Shell in their sights …. Royal Dutch Shell online critics John and Alfred Donovan outside the Shell Centre in London October 2009. Photograph: Graham Turner for Guardian newspaper article

By John Donovan

An article published in the Financial Times on 12 January 2012 reported that the Blackstone Group has been using a brand protection firm MarkMonitor to quietly register “hostile web domain names in an attempt to head off online criticism…”

The domain names registered predictably include blackstonesucks.com.

MarkMonitor declined to comment or deny that Blackstone is a client, but claimed that “defensive registration” is very common with major brands.

According to MarkMonitor: “Every business needs to protect their brand online. Powerful brands are valuable assets that are particularly vulnerable in the digital world.”

The concern is over what a related article has described as “brand-bashers“.

The website hereisthecity said in another related article: “Firms that are at the center of any form of controversy or, face possible public ire, often protect themselves in this way.”

A Reuters article on the same subject contains a quote from Blackstone spokesman, Peter Rose who claims: “This is a routine defensive move to protect ourselves. Any company that is in the public eye will take similar measures.“

Unfortunately for Royal Dutch Shell, when it tried in 2005 to register the top level domain name for the merged company – Royal Dutch Shell Plc as a defensive measure – it found that its most prominent long-term online critics had beaten them to the .com registration.

In June 2006, Shell appointed a digital agency with experience in turning around corporate reputations. The headline is self-explanatory: “Shell seeks agency for online makeover“. The brief issued by Shell web communications division in The Hague, included online branding.

Despite Shell’s best efforts, Royaldutchshellplc.com has become the effective “gripe” site in the world and has genuinely cost Shell billions of dollars. Sounds like a wild claim, but it is a provable fact.

Shell unsuccessfully attempted to seize the domain name.

Our subsequent activities have been so damaging to Shell that it set up a global operation spying on our website and its own employees. This was an unsuccessful effort to stop Shell insider information from being leaked to us.

There have been numerous media articles relating to our website. A search for “royaldutchshellplc.com” on ft.com reveals a list of articles, the majority based on information about Shell leaked to us and passed to the FT.

Some articles on this subject

Blackstone turns hostile on website names

Top Firm Takes Action Against ‘Suckers’

Some related articles about our online activities…

Prospect Magazine: “Rise of the Gripe Site“

The Guardian: “92-year-old’s website leaves oil giant Shell-shocked“

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

PDF VERSION OF GUARDIAN ARTICLE

The Sunday Times: “Two men and a website mount vendetta against Shell”

By John Donovan

“France’s state energy firm EDF has been fined €1.5m by a Paris court for spying on Greenpeace.”

“The energy company’s former security chief was sentenced to three years in prison for employing a firm to hack into the energy watchdog’s computers.”

See Guardian article “EDF fined €1.5m for spying on Greenpeace” from where the above extracts are taken.

This is not the first time that energy giants have resorted to spying operations against Greenpeace.

The Sunday Times reported in 2001 that Hakluyt & Company, Ltd., a “British private intelligence agency … staffed almost entirely by ex-intelligence services staff,” hired Manfred Schlickenrieder, a German foreign intelligence operative tasked by the firm to spy on Greenpeace at the behest of oil giants BP and Shell.  (Extracts from the article “When Corporations Spy“)

Titled Shell directors were the founding major shareholders and directors of Hakluyt & Company Ltd and the supposed oversight organisation: The Hakluyt Foundation. Shell directors were the ultimate spymasters.

During this same period my father and I were the subjects of intense spying activity by Shell (and that remains the case). We caught one undercover agent red handed and cornered a Shell UK Director Richard Wiseman into admitting that the spy was working for the company.

At the time, we had no knowledge of Hakluyt and wrote to Sir Peter Holmes in his capacity as a director of Shell Transport & Trading Co complaining about Shell’s uncover spying activities, completely unaware that Sir Peter (now deceased) was a major shareholder in Hakluyt & Company Ltd and President of the Hakluyt Foundation. He did not respond.

We were in fact besieged by sinister undercover activity.

Our own home and the homes of people associated with us, including our solicitor, were all burgled and Shell documents examined, including a document that a Shell lawyer had vowed to obtain, even after the High Court refused to allow Shell access to it.

My family and our witnesses were subjected to threats and intimidation, which got so out of hand that Shell carried out an internal investigation at Shell Mex House.

It was my impression that Mr Wiseman was surprised at what he considered to be an overreaction on our part to Shell’s admitted spying activities. I can only guess that this was because such spying activity – digging for dirt – was commonplace in relation to litigation involving Shell.

As a result of his loyalty, experience and skill, Mr Wiseman was appointed as Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. He retired from the company earlier this year.

Shell spying against us has continued through recent years in an expanded form and now covers the globe in an attempt to identify Shell employees visiting our website from Shell premises and trace people supplying us with insider information. This is confirmed from Shell internal documents we obtained from Shell following a series of applications under the UK Data Protection Act. It is also confirmed from a senior source inside Shell Global Security.

As a result, we have some idea of how the growing number of victims of corporate spying feel.

BBC says Murdoch tabloid spied on Prince William in 2006

Rupert Murdoch newspaper spied on lawyers for phone hacking victims

Murdoch under fire over lawyer spying

Murdoch tabloid spied on victims’ lawyers

News Corp admits spying on hacking lawyers

The dirty history of corporate spying

)

Mark Lewis, who has represented victims of phone hacking including the family of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, was one of the lawyers targeted. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

The News of the World hired a specialist private investigator to run covert surveillance on two of the lawyers representing phone-hacking victims as part of an operation to put pressure on them to stop their work.

