Posts under ‘ShellNews.net’

From a Shell Insider: “…Malcolm Brinded is certainly lying when he states that he did not know”: Mon 20 Feb 2006 04:27 AM EST

Mr Donovan

After reading some contributions to your site of insiders it made me decide to share something with you and your readers. Perhaps you see it fit to publish, I have no other avenue to vent my frustration and very deep anger.

Of late the networks have highlighted the treatment of prisoners by Americans in their prisons for presumed terrorists. At least to me it has become very clear that there has been a fundamental flaw in the command structure of the armed forces. And I am cynical enough to believe this flaw was designed and knowingly created by the ‘brass’ and top politicians.

They first brainwashed the soldiers (mostly non professionals and reservists who only joined the army to have medical insurance and get an education) via direct messages and via the various media that are under their control to prepare them psychologically to commit acts that most of them would never dream of doing in a normal life, whether or not these acts comply with the Geneva Convention. I am a mere engineer and not a psychologist so I am out of my depth here. But I am convinced that if you repeat messages time and again that your enemies are all evil terrorists, people will start to believe this, especially if they are in an elevated state of stress such as a war in Iraq. Next the brass (from the president down) says that no stone must be left unturned to get the truth out of the prisoners to defend the nation of good citizens and god fearing Americans, and the foundation is laid to get excesses. To top it off you put reserve personnel in charge of these prisons and interrogation and on purpose do not arrange for extra controls to check how things go, and you have disasters in the making.

Praise the interrogators if they come up with some ‘confessions’ beaten out of prisoners, real or simply made up, remove anyone that wants to say that this is wrong, and the result is very easy to predict. No instructions to do bad things will be on paper so the brass can always blame the little guys at the coalface. They overstepped and need to be punished. And you hand out severe prison sentences to simple soldiers who thought they were merely following orders. I guess this happens in all wars and if you quickly score a victory, it can all be covered up many years, enough to erase the tracks of the real culprits. The winner takes all and is right!

However, in this era of digital cameras and internet, there are fewer secrets. Images can be circulated globally and instantly. And then there is real trouble and on a global scale. It is totally beyond me that the advisors to the president and top brass did not see this coming. I leave that to psychologists to analyze and explain.

Why this long story and what does it have to do with Shell?

The whole reserves problem as well as the extremely poor project management that Shell is experiencing the last few years is almost a carbon copy of what happened to the armed forces. Great changes, such as the large reorganisation started by Herkstroeter in 1994, created great stress in the workforce. These changes were considered unnecessary by Bob Sprague, one of the cleverest people who ever worked for Shell. But initially this was still fairly positive stress and it led to a feeling of freedom and desire to conquer and improve the world. Remember, at that time we were the biggest and the best oil company and had been since the mid 70s! So there was still a lot of latent know-how and professionalism around, which the company cannibalised in creating a ‘new Shell’ with ‘self managing teams’, ‘Olympic targets’, ‘unleashing talent’ and other trendy nonsense. It even led to record profits in one year, I believe it was 1997.

But by then the company was getting (with the explicit knowledge of the top brass) into the hands of people who were only motivated by personal rewards, and who smelled their chance. None of that ‘Enterprise First’ stuff. It was ‘Me first’ and all the snouts were in the trough and nobody wanted to take their snout out of the trough. Anyone complaining or making remarks that things were not right was publicly destroyed and removed. And those with their snouts in the trough started to make promises and ever more ridiculous demands. When Watts came to power (he actually stole that job at the time with his gorilla talk and behaviour) the pigs were truly feeding. Explicit instructions to cook the books or ‘err on the high side’ were hardly given in written form or were at least well disguised. It was said and whispered in meetings, conferences and workshops and personal discussions during the annual staff evaluation time. There were clear instructions to aim for the impossible with those stretched targets and anyone who said he could go even further or higher was handsomely rewarded with promotions or fat bonuses.

Brinded was a real champion of this, he was #2 and later MD in Shell Expro and I believe they missed their business targets for 7 years in a row under his reign!

