Posts under ‘Outspoken Articles’

FROM A SHELL INSIDER

May you please tell this story to the world, of how Shell continues to wreck lives, act unethical and bulldoze people. I have had this story a number of times but never believed it, cause I am part of this company but I have since seen the light.

It is common to hear that Shell doesnt need to be in South Africa because in fact we might pull out as we did in Ethiopia, Swaziland, Moz, Zim, … you get the picture. We are consolidating and looking more into our Upstream business as opposed to Downstream, hence the recent massive job cuts of downstream business.

Before we go further, I’d like to thank the Donovans for you are giving people a voice, may you put some focus on this one because it is a hot potato for the local Shell bosses.

In 2004 Shell initiated The Shell Retailer Development Programme, see attachment. 10 people were recruited into the Programme. Sowetan and Metro FM ran a story on this back in 2005 after their graduation.

What happened since then:
Two of the trainees you see on the picture have yet to own a Shell Service Station, 5 years after they graduated, one of them has been offered R100k to walk away, the other one is in the process of “obtaining” a service station, after 5 years.

Five have lost their businesses, all in one year (2009) Shell said these guys stole its money, it was appalling they way it was handled, Witness Mahlangu, the Project Manager went about the corridors telling colleagues how stupid and useless the BEE candidates were and he has a mandate from his leadership to terminate them. Shell has since made an out of court settlement with one (Durban High Court), the other 4 are in big s***, some of them went to the Department of Energy and to Luthili House but to no avail. Remember who owns Shell SA Marketing (it is an empowered company)
Only three are surviving, just surviving.

In 2006 Shell went on to recruit 10 more candidates (advertisements on the Sunday Times in) and this lot graduated in 2007.

What happened since then:

None of the TEN is running a Shell Service Station, in fact Shell is offering them R100k to walk away, after 3 years of waiting, lies, deception and corruption.

Mark Cookson, a senior manager at Shell said in August 2009 at Inanda Hotel at a Shell Conference ” BEE candidates will continue to receive support from Shell as long as they are cluster potential retailers” he further said ” The Shell Global approach is to exit any market where we are not No.1 or No.2, so we are reassessing our position in SA”

We as black employees in the company often wonder where Bonang Mohale is or the Department of Energy/ Department of Trade & Industry/ COSATU/ ANC/ Public Protector?

Apparently these candidates worked as pump attendants prior to joining the Programme, nor wonder the first group failed and they don’t want to go on about the second group.

Is it that these BEE candidates are sacrificial lambs in the race to be BEE compliant?

I would like the South African Media to investigate and tell the world about Shell in SA, in fact I challenge the ANC leadership of condemning and correcting this. What is R100k, for three years waiting and toiling, no I am not proud to be associated with this company.

I suggest that a pressure group gets formed before the World Cup so that Shell is shamed in front of the world, at some stage in our new democracy we need to stand up against bullies like Shell and this is it.

For more on the Shell DNA please go to royaldutchshellplc.com

Shell SA Employee

(IF ANYONE FROM SHELL SOUTH AFRICA WISHES TO COMMENT ON THE ABOVE ALLEGATIONS, IT WILL BE ADDED HERE ON AN UNEDITED BASIS)

By John Donovan

On 31 March, Richard Wiseman, the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc will be making a speech at a seminar in London: “Best Practice in Combating Corruption Extortion and Bribery“

“The event will examine new developments and tools in fighting corruption and providing practical methods for addressing and investigating extortion and bribery.”

We can only surmise that Mr Wiseman is present on the basis of being a poacher turned gamekeeper.

When he was Legal Director of Shell UK Limited we brought to his attention irrefutable evidence of corrupt practices inside Shell.  A Shell executive on the make had plotted with colleagues on how to deceive companies participating in what they foolishly thought was an honest tender process for a major Shell contract. The companies in question were enticed into confidentiality agreements under false pretenses, so that Shell could steal intellectual property from them and prevent them offering it to rival oil companies.

The contract was eventually given to a company which never took part in the tender. A company with whom the Shell executive had a close personal relationship. Evidence shows that he had an offshore bank account and had recorded in his diary a devious plan to set up his own business inside Shell and then retire from the company at the age of 35.

We also brought the extensive documentary evidence of this ruthless conspiracy to the attention of all directors of Shell UK, Shell Transport and Royal Dutch Petroleum. We invited Malcolm Brinded to disassociate himself from the thoroughly dishonest Shell executive in question. Instead of doing so, Shell senior management, including Wiseman, gave him its full backing.

It is therefore the height of hypocrisy that Wiseman was appointed to his current position and even more outrageous that he has the audacity to make another speech on the subject – unless he is giving tips on predatory conduct against small companies lulled into a false sense of security by sham business principles.

By John Donovan

Visitors may be interested in extensive comments made just weeks ago by Shell about this website and the “Donovans”.

We assume it was prepared by Shell in-house lawyers for the misinformation of Shell senior management, as it is full of spin, distortion and outright fiction.

More evidence that Shell is so twisted internally that it is incapable of admitting the unpalatable truth, even to itself.  The culture of deceit, self-delusion, cover-up and over-promise and under-delivery, which led to the reserves fraud, continues to this day.

Shell was compelled to supply the confidential document to us in accordance with our most recent application under the Data Protection Act.  The “xxxx’s” denote where Shell has censored/deleted names of third parties.

SHELL INTERNAL CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT DATED 21 JANUARY 2010

Confidential                                                                                  Focal Point: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Donovan Campaign Against Shell

CONTEXT
Alfred Donovan and his son John, long-time critics of Shell because of a dispute over a marketing promotion in the UK
many years ago, run a website http://royaldutchshellplc.com critical of the Shell Group. They also are a main driver of a
Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell’. In the past they have promoted allegations from eg Shell
xxxxxxxxxxxxx over North sea safety and from xxxxx over alleged nuclear activity at a former Shell terminal at Earley outside Reading in the UK, and a number of Shell Malaysia related issues. An article about them in the 19 July 2009 Sunday Times was headlined ‘Two men and a website mount vendetta against an oil giant’. Recent posts on their “Shell Blog” have discussed Transition 2009 and some of the Shell people involved. John Donovan has recently been publishing material received following a second Subject Access Request to Shell under the UK Data Protection Act for personal information relating to him, and has been distributing leaflets outside Shell Centre.

KEY MESSAGES
• We are familiar with the activities of Messrs Alfred and John Donovan, who are longstanding critics of Shell. We are disappointed that they continue to seek to use any recent Shell developments to try and draw attention to their longstanding but unjustified grievances.
• Our general policy is not to comment on specific issues raised by the Donovans. Although we disagree fundamentally with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the information on which they base their various allegations, our past attempts to have a constructive debate have been unproductive.

SUPPORTING FACTS
• Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan’s claims were fully investigated and settled many years ago.
Notwithstanding the impression he likes to give, he failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. It is therefore disappointing that the Donovans continue their long-running and acrimonious campaign against Shell on a wide range of subjects.
• Our position, as conveyed to the RDSplc website, is: “The lack of a rebuttal from, or comment by, Shell does not in any way constitute an acceptance on Shell’s part of the accuracy of any of the points made by you whether now or in the future, and whether on this or on any other matter, and we continue to reserve our position accordingly in respect of those matters.”

BRIDGING
If asked whether the Sunday Times’ statement, that “When a new [Shell] executive took over marketing, he used several of their [the Donovans’ schemes but refused to pay for them”, is true:
• Absolutely not. Shell took pains to ensure that Mr Donovan’s claims – about a marketing promotion in the UK many years ago – were fully investigated and properly dealt with. The fact is that Mr Donovan failed in the only case of his against Shell that went to court. The Judge not only completely exonerated the character of the Shell executive in question, but also was highly critical of Mr Donovan’s actions throughout the process of litigation.
If asked about the alleged nuclear reactor at Earley:
• We have given a categorical written assurance that Shell has never been involved In “atomic’ or ‘nuclear” research at Earley or elsewhere in the UK, and that no nuclear bunker is buried under the former Shell terminal. According to the European Commission, the data show radioactivity levels substantially below those considered harmful to human health. Any radioactivity found on the site has nothing to do with Shell’s activities.
Did you avoid disclosing certain information in response to the Donovans’ Data Protection Act requests?
• We complied fully with the Data Protection Act request while making legitimate use of the ability under the Act to withhold information in certain limited circumstances, for example where It is legally privileged or to protect the identities of third parties. We did the same for the previous request.
Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
• The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. However, we do not exclude this as a possibility.
Why do you not edit the Wikipedia site ‘Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell?

