Posts Tagged ‘Malaysia’

JANUARY 16, 2012

SINGAPORE (Dow Jones)–Oil major Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN) said Monday it has signed two production-sharing contracts with Malaysia’s state-owned oil and gas company Petroliam Nasional Bhd. for enhanced oil recovery projects offshore Sarawak and Sabah.

The two companies had agreed in November to jointly develop the oil fields in Malaysia using enhanced oil recovery techniques, in a project that was valued at $12 billion, Petronas had said then.

The project is expected to help the Malaysian national explorer extract a greater portion of oil from its existing reserves and extend the life of its oil fields.

Associated work activities and new investments from the partners are expected to extend the life of the fields beyond 2040 and lead to increased oil production, Shell said in a statement.

-By Gurdeep Singh, Dow Jones Newswires; 65-6415 4064; gurdeep.singh@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

24 November 2011

An indication of a fault that led to a North Sea helicopter crash in which 16 men died had not been recognised just a week earlier, a report has found.

All 14 passengers and two crew lost their lives in April 2009 when the Bond Super Puma came down off Peterhead.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said an indication of gear degradation had not been picked up on.

There was a “catastrophic failure” of the main rotor gearbox as a result of a fatigue fracture, it said.

The Super Puma helicopter had been returning from BP’s Miller oil platform when it crashed about 11 miles north east of Peterhead, in Aberdeenshire.

Eight of the victims came from the north east of Scotland, seven from Liverpool, Norfolk and Worcestershire, and one from Latvia.

The report said a magnetic particle had been found on the chip detector in the gearbox of the Eurocopter Super Puma a week before the crash.

However, it was not recognised as an indication of the degradation of a part of the gearbox known as the second stage planet gear.

The AAIB said: “The use of verbal and email communication between the operator and manufacturer on 25 March led to a misunderstanding or miscommunication of the issue.”

It was this second stage planet gear that failed just days later as a result of a fatigue crack.

The main rotor separated from the fuselage and the aircraft crashed into the sea as the helicopter was flying to Aberdeen from the Miller Platform.

‘Final transmission’

The report said the captain had transmitted a mayday followed by the co-pilot.

“One second later, one of the flight crew uttered an expletive; this was the final radio transmission,” the report added.

The report makes 17 safety recommendations.

Bill Munro, managing director of Bond Offshore Helicopters, which is part of the Gloucestershire-based Bond Aviation Group, said: “The manufacturer’s procedures have been strengthened and Bond, along with others in the industry, implemented those changes immediately.

“We take a rigorous approach to safety and will continue to do so as technology and best practice evolve. Our company will also implement any further actions required by the industry which are issued by the authorities and manufacturer as a result of the report.

“Our thoughts remain with the families of those who died, and their loss is a constant driver in our commitment to the highest standards of safety in all our operations.”

Eurocopter said it remained committed to working closely with the regulatory authorities, investigators and its operators to prevent the risk of accidents.

‘Significant developments’

A Crown Office spokesperson said: “The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) welcomes the publication of the report on this tragic incident by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, following a technically complex and challenging investigation.

“The findings contained therein will now be fully considered by the health and safety division of COPFS.

“The division and Grampian Police have been engaged in this investigation since the tragedy occurred and will continue to progress lines of inquiry and carry out such investigation as is necessary in order that a decision may be taken in relation to the form of any proceedings.

“The liaison with the nearest relatives of the 16 men who lost their lives will also continue and the division will keep them advised of significant developments.”

Crew names

The two crew who died were Captain Paul Burnham, 31, of Methlick, Aberdeenshire, and co-pilot Richard Menzies, 24, of Droitwich Spa, who worked for Bond Offshore Helicopters.

The KCA Deutag employees killed were Brian Barkley, 30, of Aberdeen; Vernon Elrick, 41, of Aberdeen; Leslie Taylor, 41, of Kintore, Aberdeenshire; Nairn Ferrier, 40, of Dundee; Gareth Hughes, 53, of Angus; David Rae, 63, of Dumfries; Raymond Doyle, 57, of Cumbernauld; James John Edwards, 33, of Liverpool; Nolan Goble, 34, of Norwich, and Mihails Zuravskis, 39, of Latvia.

