Posts under ‘Shell Blog’

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

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.

Posting on Shell Blog on Feb 27th, 2010 at 10:19 am by “guest1″, a regular contributor.

“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 ?

The Register

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

By John Oates

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?

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

By James Herron
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

09 Feb 2010 15.28 GMT

LONDON (Dow Jones)–A database containing contact details of tens of thousands of employees of Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB) was passed to non-governmental organizations critical of the company and environmental groups that have targeted it in past protests, people familiar with the matter said Tuesday.

The database contains contact details, including mobile phone numbers and home postcodes, for every Shell employee, workers at the company’s joint ventures and some contractors. It isn’t clear if the groups will take any action with the data they received, the people told Dow Jones Newswires.

Shell wasn’t immediately able to comment.

“We are investigating and are raising this theft of information with the relevant data protection authorities…if you receive any nuisance telephone calls or emails then please contact your line manager, HR or security,” wrote Shell’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Richard Wiseman, in an internal Shell memorandum posted on the Web site of John Donovan, a blogger critical of the company.

According to emails seen by Dow Jones, the leaked data could also compromise the personal safety of Shell workers. It includes the details of employees in dangerous locations like Port Harcourt, Nigeria, where Shell workers have been kidnapped.

“Some of the information is sensitive from the security point of view and in some cases personal safety could be compromised by its publication,” Wiseman wrote in an email to Donovan, whose blog www.royaldutchshellplc.com also received a copy of the data, but has decided not to publish it.

According to another email seen by Dow Jones Newswires, the data was leaked by a group of Shell employees in the U.K., the U.S. and the Netherlands who believe the company is abusing the environment and human rights in Nigeria.

Shell has recently finished a major restructuring program during which many employees had to re-apply for their own jobs and 5,000 people were made redundant. Shell Chief Executive Peter Voser said there will be another 1,000 job cuts this year aimed at cutting costs by $1 billion and improving profitability.

-By James Herron, Dow Jones Newswires; +44 (0)20 7842 9317; james.herron@dowjones.com

James Herron
Reporter – Energy
London Bureau
Dow Jones Newswires, contributing to the Wall St Journal
Email: james.herron@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE