By John Donovan

This is the first story arising from the 2010 crop of Shell internal communications Shell was legally obliged to supply to us following a further application under the Data Protection Act.

It provides evidence of Shell’s intent to lean on a major newspaper publisher in connection with an article published on this website: royaldutchshellplc.com.

Previous Shell internal emails provided proof of Shell’s intent to pressurize The Sunday Times to “kill” a story about us and our website. The half-page article which revealed how our intervention in the Sakhalin2 project had cost Shell £11 billion was read to me over the telephone by the Sunday Times journalist, but the story was killed hours before publication It contained an interview with the so-called Kremlin Attack dog, Oleg Mitvol, who confirmed our pivotal role and made a most unflattering comment about Shell management.

This time the FT.com was the target of Shell’s censorship ambitions.

The FT sent an email to Shell on 27 July 2010 containing article links published on “The Energy Source” – an FT.com feature. One link was to an article we published on 26 July 2010 under the headline: “A close call for Shell on North Sea platform.”

The article criticized Shell and its CEO, Peter Voser.

That single article link on FT.com sparked the following email correspondence involving Shell.

Some information has been redacted by Shell.

From:
Sent: 27 July 2010 16:39
To:
Subject: FW: Energy Source

Voices from the past.

If you look in the attached you will see that Mr Donovan has managed to get FT.com to refer to his website as if it was a respectable source.

This really irritates me and gives him undeserved credibility. Has shell tried to do anything with the FT? If not or it has not worked I could have a go with

Best wishes,

Tel:                        Fax:
Mobile:

RESPONSE

From:
Sent: 27 July 2010 17:17
To:
Subject: RE: Energy Source

I will find out from the media people what we have done to try to engage with the FT on this. Incidentally, you should be aware that Donovan has access to most of the emails written to and from Shell about him through his regular Data Protection Act requests.

Regards

Royal Dutch Shell plc
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA
Registered in England and Wales number 4366849
Registered Office: Shell Centre, London, SE 1
Headquarters: Carel van Bylandtlaan 30, 2596 HR
The Hague, The Netherlands

I assume that the response was sent by Richard Wiseman (Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer – now retired), the official then designated within Shell to deal with all matters relating to us.

I note the warning in the response, that “Donovan has access to most of the emails written to and from Shell about him…” According to the Data Protection Act, I should have access to ALL emails written to and from Shell about me.

If it was Mr Wiseman, he failed to inform the other party that I had been in email correspondence with him a few days earlier inviting Shell to point out any inaccuracies on the basis that they would then be deleted from the article. I also invited Shell to supply for unedited publication with the article, any comments it wished to make. Shell decided not to take up either invitation. The correspondence was published as part of the article.

I do not know of any other publisher that would bend over backwards to ensure accuracy and provide an opportunity for unedited comment by Shell to be published with an article.

It is ironic that we do not receive due credit from people who have the breathtaking audacity to accuse us of not being respectable, while they once again conspired behind the scenes to lean on another global news organization. It is amazing that Shell should lower itself to act in this manner.

The email exchanges reveal the fear which Shell has for this site. It is well placed, as will shortly become even more evident.

By John Donovan

Printed below is our most recent correspondence with Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

It is self-explanatory.

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 2 February 2011 14:47:14 GMT
To: gavin.white@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: Section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act

To:

Mr. Gavin White
Company Secretarial Department
Shell International Limited

Dear Mr. White

Section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act

As you may be aware, my father Alfred Donovan and I reached an agreement with Royal Dutch Shell Plc Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Mr Richard Wiseman, that in future our Subject Access Request applications to Shell would be made on a joint basis i.e. in the names of Alfred and John Donovan.

Bearing in mind that a year has passed since our last application, we formally request that you please send us the information to which we are entitled under section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to our dealings with Shell. This is to include all documents, drafts, reports, emails, communications, correspondence, transcripts and any other information held by Shell, which contain either or both of our names, or abbreviations thereof, or codes which signify our names.

