Posts Tagged ‘Malaysia’

Shell whistleblower Dr Huong accuses Shell of psychological torture

Jan 29th, 2011

I am very disappointed with Shell in the person of Mr. Thuvakumar for the psychological torture inflicted on me for almost four years. In his affidavit affirmed on 6.11.2007 before the Commissioner of Oath, Mr. Thuvakumar and the Shell Counsel knew very well that I was not the author of the publications – the “Corruption crisis of the Malaysian Judiciary” and the “unlawful deduction” from the Employee’s Provident Fund from ex-Shell employees. He used the same tactics used from the outset of the litigation blaming me for internet publication by the Donovan’s over which I have no influence.

Dr John Huong

Thavakumar Kandiahpillai, General Counsel, Shell Group of Companies, Malaysia.

Thavakumar obtained his LLB (Honours) from University of London in 1989 and was admitted to the English Bar at Middle Temple in 1990. He then went on to obtain his LLM from University Of London in 1991 and was admitted to the Malaysian Bar in 1992. He also became a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in 1992. Thavakumar practised in Kuala Lumpur as an Advocate & Solicitor becoming a partner in 1998. In his practice, he was actively involved in litigation, during which time he appeared in several landmark cases, and also in domestic and offshore banking, corporate and commercial work. Thavakumar joined Shell Malaysia in KL in 2000 as Senior Counsel, Corporate & Company Secretarial. In 2001, he then became the Head of Legal at Shell Malaysia Exploration & Production, based in Miri, Sarawak. He then moved to back to KL taking charge of the Downstream, GP, and Shared Services legal advisory team. Thavakumar was appointed General Counsel in August 2006.

Article by John Donovan

The email attachment printed below from Shell Malaysia whistleblower Dr John Huong to his lawyer, Trevor George De Silva, accuses Shell of psychological torture in the defamation action brought against him by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies. Shell had repeatedly attempted to have Dr Huong imprisoned for alleged contempt of court on grounds they knew to be false. Dr Huong also points out that evidence was falsified by Shell lawyers who gave perjured testimony to the Judge.

EMAIL FROM DR JOHN HUONG TO HIS LAWYER TREVOR GEORGE DE SILVA

29th April 2008

Miri, Sarawak, East Malaysia.

Dear Mr. Trevor,

Good morning.

I have not heard from you since 11th March 2008 on further development in my case, thus my email on 24th April 2008 for which I received your reply yesterday, 28th April 2008.

Could you kindly enlighten me about some details not mentioned in your email. Based on the last information available, the hearing was supposed to take place on 22 April 2008. Did the hearing take place that day? Did you go personally go to the Court to represent me? How long was the hearing? Assuming there is no transcript, in general terms what was stated in the exchanges that took place between the people present? Where is the written response Shell Counsel was instructed by the judge at the last hearing to produce for this hearing? What was the outcome with respect to the application for extension of the ex-parte injunction which you told me last time for which the Court has no record? What is the status of the committal injunction? Please let me know every important detail that transpired during the hearing before the Judge.

I am very disappointed with Shell in the person of Mr. Thuvakumar for the psychological torture inflicted on me for almost four years. In his affidavit affirmed on 6.11.2007 before the Commissioner of Oath, Mr. Thuvakumar and the Shell Counsel knew very well that I was not the author of the publications – the “Corruption crisis of the Malaysian Judiciary” and the “unlawful deduction” from the Employee’s Provident Fund from ex-Shell employees. He used the same tactics used from the outset of the litigation blaming me for internet publication by the Donovan’s over which I have no influence.

I decided on 21st April 2008 that I should write to publisher of the articles mentioned above. I attached herewith, the email I sent. Mr. John Donovan has kindly responded to confirm who did author the relevant articles. If you have any opportunities, please extend that information to the attention of the Judge.

This letter to you sets out by preliminary thoughts, which came to mind as a result of your email and developments in my Industrial Court case against Shell. I will confer with my extended family and in due course, after I have received the additional information requested herein, will write again setting out important matters which I would like you to bring to the attention of the Judge and relevant parties.

Is it proper to go ahead with the defamation case bearing in mind the response to the Statement of Case had said that the findings in the Industrial Court case will have to be included? Bear in mind that the Industrial case went to court much earlier than the defamation case. Can you advise on this matter?

1. Shell’s affidavit was filed close to the hearing dates to which we have limited time to study and respond accordingly.

2. The affidavit was not filed with the High Court and therefore not given the Court reference number to be quoted in all future communication. This is clearly an abuse of the legal process and I believe previous handing of my Court documents was the same and there was a mess concerning those documents.