(Photo and extracts from Guardian article: News of the World hired investigators to spy on hacking victims’ lawyers)

By John Donovan

We have been reporting for some time about Shell skullduggery in Nigeria, including:

• Shell’s sinister commercial relationship with militant leaders carrying out attacks against Shell employees and pipelines
• arming Nigerian police spies
• embedding Shell spies throughout the Nigerian government
• engaging in massive corruption

Our sources have included Wiki-leaks, a senior manager inside Shell Nigeria and a senior member of Shell Global Security.

Some related articles reporting on Shell’s shameful track record in Nigeria:

*ROYAL DUTCH SHELL NIGERIAN CORRUPTION SCANDAL
*WIKILEAKS: SHELL EMBEDDED SPIES IN NIGERIAN GOV
*Shell embedded spies in governments of Nigeria, Dubai and Iraq
*PDF ORIGINAL ARTICLE SHELL EMBEDDED SPIES IN NIGERIA
*SHELL SETTLES CLAIM FOR MURDER & TORTURE IN NIGERIA
*SHELL COMPLICITY IN NIGERIAN MURDER OF CIVILIANS
*UNLOVEABLE SHELL, THE GODDESS OF OIL
*CLEAN-UP FOR NIGER DELTA AND SHELL’S REPUTATION
*SHELL PAYS $10 MILLION CORRUPTION FINE TO NIGERIANS
*SHELL ACCEPTS LIABILITY FOR TWO OIL SPILLS IN NIGERIA

A recent Guardian article confirmed from its own sources our long standing allegation that Shell has fuelled violence in Nigeria by paying rival militant gangs.

It is interesting in the light of this confirmation to reflect on past events.

For example, an article published by Bloomberg in November 2008 under the headline:

“Nigerian Oil Pipe Fire Extinguished, 6 Workers Died, Shell Says“

The article mentions that “Nigerian oil production rate has suffered this year from militant attacks and oil theft“, thereby implying that the fire – the cause of which was unknown – may have resulted from sabotage by militants.

If this was the case, were the militants paid by Shell, bearing in mind that militant attacks were driving up the global price of oil, fortuitously generating billions of dollars in extra revenue for Shell?

Was Shell responsible for the deaths of its own employees?

From pages 41, 42, 43 & 44 of “Royal Dutch Shell and its sustainability troubles” – Background report to the Erratum of Shell’s Annual Report 2010

The report is made on behalf of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands)
Author: Albert ten Kate: May 2011.

Interfering with politics

Improper involvement?

Oil and politics have a lot to do with each other. The home states of Royal Dutch Shell are the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. These countries might want to secure their oil/gas imports and the economic benefits of having an international oil company based within their territory. These interests might overpower ethical interests, such as the protection of human rights in countries hosting the oil company. Home states often might have the same business interest than “their” oil companies.

Oil companies may lobby their home states, so these will pay more attention to oil business possibilities. Oil companies may speak kindly of regimes that are in fact abusing human rights. Oil companies might keep their finger on the pulses of home as well as host states, in order to keep informed of the latest political developments.

One of the general policies prescribed by the OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises is that companies should abstain from any improper involvement in local political activities. The OECD does not have a clear definition of improper involvement. It states that companies might want to ask themselves whether their political activities are transparent; whether they would feel comfortable if these activities were described in detail in the media; and whether their activities are in the best interests of the host country.

In this section some examples are given of cases which could be, to some extent, seen as improper involvement in politics by Shell and/or home states and Shell working together to ensure business. Most of the examples became known through Wikileaks and through journalists/activists making use of the UK Freedom of Information Act.

1) Shell’s access to the Nigerian government

In October 2009, Shell’s Executive Vice President (EVP) for Shell Companies in Africa, Ms Ann Pickard met with the United States Ambassador to Nigeria. According to the cable from the U.S Embassy in Nigeria, the Shell EVP told the ambassador that the Government of Nigeria “had forgotten that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries.”

Following the disclosure of this cable, Shell has stated that the suggestion of infiltration by Shell in the Nigerian government is far from the truth, and that this infiltration would not be in line with Shell’s General Business Principles. According to Shell, it has a total of 11 staff seconded to the Nigerian government, mainly technical specialists. Shell stated that it is usual in the oil industry for governments and businesses to keep close contact with each other. The reasons for this would be the importance of energy for society and the fact that governments often directly or indirectly participate in oil and gas activities.

2) Shell’s access to the Dutch and UK governments

From Wikileaks it also became more clear to what extent the Dutch government and Shell are cooperating. There is an ongoing program in which a Dutch diplomat works at Shell’s headquarters in The Hague and a UK diplomat works at Shell’s London offices. For example, in summer 2008, Mr Simon Smits, Director of Economic Cooperation at the Dutch ministry for Foreign Affairs, completed a two-year secondment at Shell where he focused on government relations in the company’s hot zones. In November 2008, the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations signed an agreement with Shell to exchange senior managers. The exchange would take the form of secondment of public sector managers with Shell and vice versa. The posting would last one or two years.

After questions by parliamentarians, the Dutch ministers of Foreign Affairs and Economic Affairs stated that there is no conflict of interest related to the exchange of personnel by Shell and the Dutch government. In the oil and gas sector, more than in other sectors, the role of foreign governments and state companies is dominant. In this context, oil companies from the West rely on support from their own government to secure their position abroad. The secondment of officials of the ministry of Foreign Affairs at Shell should be seen from this perspective. According to the ministers, it could help to build knowledge and get a better understanding of the sector.

