the resources of the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) had sparked a leadership tussle with Agala’s group. The latter was reportedly forced out of the community and a number of people killed. Dozens of gang members and residents reportedly died in counter raids by Agala.

The inter-communal violence killed an estimated 60 people, including women and children, from 2005-08. Thousands more were displaced by fighting that left homes, schools and churches in ruins. Many still suffer severe malnutrition, poverty and homelessness.

Platform says the local conflict soon created regional instability. Displaced villagers were hunted down in the regional capital, Port Harcourt, and killed in their homes, schools and workplaces. Gangs active in Rumuekpe collaborated with prominent criminal networks in Rivers state and doubled as Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (Mend) militants.

Mend’s activity in Rumuekpe seriously disrupted Shell’s operations and sent shockwaves through world markets, the report notes, yet Shell paid little heed. One of the corporation’s managers was alarmingly candid: “One good thing about their crisis was that they never for one day stopped us from production.”

Platform interviewed Ex-gang members claimed Shell exacerbated the conflict by providing regular funding to both factions throughout.

In 2006, Shell is alleged to have awarded maintenance contracts relating to its oil wells, the Trans-Niger pipeline, its booster station and flowstation to Edu’s gang. But after Agala’s counter-raid left Rumuekpe “littered” with corpses, Shell apparently switched sides and started paying Agala. It paid whoever controlled access, even if they were known criminal gangs, Platform claims.

The allegations of ex-gang members were largely substantiated by the testimony of a Shell official, Platform claims. A manager confirmed that in 2006, one of the most violent years, Shell awarded six types of contract in Rumuekpe. Thousands of dollars flowed from Shell to the armed gangs each month.

The company eventually terminated some, though not all, of the contracts. But by then the violence had reached the Shell flowstation. A Shell manager, whose name has been withheld, is quoted as saying: “Somebody came in [to the flowstation] and cut off somebody’s hand. We had to vacate the place. We stopped the contract entirely.”

Other contracts to “maintain the pipeline right of way” continued throughout the entire conflict, as did one-off contracts created in response to specific threats, the report found.

Matthew Chizi, a local youth leader, said: “[Shell] were going to their job, doing their operation, servicing their manifold. They never cared that people were dying. They never did anything to call the crisis to order. Rather they were using military to intimidate the community.”

Platform’s report offers a damning assessment: “Shell was highly likely to be aware that it was helping to fuel the conflict in Rumuekpe, since company workers visited the community on a regular basis. Even if Shell was somehow unaware of the violence, media reports were publicly available.

“Members of the community reportedly wrote to Shell to request that the company stop awarding contracts to gang leaders such as Friday Edu. Through Shell’s routine practices and responses to threats, the company became complicit in the cycle of violence.”It adds: “The Rumuekpe crisis was entirely avoidable… Shell operated for decades without an MoU, polluted the community and distributed ‘community development’ funds through an individual who had lost the confidence of the community. Once conflict erupted, Shell paid the perpetrators of gross human rights abuses as long as they controlled access to oil infrastructure. The cumulative impact of Shell’s mistakes was devastating.”

Rumuekpe is just one of several case studies examined by the report which alleges, that in 2009 and 2010, security personnel guarding Shell facilities were responsible for extra-judicial killings and torture in Ogoniland. Platform calls on the corporation to break ties with government forces and other armed groups responsible for abuses, and to clean up environmental damage.

Rumuekpe is just one of several case studies examined by the report which alleges, that in 2009 and 2010, security personnel guarding Shell facilities were responsible for extra-judicial killings and torture in Ogoniland.

Shell insisted that it respected human rights and was committed to working with Nigeria to ensure that the country benefited from its natural resources. “We have long acknowledged that the legitimate payments we make to contractors, as well as the social investments we make in the Niger delta region may cause friction in and between communities,” a spokesman said. “We nevertheless work hard to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits of our presence.

“In view of the high rate of criminal violence in the Niger delta, the federal government, as majority owner of oil facilities, deploys government security forces to protect people and assets. Suggestions in the report that SPDC directs or controls military activities are therefore completely untrue.”