So, the foundation was laid and Watts started his circus with new and bigger promises every year. And then it became unsustainable and the truth came out. We have internet, everyone knows what has happened and why it happened.

But to prove that in a court of law will be very difficult. And with the vast profits created by high oil prices, the top brass can buy all the time they need and hire the most expensive lawyers to keep them out of prison. All paid for with the shareholders’ money.

To illustrate how difficult it will be to prove, consider the following story. I recently confronted a colleague who works on the Sakhalin project and told him that I had known that the project would be severely over budget in early May 2005. The word was out and a figure of $15.5 billion was being suggested by project managers from Sakhalin. How come, I asked him, that Malcolm Brinded and Jeroen van der Veer claim they did not know? The answer was very simple: Brinded was told there were severe problems and his response was: ‘give me a report as soon as you have the exact details and know precisely how much and what’. This led to a further delay and a week after the deal with Gazprom was announced, out came the surprise statement of the $20 billion and enormous time overrun. But there are probably no documents showing that Malcolm Brinded and Jeroen van der Veer knew. They are genuinely clever people. But in my simple world, the boss should know how his most expensive project is progressing, even if it is not exact all the time. So, Malcolm Brinded is certainly lying when he states that he did not know. He means he had no formal report.

And Jeroen van der Veer should step down because he either knew and lied or he did not know and that is just as bad for someone in his position.

I apologise for this longish note but it helped to reduce my anger. I hope others will follow and you will publish this on your great site. I think the top echelons in Shell by now know there are no secrets anymore.

RELATED ARTICLES

Offshore workers died as a result of a “Touch F*** All” safety regime at Shell, 25 Jul 2007

Royal Dutch Shell Fat Cat Malcolm Brinded: Big Brain but no scruples

“I also have doubts about the wisdom of allying yourself so closely and obviously to the Donovans, who seem to have raised Shell-baiting to such a level of vituperation (cleverly mixed with plenty of apparent balance and reasonableness) that it is difficult to see how either side can compromise without losing an unacceptable amount of face (Shell) or a rich and ongoing stream of damages (the Donovans).”

Richard

INTERESTING POSTINGS ON THE “TELL SHELL” INTERNET DISCUSSION FORUM FOR UNCENSORED, OPEN AND LIVELY DEBATE (BEFORE IT WAS FIRST SECRETLY CENSORED BY SHELL LAWYERS AND THEN CLOSED DOWN BY SHELL). POSTINGS MADE IN OCT 2005

Posted By Dr. John Huong (right) nickname: “none”: Subject:  Wakey Wakey on Freedom of Expression under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (United Nations): 01/10/2005 14:53:23

Wow, I’ve just read the posting below about the 2005 Accountability Rating – the article by Alfred Donovan- the owner of the worlds self proclaimed ultimate gripe site, ShellNews.net. I am baffled why Shell allows him to comprehensively tear Shell management to pieces on countless postings all over the Internet, including Shell’s own website – while I am not allowed the freedom to make criticism of Shell, my former employer of 29 years.

There has not been a peep from the Shell webmaster on this or any other issue for some time as fellow contributors have noticed. We seem to be on our own here guys!

For anyone who doesn’t know, it is a matter of public record that I am currently the subject of a High Court Injunction and a Restraining Order obtained collectively against me by eight Royal Dutch Shell Companies. As far as I know, I am the only person on the entire planet whose freedom of expression is being curtailed by a multinational goliath. It ís a strange feeling. I suppose that I should count myself lucky that unlike the Rossport Five, I was not imprisoned. I am not criticising Shell for having Irish citizens jailed but merely pointing out the fact that they put in jail for three months. I am regretfully not in a position to express my comments about Shell one way or the other (although I would love to do so) though I trust that it is in order for me to congratulate the Rossport Five on their release from prison.

I have read on ShellNews.net that the Rossport Five may have a case against Shell for wrongful imprisonment. Now that Shell has reversed course in respect of the Rossport Five, it might wish to withdraw its legal action against me, in which event I too would seek legal advice about the question of appropriate redress, as part of any resolution of Shell’s action against me.