3) Shell drafts letters for the UK government to get Libya deal

In May 2005, Shell signed an agreement to start a joint venture with the Libyan National Oil Corporation. The joint venture would revamp and expand the existing liquified natural gas (LNG) Plant at Marsa el-Brega on the Libyan coast. It would also explore for gas and subsequently develop five areas totalling 20,000 square kilometres located in the heart of Libya’s Sirte Basin. Shell was committed to invest USD 637 million in the first phase of the joint venture.

Already in March 2004, Malcolm Brinded, head of exploration and production at Shell, stated: “We were in Libya in the Fifties and we were in Libya in the Eighties for an exploration programme, but for this one we came back in 2001 and so this is the culmination of discussions over that.” International sanctions on Libya were lifted in 2003 and 2004. Thus, Shell had been fishing for contracts from Gaddafi a long time before international sanctions were lifted.

In April 2010, documents obtained by the UK newspaper The Times revealed that the former UK prime minister Tony Blair lobbied Colonel Muammar Gaddafi on behalf of Shell. Shell had written a letter in draft form for Mr Blair to write to Colonel Gaddafi. In May 2005, shortly after Mr Blair’s official letter was written, Shell secured the deal.

Both letters were released after a lengthy Freedom of Information process. The Cabinet Office of the UK government would release only a part of Mr Blair’s official letter. In its draft-letter, Shell tells the Prime Minister to congratulate the Libyan leader on Revolution Day and to comment on the “remarkable year of progress for Libya”. In relation to its deal, the draft letter from Shell said: “Understand that all the terms of the agreement have now been negotiated and approved now waiting for [Libyan] Cabinet approval.” The section on Shell in Mr Blair’s official letter sounded very similar to the draft: “I understand that the necessary technical discussions with the relevant authorities in Libya have been completed satisfactorily. All that is needed now are final decisions by the [Libyan] General People’s Committee to go ahead.” Shell declined to comment to The Times. The journalist of The Times, David Robertson, later characterised Shell’s draft- letter “unusually informal or unusually forward in the way that Shell thought it would be able to dictate British foreign policy.”

In September 2009, The Times requested all communication between the UK Department for Business and the following companies: BP, BG group and Shell (all oil and gas companies), and defence company BAE Systems. A limited number were released in December 2009. One was an email from Shell to UK Trade & Investment dated September 2004 complaining of slow progress with its Libyan deal. Just months earlier Mr Blair and Colonel Gaddafi had met in a tent outside Tripoli to end Libya’s diplomatic isolation.

4) Shell and Dutch government lining up against U.S. Iran sanctions

In January 2011, Wikileaks revealed that during 2009 the Dutch government and Shell maintained the same position with regard to proposed U.S. legislation to impose sanctions on oil companies producing oil/gas in Iran or selling refined products to Iran. They thought this would give Chinese and Russian companies access to Iran’s hydrocarbon resources at the expense of U.S. and European competitors, among other Shell.Dutch parliamentarians asked the Dutch ministers of Foreign Affairs and Economic Affairs to inform them on the extent to which the Dutch foreign policy is tailored to the demands of Shell, as seemed to be the case with regard to the position on the U.S. Iran Sanctions Act. The ministers answered that the Netherlands has, within the European Union, always plead for severe sanctions against Iran. However, the Netherlands had also always opposed the extraterritorial impacts of U.S. sanctions, whenever these are stricter than EU and/or UN measures. They would always defend the business interests of Dutch companies when these could be disproportionately affected.

5) Invasion of Iraq: UK and Dutch governments understand Shell’s needs

In April 2011, it became publicly known that the exploitation of Iraq’s oil reserves was discussed by UK government ministers and oil companies during months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, in which the UK took a leading role. Late 2002, at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers, BP and Shell. The documents describing these meetings were released under the Freedom of Information Act to oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. “It was a five-year struggle to get them, but they provide evidence of what many of us suspected: that oil was at the centre of the Blair government’s thinking on Iraq,” he said.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: “Baroness Symons [then the UK Trade Minister] agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis.” After another meeting in October 2002, the Foreign Office’s Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: “Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future… We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq.”

Shell has always denied that it has actually sought discussion with the UK government. In March 2003 it stated: “We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials.”

To the UK government, Shell had always argued that there should be a “level playing field” in the event of post-war development of Iraq’s oil fields. Shell had also told the Dutch ministry of Foreign Affairs that it would welcome a lobby by the Netherlands for a “level playing field”. There was concern at Shell that certain companies would be favoured. In March 2003, the British ambassador Colin Budd told the Dutch top-official Rob Swartbol that UK prime minister Tony Blair had addressed the concerns of Shell towards U.S. president Bush.

In January 2010, the report of the independent inquiry into the Dutch decision making in 2002/2003 towards political support for the invasion of Iraq was published. The report stated that trade or oil interests didn’t seem to have been part of discussions about Iraq in the Dutch Cabinet. However, in March 2002 the former Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs Jozias van Aartsen met with the former U.S. Defence Minister Colin Powell and other people in the Pentagon. There were also discussions about a post-Saddam Iraq. Van Aartsen stated that Shell had never asked him to mediate, but that he “would have been a lousy minister whenever he would not kept those economic interests in mind.”

Both the Netherlands and the UK government were among the very few European countries that were in favour of U.S.-dominated military actions against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. In the case of Iraq, Shell doesn’t seem to have interfered with Dutch and UK politics so much. The governments seemed to be already aware of business possibilities of a post-Saddam Iraq.