• Other companies have been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves, and doing so would only serve to draw attention to the site. We prefer to focus on making our own Shell sites as good as possible.

21 January 2010

ENDS

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT SUPPLIED BY SHELL

SOME COMMENTS IN RESPONSE (ALREADY KNOWN TO PEOPLE WHO REGULARLY VISIT THIS WEBSITE)

ALLEGED RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION AT FORMER SHELL TERMINAL IN EARLEY, NEAR READING:

See our recent article

THE LITIGATION:

We had to issue High Court proceedings against Shell six times: The litigation was long and drawn out over many years, exactly as Shell lawyers had threatened. Shell says that our claims were “fully investigated”. It does not say that the “investigations” included undercover activity involving a fake company, fake credentials and fake documents, nor that we and our witnesses were subjected to intimidation and by coincidence or otherwise, illegal conduct, including a series of burglaries in which Shell related documents were tampered with. Shell failed to disclose to the police its then extremely close association with Hakluyt & Company Ltd a private spy firm. Titled Shell directors were the ultimate spymasters and major shareholders in Hakluyt. Shell was a client and Hakluyt carried out undercover investigations/missions against perceived enemies of Shell. Recent Shell documents show that “invisible” investigations/operations are still being directed at us, by now on a global basis, targeting over 100,000 Shell employees. All six High Court actions and a County Court case were settled in our favour by Shell. All of our legal costs were paid by Shell. This includes the last claim.

The only claim which went to Court: Shell issued a so-called “joint statement” announcing a “stalemate” outcome saying that I had abandoned the claim and Shell had withdrawn allegations against me. I made NO compromise settlement proposals to Shell during the trial. Shell made TWO to me. I rejected the first and accepted the second. Shell paid my entire legal costs. As confirmed in writing by Richard Wiseman, Shell’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, the full terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the trial Judge, Mr Justice Laddie.  I also received a secret payment, which was not disclosed to Laddie. Thus he was kept in the dark about the true terms of settlement. Since the trial was settled out of court, there was no verdict. Laddie did make unfounded comments, which further confirmed his blatant bias in favour of Shell. He allowed the Shell legal team in Court, which included Wiseman, to get away with engaging in deception and attempted entrapment. He displayed not the slightest interest in the aforementioned Shell undercover activity and intimidation, which had completely undermined any prospect of a fair trial: Hence my reluctant acceptance of Shell’s second attempt to settle the case.

The Shell executive whose misdeeds led to all seven court actions, was on the make, as it plain from the evidence, including his diaries. Shell made its second settlement offer while the thoroughly dishonest Shell executive in question was in the midst of his cross-examination. The case was settled before he was asked about his offshore bank account and his setting up of his own business inside Shell, with a recorded ambition to retire from Shell at the age of 35.

Complaint lodged with the Lord Chancellor: After we subsequently wrote to the then UK Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, making a 14 page formal complaint against the Judge, Laddie resigned – the first High Court Judge to do so in decades. Laddie had failed to disclose a connection with the Moody-Stuart family despite being aware that Sir Mark Moody-Stuart was the then Group Chairman of the Royal Dutch Shell Group and that he and his wife, Lady Judy Moody-Stuart, had become personally involved in the litigation. We later wrote to the Judge raising the matter, but he refused to comment. He had also failed to disclose that his life long friend and unofficial spokesperson, Tony Willoughby, had founded an IP consultancy, which had Shell as a client. After his resignation in controversial circumstances, the Judge took up a consultancy position at the same firm. He was also involved in a commercial venture involving Richard Wiseman. Tragically, the Judge is now deceased.

Shell asked itself in the briefing document: “Why do you not sue the Donovans for libel?
• The experience of corporate defamation plaintiffs is that, even when successful, such cases draw far more attention to the untrue allegations that they would receive without the case having been brought. However, we do not exclude this as a possibility.

This is another deception. Shell has already excluded the possibility. Extract from Shell internal email dated 19 June 2009:

Hi Xxxx – Indeed I have been following this (you might also add xxxxxxxxxxx as one of the site’s favourite targets). ?????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????? My previous advice to xxxxxxxx has been to ignore it – any Shell reaction would merely encourage Donovan to think we take this seriously and would likely stimulate more comment on/interest in the site. Also, eg we have long decided not to take legal action against the site (although Donovan would probably welcome this) – eg they often refer to xxxxxxxxxxx as xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Mr White

We safety received the Shell internal documents/emails and your covering letters, all delivered to us by motorbike messenger on Monday evening.