Returning to the question of my freedom of speech on the Internet, why is it that Mr Donovan is astonishingly candid and damaging commentary about Royal Dutch Shell is allowed by Shell lawyers? I have a copy of the legal statement made by Shell International Petroleum Company Limited in May 2005 recognising HIS rights to say anything he likes about Shell on his website. This just happens to be the same website where the posting of articles under my name led to Shell commencing proceedings against me. As indicated, for some unknown reason I do not enjoy the same basic human rights as Mr Donovan.

Does he get special treatment because of his age (88), race, nationality, or perhaps because he is a Shell shareholder? I am baffled. Is it proper that his rights are deemed to be different and superior to mine? I am not criticising the fact that I am being penalised because it would be dangerous for me to say anything about Shell – merely trying to fathom out why I have been singled out. There must be some valid reason which has not occurred to me although I cannot imagine what it could be.

Perhaps the hibernating Tell Shell webmaster will enlighten me on this matter? Wakey Wakey!!!

Or does anyone else have any suggestions????????

Posted By Richard: Re: posting by none: 02/10/2005 10:24:41

none, (or should I call you John?),

You say:

“Perhaps the hibernating Tell Shell webmaster will enlighten me on this matter? Wakey Wakey!!!

Or does anyone else have any suggestions????????”

I think that many will empathise with your Wakey Wakey message. It is quite frankly embarrassing that the webmaster has failed of late to respond to any postings. Failure to respond to postings which are illiterate or offensive is understandable, but there are plenty of recent postings which made valid points which should have drawn a response even if only “working, reverting”. Perhaps when and if Shell confirms the appointment of its new outside PR adviser we will get some response, though it may well be that the corporate attitude is: “Lie low and say nothing; they’ll soon get bored”. (I hope we don’t).

With regard to your request for suggestions, my advice would be that it would be in everyone’s interest to seek an amicable resolution of your differences with Shell informally and outside a public forum. Regardless of your perception of the rights and wrongs, hurling abuse at Shell is unlikely to produce a positive result when you are a single individual up against a phalanx of Shell lawyers who are spending shareholders’ money rather than their own.

I also have doubts about the wisdom of allying yourself so closely and obviously to the Donovans, who seem to have raised Shell-baiting to such a level of vituperation (cleverly mixed with plenty of apparent balance and reasonableness) that it is difficult to see how either side can compromise without losing an unacceptable amount of face (Shell) or a rich and ongoing stream of damages (the Donovans).

Having said all that, there are probably quite a few people who would sympathise with your view that it is, shall we say, odd that you are effectively gagged and they are not.

Posted By Dr John Huong: In response to Mr. Richard’s message ìnoneî: 03/10/2005 16:17:50

Dear Richard,

It amuses me how I ended up as “none” and that is very appropriate to my career- a man with no name (and no job). It brings to mind a character played by Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti Western. When I logged onto TellShell, I was asked to provide a nickname and since I do not have one, my reply was “none”. Had I been asked for my pen name, my reply would probably be John Huong. So yes, please call me John in short.

I am grateful to you for your empathy. As a former Shell employee, you may have some idea of what it means to be in my shoes, investing some 29 years with Shell. For the first 23 years I received excellent-outstanding staff appraisals before my career came to an abrupt stop. I am not in the position to say more about the circumstances of my sad departure from Shell because I do not want to breach the current Malaysian High Court Injunction. The situation is serious, as I have been threatened by Shell with imprisonment if I were to exercise my human right to freedom of speech, for example by making any insightful criticism in a healthy exchange of views about Shell management, or Shell activities – the supposed purpose of this Internet forum.

As a former hard working and loyal Shell employee, I have empathy with the TellShell webmaster and the predicament he or she is in. I was once assigned to Shell corporate affairs dealing with issues management and if I were given the same difficult and almost impossible task which the TellShell webmaster has, I would probably be busy looking for another job (that may be what the webmaster is currently doing).