Presently, Shell is already having a big role in increasing Iraq’s oil/gas output:

− December 2009, at an auction by the government, the Majnoon oil field was awarded to a consortium of Shell (45%), the Malaysian Petronas (30%) and Iraq’s state-owned Missan Oil Company (25%). The proven reserve of the Majnoon field is a whopping 12.6 billion barrels. The deal intends a 20-year service and development of the field. The project will require tens of billions of dollars over the 20-year period. Shell and Petronas will pay the investment, and after they have their money back they will receive USD 1.39 per barrel. The consortium aims to increase production from 45,000 barrels to 1.8 million barrels of oil per day within seven years. Production from Majnoon involves the continuous flaring of natural gas produced with the oil. The flaring is expected to rise as production increases.

− November 2009, a consortium grouping ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell plc (15% share) won the right to develop the 8.6 billion barrel West Qurna Stage 1 field. Under the terms of the 20-year contract, the two companies aim to increase output from the current 280,000 barrels per day to 2.1 million barrels per day in seven years. The companies will receive USD 1.9 for every barrel they produce.

− In September 2008, Shell signed a Heads of Agreement (HoA) with the Iraqi Ministry of Oil that sets out the commercial principles to establish a joint venture between Shell and the South Gas Company. Iraq’s South Gas Company would be the 51% majority shareholder in the joint venture, with Shell holding 44% and Mitsubishi Corporation holding 5%. The joint venture would gather, treat and process raw gas produced from three fields within Basra and sell the processed natural gas (and associated products, such as condensate and LPG) for use in the domestic and export markets. As of March 2011, contract terms are still subject to ongoing discussions with the Iraqi government. Iraq’s deal with Shell and Mitsubishi will cover the following oil fields: Rumaila (being developed by BP and CNPC); Zubair (being worked on by ENI, Occidental and KOGAS); West Qurna (stage 1 in the hands of Exxon and Shell, stage 2 in the hand of Lukoil and Statoil). Wikileaks revealed that at a Iraq petroleum conference, held late 2008, participants expressed nearly unanimous concern about the HoA on southern gas between Iraq and Shell. Though the Iraqis present were content with the joint venture arrangement, others cited problems including a lack of transparency; the fact that HoA precludes Iraq from talking to other international oil companies about gas in the coming year, thereby creating a monopoly; the HoA’s review of export options when domestic concerns were a priority; and the fact that the HoA dictates that the joint venture must sell Iraqi gas domestically at international market rates. By the end of March 2011, Iraq and Shell were still discussing an obstacle about handling exports, so the USD 12 billion joint-venture deal is still not signed.

THE COMPLETE 73 PAGE REPORT (with reference sources)

Activists campaigning against Shell’s plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean may be concerned at this development.

18 September 2011

By John Donovan

Hakluyt, the London corporate intelligence firm, which has been closely associated with Royal Dutch Shell, has recently opened a bureau in New York.

Titled Shell directors have been major shareholders in Haklut & Company Limited and were at one time the ultimate spymasters heading the company and an associated oversight foundation.

Ian Forbes McCredie OBE, the former/current MI6 senior official, who until December 2010 headed up Shell Corporate Security, has recently returned to the Hakluyt/MI6 spy nest.

Shell has used Hakluyt to carry out sinister undercover operations against its perceived enemies, including Greenpeace and Body Shop.

A Hakluyt operative, a serving German secret service agent working on a freelance basis, also carried out an elaborate operation in Nigeria directed against friends of Ken Saro-Wiwa, the activist leader hanged by the corrupt Nigerian regime armed by Shell.

SHELL CONNECTION WITH HAKLUYT & COMPANY LIMITED – THE EVIDENCE

Activists campaigning against Shell’s plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean may be concerned at this development. Shell has used a private security firm to intimidate activists campaigning against the Corrib Gas Project in Ireland.

Shell has a track record of being involved in corporate espionage in the USA.

On 12 September 2001, under the headline: “No Secret’s Safe From These Sharp Eyes”, The New York Times published an article focused on corporate “cloak-and-dagger escapades”. Mr Stephen J. Wade, an executive of Shell International Exploration and Production, a Royal Dutch/Shell Group business, was revealed as being a “competitive intelligence analyst — management-speak for corporate America’s equivalent of a spy”. The report said that Mr. Wade “uses every trick in the book” and “may even dish out erroneous information…” Mr Wade was quoted as commenting: It isn’t James Bond. The article went on to say: “Still, like any good spy, Mr. Wade declined to give detailed examples of information gleaned this way”. It also pointed out that corporate spying “sometimes skirts ethical bounds”.

In October 2010, we broke the story: “U.S. Dept. of Defense Confirms NCIS Espionage Investigation of Shell.”

We have also reported that Shell has infiltrated agents into host governments and for good measure is also spying globally on its own employees.

Nigeria’s then acting President Goodluck Jonathan with President Obama in 2010

By KORNEBARI NWIKE

8/28/2011

President Goodluck Jonathan constituted a special committee on oil pollution in Ogoniland recently, according to him; to perform a “holistic review of the UNEP report.” The committee is chaired by Mrs. Diezani Allison-Madueke, Minister of Petroleum Resources and former Shell Oil Company employee. The committee also has Mr. Austen Oniwon, Group Managing Director of Nigeria National Petroleum Company (NNPC) as a member. Technically, this committee is a consortium of oil conglomerate. NNPC and Shell Oil Company are partners in the operation of oil business in Nigeria. A child of circumstance, the ad hoc committee was born as an aftermath of the recent shocking revelation in the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) report that almost all the Ogoni environment is contaminated by oil pollutants.