With reference to the documents and emails, we note that Shell has changed the method of censoring the information so that we sometimes have some visual clue to which parts have been removed. However, the censor appears to have got carried away with one Shell internal email, where even the date has been deleted.

All we can see is:

From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject: Re:

Donovan has posted a message that                                                      . There is no truth to this.

2

seems to have given rise to speculation among staff, and this is what Donovan seems to have picked up.

3

Bearing in mind that in answer to our SAR applications, Shell has supplied us with documents and emails stretching back into the 1990’s, it would be helpful if you would supply a date so that we can try to deduce the subject matter and therefore have the opportunity to correct any mistake regarding information attributed to us.

We also note that Shell is now camouflaging the uncensored text in an apparent effort to prevent copying and publication on the Internet. The censorship, camouflage and related cover-up tactics all designed to defeat transparency, are of course directly at odds with Shell’s claimed core business principles.

With regard to the Shell spying operation involving our website and over 100,000 Shell employees, I see that Shell (I assume Richard Wiseman) contacted the UK police on 10 December 2009 offering to ensure that “… enquiries are dealt with expeditiously”.

On the same subject (Shell Corporate Affairs Security spying), the following are extracts from email correspondence involving Shell and an unidentified person/party posing questions on the matter.

Some extracts:

Undated email with no information about sender or recipient (censored):

One email dated June this year appears to show Shell asked a privately funded anti-fraud agency, NCFTA, to target Donovan. Could you please comment?

Dated email with no information about identity of sender or recipient (censored)

Tuesday 1st December 2009
Subject: ncfta

Hi

The first email in the attachment appears to show a Shell employee asked NCFTA to monitor Donovan. I guess my questions are:

Are the emails attached genuine.
Did a Shell employee have discussions with National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance regarding Donovan
Did Shell give funds to NCFTA to target Donovan/Royaldutchshellplc?
What did Shell want the NCFTA to do to Donovan?

Separately, Donovan says another email released by Shell has a Shell employee telling Fox News in March 2007 that “royaldutchshell plc.com is an excellent source of group news and comment and I recommend it above what our own group internal comms puts out”

Thank you

EXTRACTS END

Can you please let us have a date for the first email and any comment you wish to make on the emails relating to CAS/NCFTA?

Being the target of Shell’s “invisible” investigations, we would certainly like to know the answers to these questions.

Regards

John Donovan

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 11 March 2010 14:22:41 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net, Gavin.White@shell.com
Subject: RE: Shell internal docs/comms supplied 8 March 2010

Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office:  Shell Centre, London, SE1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands

Posting by former Shell Executive Paddy Briggs on the article “Shell defends continued focus on fossil fuel-paper“: Mar 2nd, 2010 at 11:20 am

We should not give the impression that we are over-concerned with the D’s website, or that management spends a lot of time worrying about it. (Shell)

By John Donovan

I am still studying the Shell internal documents and communications the company was recently obliged to supply to me in accordance with an application under the Data Protection Act.

It is interesting to note the way events in our unusual relationship with Shell have been spun by Shell lawyers, depending on who is being given the information.

Richard Wiseman (right) is now the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. We crossed swords with him many times during the seven separate court actions we brought against the oil giant, which settled ALL of these claims, involving breach of confidence, breach of contract and libel.

You would never guess this when reading the written briefings given regularly to a Shell senior management obsessed with our activities, to the extent of running a global spying operation against Shell employees, the Donovan’s and our website. This includes “invisible” investigations involving Shell Corporate Affairs Security (CAS), trying to discover who is supplying us with insider information, and who is visiting or posting information on our Shell Blog from Shell premises.

Since Wiseman was intimately involved in the bouts of litigation heading up Shell’s legal team, it is inconceivable that he has not had an input into the written briefings, at the very least checking to ensure accuracy. Indeed, he informed me when we last met at a Shell AGM (in 2006?) that he is still brought in to all matters involving the Donovan’s, including the royaldutchshellplc.com domain name battle, which Shell also lost.

I will just pick out a few examples of blatant spin in a briefing dated 31 August 2007.