In this connection, we have supplied some background information, which will hopefully assist in locating relevant information. To avoid constantly repeating the formal request and the range of information set out in the above paragraph, please take it that the specified range of information automatically always applies, including whenever we use the term: “We request all relevant information”.

At the time of our last application, just over a year ago, on 13 January 2010 to be precise, we were unaware that Shell had resolved all litigation with Dr John Huong, (aka Dr John Huong Yiu Tuong) the former employee of Shell in Malaysia. We now seek all relevant information in the control or possession of Shell stretching back to and including 2004. We have previously been advised by Shell that you are not obliged to provide SAR information relating to litigation in progress. That situation no longer applies in relation to Dr John Huong. We are aware that RDS Plc head office lawyers were involved in the litigation, which stemmed in the first place from information we published on our website.  A UK registered company was one of the eight companies within the Royal Dutch Shell group that sued Dr Huong for defamation, obtained multiple injunctions against him and sought his imprisonment for alleged contempt of court in respect of further information posted on our website. Since we played the key role, it also seems likely that reference was made to one or both of us and/or our website in the settlement documents.

For many years Mr Richard Wiseman has been the key person at Shell dealing with all matters relating to us. Particular attention should therefore be applied to his files including contact with the news media, matters relating to WikiLeaks, Wikipedia, and matters relating to Shell Oil USA, including the industrial espionage investigation of Shell by U.S. authorities, as authorised by U.S. Defence Department attorneys to be confirmed to us by a high level U.S. Intelligence source. We would also request all relevant information concerning the related former Shell employee whose name will already be known to Shell.

Our first SAR application revealed that a crisis reaction team had been set up to counter our website activities. The content of one email was decidedly hostile towards us. Please supply any further correspondence or documents relating to the same or any subsequent team, third party, or person, involved in any such activities such as industrial espionage and/or hacking on behalf of Shell, perhaps involving Shell Corporate Affairs Security. In this connection we also request all relevant information naming or referring to one of both of us in the possession or control of Shell Global Security. Please also address this request to Mr Ian Forbes McCredie OBE, the former British Secret Service officer who is head of Shell Global Security and Richard T. Garcia, the former senior FBI official of 25 years standing, who is Global Security Advisor for Shell International. We request all relevant information.

Please also supply any relevant Shell correspondence with Saudi Aramco, and/or the Saudi Arabia government/regime, and/or Motiva Enterprises, in which we are referred to or are named. We request all relevant information.

Other matters and events in the last years which may have generated relevant information include the Shell Global Address Book database leaked to us; the Corrib Gas Project controversy, including alleged death threats made to our Shell insider contacts; our supply of Shell insider documents to U.S.federal investigators in relation to the Gale Norton controversy (they approached us); the controversy surrounding Shell’s plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean; the controversy surroundings Shell’s dealings with Nigeria, Libya and Iran; the controversy surrounding Shell’s historical dealings with Hitler and the Nazis.

Basically, we seek all relevant information held by Shell in all departments including PR/media, which has not previously been supplied.

Can you please ensure that we can identity where Shell has redacted information, as this is impossible to do on many documents you have previously supplied. There should always be heavy black lines denoting redaction, not just white spaces. Without such indication, it is sometimes impossible to identify for certain when redaction has taken place, for example at the end of a line of print (where the print margins are not justified) or at the end of a sentence, if there are just blank spaces indistinguishable from the non printed background of the document.

If you need further information from us, or a fee, please let us know as soon as possible.

If you no longer handle these requests for your organisation, please pass this email to your Data Protection Officer or other appropriate officer.

Best Regards

Alfred Donovan and John Donovan

RESPONSE FROM ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC 17 FEBRUARY 2011 (PDF)

MAIN TEXT

17 February 2011

Mr John Donovan’s email to myself dated 2 February 2011 requesting information pursuant to section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 will be dealt with on behalf of the appropriate companies in the Royal Dutch/Shell Group by Company Secretarial, Shell International Limited.