You mention Shell’s new PR advisers. They will also have a challenging and daunting task ahead of them in view of recent events reported in the news, including spectacular Shell management climb-downs on potential tax liabilities for UK shareholders in Royal Dutch Shell and the release from prison of the “Rossport Five” following which Shell is now faced with the apparent prospect of a contempt hearing for allegedly supplying false information to the court.

I must again thank you Richard for a mature gentlemanly approach to resolving differences with Shell on an informal internal basis. I can tell you wholeheartedly and sincerely that it was always my wish to resolve matters on that eminently sensible basis. I consistently pleaded with Shell Management to resolve the difficulties in an amicable way – the very words contained in an email from me to Shell management in 1997. For now, I cannot say anything that may be construed as damaging to Shell’s reputation and in any event, would not wish to hurl unfounded abuse at Shell, as I do not need to. I note your comment that I am “a single individual up against a phalanx of Shell lawyers who are spending shareholders’ money rather than their own.” Indeed Shell has all the necessary resources of one kind or the other, a proxy given by many shareholders to their Directors and that may perhaps change with resolutions made at the next AGM. All I can say is that I trust in God and His power in all circumstances and I am not going to contest that luminous statement of yours. Maybe Shell will take action against you for suggesting that naughty statement of yours, which you have put as a matter of fact. Is it the Donovans who are leading you from the path of righteousness or maybe Tippi can provide some insight?

I first stumbled in amazement across Chapter 22 in the Donovan website while surfing the net a couple of years ago. Via their good offices, my predicament was quickly made known around the world. Since then I have come to have a deep respect and affection for Alfred and John Donovan. I thank God Almighty for putting us into contact. I have never met either of them, but would trust them with my life. I hope and believe that they feel the same about me. Please believe me Richard when I say that I have come to know these gentlemen very well and I know them to be men of the very highest integrity who, contrary to the implication behind your assertions, put principles before money. They, like the Rossport Five, will fight for their rights, principles and beliefs irrespective of the size, power and influence of an opponent.

As to your comment about “a level of vituperation”, that seems to me with all due respect to be a rather sweeping generalisation. Specific examples would assist me in an assessment as to whether that comment is well-founded. It is true to say that there has been extensive negative commentary from the Donovans about Shell, but at the same it also applies to commentary from all news sources that have covered stories about Shell since January 2004. Is it the Donovans and the news media who have fabricated a string of negative stories about Shell, or were the stories well-founded i.e. has there been a high level of management misdeeds and incompetence which created the events which led to the proliferation of negative reports? If you don’t mind, I will not answer my own question. I have no appetite for imprisonment in the event that I should say the wrong thing.

Like many other Shell stakeholders I have been astonished and amused by how Alfred Donovan has managed to end up with the dotcom domain name for the $200 billion company Royal Dutch Shell Plc even after Shell launched proceedings against him through the World Intellectual Property Organisation. At the venerable age of 88, he miraculously achieved a unanimous verdict in his favour in August without even having any legal representation. Alfred really is a giant slayer par excellence. When will he be receiving his knighthood?

There is one other point to make. I view these matters from a different perspective to anyone else in the world. I am, to the best of my knowledge, the only person of any nationality who is under potential penalty of being thrown in prison if I were to criticise Shell on the Internet (and you are correct in saying that they are people who sympathise and empathise with me). I am, as is already indicated, also the only person who is currently the subject of an ongoing libel action by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies. This fact confirms beyond any doubt that Shell DOES take legal action against anyone it believes has stated falsehoods about Shell management or stands in the way of their project plans for principled reasons. (Of course the libel action will not succeed if my comments are judged to be well-founded, but that issue is not material to the point I am making.) If Shell truly believes and can prove that anything alleged or stated as fact by Alfred Donovan is untrue, then Shell would surely have sued him for libel. If it does not wish to do so because of his age, then they could sue his son John as he has also been very forthright in his many published comments about Shell. In this connection, I draw your attention to the following legal statement displayed on the home page of the Donovan website, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com (AKA ShellNews.net): (SHELL IS OF COURSE FREE TO ISSUE LIBEL PROCEEDINGS IF ANYTHING PUBLISHED HEREIN IS UNTRUE). You and the world must draw your own conclusions about Shell’s reticence to take up the invitation.