1. The first sentence of the first paragraph states:

We should not give the impression that we are over-concerned with the D’s website, or that management spends a lot of time worrying about it.

This is like a boxer trying to pretend that punches to his midriff are not making any impression, when everyone else is gasping at the obvious damage from sickening blows. A small selection of Shell internal documents, mainly from 2007 onwards, confirm that contrary to the self-delusion, Shell management is indeed obsessed by our activities.

2. Shell says in the briefing document:

…the company has always refrained from commenting on specific issues raised by the Ds and will continue to do so.

Anyone who has seen the recent published email correspondence I had with Wiseman in relation to the worlds biggest breach of employee data knows this claim is more BS. Extracts from what Wiseman said to me in his email replies were republished around the world. Shell lawyers have provided comment many times previously as would be obvious to our regular visitors.

3.  Shell also said in the internal briefing document:

In the early ’90s when Shell wanted to use Make Money again, Mr D claimed that he still owned the concept. Shell paid D for the transfer of the concept. Mr D then launched legal action against Shell in connection with two other promotions. While Shell was confident of defeating the claim, in the interest of saving costs for both sides, it was agreed that the matter would be settled. Following this settlement, Mr D sued Shell again. He claimed that he had invented the Smart promotion and that Shell had “stolen” it from him. The case went to court but Mr D eventually abandoned his claim

Yes, Shell did settle the Make Money claim, but only after we issued High Court proceedings seeking an injunction.

With regards to the litigation concerning “two other promotions”, Shell says it settled to save both sides costs. How unusually generous of Shell. We previously received an entirely different explanation from Mr Wiseman in his email dated May 1997. At the time, he was claiming  that Shell had settled out of a moral obligation which  arose out of the termination of the Company’s long standing relationship with us, not out of any particular claim. In fact, Shell settled after independent mediators reached the conclusion, after accessing the evidence and interviewing key witnesses, that “Don Marketing has been pissed on from a very great height”. A memorable verdict.

Wiseman claiming that Shell settled with us on moral grounds is on a par with the claim by Shell executive director, Malcolm Brinded, that Shell settled the Wiwa litigation last June on the court room steps for $15.5 million as a “goodwill gesture”, after Shell had dragged out the proceedings for many years. Oil and morals do not mix. All such decisions by Shell are taken on purely commercial grounds, which factor in potential reputational damage.

Shell also misrepresents the outcome of the SMART trial. Shell made two settlement proposals. I rejected the first and accepted the second only after it was agreed that my legal costs would be paid and that I would receive a secret payment not even disclosed to the trial Judge.

What hope is there for Shell management to make informed decisions when such inaccurate self-serving information, trying to cover-up past embarrassments, is conveyed to them?

“One of the principles underlying all of our work on the Web has been that we should be true to the spirit of New Shell. This means that we are seen to be open, listening, interested in the views of others…”: SHELL CENSOR – MARCH 1999

Shell Internet Censorship

By John Donovan

Printed below is a Shell internal email sent in March 1999. Shell was obliged to supply it to us in accordance with an application we made under the UK Data Protection Act. The “X’s” denote sections redacted (censored) by Shell, which includes the name of its author and apparently an extensive circulation list – 4 lines deep.

Although not mentioned in the still visible text, the author of the email was talking about the former “Tell Shell” Internet discussion forum once available on shell.com, until it was censored into oblivion.

Knowing of the involvement of Shell International General Counsel Richard Wiseman in the overt and covert censorship carried out on “Tell Shell” postings, we asked him if he was the author of the email. This was his reply yesterday, 22 February 2010:

Dear Mr Donovan,

I have no record or recollection of drafting or being involved in the drafting of the email you refer to.  Since you claim it was written more than 10 years ago, this is not surprising.  The style is not mine however and I do not believe that I am likely to have been the author.

As usual, I do not propose to comment otherwise on your draft and this should not be taken as acceptance of any of the assertions you make.

Regards
Richard Wiseman

Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

We accept what Mr Wiseman says. Of course, since Shell carried out the blanking out process on the email, it could reveal all of the censored information, but has not offered to do so, even though Royal Dutch Shell CEO Peter Voser and  Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes are fully aware of this article.

It is clear from the content that the author of the email was someone in control over the content of “Tell Shell”.