3. How can I have the confidence to expect the Judge to follow my case, given the huge time gap in between each hearing, poor cause paper documentation, changing of judges, etc. The judges for both my defamation and the Industrial cases are now changed.

4. The attachment to the affirmed affidavit before the Commissioner of Oath was made in bad faith. Why is that so?

5. The document was published in the UK by Mr. Alfred and John Donovan (father and son) and was downloaded from their website, www.royaldutchshellplc.com which was operated from a server located in the USA. I have no access to upload ANY publication, including the articles cited in Mr. Thuvakumar’s affidavit.

Shell should take issue with Mr. Alfred and John Donovan in the right jurisdiction. The Donovan’s have informed the Malaysian lawyers concerned and the Malaysian High Court that Shell sued the wrong person, in the wrong place and for the wrong reasons. These gentlemen have repeatedly invited Shell to seek legal redress if Shell thinks that her good reputation was injured and defamed. These invitations were made to Shell many times in the past and in the most current email dated 21st April 2008 (published on the internet) which said.

“If Shell takes issue with anything stated in the relevant articles they should take action against the authors and publishers as admitted in this email, namely Alfred Donovan and John Donovan in respect of the first article and John Donovan (me) in regards to the other two”

www.royaldutchshellplc.com <http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com> is an internet gripe website described by the Financial Times as “anti-Shell”. The Daily Mail said Shell is “rattled” and has been put on the “back foot” by the website. Reuters said that it is an “unofficial” company website with the most up to date information about Shell. Fortune Magazine has recommended two websites – Shell portal site www.shell.com <http://www.shell.com/> and royaldutchshellplc.com for information about Shell. See The Internet humiliation of Royal Dutch Shell Plc <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/10/22/the-internet-humiliation-of-royal-dutch-shell-plc/> and Free Research on Royal Dutch Shell Plc (over 19,000 articles) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/16/free-research-on-royal-dutch-shell-plc-over-19000-articles/> : and Nikkei BP (Japan): Gripe sites are becoming more powerful <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/13/nikkei-bp-japan-gripe-sites-are-becoming-more-powerful/> :

Testimonies concerning Shell reserve fraud are also found at the gripe site. See Royal Dutch Shell dirty washing hung out to dry here every day… <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/16/royal-dutch-shell-dirty-washing-hung-out-to-dry-here-every-day/> :and Link to Shell Fraud Litigation Webpage updated daily <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/12/the-link-to-the-shell-reserves-litigation-webpage-updated-daily/> Many horrendous stories like Shell’s “Touch Fuck All” culture resulting in the death of Shell workers in Brent Bravo and a dossier of “Controversies surrounding the Royal Dutch Shell“ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Royal_Dutch_Shell> found in Wikipedia. No one else in the world was sued for defamation other than the Shell Group of Companies making allegations against me and taking out litigation against me in the Malaysian Jurisdiction.

5. Why did the Malaysian Judiciary allow the Shell Group of Companies to prefer placing the burden of Shell’s pathetic reputation on me by resorting to abuse “the legal process to prejudice the Court’s mind”? What has the 399 retirement fund case got to do with me? I am not even a member in the lawsuit. However, I did hear, the then ex-chairman, Mr. Jon Chadwick promising employees in the “Mulu Hall” forum, that should the “399” win their case, the application of the equitable outcome will be applicable to the rest of the employees which naturally includes me.

6. Mr. Thuvakumar, together with the Shell Counsel has attached a document to the affirmed affidavit deliberately removing name of the authors in the said document. All other information and including the URLs were clearly shown.

7. Why were name of the authors deliberately removed from the article “Corruption Crisis in Malaysian Judiciary Impacts on Shell Litigation”? Why are all the discussions pertaining to the affirmed affidavit directed to Mr. Alfred Donovan only? What were the motives? Why did Shell prefer that I be dragged into matters I have nothing to do with? Such modus operandi has been consistent throughout the proceedings and are still the tactics being used against me as we progress to the trial at the Malaysian High Court. Is it morally or legally proper for someone to be persecuted for alleged acts for which another person has repeatedly and consistently admitted responsibility? I find it hard to believe that this situation is being allowed to continue and I will make my feelings known publicly immediately I am free to do so. Frankly I am ready to explode at the injustice of the way I have been treated in blatant breach of the fundamental human rights proclaimed by the United Nations. Human rights incidentally which Shell purports to support.

In addition, such acts of injustice and including perjury, missing medical reports, tampering of records, certification of actual records, making up false tabulations, etc were also used by Thuvakumar, his counsels and witnesses in my Industrial Court Case and I will be pointing this out to the new judge. The case was scheduled for hearing on the 28th April 2008 but is now deferred to 7th May for a mention; to set a new trial date. Mr. Sim, the Shell counsel in my Industrial court case should know better since he is the President for the Sarawak Bar Association. He ought to know better what is ethical and just of a reasonable man in the legal profession. As was replied to the Statement of Claim in the defamation lawsuit, the information obtained in the Industrial Court case will be extensive and damning for Shell.