He added: “It is unfortunate that Platform has repeated several old cases, some of which are unsubstantiated and some proven inaccurate, because doing so obscures the good work which has been going on for many years. However, we will carefully examine its recommendations and look forward to continuing a constructive dialogue with the Nigerian government and other stakeholders to find solutions to these issues.”

GUARDIAN ARTICLE

RELATED

Shell ‘co-opting’ Nigerian militants: 21 May 2011

Nigerian activists allege Shell involved in Ogoniland assassinations: 23 February 2011

WikiLeaks: Cable reveals Shell funded Nigerian rebels ‘peace camp’: 26 January 2011

Shell’s Sinister Relationship with Nigerian Militants: 1 July 2009

Shell, Nigeria, Militant Attacks, and the Escalating Price of Oil: 18 June 2009

Correspondence 11 June 2008 with Royal Dutch Shell Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes: Acquisition of Arms and Ammunition in Nigeria: 11 June 2008

THE TRUTH ABOUT SHELL IN NIGERIA: 15 March 2008

Shell, Nigeria and the Record Price of Oil: 7 March 2008

Reuters report pipeline dynamited in Nigeria but were the culprits working for Shell?: 15 November 2007

Blogger News Network: Is Shell skulduggery in Nigeria pumping up global oil prices?: 18 July 2007

Financial Times: WORLD NEWS: Shell gives Nigerian work to militants’ companies: 27 April 2006

FULL TEXT OF GUARDIAN ARTICLE

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

By John Donovan

On 16 June 2011, I published an article that made reference to my email correspondence with Michiel Brandjes of Shell concerning sex scandal allegations against a senior Shell Executive made by a Shell insider. The accusations included alleged “serial infidelity involving Shell staff.” Mr Brandjes is Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Donovan email correspondence with Shell ending 16 June 2011

I first approached the Shell Fat Cat in question to give him an opportunity to deny the allegations. Some weeks later, under the threat of an ultimatum I sent to him by email, he supplied Mr Brandjes with copies of my original emails containing the allegations.

He informed Mr Brandjes that he “categorically denies the allegations.”

The final paragraph of a related email I received from Mr Brandjes stated:

Please note that the Company reserves its rights with respect to anything you publish that is prejudicial or untrue or harmful. Although the Company does not speak on behalf of Mr.                   , the safe assumption is that the same applies for Mr.               .

Last night I received information on this subject from a new source.

As a result, I discovered that the basic allegation had already been published on the Internet in the form of comments posted on a “Cheaters of the Day” website and on a YouTube page featuring a speech by the Shell Fat Cat in question. These postings were made several months ago and the initials used by the person posting the allegation tie up with the name given to me of an alleged victim, a Shell employee.

If the person who first brought these allegations to my attention on 18 May 2011 was aware of the existing posted allegations, which on one site included the Shell executives name, photograph, age and location, they would have pointed them out to me.

It seems odd, given the threats I have received from Shell, that legal action has not apparently been taken to have the very serious allegation removed from the relevant websites, including YouTube, one of the most high profile, most visited websites on the planet.

What it all boils down to is that the basis allegation of sexual misconduct with Shell office staff against the Shell Director in question, is already in the public domain and has been for at least eight months.

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH SHELL CONCLUDING ON 16 JUNE 2011

It is our normal practice to publish our email correspondence with Shell.

In this instance, for legal reasons, we will provide a record of recent emails, but mainly in an abridged form.

They mostly concern allegations of a sexual nature relating to a senior Shell executive.

On 26 May I sent an email to a senior Shell executive advising of serious allegations of his alleged improper relationship with some female Shell employees.

I stated:

“If you categorically deny each of the allegations in an unequivocal manner, then I would accept that denial and take no further action.”

There was no response, so on 1 June I sent two further emails enclosing a draft of an article we intended to publish the following day. The second email highlighted the alleged “serial infidelity involving Shell staff.” I repeated the promise indicated above, of no further action on our part in the event of a categorical denial.

On 2 June, we published the article entitled: Serious allegations against a Senior Shell Executive

There was still no response.