Dr John Huong
Miri, Malaysia

PS. I am aware that an independent mediator is being sought to help resolve the Rossport Five controversy. Like Alfred Donovan, I am readily available to provide my impartial services Ö

EXTRACTS FROM A RESPONSE POSTED BY ALFRED DONOVAN

REPLY TO RICHARD, DR HUONG & “COMMONSENSE”  FROM ALFRED DONOVAN: 10/10/2005 00:01:09

Dr Huong has already pointed out, as my son and I have previously, that we do not create bad news about Shell. We leave that function to Shell management. It is not our fault that there has been so much bad news over such a long period. That too is down to an incompetent dishonest Shell management.

We are certainly more consistently outspoken about the failings of Shell management than any other news source. That is partly because we feel more involved and frustrated by the reserves fraud, bearing in mind that no one listened when we rang the alarm bells far and wide about a corporate culture of cover-up and deceit deeply ingrained at the highly levels of Shell management.

DR JOHN HUONG

We do reciprocate the sentiment expressed by Dr Huong in terms of regard, respect and affection. We have always found him to be a man of unbending principles. This was his undoing at Shell. He insisted on working within Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles, pledging honesty, openness and integrity in all of Shell’s dealings. That was a huge mistake in view of the then prevailing corporate culture as mentioned above. In other words, the hard reality rather than the PR spin and hype. If people in high places, such as Sir Philip Watts, had displayed the same integrity, the reserves fraud would never have happened.

Dr Huong has been victimised by Shell. He has been robbed of his human rights and humiliated by Shell. His perilous legal position has already been mentioned in his posting. No oil company will employ him while the defamation action brought by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies remains hanging over his head, possibly for years given the slow legal process in Malaysia. How is it possible that this one individual could have destroyed Shell’s reputation, as is claimed by Shell in its High Court Writ? Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of Shell is aware of the people responsible for leaving Shell’s reputation in tatters. Dr Huong is not one of them. With all due respect, he was a lowly Shell geologist.

I am also baffled, like Dr Huong, on why I have Shell’s written permission to castigate Shell management on the Internet while he is sued by them for doing a lot less. I have been publishing very forthright articles for several years (Richard has been aware of my track record for over a year). In comparison, Dr Huong has published nothing on the net. I published a few articles under his name. That is the extent of his crime. It is inexplicable that Shell has taken draconian legal measures against Dr Huong, even threatening him with imprisonment, while encouraging me, the publisher of his alleged libel, to exercise my right to freedom of speech on the Internet and to continue my Shell commentary activities at full throttle. I am British, he is a Malaysian. I am ancient, he is in his forties. So is it ageism or racism? We still have no answer.

Shell directors have used shareholders money like confetti to escape penalty for their disgraceful behaviour (settling one US class action lawsuit after another and paying SEC and FSA fines) while at the same time persecuting an honest man, who like the Rossport Five, has stood up for his principles.

As to whether our litigation against Shell has been a profitable exercise, the answer is no. Spread over so many years the compensation has not been worth the effort in monetary terms, but there is more at stake than money.

Some multinationals have more power and influence than many Countries and someone has to be prepared to stand up to them if they trample on the rights of ordinary people, whether they be stakeholders or otherwise. It is fair to say that the Internet has helped to redress the balance between the weak and the rich and powerful of this world, who must not be allowed to use their financial clout to suppress freedom of speech, as Shell has successfully done thus far with Dr Huong.

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)

Dow Jones Newswires
11-28-10
Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

SOURCE ARTICLE

SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT…. Shell, half the truth and the cover-up….

By Alfred and John Donovan 

In 1974 it was reported that a Shell employee, Leo Rapmund (36), a crewmember on the Shell tanker, ‘Capulonix’, had gone missing, presumed lost overboard.
 
Over two decades later Rapmund’s family was contacted by a fellow crewmember at the time of the tragedy who wanted to clear his conscience about his knowledge of what really happened. Basically he revealed that Leo Rapmund had been murdered and there were many eyewitnesses to the crime.  