I am afraid that the legal documents for my defamation case, so far, were also not filed properly with registration numbers, dates and time. You just have to see how the American judiciary filed their Court papers for the reserve fraud mentioned and found in the website shown above. Here is an example to link http://www.shellnews.net/classactiondocs/Searchable_Barendregt_Depo_OCR.pdf. This is an “entire searchable deposition of Royal Dutch Shell Group Reserves Auditor, Anton Barendregt – 32mb pdf FILE, 965 Pages..”. Have a look at the front, body and end pages and I wish those pertinent elements were emulated in the cause papers. Who is supposed to be responsible and accountable for all these unprofessional behaviors?

8. The Donovan’s have written many articles and published many articles relating to Shell from all sources, whether, they are positive or negative, “the good, the bad and the ugly”. If Shell is unhappy Shell ought to take issue with them. Some of the other articles where the Donovan’s have mentioned and written about me are found in the links below. Please bear in mind that they are neither my servants, nor my agents and as an unemployed ex-Shell employee, I have no money to hire anyone, leave alone British citizens whose hourly pay is something I do not want to think about.

06/12/2006 ShellNews.net: EMAIL TO THE BORNEO BULLETIN: NEWS BLACKOUT ON ROYAL DUTCH SHELL GROUP vs. Dr JOHN HUONG <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2006/12/06/shellnewsnet-email-to-the-borneo-bulletin-news-blackout-on-royal-dutch-shell-group-vs-dr-john-huong/>

25/02/2007: The ludicrous claim that Shell is the world’s best oil company in sustainability, CSR, governance, ethics and transparency <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/02/25/the-ludicrous-claim-that-shell-is-the-world%e2%80%99s-best-oil-company-in-sustainability-csr-governance-ethics-and-transparency/>

07/07/2007: A blunt speech about Shell and its track record in Nigeria: by Alfred Donovan <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/07/07/a-blunt-speech-about-shell-and-its-track-record-in-nigeria-by-alfred-donovan/>

28/07/2007: Reuters: Internet censorship spreading: OSCE study (*In August a Malaysian court will hear Shell’s application to have whistleblower Dr John Huong jailed) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/07/28/reuters-internet-censorship-spreading-osce-study-in-august-a-malaysian-court-will-hear-shells-application-to-have-whistleblower-dr-john-huong-jailed/>

20/03/2007 Decision day looms for 399 former Shell employees suing Shell Malaysia for unlawful deduction from retirement fund : <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/03/20/decision-day-looms-for-399-former-shell-employees-suing-shell-malaysia-for-unlawful-deduction-from-retirement-fund/>

27/04/2007: Bernama, Malaysia: Petronas, ExxonMobil & Shell Create Merdeka Award (* will Dr John Huong be Shell’s first nomination?) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/08/27/bernama-malaysia-petronas-exxonmobil-shell-create-merdeka-award-will-dr-john-huong-will-be-shells-first-nomination/>

06/08/2007 In High Praise of Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc: <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/08/06/in-high-praise-of-mr-michiel-brandjes-company-secretary-and-general-counsel-corporate-royal-dutch-shell-plc/>

07/08/2007 Email to Mr Saw Choo Boon, Chairman of Shell Malaysia <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/08/07/email-to-mr-saw-choo-boon-chairman-of-shell-malaysia/>

09/08/2007: Huliq News NC: Royal Dutch Shell in blog site defamation quagmire <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/08/09/huliq-news-nc-royal-dutch-shell-in-blog-site-defamation-quagmire/>

03/09/2007: New Straits Times (Malaysia): NSTP wins 6 press awards (*cosy relationship between Shell, the Malaysian Government and Malaysian Press) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/03/new-straits-times-malaysia-nstp-wins-6-press-awards-cosy-relationship-between-shell-the-malaysian-government-and-malaysian-press/>

25/09/2007 CORRUPTION CRISIS IN MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY IMPACTS ON SHELL LITIGATION <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/25/corruption-crisis-in-malaysian-judiciary-impacts-on-shell-litigation/> :

25/09/2007 Malaysia: Judiciary and corruption (For obvious reasons the legal jurisdiction of choice for Shell) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/27/malaysia-judiciary-and-corruption-for-obvious-reasons-the-legal-jurisdiction-of-choice-for-shell/> :

29/09/2007: The Times: Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year: Wildlife photos go on display <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/29/the-times-shell-wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-wildlife-photos-go-on-display/>