He or she claimed:

“One of the principles underlying all of our work on the Web has been that we should be true to the spirit of New Shell. This means that we are seen to be open, listening, interested in the views of others…”

Astonishingly, the author then goes on to try to provide a rationale behind the decision to remove 9 out of ten postings we made on “Tell Shell” and to say that if accused of censorship, Shell would argue that it had simply been trying to prevent us dominating discussions. The postings were also manipulated to make it less likely that forum users would visit our own website and be exposed to the full list of our allegations i.e. the truth.

Despite the claims of an open, censorship free discussion forum for lively debate, Shell did not want to entertain controversial postings. Hence the introduction of censorship on “Tell Shell”, providing an explanation on the forum whenever an unwelcome contribution was deleted.

Shell subsequently resorted to secret censorship, whereby postings vanished without trace or explanation. This underhand policy, involving Richard Wiseman, brought about what we described as: “The slow death of the Tell Shell Internet discussion forum”.  After the secret censorship was exposed, Shell “suspended” the forum, as it turned out, permanently.

Not content with censoring “Tell Shell”, Mr Wiseman also wanted us to censor our website. The following is from an email he sent to us on 11 November 2005:-

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.  It is true that when your comments to “Tell Shell” overstep the bounds of honest comment and become vituperative or defamatory, we remove them.  In this context, I suggest that the image on

http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com/week44/vantheman3putinnovember2005.htm.

be removed as a matter of urgency.

Some extracts from our response to Mr Wiseman…

The implied threat in your email regarding the satirical comments directed at President Putin, betrays Shell’s real attitude to freedom of speech on the Internet.

Thank you for the official confirmation regarding Shell’s censorship of the “Tell Shell Forum”. Such suppression of free speech is directly at odds with statements made by Shell on the forum inviting feedback and lively open debate in “uncensored space”. Since we have never posted any bad language on Tell Shell, the censorship relates entirely to our criticism of Shell and our accurate account of past events, supported by documents in our possession.

Having admitted to Shell’s censorship policy on the Tell Shell Forum, your next comments imply that Shell has rights or influence over what is published on RoyalDutchShellplc.com. I would respectfully point out that although you can censor postings on your website, you cannot censor commentary posted on ours. You have not mentioned the censorship of postings by other contributors to Tell Shell offering constructive criticism, including former Shell employees (with one such posting deleted in an underhand manner). As far as I am aware, none of the postings critical of Shell contained any bad language.

EXTRACTS END

If you also read the information on the linked articles, it is clear that Richard Wiseman has been a driving force behind the machinations (trickery and censorship) over unwelcome critical postings on “Tell Shell”, which led to its demise and replacement by an unauthorized “Shell Blog”. I refer to the facility at royaldutchshellplc.com on which visitors can make positive or negative postings about Shell (or the Donovan’s), without being subjected to censorship.

In other words, people posting comments can rest assured that some self-serving lawyer is not controlling what is deemed sufficiently favorable to Shell to remain on display. Under the circumstances, perhaps Wiseman’s already lengthy job title should be expanded still further: Chief Censor, Ethics & Compliance Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

MAIN ARTICLE ENDS

RELATED INFORMATION

A posting made on our Shell Blog by former Shell executive Paddy Briggs was noted with disdain by a Shell employee in an internal email sent on 25 June 2007, who stated:

FYI, Paddy Briggs latest contribution – I think he should choose his friends more carefully…

In the absence of “Tell Shell” I think that this is possibly the best forum for those of us who care about Shell and have informed opinions about the company to share with others. The Donovans perfume (subsequently corrected!) a very useful function and, whilst I don’t always agree with them, I do admire them and certainly do not question their motives or their integrity.

(Since we know the above posting was made by Paddy Briggs, we have inserted his name where it was previously redacted. BTW, we have never met or even spoken to Paddy Briggs, who is now a Trustee of the Shell Contributory Pension Fund.)

A Shell internal email sent earlier the same day contained a more enlightened view about postings on our website. Its author said: “I support Mr Donovan’s right to free speech – even if it is anti-Shell.”

THE SHELL INTERNAL EMAIL SENT IN MARCH 1999

From:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Sent: 23 March 1999 10:54

TO: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(E-mail)
Subject: FW: DONVAN

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

One of the principles underlying all of our work on the Web has been that we should be true to the spirit of New Shell. This means that we are seen to be open, listening, interested in the views of others and providing information which helps people to make their own minds up, not just thrust our opinions at them.