The family claim that when they contacted Shell in 1995 with this alarming news, Shell and its lawyers (the most prestigious and expensive law firm in the Netherlands,  De Braauw, Blackstone & Westbroek) denied any knowledge or responsibility and treated them in a disgusting and arrogant manner. All responsibility and accountability were rejected. The family was fobbed-off like a bunch of nagging children.  
 
In 2008, the family contacted the acclaimed Dutch investigative crime reporter Peter R. de Vries who has his own Emmy Award winning TV programme.  De Vries has been involved in a number of high profile cases including that of Natalee Holloway, the American student who mysteriously disappeared in 2005 while on a high school graduation trip to the Caribbean Island of Aruba.  
 
De Vries approached Shell HQ in The Hague on 23 February 2009 and spoke with a senior Shell Public Relations official, Herman Kievits. His response was described as arrogant, at arms length and mainly on the lines that ‘we know nothing’.  The same holds true for the lawyers.
 
On 26 April 2009 Peter R. de Vries presented the case in his TV programme. Afterwards a number of viewers contacted Shell and expressed disgust at these cover-ups by the oil company.
 
The viewers who reacted towards Shell, all received a rather clumsy standard reaction with many half-truths. The facts however are totally different and in his unique manner Peter R. de Vries dissects all the nonsense by Shell and provides substantial evidence on what really happened. He tracked down a dozen witnesses of the murder. They all confirmed that Leo Rapmund had been in a fight on board and was shoved overboard. He managed to just hang on to the railing but his assailant had kicked his hands so long that he had to let go and disappeared forever in the waves. This act was unanimously described as ‘murder’. The witnesses were greatly surprised that they never have been formally heard nor summoned in a court case.
 
De Vries also makes mincemeat of all the statements by Shell and detailed evidence is provided on his website. He exposes Shell as a bunch of liars. In the end Shell even had to admit in a letter to him that they ‘did not know’ what happened to the assailant and why he had not been charged. Shell even did not know whether the man had been fired or not. That in itself is strange: on a tanker of Shell a Shell employee is literally kicked overboard by another Shell employee, but Shell subsequently never informs how all this has been handled in a legal matter.

Therefore it was nice that in the meantime aging offender is still alive. He told de Vries that the handling of the case also amazed him. After the incident he was taken from Singapore to the head office in Rotterdam. There he had to hand-over his passport and was sent home on extended leave. After half a year he was summoned again, received his passport back as well as six months of pay, was in a proper manner shown the door by Shell and subsequently signed on immediately with another company as a sailor. Done. Never heard anything anymore.
 
In his summary de Vries states:
It is simply embarrassing that Shell tried to blame the relatives of Leo that they all that time have not understood and that they more or less tried to misuse the situation for their own benefit.

De Vries points out that a multinational faced with such unfortunate circumstances can apologise and compensate the victims family or deny all allegations and NEVER admit to anything.  He concludes Shell is in the latter category behaving in a vicious and shameful manner.
 
After Leo Rapmund was killed, this is another form of character murder on the next of kin, which also remains unpunished. In that sense de Vries claims to have more respect for the aging assailant, who after so many years admits his act and honestly says he deserved prison. That Shell kicks the family and refrains from any form of an apology is a scandal. And it shows very clearly how the next biggest oil company of the world can be very small…..
 
The information comes from an article publish by Peter R. De Vries in Dutch. It includes reference to a long email to Shell setting out facts and evidence, which Shell ultimately agreed was basically correct.

http://www.peterrdevries.nl/ 

ARTICLE ENDS

The above article was sent in advance of publication to Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel, Royal Dutch Shell Plc. The relevant email is printed below. Since Shell chose not to reply on this occasion, we assume this is one of the  times when Shell decided the safest thing to do is to say nothing. 