30/09/2007 EXTRACTS FROM POSTINGS ON OUR WEBSITE IN JUNE 2004 IN THE NAME OF FAMED SHELL WHISTLEBLOWER DR JOHN HUONG <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/09/30/extracts-from-postings-on-our-website-in-june-2004-in-the-name-of-famed-shell-whistleblower-dr-john-huong/> :

31/10/2007 HRH Sultan Azlan Shah speaks out on crisis in Malaysian judiciary <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/10/31/hrh-sultan-azlan-shah-speaks-out-on-crisis-in-malaysian-judiciary/> :

18/10/2007: Reckless approach of Royal Dutch Shell to HSE <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/10/18/reckless-approach-of-royal-dutch-shell-to-hse/>

6 November 2007: Shell affidavit affirmed

13/11/2007: Insight into the secret machinations of Royal Dutch Shell Execs <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/13/insight-into-the-secret-machinations-of-royal-dutch-shell-execs/>

18/11/2007: malaysiakini.com: Empower royal panel with ‘widest terms of reference’: the ‘rot’ in Malaysian judiciary (where Shell is suing Dr John Huong) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/18/malaysiakinicom-empower-royal-panel-with-widest-terms-of-reference-the-rot-in-malaysian-judiciary-where-shell-is-suing-dr-john-huong/>

10/12/2007 Is Royal Dutch Shell a racist company? <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/12/10/is-royal-dutch-shell-a-racist-company/>

03/02/2008: Response to Live Chat Guest 6967 <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/03/response-to-live-chat-guest-6967/>

14/02/2008 Malaysia: Shell’s legal jurisdiction of choice: justice <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/14/malaysia-shell%e2%80%99s-legal-jurisdiction-of-choice/> can be bought by the highest bidder <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/14/malaysia-shell%e2%80%99s-legal-jurisdiction-of-choice/>

16/02/2008: The Shell whistleblower buried alive in litigation by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/16/the-shell-whistleblower-buried-alive-in-litigation-by-eight-royal-dutch-shell-companies/> :

18/02/2008: A message to Shell whistleblower 5388 <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/02/18/a-message-to-shell-whistleblower-5388/>

01/03/2008: Throwing mud at Shell (updated) <http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/03/01/throwing-mud-at-shell/>

Mr. Trevor, please keep all documentations and recordings properly on our side in your inventory. Pending the advise of my extended family, I may lodged reports to the police, the Malaysian Judiciary and any relevant parties in due course. This email is to get some of my thoughts out of my mind and I will be sending you a finalized copy in the future. By the way, can you please give me the name, postal address, email address and phone number for the Minister of Welfare in Kuala Lumpur?

Related E-mails Attachments 1-4 are shown below.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

E-MAIL ATTACHMENT 1

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:01:21 -0700 (PDT)

From: “John Huong” <jh_.com>

Subject: Confirm authors, changes if any?

To: “John Donovan” john@shellnews.net

Dear Mr. Donovans,

Good evening.

A few months ago, you wrote articles concerning the Malaysian judiciary System. Can you confirm and tell me where the following articles were posted and the author and/or authors of those articles itemized from 1-3 below.

1. CORRUPTION CRISIS IN MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY IMPACTS ON SHELL LITIGATION

2. Malaysia: Judiciary and corruption (For obvious reasons the legal jurisdiction of choice for Shell)

3. HRH Sultan Azlan Shah speaks out on crisis in Malaysian judiciary.

Since posting those articles, were there any changes made to the document since then?

This is urgent because my lawyer will be going to the court tomorrow and I would like him to bring these information to the judge. This is because the affirmed affidavit by one Shell’s Thuvakumar had included your article in his affidavit as a basis to giving me more injunctions.

May I asked you where you got all those information for your articles, the publication of which prompt Shell to take legal actions against me, in breach of my human rights and freedom? I believe removing part of the documents is a criminal act of tampering a document which subsequently was affirmed before the Commissioner of Oath and the Court must know this.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. John Huong

E-MAIL ATTACHMENT 2

Date:                 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:15:03 +0100
From:                      “John Donovan” <john@shellnews.net>
To:                  “John Huong” jh_@.com
Subject:              Re: Confirm authors, changes if any?

Hello Dr Huong

It is nice to hear from you. We are extremely busy at the moment with a complete change of our IT set up so I will have to answer in a briefer form than I would ideally prefer.

The first article (1.) was authored by my father and me and the second (2) and third (3) by me alone.

I cannot recall any subsequent changes to the original publications.

The source information was brought to our attention by a Malaysian national involved in the retirement fund litigation with Shell. I believe we have email correspondence to prove this fact but I simply do not have the time tonight to check.