Please find enclosed two copies of a Subject Access Request form together with an Information Leaflet. The Subject Access Request form is for any Personal Data that any Shell Group Company operating in the UK may be processing apart from images from CCTV equipment. If you want information about or a copy of images from CCTV equipment please ask for a separate Subject Access Request form.

Each of you will need to complete a Subject Access Request form. The Subject Access Request form is divided into two sections:

Part A- asks you to give information about yourself that will help us confirm your identity. You will be asked to provide evidence of your identity by producing documentation with your application. When dealing with a Subject Access Request, the Data Controller has a duty to ensure that information he holds is secure and must be satisfied that you are who you say you are before disclosing the information.

Part B – asks you to declare that the information you have supplied is correct and to confirm that either you are the Data Subject or to confirm your relationship with the Data Subject.  A person who impersonates or attempts to impersonate another may be guilty of an offence.

If you wish to obtain information about Personal Data and a copy of any Personal Data from a Shell Group company operating in the U.K please each complete a Subject Access Request form and return it enclosing the following documentation:

• A copy of an appropriate identification document for each of you;
• Any other authorities requested;
• The fee (or donation if appropriate) of £10 (only one fee of £10 is necessary);

Once we have received the completed forms, together with the appropriate documentation and fee where requested, we will consider the request. Unless certain exemptions apply or we require more information from you to identify the information you are requesting, we will supply you with information and a copy of the Personal Data requested within 40 days of receipt of the completed forms.

Please note that the form enclosed with this letter does not cover images captured on CCTV equipment. If you require information about, or a copy of these images please ask for a separate Subject Access Request form.

Yours faithfully

Gavin White

Shell International Limited

THE LAWYER

24 January 2011 | By Catrin Griffiths

Shell has upped the ante on anti-corruption prior to this year’s implementation of the Bribery Act by extending its scrutiny to law firms that advise third parties involved in joint ventures, and therefore are not employed by the company.

Shell chief ethics and compliance officer Richard Wiseman and global legal services coordinator Leanne Geale are asking non-panel firms with which Shell does business for details of their anti-corruption compliance procedures.

As part of the tender process concluded in May 2010, all panel firms were asked about their compliance ­procedures. However, this is thought to be the first time an organisation has extended enquiries to third parties.

Shell’s move, which will be watched closely by in-house lawyers at other companies, is designed to address Section 7 of the Bribery Act, a controversial clause that states a ­commercial organisation is guilty of an offence if ­someone associated with it bribes another person.

Wiseman  told The Lawyer: “What we have in mind is a firm acting for us as an intermediary with a foreign government, negotiating a contract or licence on our behalf, for example.

“[Our] enquiry is about the law firm’s own ­programme for compliance with anti-bribery and ­corruption laws and extends to all countries in which the law firm practises. We’ve had no objections [about these firms] so far, but we know that other companies have found that law firms had obtained advantages for them by unauthorised improper means.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES

Shell to investigate fraud, contract corruption, bribery, money-laundering and organised crime inside the Shell Group

Shell’s poacher turned gamekeeper ethics chief giving anti-corruption speech

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr Brandjes

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

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

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

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

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

Dated this 9* day of March, 2006.

MESSRS T H LIEW & PARTNERS
SOLICITORS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Alfred Donovan

RESPONSE FROM MICHIEL BRANDJES

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

Dear Mr Donovan,

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

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

EMAIL ENDS

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

By John Donovan

EXTRACTS FROM THE WISE WORDS OF SHELL WHISTLEBLOWER DR JOHN HUONG PROHIBITED BY THE MALAYSIAN COURTS FROM PUBLICATION ON THIS WEBSITE

Correspondence between Sir Mark Moody Stuart and Mr Richard Wiseman… shows the actual mentality of Shell Management in high places. This behaviour was inevitably imitated by executives in operating companies who followed and adopted the example of a ruthless and deceitful corporate culture practiced by those at the very top of the Royal Dutch Shell Group.