Public policy analysts expected the Nigerian Senate to invite Shell Oil Company and NNPC executives for questioning in respect to their firm’s role in the environmental tragedy in Ogoniland; instead the firm’s representatives were invited as part of the government talk shop. With this initial flaw and ethical conflict of interest, one wonders how government works in Nigeria. The presence of these two oil giants on the committee is like the presence of two eight hundred pound gorillas that kill and suddenly empowered to decide what to do with the corpses. The presence of this duo on such a committee is testament to the fact that Nigeria has long ago lost her independence to corporate multi-national oil corporations. Will the committee give a fair assessment of the UNEP report? It is yet to be determined.

Although Ogonis are very patient people, it can be felt that their patience is running thin and limited time exists to kid glove with Shell Oil Company over the contamination on their land. The Ogoni people has cause to be angry because they have stomached so much from Shell even before the era of General Abacha. In whatever the Federal government may consider as compensation to the Ogoni people for plundering their environment; such consideration should be comprehensive to include demands in the Ogoni Bill of Rights (OBR), creation of Bori state, and a Trust foundation. On the other hand, MOSOP should be ready to play hardball because Shell Oil crimes against Ogoni must not be swept under the carpet. The case may eventually end-up in international court of adjudication. It is necessary that MOSOP retain the services of reputable international real estate and environmental law firms such as Slagle, Bernard, and Gorman or Wyrsch Hobbs and Mirakian, P.C. in preparation for the coming environmental and social justice that may follow.

If Alaskan residents in the United States can enjoy yearly dividends from oil through the Alaska permanent fund; if Germans slave laborers continue to receive payments through a foundation established with $5 billion by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 2000; and if British Petroleum was able to sacrifice $20 billion as a result of the deepwater horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, then Ogonis should not succumb to crumbs. The $5 billion settlement of Adolf Hitler’s slave laborers by the German government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 2000 was intensely negotiated by representatives of United States, Israel, four European countries and their lawyers. While German government transferred $2.5 billion to the foundation the other half was borne by companies that were involved. The augment is that the Ogoni people should be ready for negotiation when duty calls with reputable attorneys.

As part of his Oath of office, President Goodluck Jonathan swore to defend Nigerians and the constitution in case of aggression. Shell Oil Company has shown aggression toward Ogoni as presented in the UNEP report. Mr. President, this is an opportunity to show leadership more so as an indigene of the Niger Delta.  He should seek justice for the Ogoni people by directing the Ministry of Justice to commence felony proceedings against Shell Oil Company. Grounds for criminal suits are environmental degradation, ecological poisoning and oil spills, neglect, deception about oil reserves, murder and supply of arms to the Nigerian military.

Other grounds for criminal indictment can be found in the Shell report titled “SPDC in the Niger Delta 1996/97. The firm admitted arming Nigeria’s military against Ogoni. Secondly, for 55 years, Ogoni people have seen terrifying new twist in their lives and environment. The fish, birds, and animals in the wild are disappearing because of oil exploration, gas flaring, and spills. The trees, fruits, flowers, and grasses, etc.that gave Ogoniland a unique landscape and from which the region earned the accolade “food basket of south- eastern Nigeria” have unfortunately disappeared. Sadly, birds that orchestrate melodious songs that bring Ogonis closer to nature have migrated to Northern and Western Nigeria where there is no oil pollution. The rich savannah mangrove forests habitats for seafood and aquatic creatures are either dead, replaced by Nipa palm, or are submerged in crude oil.

Nigerians and the world should rally around Ogoni at this time of sadness as they mourn the extinction of their heritage. Together let us seek recompense and justice for Ogoni. The demand for justice should include a seat behind bars for Shell oil executives as long as it takes to clean the Ogoni environment. This is necessary because no nation on earth has ever been manipulated, cheated and duped by oil firms like Nigeria. Shell Oil Company manipulates Nigerian laws, lies to Nigerian governments, and commits atrocities against Nigerians for five decades and counting and no crime supersede these acts of aggression.

A felony charge is unavoidable considering that Shell Oil Company has world class engineers, operational, technical, and administrative crews that has full knowledge of the presence of benzene and other pollutants in Ogoniland but conceal and fail to disclose this information to the government as required by law. According to research, benzene is a class A carcinogenic chemical whose link was traced to leukemia in 1897. It is predominantly found in the petroleum industry as well as cigarette smoke. The impact include ailments, such as “fatigue, malaise, abdominal bleeding, excessive bruising, weakness, weight loss, bone or joint pain, infection and fever, abdominal pains and discomfort, enlarged spleen, lymph nodes, and liver.” The precarious health hazards these chemicals pose to the Ogoni people make some walking corpses and the result is that they are dying slowly. Shell oil would rather play games by engaging in cover-ups, deceptions, corrupting locales, states, and federal officials to protect her business to the detriment of the generality of the population, than keeping to the tenet of Nigerian laws.

President Jonathan should demonstrate that he could lead Nigeria by engaging the United Nations, United States, Britain, and others to assist Ogoni through technical expertise and funds to address the tragedy. His comment, “if the United Nations can intervene in places where there are civil wars, then environmental pollution calls for its attention” should be echoed beyond Aso rock. He should go above and beyond, should not retreat but join forces with Niger deltans and Ogoni to champion their cause. Record of World leaders who sided with citizens to synchronize matters exists and he should be remembered as one. For instance, in 2005 former President Nestor Korchner of Argentina called for a national boycott of Royal Dutch Shell Plc for raising fuel prices forcing the company to back down. In Nigeria late President Musa Yar-Adua took extra-ordinary steps by telling Shell Oil Company, that it was no longer wanted in Ogoniland.

Mr. President, procrastination could result in a mass health epidemic but decisive and bold initiatives could overturn a catastrophe in Ogoni and the Niger delta. History will judge your legacy as a Nigerian president of Southern extraction by the vigor and decisive steps you took to solving the Ogoni environmental dilemma. The UNEP environmental report has provided a window of opportunity for you to set a record for yourself and Nigeria.