I am astonished that Shell is apparently taking action against you when you have absolutely no involvement or advance knowledge of the relevant articles.

If Shell takes issue with anything stated in the relevant articles they should take action against the authors and publishers as admitted in this email, namely Alfred Donovan and John Donovan in respect of the first article and John Donovan (me) in regards to the other two.

Shell cannot possibly have any evidence to prove any involvement on your part as none exists.

Yours sincerely
John Donovan

E-MAIL ATTACHMENT 3

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:47:39 -0700 (PDT)

From: “John Huong” <jh_@.com>

Subject: RE: KLHC Suit No. S2 – 41 -2004 & S2 – 23 – 38 – 2006 Sarawak Shell Bhd -v- Houng Yiu Tuong

To: “trevorg” trevorg@leeongkandiah.com.my

CC: “‘Beh Chee Wei’” beh@leeongkandiah.com.my

Dear Mr, Trevor George,

Good afternoon.

What is the status on this legal matter?

Thanks

Sincerely,

Dr. John Huong

E-MAIL ATTACHMENT 4

From: “trevorg” <trevorg@leeongkandiah.com.my>

Subject: RE: KLHC Suit No. S2 – 41 -2004 & S2 – 23 – 38 – 2006 Sarawak Shell Bhd -v- Houng Yiu Tuong

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:16:06 +0800

Dear Dr. Huong

I trust all is well with you.

I am glad to inform that the Court agreed with our submission and expunged Shell’s last affidavit (i.e the one exhibiting the Donovan’s website write-up on the M’sian Judiciary).

The Judge has now fixed both injunction matters for disposal on August 27, 2008, with a mention first on August 1, 2008.

Meanwhile, we are also getting case management directions for the setting down of the matter for trial. I will contact you in this regard once the order has been made so that we can make arrangements for the collation of all documents you wish to adduce at the trial.

Best Regards

Trevor George De Silva

Partner

Suite 2.07-2.10, 2nd Floor, Wisma Mirama

Jalan Wisma Putra, 50460 Kuala Lumpur

Tel No: 03-21448336

Fax No: 03-21447336

Writer’s E-Mail: trevorg@leeongkandiah.com.my

Website: www.leeongkandiah.com

Dr Huong evidence refuting Shell defamation law suit

Jan 27th, 2011

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

By John Donovan

After EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group collectively buried him in legal proceedings, including multiple injunctions, as part of a draconian defamation action in respect of allegations published on this website, former Shell production geologist, Dr John Huong begun assembling evidence to substantiate that the allegations were true.

His efforts were hampered by sinister activities by Shell and repeated attempts by the Shell collective to have him committed to prison for alleged contempt of court in respect of further publications on this website. The High Court Judge told Shell to sue me, not Dr Huong, but Shell insisted for several years in terrorizing Dr Huong and his family to the extent, as already revealed, that he felt it necessary to use body guards.

Now that Shell has withdrawn the action and settled all related litigation, we intend to publish evidence Dr Huong found during his extensive research and start with information about Shell’s misuse/manipulation/abuse of Shell employee pension fund monies. It was supplied to us by Dr Huong in his email dated 9 December 2007.

FIRST FILE (Second file tomorrow)

20050729 Adjudicator tells pension funds employers to play by the rules July 29 2005

RETIREMENT PLANNING

Adjudicator tells pension funds, employers to play by the rules July 29, 2005

http://www.persfin.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=595&fArticleId=2648750

By Staff Reporters

Vuyani Ngalwana, the Pension Funds Adjudicator, has made it clear in his latest rulings that he will not tolerate employers using pension funds as their fiefdoms, and that all parties involved in managing retirement funds must abide by the rules of the funds and the Pension Funds Act.

Shell Southern Africa Pension Fund and Shell South Africa Energy (Pty) Ltd. Ngalwana ordered the Shell Southern Africa Pension Fund to boost a former member’s pension by R520 000 in recognition of her part-time employment with Shell South Africa for eight years. He also ordered the fund’s participating employer, Shell South Africa, to make good the shortfall that could result from increasing the member’s benefit.

JM Smallberger worked for Shell since 1962, and worked part time between 1979 and 1987. Smallberger says she was refused membership of the pension fund because she was over 35 years of age in 1979.

During the years she worked part time, Smallberger was not allowed to join the pension fund, and therefore this period was not recognised when the fund calculated her retirement benefit. However, Ngalwana found that the fund had two rules that gave the fund and the employer the discretion to take her period of part-time employment into account.

Ngalwana says the reasons given by the fund and Shell for not taking those years into account when calculating Smallberger’s pensionable service were not sound in law. He says bearing in mind that Shell could afford to pay the additional amounts required and the purpose behind the rules, the fund’s trustees should have adjusted Smallberger’s benefit.