This is why, for several years, we have included links to the websites of organisations critical of Shell and have only removed contributions to the Website discussion fora if they were either:

a) abusive of individuals, or:

b) contained libellous material, where we didn’t wish to become involved in the legal implications of being a publisher:

Beyond that, we have deliberately not censored contributions, because this would simply have handed ammunition to our critics.

Before we launched the new campaign, we agreed that we should apply the same guidelines to the new campaign-related discussion fora. It was recognised that they might become targets for our critics, but if we claim to be interested in dialogue, then we need to be seen to be engaged in it and our arguments need to be seen to stand up for themselves.

In respect of Don Marketing, the monitoring of the fora quickly picked up that he had posted ten contributions and we decided to reduce it to one. If we were challenged, our argument would be that we had not censored, but had simply stopped him dominating discussions to the irritation of other users.

His one remaining contribution will be located in the Human Rights section at
http://www shell com/campaign/jssue/stage/1.1850.2.00.html

At the moment, this particular contribution of his is simply a link to his Shell Shareholders site. However, I have asked XXXXX to include Donovan’s text from one of his other postings so that people can see the essence of his case without having to go and enter his website and get the full list of his allegations. This will be done later this morning.

Regards

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Shell International Limited, Shell Centre
London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Email: xxxxxxxxxx

News articles generated by royaldutchshellplc.com and its Shell insider sources in 2009

By John Donovan

Shell media spin machine went into overdrive last week trying to downplay the worlds biggest ever leak of employee details, including personal information, which Shell Ethics boss Richard Wiseman, has twice admitted puts the safety of some employees at risk.

A copy of a related email from Mr Wendel Broere, Group spokesman, Global media relations, Shell International B.V, desperately engaged on a damage limitation exercise with the news media, was leaked to me on the day it was sent. My role is discussed in the email, no doubt because I am the person who broke the story which turned into a global PR disaster for Shell, with all kinds of unwelcome repercussions, including an investigation by the Information Commissioners Office and the prospect of a fine for being reckless with confidential employee data.

The information sent by Broere on the record says that Shell is investigating the matter and will comply with all legal requirements. The issue of personal security is only mentioned “Off the record” in his email, down-played to being no greater risk to Shell employee personal safety than merely handing out a business card.

Shell now says there was no private address information. That was not the case in the leaked employee data I received which Shell pressured me into destroying before Shell media started pumping out smoke. In fact, many post-codes were included in the data: Far more than could be only Shell addresses. Also personal mobile phone numbers, along with an array of other contact information.

The line now being taken by Shell is totally incompatible with the unambiguous statement on the personal security aspect made by Shell Ethics Richard Wiseman that he subsequently reconfirmed to me by email. This was after I published a leaked email Wiseman had sent to all employees, which failed to mention any risk to personal safety.

And it was not just Shell employee information that was leaked, but four other data files, all forming part of an carefully contrived plan – formulated with almost military precision – for a claimed corporate revolution at Shell by a subversive group that appears to have successfully infiltrated the oil giant. The whole thrust of the plan directed at Shell is motivated by its alleged crimes in Nigeria, which are listed in the extraordinary document.

Following contact with the Information Commissioners Office, we have also destroyed the other related files supplied within the attachment containing the Shell Global Address Book. However, we understand that now that the information has escaped into cyber-space, it will always be potentially retrievable.

Although Shell Corporate Affairs Security (CAS) is mounting a major investigation, how much confidence can employees have in a department headed by retired spooks, when CAS was presumably ultimately responsible for safeguarding security in the first place? At least it might divert CAS from carrying out “invisible” investigations against the Donovans.

Clearly the global spying by CAS against Shell employees to try to stop information from reaching us has not been entirely successful. The flood of leaked Shell information continues unabated.

According to a posting on our Shell Blog by a Shell IT insider (a regular contributor of articles to this website) a breach of the employee Directory could have happened at anytime in the last decade:

IT4me: What interests me about the Directory Leak story is that any competent scripter could have done this at any time in the last 10 years using just NOTEPAD and maybe 20 lines of VBS code. That’s because Active Directory (parts of it anyway) have been left open for use by RDS’s diverse collection of systems. So why didn’t it happen before ? And why doesn’t this sort of thing ever happen at GOOGLE ?