In summary, as the world awaits the report from the special presidential committee, President Godluck Ebele Jonathan should slam a criminal lawsuit against Shell Oil Company, establish compensation funds for Ogoni, push through Ogoni demand for Bori State, begin immediate clean-up of Ogoniland as recommended by UNEP, abrogate decree No. 6 of 1978 otherwise known as Land Use Acts, and Petroleum Acts of 1969 (both of which drove Nigeria into the fox hole she finds herself today). These acts should be done in harmony with the establishment of Ogoni Restoration Authority, Integrated Contaminated Soil Management Center, and Center of Excellence in Environmental Restoration as recommended by UNEP. The world is ready to rally around Nigeria but compelling leadership is desired.

KorneBari Nwike: An Accountant, consultant, and Public Policy Analyst reside in the United States.

Comment added by John Donovan

We now know from Wikileaks that Royal Dutch Shell executive Ann Pickard boasted to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria that Shell had embedded spies throughout the Nigerian government. How on earth can Nigeria trust such a duplicitous evil company?

By John Donovan

SHELL NORTH SEA OIL SPILL DEBACLE

In June 2006, The Guardian published an article by Terry Macalister  under the headline “Shell accused over oil rig safety“.

It reported on criticisms leveled at the oil giant by its former HSE Group Auditor Bill Campbell (right) “who worked directly for Shell for 24 years, says he brought his concerns to the attention of directors as far back as 1999 – and again in 2004 – but still feels safety is compromised.”

Mr Campbell was asked by Shell to lead an expert team carrying out a review of Shell’s North Sea platforms in 1999. His subsequent report included allegations of falsification of maintenance records for safety critical equipment, non-compliance with routine maintenance and bodged repairs.

According to The Guardian article:

Shell offshore workers used an acronym TFA – Touch Fuck All – to describe among themselves the need not to meddle with equipment but keep things working. The report by Mr Campbell’s team concluded: “Directives such as TFA encourages a behaviour of non-compliance – the Brent TFA acronym is a potential reputation liability.

In this regard, it is notable how in the flood of articles about the Gannet Alpha oil spill and Shell North Sea Platforms, some mention antiquated infrastructure and “metal fatigue.” The leaking pipeline is said to be some 30 years old.

Bill Campbell was so concerned at what his audit team discovered and the subsequent lack of an adequet response from Shell senior management, that on 24 July 2007 he sent a chilling warning email to every UK MP:

Subject: “This could be the most important whistleblower email you have ever received.”

Some unfortunate Royal Dutch Shell workers have already lost their lives. More lives are at stake.

My name is Bill Campbell. I am a former Group Auditor of Shell International. I am writing to you on a matter of conscience in an effort to avert the inevitability of another major accident in the North Sea. The consequences could potentially impact on families in many constituencies, including your own.

As Royal Dutch Shell and the Health & Safety Executive would acknowledge, I am an expert on safety matters relating to offshore oil and gas platforms. In 1999, I was appointed by Shell to lead a safety audit on the Brent Bravo platform. The audit revealed a platform management culture that basically gave a higher priority to production than the safety of Shell employees. To our astonishment we discovered that a “Touch F*** All” policy was in place. Worse still, safety records were routinely falsified and repairs bodged.

I personally brought the shocking situation to the attention of senior management including Malcolm Brinded, the then Managing Director of Shell Exploration & Production. I revealed that ESDV leak-off tests were purposely falsified, not once but many times and that Brent Bravo platform management had admitted responsibility for the dangerous practices being followed. In response to my team ringing alarm bells, management pledged to rectify the serious problems which had been uncovered.

When I later complained that the pledges were not being kept, I was removed from my oversight function.

Four years later, a massive gas leak occurred on the platform. Two workers lost their lives. I have no doubt at all that the inaction of the relevant Asset Manager, the General Manager, the Oil Director and Malcolm Brinded, contributed in some part to the unlawful killing of two persons on Brent Bravo in September 2003.

Shell subsequently pleaded guilty to breaches of the HSE regulations and a record-breaking £900,000 fine was imposed. I thought this would bring about a real change in policy to put the emphasis on safety.

Unfortunately I was wrong. Although I supplied the evidence related to 1999, and the fact that there had been a collapse in controls of integrity from 1999 to 2003 on all 16 of Shell’s North Sea offshore installations covered in a post fatality integrity review to the HSE for review by the Procurator Fiscal, none of this evidence was presented before the Sheriff at the subsequent Inquiry. The situation is explained in a letter to the Procurator Fiscal and the Sheriff (on 24th February 2007).

Shell management has engaged in spin to try to pretend that it is getting to grips with its safety problem. However, its atrocious safety record – the worst in the North Sea in terms of accidental deaths and absolute number of enforcement actions – tells a different story. This fact has resulted in a number of newspaper articles.

I have had meetings with senior Shell people including its CEO Mr. Jeroen van der Veer. I regret to say that I have found him to be economical with the truth. He prefers to support cover-up and deceit rather than confronting the underlying problems. Brinded is now Executive Director of Shell Exploration & Production. He believes in burying evidence.

My family and friends would probably prefer me to give up on this matter and enjoy my retirement after so many years working for Shell.

However, by writing to every MP in the UK, no one can ever say that I did not do my best to avert an inevitable further major accident event in the North Sea. When it happens (I pray that I am wrong) I will make this warning communication available to the media together with the vast amount of evidence in my possession.