One of the excuses used by Shell for not recognising Smallberger’s service during the years she worked part time was its fear that doing so would set a precedent for the company’s 144 temporary employees, who are not entitled to receive any pension benefits.

Ngalwana says this view betrays a misconception of the nature of a discretionary power and that each must be determined on its merits. Furthermore, the discretionary rules do not apply to Shell’s temporary – as opposed to its part-time – employees.

Ngalwana points out that Smallberger did not ask for the pension benefit as a temporary employee, but as a pensioner-member of the fund.

Determinations of the Pension Funds Adjudicator: Consolidated Summary

1998 Determinations

No: 25

Parties to the complaint: The Group of Concerned SAPREF Pensioners v The SAPREF Pension Fund and Shell and BP South African Petroleum Refineries

Date of determination: 31 August 1998

Type of ruling: Final

Case number: PFA/KZN/25/98

Summary of complaint: Fund surplus – The complainants took issue with the approach of the fund trustees, the company and the fund auditors that they can take advantage of the actuarial surplus of the fund without due consideration of the reasonable benefit expectations of the members of the fund . They sought an order directing the fund to distribute the fund surplus in a manner differently to what was intended.

No. 24

Parties to the complaint: P A Sligo v Shell Southern Africa Pension Fund and Shell South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Date of determination: 24 August 1998

Type of ruling: Final

Case number: PFA/WE/54/98

Summary of complaint: Deferred pensioners – The dispute relates to an alleged obligation on the part of the fund or the company to provide certain benefits to the complainant derived contractually and/or in terms of the rules of the fund

See details of these two cases
CAMBODIA

Former Shell employees asking for interest on retirement pay.

Read Below

By Vong Sokheng

Former employees of Shell oil company are demanding $1 million in interest on retirement benefits recently awarded to Cambodia staff members who worked for the company before 1975.

The staff of Societe Shell du Cambodge (SSC) were forced to stop working when the country was overtaken by the Khmer Rouge in 1975.

In November 2001 SSC’s modern-day equivalent, Shell International Limited, paid retirement benefits totaling $250,000 to 38 former employees, said Bun Khem, one of the claimants.

A further $109,710 was paid in March last year to cover long-overdue retirement benefits owed to 35 other former staff.

Now the 73 former employees are demanding that Shell’s London-based operations pay 10 percent interest on their retirement benefits, Khem said.

“According to the legal basis, the company has to pay 10 percent as an interest rate of the retirement benefits, which the company was not able to pay after 1975,” Khem said. “I think that the SSC has tried to cheat our money.”

He estimated the interest owed between 1975 and 2003 was about $1 million.

The action comes in response to a similar claim in Vietnam in which Royal Dutch-Shell Group of Companies paid $2 million to nearly 600 Vietnamese workers who lost their jobs without severance pay when the oil company’s Vietnam operations were taken by the communist government.

“Our case is similar to the one already applied in Vietnam, and the same legal basis of operating should clearly consist of interest [paid on retirement funds],” Khem said.

The Cambodian claimants tried to push their request through the British Ambassador in September last year, but were unsuccessful, Khem said.

Robert Pritt, senior legal counsel of the Shell company in London, did not reply to e-mails.

Phnom Penh Post, Issue 14/17, August 26 – September 8, 2005
© Michael Hayes, 2005

Royal Dutch Shell terrorist tactics against Malaysian whistleblower

Sabah can review oil deal with Petronas

Jan 27th, 2011

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

INTRO BY JOHN DONOVAN: Royal Dutch Shell, in bed with a thoroughly corrupt dictatorship regime in Malaysia and its state-owned puppet oil company, Petronas, has plundered the mineral riches of Malaysia for many decades. Same evil exploitation policy as in Nigeria – Shell will deal with the devil if that’s what it takes to extract the hydrocarbon riches, which rightly belong to the people. And this has continued even under the fiction of a claimed ethical code. Sabah, one of 13 member states of Malaysia, has become the poorest in the country despite its massive mineral riches. Please read this article published by the website: Free Malaysia Today.

Luke Rintod | January 27, 2011

PENAMPANG: The Sabah government has the power to review its oil royalty contract with Petronas, according to United Borneo Front (UBF) chief Jeffrey Kitingan.

He said that the state government could also decide how much money it should get from the federal government-owned Petronas for the oil and gas derived from the state.

“The state government has immense power to review its contract with Petronas. The Petroleum Development Act (PDA) 1974 which effectively vests all petroleum throughout this country in one company forever, is itself amendable.

“Whether the PDA 1974 is unconstitutional… and an unconscionable Act of Parliament is something that the people of Borneo should keep in mind.”

He was speaking to a group of people at UBF’s “Borneo Tea Party” hosted by UBF supporter, Andrew Joseph Tuining, in Ganang, Kepayan, near here over the weekend.

The state signed away its oil rights to Petronas in 1976, two years after the PDA and days after the tragic deaths of chief minister Fuad Stephens and many members of his Cabinet in a plane crash in Kota Kinabalu. Today, Sabah has become the poorest in the country despite its massive mineral riches.

Under the PDA 1974, Petronas is granted exclusive rights in perpetuity to explore, exploit, win and obtain petroleum onshore and offshore in Malaysia and its rights, liberties, powers and privileges are irrevocable, said Jeffrey.

In return for this, he explained, the Act states that Petronas shall make cash payments to the federal government and relevant state governments where oil is derived, as may be agreed between the relevant parties.

According to Jeffrey, people are afraid to bring up this issue because the business is substantial, running into billions of dollars every year, and is effectively shared between Petronas and its foreign partners like Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Review Sabah’s share

Jeffrey said that the shareholders of Royal Dutch Shell, incorporated in the UK in 2002, include some of the most powerful personalities, companies and countries in the world such as Britain, Singapore, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Norway.

“In December 2009, Petronas and Royal Dutch Shell signed a deal to develop Iraq’s oilfield of Majnoon, with 60% going to Royal Dutch Shell and 40% to Petronas.

“Whatever is derived from Sabah’s oilfields are peanuts compared to what Petronas is getting overseas with its foreign partners. So, why can’t they (Petronas) be reasonable and review that measly 5% that was agreed upon in 1976?” he asked.

He said that an Act of Parliament can be amended just as the Federal Constitution can be amended and as such, Sabah should go back to the negotiation tables, in accordance with Section 4 of the PDA 1974, to review how much cash payments Sabah should receive from Petronas.

“If the World Bank states that Sabah is the poorest state in Malaysia, then judging from the international activities of government-owned Petronas, Sabah has clearly been short-changed and taken for a ride by both the federal people in Malaya and the powerful people behind those foreign-owned giant oil companies overseas.

“Shell’s interest in Borneo’s oil reserves is not new. It has been given the right to explore oil in this area since the early 1900s. So it is hardly surprising that it would continue to have vested interests in our petroleum with Petronas.

“Nobody is going to fight this issue with internationally powerful people in this business, knowing it would be an exercise in futility.

“We merely want Petronas to review our share because it is clearly making more than its fair share outside Sabah. Petronas should not be selfish to Sabahans on what should rightfully be ours,” Jeffrey said.

Borneo Agenda

UBF co-founders Nilakrisna James and Zainal Ajamain also spoke at the Tea Party talks on the political history of Malaysia, the cabotage policy, state resources and the laws which legitimise unfair economic policies.

Ever since its inception on Dec 16, 2010, the UBF founders have been criss-crossing the state giving talks on the Borneo Agenda which calls for empowerment and more freedom to Sabah and Sarawak.

This weekend, Jeffrey will visit remote Entilibon in Telupid, in the centre of Sabah, to deliver similar talks.

The core demands of the agenda are:

Establish a compliance mechanism for the Malaysia Agreement 1963, especially Article VIII (8);
Fairer revenue sharing formula and representation at the federal level;
Restore Sabah and Sarawak’s status as equal partners in the federation;
Protect native rights as enshrined in Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution;
Abolish the cabotage policy;
close the economic and digital gap; and
Resolve the problem of illegal immigrants and fake MyKads in Sabah.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Dr John Huong accused Shell lawyers of tampering with evidence

Jan 22nd, 2011

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

May I asked you where you got all those information for your articles, the publication of which prompt Shell to take legal actions against me, in breach of my human rights and freedom?

Email received from Shell whistleblower Dr John Huong on 21 April 2008. We have provided hyperlinks to the articles he itemized.

Dear Mr. Donovans,

Good evening.

1. CORRUPTION CRISIS IN MALAYSIAN JUDICIARY IMPACTS ON SHELL LITIGATION

2. Malaysia: Judiciary and corruption (For obvious reasons the legal jurisdiction of choice for Shell)

3. HRH Sultan Azlan Shah speaks out on crisis in Malaysian judiciary.

Since posting those articles, were there any changes made to the document since then?

Yours sincerely,
Dr. John Huong

EXTRACTS FROM RELATED LETTER FROM DR HUONG DATED 28 APRIL ADDRESSED TO HIS LAWYER, TREVOR GEORGE DE SILVA

I am very disappointed with Shell in the person of Mr. Thuvakumar for preferring to torture me and continue to do so. In his affidavit affirmed on 6.11.2007 before the Commissioner of Oath, Mr. Thuvakumar and the Shell Counsel knew very well that I was not the author of the published document containing two glaring themes – the “Corruption crisis of the Malaysian Judiciary” and the “unlawful deduction” from the Employee’s Provident Fund from ex-Shell employees.