Shell’s ethical code was and is not worth listening to unless top management becomes a role model for integrity and transparency.

Under current circumstances what is the point of having an annual ritual performed for the CEO at operating companies, where it is a mandatory requirement for staff to sign off their ethical health forms (ie Conflict of Interest) irrespective of compliance with Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles.

No amount of spin and hype can hide the fact that Shell’s claimed core principle of truth and honesty in all of its dealings is unadulterated propaganda.

Like Enron and WorldCom executives, Shelf senior management obviously feels that it is okay to hide the truth from its shareholders and the public.

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

Investors – “You cannot be sure of Shell” growing your funds. Potential employees – do not trust your career and aspirations to Shell until you understand the true inside story.

If Shell is unwilling to undergo radical change at every level in the organization for the better, Shell’s negative and evil ingrained cultures will ultimately destroy the little which remains of its former reputation.

(AS CITED IN ROYAL DUTCH SHELL COURT SUBMISSIONS)

RELATED ARTICLE: Royal Dutch Shell terrorist tactics against Malaysian whistleblower

Extracts from an article we published in January 2007. It is evident from the recent news of Shell being mired in endemic corruption in Nigeria, that the anti-corruption campaign was just another illusion conjured up by the Shell propaganda ministry to fool disillusioned investors in the wake of the reserves fraud. Organised crime investigations should have started at the very top of the company. The fact that Richard Wiseman, the senior official in charge of Shell ethics and compliance makes anti-corruption speeches, but behind the scenes has a track record of supporting corrupt practices by Shell executives, tells you all you need to know.

By Alfred Donovan

Shell International is currently seeking applicants for two Investigation Case Managers. Each will be in control of a team of up to six individuals who will tackle 100 plus investigations every year inside the Royal Dutch Shell Group. The fact that up to a dozen investigators are needed indicates the considerable volume of bribery, corruption and other illegal activity going on.

My son John Donovan and I may well apply for the Case Manager appointments since we have a track record of confronting and investigating dishonest activities by Shell managers who were protected by senior management godfathers such as Malcolm Brinded, the discredited CEO of Shell E & P. Brinded turned a blind eye to irrefutable documentary evidence of a conspiracy by Shell managers to deceive and cheat participants in a Shell tender process. As Managing Director of Shell Expro, he was implicated in the Brent Bravo scandal which cost two Shell employees their lives.

We are extremely grateful to the Shell insider who brought this advert to our attention.

Advertised by Shell International on www.shell.com

Investigations Case Manager (x2) Job ID: E8021

Location: Den Haag (The Hague), Netherlands

Shell Central Finance (CF) provides a range of professional services, advice and products to Shell companies on a global basis. This support encompasses everything from management and financial accounting, consultancy and business controls through to Mergers & Acquisitions, insurance and treasury operations.

The importance of compliance in today’s climate means that our Internal Audit department is integral to our success. As well as carrying out audits for our businesses and functions, it helps to streamline our operations, engineer business processes and facilitate more open communication.

The successful candidate for this role will provide specialist advice, awareness training, information and expert investigative resources to all Group companies worldwide on practices which conflict with Shell Group Business Principles. These include fraud, contract corruption (illegal information brokering), bribery, money-laundering and organised crime.

Responsibilities:

As one of our Investigations Case Managers, you’ll identify and advise on the implementation of improved controls, the coordination and governance of Business Integrity across the Group, and maintain a cross-business integrity network. You’ll undertake the role of Regional Case Manager on behalf of the Ethics and Compliance Office, including regular contact and briefings with Business Compliance Officers.

Taking responsibility for assessing integrity issues that are forwarded to the department, identifying the appropriate resources, managing the assigned investigation teams, and reporting to the Business on conclusion, you’ll be required to manage 100+ investigations every year.