The other victims were James Costello, 24, of Aberdeen, who was contracted to Production Services Network (PSN); Alex Dallas, 62, of Aberdeen, who worked for Sparrows Offshore Services; Warren Mitchell, 38, of Oldmeldrum, Aberdeenshire, who worked for Weatherford UK; and Stuart Wood, 27, of Aberdeen, who worked for Expro North Sea Ltd.

SOURCE

RELATED ARTICLES

BORNEO POST: MHS helicopter catches fire, aborts take-off : 24 February 2006

EXTRACT: “The ill-fated Super Puma was airlifting 11 employees of Shell and its contractors when it ran into trouble and crashed into the South China Sea during a routine flight to the offshore gas production platform B11 in Bintulu waters at noon.”

Royal Dutch Shell terrorist tactics against Malaysian whistleblower …

EXTRACT: “For his audacity in raising the reserves issue, Dr Huong was demoted, appointed as an asset manager with responsibility for helicopter flights. Once again, his integrity got him into trouble when he raised concerns over helicopter safety, recording in internal documents that Shell employees were being used as guinea pigs on test flights.”

NOVEMBER 11, 2011

By GURDEEP SINGH

SINGAPORE—Malaysia’s state-owned oil and gas company Petroliam Nasional Bhd. said Friday that it has agreed with Royal Dutch Shell PLC to jointly develop oilfields in Malaysia using enhanced oil recovery techniques.

The companies say the $12 billion project will help the Malaysian national explorer extract a greater portion of oil from its existing reserves and extend the lives of its oilfields.

The Malaysian company, also called Petronas, has been grappling with shrinking output from aging fields and targets capital expenditure of 50 billion ringgit-55 billion ringgit ($15.89 billion-$17.47 billion) a year over the next five years to replace and refurbish them.

Many of its producing Malaysian oil and gas fields are between 19 years and 28 years old.

Last year, Malaysia unveiled a package of tax incentives to boost oil output from mature fields, including cutting tax rates for the development of new oil and gas resources and enhancing recovery from depleted fields.

Petronas said it signed a deal with Shell for two 30-year production-sharing contracts under which the companies will employ enhanced oil recovery methods at oilfields offshore Sarawak and Sabah states in East Malaysia.

They will also develop nine oil fields in the Baram Delta offshore Sarawak and four in the North Sabah development area.

The two projects together may yield an additional 90,000 barrels to 100,000 barrels a day and could be the largest offshore enhanced oil recovery development in the world.

Malaysia, which produced 658,000 barrels of oil and condensates a day as of Jan. 1 last year, is expected to become a net oil importer by 2013 because of declining domestic output.

The projects will increase the average recovery factor in the Baram Delta and North Sabah fields to about 50% from around 36%, halt the decline of Malaysia’s oil output by improving production in the fields and extend the field life beyond 2040, Petronas said.

Write to Gurdeep Singh at gurdeep.singh@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

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)

By Eduard Gismatullin – Jul 28, 2011 8:47 AM GMT+0100

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA), Europe’s biggest oil company, said second-quarter earnings almost doubled on higher oil prices and project startups in Qatar and Canada.

Net income rose to $8.66 billion from $4.39 billion a year earlier, The Hague-based Shell said today in a statement. Excluding one-time items and inventory changes, profit matched analyst estimates.

“The cash generation in the company was already quite strong and they proved it again this quarter,” said Dimitri Willems, who helps manage about 1.3 billion euros ($1.9 billion) at Kempen Capital Management in Amsterdam. Cash flow from operations rose 43 percent to $12.3 billion.

Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser, who sold about $4 billion of “non-core” assets in the first half, is seeking to boost production with a $100 billion investment plan through 2014. Shell started the Pearl gas-to-liquids and Qatargas 4 liquefied natural-gas ventures in the Middle East this year. It also expanded an oil-sands project in Canada’s Alberta region.

“The first half of 2011 saw the successful startup of three of the largest-scale projects anywhere in our industry today,” Voser said in the statement. “The ramp-up of our new projects should drive our financial performance in the coming quarters.”

Statoil, Repsol

BP Plc (BP/), Shell’s smaller rival, earlier this week reported profit that missed analyst estimates following field disruptions in the Gulf of Mexico. Statoil ASA, Norway’s largest oil company, and Repsol YPF SA of Spain both reported earnings today that beat estimates. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), the largest U.S. oil company, is scheduled to release earnings later today.