At least my conscience is clear. I have done everything possible to ring the alarm bells about Shell management and its unscrupulous attitude to the safety of its employees.

Yours sincerely

Bill Campbell

ENDS

Mr Campbell has been proven right to a large degree by subsequent events, including enforcement notices served on Shell by the UK Health & Safety Executive and Shell currently being forced to make one admission after another as a result of the uncontrolled oil spill. This is after Shell CEO Peter Voser took a hypocritical cheap shot at BP over the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

Shell was so concerned by the fact that Mr Campbell approached me on the matter that its lawyers wrote to Mr Campbell’s solicitors warning about contact with me. Shell also set up a crisis reaction team to combat our campaigning activities, closed down this website and instigated a global cyber spying operation in an attempt to prevent information reaching me from Shell whistleblowers.

What a shame that it did not instead concentrate on rectifying the horrendous problems uncovered by Bill Campbell and his team in relation to the management, maintenance and safety of Shell North Sea Platforms?

Mr Campbell also accused Shell of a massive cover-up.

In this connection, it is interesting to note some of the current headlines:

Don’t hide facts about oil leak: The Herald

Shell Under Fire Over Silent Tactics: Spiegel Online

Shell Withholds Information On North Sea Oil Spill: UK Progressive Magazine

These events will at least hopefully also ring alarm bells loud and clear with US authorities who have foolishly decided to place their trust in Shell to drill in the Arctic Ocean of Alaska.

If Shell cannot deal openly and competently with a relatively small spill in the North Sea, how can it be trusted to deal with the potential of a major spill in much more difficult conditions?

Ironically, I have just received the following invitation from Shell:

REGISTER HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION

From pages 12, 13, 14 & 15 of “Royal Dutch Shell and its sustainability troubles” – Background report to the Erratum of Shell’s Annual Report 2010

The report is made on behalf of Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands)
Author: Albert ten Kate: May 2011.

SHELL IN NIGERIA

Shell assesses its contribution to conflict

With regard to conflict in the Niger Delta, Shell often profiles itself as one of the main victims. In July 2009, the company wrote: “We hope people recognise that the employees and contractor staff of [SPDC]…have to carry out their work against a backdrop of crime, violence, threats of kidnap and community actions.” Indeed, the Niger Delta is an extremely difficult environment for any company to operate.

However, one could also assess how Shell’s activities might contribute to conflict. In 2002 and 2003, Shell commissioned such research. The resulting report, released in December 2003, was written by three external conflict resolution experts. The insights in the report drew “heavily on the experiences of more than 200 individuals consulted during its preparation.” Shell had declined to publish the independent report, but it was leaked in June 2004. The report states that “after operating in the Niger Delta for over 50 years, SCIN [Shell company in Nigeria] is an integral part of the regional conflict environment (….) and the manner in which the SCIN operates and its staff behave creates, feeds into, or exacerbates conflict.”

Examples of fuelling conflict

The report listed several examples of how oil companies fuel underlying factors causing conflict in the Niger Delta:

− The role of the oil companies in fuelling corruption is significant. Numerous examples can be found in how companies seek to maintain their license to operate through short-term cash payments, giving in to monetary demands following facility closures, exorbitant homage payments, use of ghost workers, surveillance contract implementation, contracting procedures, employment processes, and kick-back schemes in community development projects.

− The role of the oil companies in fuelling perceived or actual discrimination is largely related to unclear communications, poor transparency, the non-fulfilment of obligations, as well as corporate arrogance.

− The role of the oil companies in fuelling inequitable distribution of revenue and infrastructure is largely related to the non-fulfilment of obligations.

− The role of the oil companies in fuelling social disintegration largely comprises the design of the benefit distribution process that allows groups to fight over access to cash, jobs, contracts and power.

− It is important to note that accusations abound of “divide and rule” tactics and an active role of oil company officials in fuelling specific communal conflicts. Whereas this is likely to be the case where individuals or small groups of oil company staff are engaged in criminal activities, there is no evidence to suggest a company-wide “conspiracy” or manipulation of conflicts in the Niger Delta.

− The role of the oil companies in fuelling crime and criminal cartels is largely related to corruption in the contracting process and the payment of ransoms that make crime lucrative.

− Beyond the impact of the oil industry on the economy (“Dutch disease”) oil companies do not directly fuel youth unemployment. However, the interaction between companies and youth groups who control employment at a community level is important. Contracts that routinely contain inflated and imaginary elements, excessive numbers of workers and payment, kick- backs, etc. serves to corrupt youth.

The report was published in 2003, and it was meant to assess how SCIN can contribute to conflict resolution and sustainable peace in the Niger Delta. For this report, due to lack of available information it is not examined to what extent Shell has altered the practices described above presently.

Co-opting militants

In 2006, it became clear that some of the militant leaders linked to the attacks on oil facilities in the Niger Delta earn tens of thousands of dollars from contracts with Shell. Leaders of the Federated Niger Delta Ijaw Communities (FNDIC), involved with violent activities in Delta State in 2003, later ran contracting companies working with the oil majors. The payments included “incident free” bonuses. Officials told the Financial Times that subcontracting work to local strongmen is one method some oil companies have used to buy off militants threatening attacks on oil facilities in the Delta. In September 2008, the Shell Executive Vice President (EVP) for Shell Companies in Africa, Ms. Ann Pickard, said that Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi lacked the connections among Rivers State militant leaders to successfully co-opt them as the governors in Delta and Bayelsa states have done with militants in their states. Co-opting militants seems to be one of the tactics to (temporary) reduce conflict. However, it can also be seen as a measure that serves conflict and corruption.