Depending on the size and complexity of the investigation, you’ll brief and manage investigation teams of up to six people. These teams are made up of individuals from different Shell companies, external suppliers and external counsel.

You also have the following additional responsibilities:

• Acting as Group Subject Matter expert and advisor on investigations, and taking responsibility for the protection and risk assessment of Whistle-blowers while considering the physical, psychological and legal risks involved

• Developing materials and organising and delivering an Investigation Skills course to 24+ international staff a year

• Providing awareness presentations to audiences ranging from 10-70 staff

• Coordinating the activities of nominated Business Integrity representatives around the Group to maintain a cohesive network and approach to the management of Business Integrity

• Facilitating the sharing of relevant information

• Taking accountability for the advice, expertise and work product provided by Business Integrity Department re investigation activities

• Taking accountability for compliance to internal and external legal policies during internal investigations.

Your principal accountabilities will be as follows:

• Providing regular communication and investigative briefings to senior managers within Shell on highly sensitive business issues. This involves investigating entities, collating and analysing data, writing reports, presenting findings and proposing pragmatic and robust business solutions

• Taking accountability for the management of integrity related investigations as required by Shell Internal Audit, managers in the Group businesses, as a result of Whistle-blowing submissions

• Providing Subject Matter Expert advice to different parts of the business upon request

• Ensuring confidentiality in relation to sensitive data with potential Group impact on a daily basis

You’ll also have a number of key challenges, including:

• Prioritising the demand for BID Services with the added difficulties of balancing the requirements of international/cross border/cross time zone cases

• Managing investigations staff and resources in difficult environments and countries
• Understanding the different business areas and having the ability to rapidly assimilate facts and knowledge of commercial practices in a constantly changing business

Requirements:

With highly effective communication and interviewing skills, and the ability to communicate well with senior management, you’ll be an expert operator of specialist investigation software.

With first-class prioritisation skills, you’ll be effective at influencing without authority, and be passionate upholding moral and ethical behaviour within the company.

You’ll have excellent presentation, training and facilitation skills, and capable of providing expert assistance to those investigations that are particularly sensitive to the Group. With specialist knowledge and experience of crime, illegal activities, the management of Whistle-blowers and Contracting & Procurement irregularities, you’ll have the ability to transfer specialist knowledge into useful business input.

Capable of assessing trends of fraudulent crime and its impact on Shell around the world, you’ll have expert knowledge of Shell policies relevant to Business Principles and the investigation of breaches including Shell disciplinary procedures.

With excellent knowledge of current legislation concerning corporate investigations and external reporting requirements, you should also have good diplomatic skills and awareness of Diversity and Inclusiveness issues.

Application Deadline: Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Photograph of senior Shell official Richard Wiseman, right, was kindly offered and supplied by him for display on this website.This happened when he was still fond of us.

LEAFLET DISTRIBUTED TO SHELL EMPLOYEES AT THE SHELL CENTRE LONDON TODAY, MONDAY 13 DECEMBER 2010

As notified in advance to Mr Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, we today distributed leaflets (example below) to Shell employees at the Shell Centre in London.

Within minutes of arriving, a Shell security guard tried to move us on. When we politely refused, explaining that we were on public property and had notified Mr Wiseman of our intention, the security guard said he had never heard of Richard Wiseman and that we were not allowed to remain outside the main staff entrance. When we again declined to leave, he reported to a colleague that three people were issuing leaflets. I advised him that only two of us were doing so, the third person was a journalist from a daily newspaper.

Shortly thereafter, the security guard returned and said there had been a misunderstanding. The presence of the press seemed to have made an impact. He was now very polite and apologetic. Soon a more senior security guard arrived and said that there was no problem provided we did not impede entry or exit by Shell employees. He said that he was aware that we visited every year and were never any trouble.

So our visit ended on a friendly note.

THE LEAFLET

Greetings from Alfred and John Donovan, owners of the website RoyalDutchShellPlc.com

2010 has been an eventful year for Shell and our controversial website. It started with us announcing the biggest breach of employee data in history by Shell and climaxed with our publication of the WikiLeaks cables exposing Shell’s infiltration of the Nigerian government.

As a result of applications made to Shell under the Data Protection Act, the company was legally obliged to supply us with Shell internal data held about us. Some information, such as the names of Shell employees, was redacted.

One email contained this endorsement by a hapless Shell official:

“John and Alfred Donovan well known in UK/Hague. They perceive Shell played them and so have made it their mission to embarrass, belittle and criticize Shell, which they do quite well. Their website, royaldutchshellplc.com is an excellent source of group news and comment and I recommend it far above what our own group internal comms puts out.”

Last week, we contacted Richard Wiseman, the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell asking if he was the author of the endorsement. We did not receive a response. At the time of the endorsement, Mr Wiseman was less hostile to our website than he is following our recent publication of “Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets” containing evidence from independent reputable sources, that Shell conspired directly with Hitler, financed the Nazi party, was anti-Semitic and sold out its own Jewish employees.

Mr Wiseman even supplied us with a photograph of himself for display on the site. We apparently also have him to thank for the blunder that allowed us to obtain sole rights to the top level domain name for the merged company, which arose from the ashes of the reserves fraud: Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Shell internal communications revealed that Shell had set up a counter-measures team to combat our activities. We also discovered that Shell Corporate Affairs Security (“CAS”) was engaged in a global spying operation against Shell employees designed to identity employees visiting or posting information on our website and expose individuals supplying us with leaked internal information.

The espionage operations against us involved a partly FBI funded and staffed specialist unit and was conducted on an undercover basis. The same basis as the earlier industrial espionage activity conducted against us by Shell and admitted in writing by then spymaster/Legal Director Richard Wiseman, over a decade ago.

At that time, Wiseman supported corrupt, predatory behaviour by Shell executives conspiring, with the help of Shell’s legal department, to steal IT property from smaller companies. It is ironic that in his new, “poacher turned gamekeeper” role, he travels the globe making anti-corruption speeches.

The counter-measures were not successful. Soon after discovering about the global spying operation, we received from a dissident group of Shell employees a leaked global address book containing business and personal information for over 177,000 employees and contractors working for Shell. In February 2010, the Shell employee database breach became a global news story. At the request of Mr Wiseman, who feared that the release of the information could imperil the safety of some employees, we destroyed the database.

More recently, we published numerous Shell internal emails supplied to us by a dissident group of Shell employees involved in the controversial Corrib Gas Project in Ireland. When Shell attempted to trace the people leaking the emails, death threats were allegedly made against Shell employees, which we reported to the Irish Police.

In June, we broke the news of the Shell settlement for $15.5 million of the US court case brought by relatives of Ken Saro-Wiwa. The settlement prevented evidence of Shell’s involvement in alleged murder, torture, and other human rights crimes, being heard in open court. However, on 9 November 2010, citing leaked Shell internal documents from the court case, the Guardian newspaper reported that Shell senior management was so concerned about potential reputational fallout from association with the judicial murder of Saro-Wiwa that it seriously contemplated changing the brand name to “New Shell”.

On 7 October 2010, we published an article: “U.S. Dept. of Defense Confirms NCIS Espionage Investigation of Shell”. Following email correspondence with a U.S. intelligence source, and clearance obtained by that source from Dept. of Defense attorneys, the source was authorized to confirm to us that an investigation directed at Shell Oil USA had indeed been initiated by the US Department of the Navy, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). Shell is alleged to have engaged in industrial espionage in an attempt to gain control over intellectual property owned by a former Shell Oil employee.

In November, we published a Cease and Desist Order imposed on Royal Dutch Shell by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission concerning bribery and corruption in Nigeria. Shell agreed to pay $48 million in civil and criminal fines.