Adjusted earnings at Shell came in at $6.6 billion, in line with the mean estimate of nine analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

Shell’s Class A shares traded in London fell 0.5 percent to 2,253 pence as of 8:20 a.m. local time. The stock is up 5.3 percent this year.

The startups in Qatar and Canada will contribute in excess of 400,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day at their peak, according to Voser.

Shell carried out work at its refineries in Canada, the U.S., the Netherlands, Malaysia and Singapore this year. As a result, refining availability fell to 90 percent in the second quarter from 94 percent last year.

‘Resilient Performance’

“Maintenance activities and weak industry refining margins masked a resilient performance from oil products marketing and chemicals,” the CEO said.

Production fell 2 percent to 3.046 million barrels of oil equivalent a day in the quarter, mainly because of asset sales. Shell plans to increase daily output to 3.7 million barrels in 2014. LNG sales rose 24 percent to 4.8 million tons in the latest quarter.

Brent crude futures, the benchmark for two-thirds of the world’s crude, were on average 48 percent higher in the second quarter compared with the year-earlier period. U.K. natural-gas prices were 58 percent higher.

In Mexico, Shell agreed to sell its 50 percent stake in an LNG import terminal at Altamira for about $200 million. It also completed the disposal of assets in Chile and the Dominican Republic for about $700 million in total.

Prelude Floating LNG

Shell is expanding in Australia after agreeing in May to invest as much as $12.6 billion in the Prelude floating LNG project. Earlier this month, it agreed to join Japan’s Inpex Corp. in a floating LNG project off Indonesia.

In the Gulf of Mexico, Shell started the Cardamom field development last month. In May, the company warned that its oil and gas production may be curbed by 50,000 barrels a day in the Gulf because of delays in receiving drilling permits following the Macondo crude spill last year.

Shell completed a $1.8 billion Texas gas field sale to Occidental Petroleum Corp. this year and also disposed of stakes in Canada, Pakistan and the U.K. This month it agreed to sell assets in Brazil.

Last month, Shell concluded the creation of a $12 billion biofuel joint venture with Cosan SA Industria & Comercio in Brazil. The partners plan to make transport fuel from wheat stalks and sugar-cane bagasse, a sugar industry waste product, in anticipation that the share of renewable energy in fuel will double in the next 10 years.

In Malaysia, Shell together with ConocoPhillips and Petroliam Nasional Bhd. agreed to invest in the offshore Sabah Gas Kebabangan project, which will pump 130,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day.

To contact the reporter on this story: Eduard Gismatullin in London at egismatullin@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Will Kennedy at wkennedy3@bloomberg.net

SOURCE ARTICLE

May 15, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR (Dow Jones)–A joint venture of Petroliam Nasional Bhd.’s upstream unit and units of ConocoPhillips (COP) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDSB.LN) will develop the Kebabangan gas field located offshore Sabah in East Malaysia, the company said Monday.

Kebabangan Petroleum Operating Co. is 40% owned by Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd., while ConocoPhillips Sabah Gas Ltd. and Shell Energy Asia Ltd. own 30% each.

The field is located in water depths of 100-400 meters and is included in the Kebabangan Cluster Production Sharing Contract.

The project will include a 12-well, two-phase drilling campaign and the fabrication and installation of an integrated drilling and production platform with living quarters, the company said.

-By K.P. Lee, Dow Jones Newswires; (603) 2026 1233; kwan-por.lee@dowjones.com

SOURCE ARTICLE

Article by Alfred Donovan

By June 2006 Shell Malaysia legal boss, Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai (right), had got himself into a most dreadful mess.

Two years earlier he had advised EIGHT different companies, all within the Royal Dutch Shell Group, to bring a collective defamation action against a former Shell Malaysia Production Geologist, Dr John Huong. The action was in respect of information published on an earlier version of this website, which I jointly own and operate with my son, John Donovan.

After reading the Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai Affidavit and related High Court Writ, both issued in June 2004, I immediately notified the Judge and Shell that they were suing the wrong party. So they all knew within days of issuing Draconian proceedings, that Shell had no legitimate grounds on which to pursue the action against Dr Huong.

Despite that knowledge, Shell begun a long campaign to terrorise him into accepting blame for something he did not do. He had  never published a single allegation against Shell. We prepared, edited and published articles based on information supplied to us by Dr Huong (and other Shell Malaysia current or former employees) by email and in numerous telephone conversations. We had also received leaked Shell internal emails.

Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai was not interested in the truth. He was determined to persecute Dr Huong.

It was now June 2006. I had recently supplied a sworn Affidavit setting out the truth.

In response, Thavakumar provided his own Affidavit to the High Court demanding my presence in Malaysia for cross-examination in relation to my Affidavit, despite knowing that I was 89 years old.

In a related High Court Summons, Shell demanded that my Affidavit be “expunged from the record” if I did not appear in the Malaysian court for cross-examination.

It was, however, obvious from the content of his Affidavit that Thavakumar was desperate to put me off from actually making the trip. He knew that if I did do so, it would almost certainly demolish Shell’s entire case against Dr Huong, resulting in a huge loss of face for Shell Malaysia management and Thavakumar Kandiah Pillai. So he was in a real fix.

This explains the allegations in his Affidavit, which if accepted by the Judge, woud undoubtedly have led to my immediate imprisioment in Malaysia under a throughly corrupt dicatorship regime in bed with Shell for decades.  The same Affidavit contained reference to contempt proceedings which were already in progess against Dr Huong (seeking his imprisonment).

Extracts from some of the statements made by Thavakumar in his Affidavit: “Donovan is outwardly contemptuous of this Honourable Court”; “Donovan impeded or interfered with the administration of justice”; “admits, aiding and abetting the Defendant in breaching the Injunction Order…”; “the Malaysian courts have ruled against the Defendant because they have been influenced by the Plaintiffs.”; “Donovan continues to impede or interfere with the administration of justice.”

Very serious charges.

We had offered to be cross-examined at the Malaysian Embassy in London, but this was not acceptable.

Shell eventually gave up in the face of potential negative publicity arising from pressuring an 89 year old UK citizen to travel to Malaysia in such circumstances. In 2009 Shell settled the case with Dr Huong.

RELATED ARTICLES

Royal Dutch Shell tried to blackmail reserves whistleblower

Shell whistleblower Dr Huong accuses Shell of psychological torture

Judge told Shell that ‘they should sue John Donovan in the UK

Dr John Huong accused Shell lawyers of tampering with evidence

If you haven’t seen the attached, it may interest you to know that the attached is a copy of Sarawak Shell Berhad/Sabah Shell Petroleum Company’s internal management exchange which was leaked by one of the employees who is disgusted with Shell. You may take note that Shell cheats on paying the Retirement Benefit Fund resulting in the class action at Miri High Court by ex and current staff of Sarawak Shell Berhad/Sabah Shell Petroleum Company.

Shell lawyers to Dr Huong:

…positive steps must be taken by you to ensure that these notices must be given to all persons’, not only Donovan, who are able to operate and maintain the web site. As such by simply writing to Donovan to request him to remove your postings as you have done is not in full compliance with para 3 of the order of court. We therefore expect you to take all positive steps to ensure the postings are removed and deleted immediately.

By John Donovan

In June 2004, EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively sued a former Shell Malaysia employee, Dr John Huong (above), for alleged defamation in respect of articles published on this website owned and operated by Alfred and John Donovan. The litigation involved multiple injunctions served against Dr Huong, including  committal proceedings demanding his imprisonment for exposing serious misdeeds by Shell senior management, including the filing of false information about claimed hydrocarbon reserves.

It is evident from the email Dr Huong sent to us in July 2004, attaching an email he had received from the sleazy lawyers (TH Liew & Partners) acting for the EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies, that significant pressure (blackmail) was applied to Dr Huong in a Machiavellian attempt to control what we publish.

Since Shell was aware that no other parties were involved in the ownership and operation of this website, only one conclusion is possible. Shell was trying to frighten Dr Huong into serving notice on the then website hosting company of the draconian litigation relating to the Donovan website, hoping that this news would in turn scare the sh** out of the hosting company, causing them to shut the site down. And all without Shell potentially exposing itself to negative media coverage by contacting the hosting company directly.

The blackmail – the threat of the Shell collective returning to the courts alleging that court orders had been flouted – did not work, and later Shell lawyers did secretly threaten our hosting companies, briefly succeeding in closing down the website. The hosting companies, one in Canada and the other in the USA, both initially refused to disclose who had been making threats to them. However, we did subsequently establish that it was Shell and a Royal Dutch Shell General Counsel, Keith Ruddock, confirmed this in writing.