Corruption

On paper, Shell’s stance against corruption is clear. Its Code of Conduct gives employees detailed instructions on the behaviour Shell’s Business Principles require. With regard to bribery and corruption the Code of Conduct contains the following principles:

− Never offer, pay, make, seek or accept a personal payment, gift or favour in return for favourable treatment, to influence a business outcome or to gain any business advantage.

− Ensure people you work with understand bribery and corruption is unacceptable.

− Tell Shell if you suspect or know of corruption in Shell or in any party (company or individual) Shell does business with.

Relevant staff must undergo specific training in areas such as combating bribery and corruption. Shell’s global helpline and supporting website allow staff and business partners to report concerns confidentially. In 2009, 165 violations of the Code of Conduct were reported (204 in 2008). As a result, Shell stated that it has ended its relationships with 126 staff and contractors (138 in 2008).

Corruption is rife in the Niger Delta. On 27 January 2009, Shell’s regional executive vice president for Africa, Ann Pickard, met with the U.S. ambassador in Nigeria in Abuja, Nigeria. During the meeting, she stated that corruption in the Nigerian oil sector was worsening by the day. Pickard said that Nigerian entities control the lifting of many oil cargoes and there are some “very interesting” people lifting oil (People, she said that were not even in the industry). As an example she said that oil buyers would pay Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) General Managing Director Yar’Adua, (Note: not related to President Yar’Adua. End Note), Chief Economic Advisor Yakubu, and the First Lady Turai Yar’Adua large bribes, millions of dollars per tanker, to lift oil. Pickard also said that a former associate of hers had told her that he had been present when Attorney General Aondoakaa had told a visitor that he would sign a document only if the visitor paid USD 2 million immediately and another USD 18 million the next day.

Shell fined USD 58 million

The extent of Shell’s involvement and practices with regard to corruption in the Niger Delta is not known. Late 2010, Shell paid a total of USD 58 million to U.S. and Nigerian authorities to head off the threat of legal action for corruption. SNEPCO, a 100% Nigerian subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, had paid approximately USD 2 million in the period 2004-2006 to its subcontractors with the knowledge that some or all of the money would be paid as bribes to Nigerian customs officials to import materials and equipment into Nigeria in relation to the offshore Bonga project. SNEPCO and the U.S. based Shell International Exploration and Production Inc. employees were aware that as a result of the payment of the bribes, official Nigerian duties, taxes, and penalties were not paid when the items were imported.

In November 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that Shell had agreed to pay USD 48 million to settle investigations on violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The Deferred Prosecution Agreement Shell signed with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) still requires Shell to report to the DOJ, promptly, any credible evidence of questionable or corrupt payments. Separately, Shell also agreed to pay

USD 10 million to the Nigerian authorities.

Shell started an internal research in 2007, and found that a small number of its employees knew or should have known of the incorrect payments. These employees have been subject to disciplinary sanctions or were fired, according to the company.

The Ibori case

In November 2007, it became publicly known that the UK Metropolitan police was investigating alleged money laundering by James Ibori, a former governor who ran the oil-rich Delta state until May 2007. According to a witness statement, the former governor had used banks in Britain to stash GBP 20 million in stolen funds during 2005-06. Since 2005 funds from Nigeria, intended for education and engineering projects, “[were] allegedly stolen by James Ibori [and] have been laundered through the UK banking system”. Over three years, Shell, Chevron and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company paid GBP 3.6 million into a Barclays account controlled by Ibori for renting out houseboats to foreign employees. Nuhu Ribadu, chairman of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which worked closely with the British investigators, told the Financial Times that he was “investigating huge payments made by Shell and Chevron to MER Engineering” over the hiring of the houseboats. Shell admitted that MER was on its register of approved contractors. It declined to elaborate on the amount and type of work done by MER.

A leaked report from the Nigerian Army Intelligence Corps, dated November 2007, linked James Ibori also to thousands of arms stolen from governmental storage depots for onward transfer to Niger Delta militants from the year 2000 to 2007.

Mr. Ibori had close ties to Umaru Yar’Adua, the former president of Nigeria. Mr. Yar’Adua sacked Nuhu Ribadu, the head of the EFCC, after 170 charges were brought against Mr. Ibori. In a very questionable Nigerian court case, in December 2009, a judge dismissed all cases. A Wikileaks cable sent from the UK embassy in London in May 2009 stated that Attorney General Aondoakaa had directly told the UK that the Nigerian Government would not begin negotiations on a prisoners transfer agreement, unless the UK would drop its case against James Ibori and his associates.

Mr. Ibori denies all charges against him. He was arrested in Dubai in May 2010 after the intervention of the global police agency Interpol. Dubai’s highest court ruled in December 2010 that he could be extradited to Britain to face corruption charges. Mr. Ibori’s sister and his alleged mistress are already convicted of money laundering and sentenced to five years in UK prison in June 2010. Mr. Ibori’s wife and his UK lawyer face similar charges.

Further extracts from this section of the report will be published in the coming days.

THE COMPLETE 73 PAGE REPORT (with reference sources)

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH SHELL CONCLUDING ON 16 JUNE 2011

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

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

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

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

I stated:

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

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

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

There was still no response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I did not need to supply them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr Donovan,

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

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

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

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

Best Regards,
Michiel Brandjes
Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate
Royal Dutch Shell plc

Registered office: Shell Centre London SE1 7NA UK
Place of registration and number: England 4366849
Correspondence address: PO Box 162, 2501 AN  The Hague,
The Netherlands

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

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

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

Equally unforeseen, a CAS spook involved in the investigation of leaks to our website, has subsequently leaked information directly to us, including top secret Shell internal intel documents, one of which, we have already published.