Earlier this month, courtesy of WikilLeaks, we published secret U.S. cables revealing claims by Ann Pickard, then Shell’s Regional VP for Sub Sahara Africa, that Shell had infiltrated agents into every Nigerian ministry affecting its operations in Nigeria. Bearing in mind the recent news of Shell getting further into bed with the Russian mafia (the Russian government as defined in WikiLeaks cables), President Putin will be concerned about her request for help from US intelligence in relation to Gazprom, the controlling partner in Sak2.

Shell has also been in bed with a succession of corrupt Nigerian dictators and with leaders of militant groups attacking Shell installations. The attacks’, by coincidence or otherwise, seem to occur whenever the price of oil starts to fall.

A few days ago news broke that Shell Oil General Counsel Gale Norton has escaped prosecution on corruption charges, apparently due to an absence of “conclusive evidence”. The investigation revealed that Shell benefited from “irregularities” in the way oil leases were awarded when she was Interior Secretary in the George W. Bush government, just before joining Shell. Norton was asked to answer follow-up questions from the investigators, but “never responded”. An official report also said that on two separate occasions after she had left the Interior Department, Norton “failed to fully describe her role in the leasing program to DOI ethics officials.” The smell of corruption surrounding Shell Oil and Gale Norton continues. What happened to honesty, integrity and transparency?

WE WISH ALL SHELL EMPLOYEES A HAPPY CHRISTMAS & A NEW YEAR IN WHICH WE HOPE NONE OF YOU WILL BE COMPELLED TO REAPPLY FOR YOUR OWN JOBS.

Published by Alfred and John Donovan: December 2010

Mr Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc has had advance sight of this email and therefore the opportunity to correct any inaccuracy, or seek an injunction to prevent it being circulated. The fact that you are now reading it means that Shell has not taken action to challenge the facts as stated herein.

By John Donovan

Printed below is an email my father sent to Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer at Royal Dutch Shell Plc., which was also sent to Peter Voser, Chief Executive Officer and Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary/General Counsel Corporate.

The stated subject: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets.

Knowing that my father is 93, it seems extraordinarily impolite of Mr Wiseman to not even have the courtesy to acknowledge receipt.  Shell has not taken issue with the accuracy of what was stated in the article, nor raised any copyright objections.

THE EMAIL TO ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: Alfred Donovan <alfred@shellnews.net>
Date: 3 November 2010 17:38:24 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com, John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Subject: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets

Dear Mr Wiseman

You are probably already aware of the teaser article published this morning under the headline:
Coming soon: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets

I had intended to make the actual article “Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets” available on the website on a password basis, so that only Shell could view it, but we have run into some technical glitches.

I have therefore supplied it as an attachment. It is far from ideal as the graphics are displaced, but the text is readable.

It is a draft and has yet to be proof read and have all the external links checks. We do not, however, foresee any major changes unless Shell indicates that any of the content is inaccurate or untrue.

Can you kindly let me know by Friday evening if you intend to take up the invitation in the teaser article? In that event, just let me know when we can reasonably expect a substantive response. There is no rush. If you say that you will need a couple of weeks, and then decide that more time is required, that would not be a problem.

If, after due consideration, you decide that there are copyright issues involved, please identity the items in question and the precise grounds on which copyright is being claimed. Some of the photographs are over 70 years old.

If we receive no response by Friday evening, we will assume that, as has been the case with other recent draft articles, Shell has no issues it wishes to raise and no objections to our publication plans for the content.

Once the draft is finalised, we will supply it to the Wiesenthal Centre and request a comment for publication with the article.

In a recent email to you concerning a counter-intelligence investigation by US authorities of alleged Shell industrial espionage in the USA, we mentioned our plan to contact UK and American politicians (MP’s and Senators etc). This plan was delayed pending the completion of this topic, which will now form an important part of the warning message being conveyed.

Regards
Alfred Donovan

Photograph shows Swastika flag flying at the head office of Royal Dutch Petroleum, 30 Carel van Bylandtlaan , The Hague, during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands in World War II (From Image Database Hague Municipal)

Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets: Introduction