THE EMAILS

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:42:25 +0800
From: johnhu@my
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Court Order and Removal of Postings at www.shell2004.com]

To: thliew_p@linersys.net; alfrededonovan@hotmail.com

Dear Mr. Donovan,

Good evening.

I am forwarding an email from the Plaintiff’s lawyers and the explanation contained therein.

Sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

TH Liew & Partners wrote:

Dear Sir,

We have seen your emails to Mr. Donovan sent on 30 June 2004, 1 and 2nd July 2004.

We write to remind you that para 3 of the order of court requires you to take all necessary steps to give notice to person or persons’ to remove the web postings dated 10, 13 and 16 June 2004. This means that positive steps must be taken by you to ensure that these notices must be given to all persons’, not only Donovan, who are able to operate and maintain the web site. As such by simply writing to Donovan to request him to remove your postings as you have done is not in full compliance with para 3 of the order of court.

We therefore expect you to take all positive steps to ensure the postings are removed and deleted immediately.

Our clients expressly reserves all their rights.

Regards,
Liew Teck Huat

cc. clients

THE FIRST POSTING

INSTALLMENT ONE

FEATURE: SHELL WHISTLEBLOWER No 2: Shell Geologist/insider Dr John Huong, fires a broadside at Shell

Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong

Miri, Sarawak, East Malaysia

10 June 2004

Dear Mr Alfred Donovan.

I will appreciate very much if you can help me to post my initial article at your website.

This article is only the appetiser…

I will supply for publication further informed comment and revelations in the run up to Shell’s AGM on 28 June. It will include examples of the toxic combination of arrogance, greed. dishonesty, and blatant disregard for all ethical norms by Shell Management, that has culminated in the current shame heaped upon the once proud Shell name.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

SUBJECT: WHY I AM GOING INTERNATIONAL?

20040610Dic

Along the profound story lines (italics bold) by eminent Mr. Alfred Ernest Donovan representing Shell Shareholders, I have integrated my personal insights as seen from the perspective of a former Shell employee – a Shell geologist for almost 30 years – who was unfairly axed by Shell management. I was punished because I insisted on working within the ethical boundaries of Shell’s “Statement of General Business Principles” (SGBP) which is supposed to protect shareholder, national and other stakeholder interests.

“In my experience Shell directors” and Shell managers, “believe that truth is a precious commodity to be used as a last resort. It has to be squeezed out of them. They prefer to deceive, make empty pledges  (Shell’s code of ethics), intimidate,” ostracize, “hide information from their own shareholders”, employees, the government who gave them the license to operate and, and finally “retreating behind their army of lawyers” for shelter “whenever there is a prospect that management misdeeds will be exposed.”

http://www.shell2004.com/2004%20Documents/emailtothedti.htm

I was not the only member of staff at Shell who was fired for up-holding Shell’s SGBP. That document had caused untold damage and suffering to many Shell employees. I strongly suggest that Shell suspends the SGBP until such time as Shell management is prepared to honour the noble pledges proclaimed therein. In other words, until the written pledges of integrity and transparency are matched by the actions of Shell management.  In this connection, it was reported by Al-Jazeera (“Shell Oil Lies – A tip of the iceberg as World Oil crisis looms?”) that “The Oman estimates were based on assessments made in May 2000 by a senior Shell executive who was subsequently fired. He was among several executives who were said to have known about the unrealistic estimates of reserves and to have done nothing about it.”

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=102.

It stated in the same article, “Geologists and analysts have been saying for some time that estimates of global oil reserves may be dangerously exaggerated.”

Correspondence between Sir Mark Moody Stuart and Mr. Richard Wiseman below shows the actual mentality of Shell Management in high places. This behavior was inevitably imitated by executives in operating companies who followed and adopted the example of a ruthless and deceitful corporate culture practiced by those at the very top of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell’s ethical code was and is not worth listening to unless top management becomes a role model for integrity and transparency. Under current circumstances what is the point of having an annual ritual performed for the CEO at operating companies, where it is a mandatory requirement for staff to sign off their ethical health forms (ie Conflict of Interest) irrespective of compliance with Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles”.

For examples read the Shell Shareholder.org section of the website.

“No amount of spin and hype can hide the fact that Shell’s claimed core principle of truth and honesty in all of its dealings is unadulterated propaganda. Like Enron and WorldCom executives, Shell senior management obviously feels that it is okay to hide the truth from its shareholders and the public. This has been proven time and time again in our dealings with them – as the gagging agreements drafted by Shell lawyers at the insistence of Shell senior management prove”.

http://www.shellnews.net/2004%20Documents/nopodds/pressrelease26april.htm

Below is a letter I last wrote on 3^rd June 2004 to Shell Malaysian Management, hoping that if both sides entered into a constructive dialogue on a “without prejudice” basis, the matter could be resolved amicably despite the threats I had received on 17^th May 2004 from their legal Manager Mr. Thavakumar Kandiahpillai. It is significant that legitimate questions (“Confidentiality versus Shareholder’s interests”-25^th May 2004) I posed to him about Shell’s ethical practices have remained unanswered.

I am still waiting for a reply to both of my letters from you Thavakumar and/or those in authority above you!

Date: 3^rd June 2004

SUBJECT: WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Mr. Kandiahpillai and et.al. (including Jeroen Van der Veer, Malcolm Brinded, Jon Chadwick, etc.)

It is obvious that I posed some difficult questions as I have not received any response. I was not trying to be awkward.

I simply want Shell to deal with me sympathetically as a long-term employee who was very deeply hurt by the unfortunate way my employment with Shell ended. It was terribly distressing for me after so many decades.

Frankly it would be much preferable for this matter to be resolved directly with Shell if that is at all possible, rather than continuing to be embroiled in acrimony.

On my part, I am very willing to make in good faith attempt to resolve the matter amicably if Shell is willing to do likewise. As they say, it takes two to tango.

If we could find a solution from discussions held on a “without prejudice” basis, it would save further Shell management time and avoid potentially substantial lawyers’ fees.  It would also bring me some peace of mind.

I therefore believe that this is a sensible proposal which could produce a mutually beneficial result.

I am making this proposal to demonstrate that I am a reasonable person seeking a reasonable solution.

Sincerely,

John Huong

Dr. John Huong Yiu Tuong

20040603Dic

It seems that my letters including the above were not good enough for Shell management to take steps in resolving the conflicts.  I have not even received the courtesy of a response to the above proposal made in good faith. As a loyal and faithful employee of nearly 30 years standing I was unreasonably axed while protecting the shareholder, national and stakeholders interests. I am now taking steps to reveal to my extended family, the international audience, the predicaments and nightmares I have to go through in trying to abide with Shell’s SGBP. At the end of the story you will understand the pervasive nature of Shell’s corporate culture which has unfortunately escalated to appalling gigantic proportions, resulting in the repeated downgrades of Shell oil and gas volumes which have made headlines around the globe.

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

It seems that Mr. Jeroen van der Veer and Mr. Malcolm Brinded could not command any effective solutions to Shell management in the Operating companies in resolving my case. I am just wondering how Jeroen and Malcolm can have the time to consider the well-being of an individual axed-employee when they have to think around the clock for ways and means in undoing and/or hiding their own personal and professional wrong-doing? If only they could institute discipline and fair-minded management at the workplace, then Shell’s reputation will be given a breathing place to recover from being torn to pieces by the immoral self-serving attitude of Shell top management who appear to place their fat cat remuneration/pension packages above all other considerations, moral and legal.

Mail on Sunday: Chairman Jeroen van der Veer in frame over Shell scandal – could lead to 20 years in jail

Patrick Tooher,

6 June 2004

SHELL chairman Jeroen van der Veer could face criminal prosecution in the US after signing accounts that massively overstated oil and gas reserves.

The revelation is another blow to Shell. Throughout the reserves fiasco, it has presented van der Veer as Mr Clean.

Van der Veer is bound to be questioned again about his role in the scandal when he meets leading shareholders this week.

Financial Mail has established that van de Veer, ex-chairman Sir Philip Watts and former finance director Judy Boynton put their names to statements required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Act came into force in 2002 after the WorldCom and Enron scandals.

Under it, chief executives and finance directors must certify the accuracy of financial statements and other disclosures. Miscertifying can lead to 20 years in jail and a $5 million (£2.7 million) fine.

Crucially, van der Veer, Watts and Boynton certified that the 2002 reports of Shell and sister company Royal Dutch did not contain ‘any untrue statement’.

Shell stunned investors this year by admitting that its oil and gas reserves had been overestimated by a fifth. Watts, Boynton and exploration chief Walter van de Vijver were sacked, but van der Veer survived.

A report into the scandal by US law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell appeared to pin the blame on Watts, Boynton and van de Vijver, but left van der Veer in the clear.

At the request of the US authorities, Shell has not published the full report. But even the executive summary reveals van der Veer knew early in 2002 of Shell’s precarious position over guidelines on reserves set out by the US stock market regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In March last year, van der Veer, Watts and van de Vijver signed Shell’s 2002 report and accounts for the SEC – without any adjustment for five billion barrels of overbooked oil and gas reserves.

In addition, van der Veer, Watts and Boynton separately signed the Sarbanes-Oxley statement.

Van der Veer later said he was aware that reserves were low two years before Shell admitted it, but insisted he did not know the extent of the overbooking.

A Shell spokesman said: ‘We can’t comment on matters under investigation in the US.’

http://www.thisismoney.com/20040606/nm79079.html

It is again very prophetic what Mr. Donovan had written to HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands in March 1999 and again on 21st April 2004.

http://www.shellnews.net/2004%20Documents/letters/Letter%20to%20Queen%20Beatrix%2021april2004.htm

More recently, I have also written numerous times to Mr. Jeroen van der Veer and Mr. Malcolm Brinded, of the Shell Group and other senior management under the umbrella of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. All of these letters were ignored. How could Shell management treat me so despicably, so shabbily, after I had worked for Shell so loyally and with such diligence for almost three decades?

Not too long ago, I provided to Shell Management insights of my extensive knowledge of what actually goes on behind the wall of secrecy and intimidation imposed on Shell employees. This was in a letter entitled – “The Truth Behind the Royal Dutch Shell Group icon”. The full story will appear in the next News posting!

SOME ADVICE FROM A SHELL INSIDER OF ALMOST 30 YEARS…

Investors – “You cannot be sure of Shell” growing your funds. Potential employees – do not trust your career and aspirations to Shell until you understand the true inside story. If Shell is unwilling to undergo radical change at every level in the organization for the better, Shell’s negative and evil ingrained cultures will ultimately destroy the little which remains of its former reputation.

Just consider the recent appalling headlines as follows.

The Independent: “Lies, cover-ups, fat cats and an oil giant in crisis”

The Guardian: “Trail of emails reveals depths of deceit at the heart of Shell”

The Scotsman: “Shell admits reserve ‘lies’”

Daily Telegraph:“Memos expose Shell’s years of lying”

London Evening Standard: “Shell bosses lied to the City”

Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Dutch/Shell Group exec was ‘sick and tired’ of lying”

Financial Times: “Shell had systems in place”

The Times: “Shell Legal Director “kept in the dark””

Daily Telegraph: City comment: “The invisible man from Shell”

When I started with Shell all those years ago I was proud to be an employee of what I considered to be nothing less than the best company in the world; an internationally respected brand and an equally highly respected management. It is a matter of the deepest regret to me that the company has sunk so low with its management acquiring global notoriety for participating in a disgraceful scandal which ranks alongside the likes of Enron and WorldCom.

It is ironic: If only Shell management had abided by its own ethical code – the SGBP, the humiliating reserves scandal, the results of which will inevitably drag on for many years with the investigations and ruinous class action law suits, could never have occurred. As God is my witness, that is the truth.

I am finding it hard to come to terms with the con-artist mentality of a management which thought it could say one thing in speeches and advertising – pledging “Profits and Principles” – honesty, openness, integrity etc and actually get away and rewarded with doing the exact opposite.

My recipe for recovery:  Every single member of Shell senior management who is implicated in or tainted to the least extent by the reserves debacle should do the honorable thing and resign immediately. That includes Mr van der Veer and Mr Malcolm Brinded. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading should be merged into one unified company – Shell with a single management structure.  It needs to have an entirely new management team and that will certainly have to think about  EXCLUDING Mr. Jon Chadwick – consisting of individuals who have NO possible connection with past misdeeds and who possess the integrity and dedication essential to the considerable task of restoring Shell’s reputation; all of these ingredients are needed for a genuinely fresh start.

Only then would I be prepared to invest in Shell or to recommend anyone else to so.

Some relevant extracts from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (United Nations)  (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

This article is published under the universally recognised basic human rights of freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

drjohnhuong@yahoo.co.uk