Article by Glen Frost, Editor, The PR Report

Yes, 15 billion. This is the claim of John Donovan, a UK blogger who campaigns against  the global oil producing giant Shell (full name Royal Dutch Shell) using his blog www.royaldutchshellplc.com .

Arguably the most powerful blog in the world dedicated to covering one company; and intrigued as to how the site developed such influence, Glen Frost met with the blog’s founders, John and Alfred Donovan, to get the full story.

EXTRACTS

The blog is now so popular, and trusted, the site appears on the front page of major newspapers (see pictures), and has ex‐employees from Shell contributing regular articles

The Russian connection: the scoop that made the  Donovan’s blog famous

The Donovans had been collecting and publishing information online about Shell’s activities since 2001; this information dates back to the mid 1980’s and their former business relationship with Shell. Over the years, more and more people in the oil industry discovered the website, and the Donovan’ s have been swamped with information about Shell from both suppliers, contractors, insiders and former employees.

Some of this information concerned Shell’s activities in Russia from 1996. A Shell‐led consortium (called Sakhalin Energy) and the Russian Government entered into a production sharing agreement. It was information on alleged environmental abuses by the consortium from the Donovan’ s that killed the deal. John Donovan said he suspected his information was the trigger but didn’t know for sure until Oleg Mitvol, a senior figure in the Russian Government, stated so in a media interview.

Asked by a journalist from PetroleumArgus, a trade magazine, who his sources were for the environmental abuse charges that Mitvol laid against the Sakhalin Energy consortium, Mitvol, then deputy head of Russia’s environmental watchdog Rosprirodnadzor, said he had “email correspondence between executives in Sakhalin Energy management from 2002.”

The compromising material had come from Donovan, owner and blogger of the anti‐Shell website www.royaldutchshellplc.com, Mitvol said.

Donovan estimates the value lost to Shell is US$15 billion.

The Donovan’s website is a full frontal attack on Shell’s management and ethics. Shell has tried to shut the site down on the grounds that it uses the company name. However, the site www.royaldutchshellplc.com  makes no money, and, crucially, is registered in the USA, where laws on websites are weighted in favour of the domain owner.

“Our site receives up to 2.2 million hits a month; we want it to become a magnet for people who have a problem with the
company,” says Donovan.  “Many of the people using the site are Shell employees.

Blog publishes market sensitive information

Donovan publishes market sensitive information on the site, and he, and the website, are now quoted by esteemed news organisations like Reuters and The Financial Times. For example, Donovan  published information questioning the level of Shell’s reserves, in which the company was found to have inflated its oil and gas reserves by some 20% in 2003‐04, which led to negative media headlines.

The picture (right; The Daily mail, UK 8th Sept 2009) shows how Donovan’s blog published details of staff cuts before Shell had announced them to the markets and the media.

Because of the blog, and the Donovan’s insistence on publishing all information he can verify about Shell, good and bad, John Donovan’s influence with the media is now global, instant and at a senior level – John lists the names of all the UK, US and global media outlets, their Editors or senior correspondents covering corporate news or the oil sector as his contacts.

Shell’s external PR advisors

A post on the Donovan’s website links to an article in a recently published book on corporate reputation and the rise of blog sites that attack, or expose, poor corporate ethics and illegal or dubious corporate activity, and what CEOs should do about such sites; http://www.shellnews.net/images/CorporateReputationAED.pdf ‐ the book is written by Dr Leslie Gaines‐Ross, who, incidentally, was previously CMO of Burson‐Marsteller USA, who manage Shell’s public relations.

FULL ARTICLE (FREE SUBSCRIPTION)
Previous PR Report issues here: http://thepublicinterest.ning.com
PR Report Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/ykg6p7j
PR Report YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/theprreport

EXTRACT FROM BOOK REFERRED TO ABOVE: “REPUTATION LOSS – 12 Steps to safeguarding and Recovering Reputation”

One such empowered activist is arch Shell critic Alfred Donovan. No one was more surprised than Royal Dutch Shell PLC to learn that this 88-year-old British army veteran had purchased the Internet domain name www.royaldutchshellplc.com. The gadfly Donovan was a well-known, though underestimated, critic of the company. By acquiring the domain name, Donovan obtained the perfect platform to voice his criticisms of the oil giant. Who would have thought a decade ago that such an unlikely individual could stand up to a corporate powerhouse, waging a war of words against one of the world’s largest companies?