On 6 June, we published a follow-up article entitled: Sex scandal allegations against a Shell executive

It contained an email on the matter, which I sent to Mr Michiel Brandjes that same day, 6 June, asking if “your colleague” (the subject of the allegations) had, as I assumed, forwarded on to Mr Brandjes the emails I had sent containing the allegations. Mr Brandjes is the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

On 9 June, I received a response from Mr Brandjes saying:

I am in receipt of your email dated 6 June, thank you.

I do not possess any emails containing information on the allegations you reference in your email below.

Later the same day, 9 June, I resent to the senior Shell executive all previous emails to him on the subject, and issued in mild terms what amounted to an ultimatum and deadline implying that if he did not voluntarily supply the emails to Mr Brandjes, then I would do so.

The following day, 10 June, I received an email from Mr Brandjes stating:

I confirm that the emails you refer to have been forwarded to me. The company will now review these emails as appropriate.

So I did not need to supply them.

On 14 June, I sent an email to Mr Brandjes offering the prospect of further information, which had been supplied to us overnight by a Shell insider.

Later the same day, I forwarded on to Mr Brandjes an email I received purportedly from Shell IT Security. Attached was a security update package with a password, explanation and instructions on installation. I advised Mr Brandjes that the email was “some kind of malicious fake.” Mr Brandjes replied that afternoon, saying he would forward it to Shell IT Security.

The same day, out of the blue, I received an email from Jill Davis, Media, Issues and Crisis Manager for Shell Oil Company HQ in Houston. Jill Davis later confirmed that her email was authentic and I published the information she supplied.

Motiva refutes assertion of sole-source supply for Port Arthur refinery

On 15 June I advised Mr Brandjes that we had received further insider information overnight concerning the allegations. I pointed out that (1) Shell had not taken up the prospect of receiving further information and (2) almost three weeks had passed and the relevant senior Shell executive had not issued a denial of which we were aware.

Mr Brandjes requested an additional day to reply, to which I agreed.

It was not needed, we received the following response later that same day. The relevant Shell executives name has been redacted.  The space denoting the redacted name bears no relationship to the length of the name.

From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Date: 15 June 2011 17:24:32 GMT+01:00
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: Code of Conduct

Dear Mr Donovan,

We have no indication that Mr.               noticed or received your email of three weeks ago. When you (re)sent the emails last week, they were forwarded to me, which I confirmed to yourself.

The follow up of the unsubstantiated allegations in the email you have forwarded did not lead us to conclude that there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct of the Company and Mr.                      categorically denies the allegations.

Clearly, if we are presented with credible evidence we will investigate further and any person who has any concerns about breaches of the Code of Conduct should report these via the Shell Global Helpline (www.shell.com).

Please note that the Company reserves its rights with respect to anything you publish that is prejudicial or untrue or harmful. Although the Company does not speak on behalf of Mr.                   , the safe assumption is that the same applies for Mr.               .

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

We had sought a categorical denial from the outset and it has now been supplied to our satisfaction.

In relation to the Shell Whistleblowers Helpline, last time we investigated it turned out that although a specialist, supposedly independent firm paid by Shell, investigates allegations, Shell senior executives still retain ultimate control over the end process, making it all rather meaningless, unless the intent is to present so many hurdles that employees give up. Perhaps it has changed.

With regard to legal threats, if Shell is keen to face us in the libel courts again, lets deal with issues of Shell management misdeeds, rather than allegations against a single individual. There are so many subjects e.g. IT property theft, industrial espionage, fraud, price-fixing, contract tender rigging, plus corruption, spying, human rights abuses and pollution in Nigeria. These are not allegations, but fact, supported by evidence. Or perhaps Shell would like to deal in open court with its Nazi past? It made threats in that regard in March of this year.

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

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

Dear Mr Brandjes

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

Serious allegations against a Senior Shell Executive

EXTRACT FROM THE ALLEGATIONS”

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

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

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

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

Best Regards

John Donovan

EMAIL ENDS

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

By John Donovan

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

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

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

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

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

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.

John Donovan

RELATED ARTICLE

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