From: Alfred Donovan <alfred@shellnews.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:36:37 +0100
To: “michiel.brandjes@shell.com” <michiel.brandjes@shell.com>
Conversation: SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT
Subject: SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT

Dear Mr Brandjes
 
The draft article below is based on the article in Dutch recently published by Peter R. de Vries…
 
SHELL, DE HALVE WAARHEID EN DE DOOFPOT…. Shell, half the truth and the cover-up….
 
http://www.peterrdevries.nl/

The gist of the content was kindly provided by a Dutch Shell insider. Although not having time to provide a full translation, the draft does contain some translated passages.
 
Could you kindly point out any significant error of fact before I publish it? If Shell does not take issue with the facts as stated, then there is no need to reply. If I receive no response by 12 noon tomorrow UK time, I will assume that the information is true. If you need more time to check out matters, then kindly let me know when we can expect a response and we will take no further action until then.

If Shell is taking legal action challenging the facts, then please advise accordingly and we will await the outcome of any such litigation.

If you want to supply for publication with the article any related comment by Shell, we will happily publish it on an unedited basis.

This is an important story which deserves publication in the English language.
 
Regards
Alfred Donovan

Below is an article supplied to Shell in advance of publication. The relevant email correspondence with Richard Wiseman, the Shell official who is the subject of the article is printed immediately below it. It contains his comments and our response.

By Alfred and John Donovan

This is the first in a series of articles in which we provide overwhelming evidence why Richard Wiseman (above) is an unfit person to be the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

From Shell’s standpoint, we are sure Wiseman did a good job as General Counsel and later as Legal Director of Shell UK. We understand from our sources that he is generally liked and respected by colleagues. He is loyal to the company and Shell executive directors. We acknowledge that Mr Wiseman has many admirable qualities.

However, he also has a dark side with a track record of involvement in rule bending, cover-up, entrapment, deception, undercover activity, intimidation and trickery on behalf of the oil giant. We therefore contend that he is entirely the wrong person to be the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, the worlds second largest multinational.

We deal in this first article with the rule bending.

Here, in his own words, in the last paragraph of his own letter, on Shell headed stationary, is admittance by Wiseman of deliberately ignoring professional rules. 

A number of Shell executives at the time, including Royal Dutch Shell Group Managing Directors, John Jennings and Mark Moody-Stuart, and Dr Chris Fay, Chairman & Chief Executive of Shell UK, were all involved in the discussions, negotiations and related funding agreement with us which culminated in the proposed mediation which was the subject of the letter. 

Such is his loyalty to Shell senior executives that Wiseman had already implemented the funding agreement he was dead set against from the outset. He ended up bending rules to suit his masters wishes to bring to a conclusion embarrassing matters involving intellectual property theft which had impacted on Shell’s reputation. No doubt it was this degree of ambition and willingness to set aside ethical considerations, which contributed towards his elevation to current high office at the company. 

Incredibly, it is now the job of Richard Wiseman to enforce and uphold Shell’s ethical code, the Shell General Business Principles.

Was his appointment made on the basis of poacher turned gamekeeper? How can it be right for an individual with his track record to be the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Shell?

RELATED EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
To: Wiseman, Richard RM SI-RDS-CCO
Sent: Fri May 22 09:16:40 2009
Subject: Draft Article
Dear Mr Wiseman

Printed below is a self-explanatory draft article. We are happy to publish unedited with the article any comments you wish to make as to its accuracy. If we receive no reply by 5pm Monday we will assume that you do not challenge the facts as set out.

Regards
John Donovan 

(ARTICLE SUPPLIED AS ABOVE)

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

From: <richard.wiseman@shell.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 10:49:08 +0200
To: <john@shellnews.net>
Subject: Re: Draft Article

This is entirely consistent with the provocative hateful material I have endured from you for years.

If you have complaints about my professional conduct, I suggest you report them to my regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I have no doubt why you have not done so; your assertions would stand up to no serious scrutiny.

Please print this response with your article.
Regards

Richard Wiseman

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

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

Internet: http://www.shell.com 

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN 

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 14:05:48 +0100
To: <richard.wiseman@shell.com>
Conversation: Draft Article
Subject: Re: Draft Article

Dear Mr Wiseman

Thank you for the speedy response.

