Posts under ‘Richard Wiseman’

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

By Alfred Donovan

Appeal: Peter Sutcliffe, shown here after an attack in prison, has launched a High Court bid to be released.

EXTRACT FROM A DAILY MAIL ARTICLE PUBLISHED 2 MARCH 2010:

The Yorkshire Ripper is using taxpayers’ money in an attempt to win his freedom.

Peter Sutcliffe, who murdered 13 women and tried to kill seven more, claims doctors believe he is ‘on the way to being cured’ and no longer poses a risk to the public.

Now 63, he has received legal aid to fund a team of leading barristers in his High Court battle to be released from the secure Broadmoor Hospital. This is likely to run up a bill of £200,000.

In June 1999, at the age 82, I was a defendant in the High Court action brought against me by Shell for alleged breach of contract.  I had no legal representation. I had already sold my home to pay my lawyers.  After my funds evaporated completely, I applied for Legal Aid which was granted, then mysteriously withdrawn without explanation. My son’s Legal Aid was also revoked. He discovered that this was due to a letter Shell (Mr Richard Wiseman?) had sent to the Legal Aid Board making an allegation which was without foundation. I assume that Shell also sent a similar letter to the Legal Aid Board about me.

John and I both appealed against the revocation decisions. In my case, a member of the Legal Aid appeal panel said that as far as he could see, I had “nothing to lose”.

My own war record in fighting the Japanese in Burma, the fact that three of my brothers had also fought for Britain (Jack, a paratrooper broke his ankle landing during Operation Market Garden at Arnhem), was of no account. My mother drove a London ambulance during the Blitz. After the war I worked in the civil service for 14 years, started my own business, employed many people over the years and had always lived a blemish free life. Again, this all counted for nothing. Basically, my background, dignity, reputation, health and financial independence, were all of no account.

After receiving notifications that our appeals had been rejected, we each filed for Judicial Review armed with evidence that the allegation made by Shell was completely false, but the trial date arrived before either of us could get a hearing.

I was left in the unbelievable position at the age of 82, with a war disability, of having to personally defend myself in the High Court before a Judge and an array of high-powered barristers and solicitors acting for Shell.

John gave a legal charge on his house to his lawyers, or otherwise he too would have had no legal representation in court. Having no legal aid weakened his position and piled on more pressure. We had already endured a deluge of threats by Shell plus uncover activity directed against us.

Hence we were at a great disadvantage and reluctantly accepted the second compromise settlement offer put by Shell.

What a screwed up Country when a horrific serial killer is granted Legal Aid, while a then 82 year old 2nd World War veteran was left abandoned with no Legal Aid and NO legal representation.

Shell is well aware of what happened. A Shell internal email dated 11 May 2006 raised the question:-

“Mr. Donovan alleges that Shell had (his) legal aid cut off (during the SMART case). Is this the case?”

No answer was provided.

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

A lengthy document sent by allegedly disillusioned Shell employees to leading environmental and human rights activists sought to launch a corporate revolution at the oil giant.

The document, which was given to IT PRO, was attached to a leaked database containing contact details of nearly every Shell employee. It was sent by 116 disillusioned full-time employees in the US, the UK and the Netherlands to Greenpeace and other campaign groups active in Nigeria.

The document contained information on how the contact database could be used change the way Shell operates, by influencing employees, the public, top institutional investors and non-governmental organisations.

“Using the files we have attached… the Royal Dutch Shell Corporate Revolution that we propose and describe in large detail in Section 5 of this document provides a step-by-step guide on how to shatter the walls of mass ignorance in the corporation in order to bring about informed and meaningful insider dissent from Shell’s common-folk robot employees,” the document reads.

One recipient of the files, John Donovan, a campaigner at anti-Shell website www.royaldutchshellplc.com, told IT PRO that the disillusioned employees may have been planted there by activists solely to extract information such as the database. Donovan said more data breaches would be forthcoming at the oil giant.

According to the document, the employees are upset at a range of environmental and human rights abuses that they believe their employer is taking in Nigeria, one of its key markets for energy exploration.

“We are extremely concerned regarding Shell’s behaviour in Nigeria and we are disgusted by the injustices that Shell is committing in Nigeria,” they wrote.

The document was not signed by the authors, they say, to protect their own jobs. They fear they would be sacked if they revealed their identities.

Shell accepts that the database is genuine, but says it believes that the covering letter is not.

The oil giant publicly argues that individuals’ security has not been affected by the distribution of the database. However, an email apparently sent by Shell’s chief ethics and compliance officer Richard Wiseman suggests there are wider internal security concerns.

“Although the vast majority of information in the [Shell corporate] Address Book is largely business related, there may be cases where the security of an individual may be impacted by release of such information,” Wiseman wrote.

Some personal phone numbers are included in the database where the individual uses that number to work from home. IT PRO understands that Wiseman sent a memo to Shell staff declaring that some might receive nuisance phone calls.

Donovan said: “We expect to receive further leaked information from Shell insiders.”

Shell is currently investigating the circumstances under which the database was leaked. This investigation includes trying to identify if hackers were involved.

The company could offer no comment on whether the leak was caused by people or if it’s a process or technology issue, and what actions it would take to prevent the issue happening again.

SOURCE ARTICLE

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 ?

The Register

Posted in IT Director, 15th February 2010 09:20 GMT

By John Oates

Evening Express: Claim that oil firm staff could be at risk

By Jennifer McKiernan and Charlotte Jordan

Published: 12/02/2010

ADVICE: Shell employees at Tullos have been told not to be alarmed

A DATA leak has put Shell oil workers in danger from cyber-criminals and environmental activists, it was claimed today.

A Shell database containing details of 102,000 employees and contractor information was accessed and sent out from the firm, which has a major base in Aberdeen.

The information includes private addresses and mobile phone numbers.

Among those to be sent the details were British blogger John Donovan who said the personal details could be used to dupe staff and put workers in dangerous situation.

He said he “knew for certain” the data had been passed to a Nigerian activist organisation and six other groups.

And he accused the oil company of “covering-up” the full extent of risk to staff.

E-mails from Shell’s chief ethics and compliance officer Richard Wiseman said employee and contractor security could be compromised by the leaked data.

Mr Donovan said: “I voluntarily agreed not to make the database accessible online because bosses stressed the potential risk to the personal safety of some Shell employees.

“He probably had in mind employees in Nigeria at risk of kidnapping.”

However, in a public e-mail sent to all Shell staff, including those in the North-east, Mr Wiseman reassured staff there was “no need to be alarmed” about the leak, which he said could result in “nuisance telephone calls”.

A Shell spokesman said: “The details of such data are primarily business related. We will investigate this matter and comply with all legal requirements in relation to this issue.”

jmckiernan@ajl.co.uk

EMAIL RECEIVED FROM RICHARD WISEMAN, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC: FRIDAY 12 FEB 2010

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 12 February 2010 08:30:20 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, Peter.P.Voser@shell.com
Subject: RE: Shell Global Address Book

Dear Mr Donovan

Regards
Richard Wiseman

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

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

Email: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

RESPONSE FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 12 February 2010 09:53:24 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com
Subject: Re: Shell Global Address Book

Dear Mr Wiseman

Regards
John Donovan