I can only surmise that your over-reaction stems from shock at reading the relevant email which substantiates the charge of you being a rule bender, which you cannot and notably do not deny. Given the lack of response and action by the Office for Supervising of Solicitors to our last complaint (about Colin Joseph) relating to sleazy undercover activity undertaken at the behest of Shell, we have no intention of wasting time approaching another solicitors regulation authority.  

We do not hate you or anyone else associated with Shell. We would not have included the second paragraph if we disliked you. We mentioned that you have many admirable qualities. Past articles authored by us have recorded our praise of these qualities.

What we are saying is that in our opinion, based on many dealings with you over many years, you are entirely unsuitable for the post you now hold.

We will in coming weeks publish articles (and related evidence) dealing with other matters mentioned in the third paragraph. We will also  include a reference to censorship in the current draft. You may recall your email in respect of the now defunct Tell Shell discussion forum. How can secret censorship be compatible with the Shell commitment to transparency pledged in the Shell General Business Principles?

Shell does take legal action when it feels able to challenge allegations. As you know, eight Royal Dutch Shell Group companies are currently collectively suing Dr John Huong for alleged defamation in respect of publications on our website. That action has been in progress since June 2004. In a gross violation of human rights, Dr Huong has been buried in Shell injunctions, including an application seeking his imprisonment.

If the quoted facts and assertions in our draft article are untrue, Shell should fund an action to protect your personal reputation and integrity, or sue us directly to protect the reputation and integrity of the company – the little, if any, which remains after the securities fraud and the “TFA” Brent Bravo scandal. Because the facts are well-founded and supported by documentary evidence, I predict Shell will continue with the current policy.

You have chosen to characterise as hate what is actually fact based legitimate criticism. I am entitled as a Shell shareholder to point out facts from your past history with Shell even though they are extremely embarrassing and unpalatable to you and Shell senior management.

Any further response will be added on an unedited (uncensored) basis to the existing correspondence and article which will be published later today.

Yours sincerely

John Donovan

ENDS

Version of this article on Blogger News Network

Shell Ethics Chief claims he is subject of ‘provocative hateful’ campaign

EXTRACT FROM EMAIL RECEIVED FROM JONATHAN MORT, LEGAL ADVISOR (AND MANAGER?), SHELL SOUTH AFRICA PENSION FUND: It is apparently my draft response (per the email of 15 February 2009) to Mr Purchase (on 18 February 2009) which has driven you to the conclusions of conspiracies, collaborations and unethical conduct so liberally sprinkled through your article. The truth is more mundane, entirely proper, and (sadly for your website) considerably less newsworthy than the spectacular claims made in your draft article.

Do you stand by your comments that the trustees and Shell are totally independent when the outside professional is formatting his advice and response to me after consulting Wanjiru.Kirima and others who I believe, but may be wrong, are funded by Shell?

I refer to the draft article you intend publishing on your website http//royaldutchshellplc.com, as set forth in an email from yourself to Mr Brandjes on 25 March 2009 at 18h28. Thank you for giving me the opportunity of correcting some facts of which you may not have been aware.

From: <richard.wiseman@shell.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:22:14 +0100
To: <john@shellnews.net>
Cc: <Wanjiru.Kirima@shell.com>, <T.Wood@shell.com>, <jmort@ens.co.za>, <kenpurchase@risumbe.com>, <paddybriggs@brandaware.co.uk>, <michiel.brandjes@shell.com>
Subject: RE: Royal Dutch Shell Pension Fund Conspiracy and Deception

Just to confirm, we have nothing to add to the replies already given to Mr Purchase.

Regards

Richard Wiseman

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

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

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

Printed below is a draft article. It contains my interpretation of the information contained in email correspondence supplied to me by Shell SA retiree, Mr Ken Purchase. No doubt you will advise if any of the emails are not authentic. If I do not hear from you by close of business on Friday 27 March, I will take it that there is no dispute or challenge over authenticity, stated facts, nor my interpretations or conclusions, and will state as such.