4. The document was published in UK by Mr. Alfred and John Donovan (father and son) and was downloaded from their website, www.royaldutchshellplc.com which was operated from a server located in New York, USA. I have no access to upload any publication and including the attached document found in Mr. Thuvakumar’s affidavit.

Shell should take issue with Mr. Alfred and John Donovan in the right jurisdiction. The Donovans have informed the Malaysian lawyers concerned and the Malaysian High Court where Shell has sued the wrong person, in the wrong place and for wrong reasons. These gentlemen have repeatedly invited Shell to seek legal redress if Shell thinks that her good reputation was injured and defamed.

In addition, such acts of injustice and including perjury, missing medical reports, tampering of records, certification of actual records, making up false tabulations, etc were also used by Thuvakumar, his counsels and witnesses in my Industrial Court Case and I will be pointing this out to the judge when the case which was scheduled for hearing on the 28th April 2008 is now deferred to 7th May for a mention; to set a new trial date. Mr. Sim, the Shell counsel in my Industrial court case should know better since he is the President for the Sarawak Bar Association. He ought to know better what is ethical and just of a reasonable man in a legal profession. As was replied to the Statement of claims in the defamation lawsuit, the information obtained in the Industrial Court case will be inclusive as stated in the response.

EXTRACTS END

RELATED EMAIL THAT DR HUONG RECEIVED FROM HIS LAWYER on 28 APRIL 2008

Dear Dr. Huong

I trust all is well with you.

I am glad to inform that the Court agreed with our submission and expunged Shell’s last affidavit (i.e the one exhibiting the Donovan’s website write-up on the M’sian Judiciary).

The Judge has now fixed both injunction matters for disposal on August 27, 2008, with a mention first on August 1, 2008.

Best Regards

Trevor George De Silva
Partner
Suite 2.07-2.10, 2nd Floor, Wisma Mirama
Jalan Wisma Putra, 50460 Kuala Lumpur

Lee Ong & Kandiah Advocates & Solicitors

EMAIL ENDS

NEITHER CASE GOT TO TRIAL. SHELL SETTLED BOTH ACTIONS OUT OF COURT. TOO MUCH “INTERNAL LAUNDRY” TO BE AIRED IN OPEN COURT, INCLUDING THE CRIMINAL TAMPERING OF EVIDENCE BY SHELL LAWYERS, E.G. HIDING IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM THE JUDGE BY REMOVING IT FROM DOCUMENTS PUT BEFORE HIM.

Shell: Beware the Yellow Peril

Jan 18th, 2011

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

COMMENTS FROM A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF SHELL OIL USA ON RECENT ARTICLES PUBLISHED ON THIS WEBSITE

John

Part of Shell Brent Bravo oil platform falls into North Sea

I just read about the Brent ‘incident’. That ‘little problem’ should have been taken care of through a preventive maintenance inspection program long ago. Sea water is not only highly corrosive to steel, but cyclical loading caused by wave action can induce fatigue failure. Believe it or not, the useful life of an airplane or a submarine is determined by the number of pressurization cycles the fuselage or hull goes through. Oil tankers have a useful life based on the number of stress cycles the hull has undergone. Oil tankers have split in half because of hull fatigue failure.

RD Shell should have recognized the life-cycle maintenance costs long ago and instituted appropriate inspection and maintenance programs to prevent what just occurred. After all, large pieces of structure falling to the sea bottom at high velocity could damage oil pipelines and cause serious releases of oil. Even Shell acknowledges that fact, which is why they shut down the production until the pipelines can be inspected.

This is not responsible conduct on the part of RD Shell and they should be sanctioned and fined appropriately. However, this gives everyone a good idea as to what RD Shell management thinks about environmental issues and platform health and safety issues. The really don’t give a ‘flying rat’s rear end’ about the consequences. They will pay their fine an move on.

Court adjourns case against Shell

I read your article about the law suit against RD Shell for failure to pay a fellow in an arms trafficking deal in Nigeria. RD Shell is admitting ‘arming’ the Nigerian governments ‘Spy Police’. My, my. What can I say, ‘Where the law ends, ….tyranny reigns.’ RD Shell, the ‘Yellow Peril‘, purveyor of tyranny and oppression. What is new. The Mafia is an amateur group of petty thugs in comparison to RD Shell.

Dr John Huong: Donovan correspondence with Royal Dutch Shell

I read the letter your father posted to RD Shell regarding its lawsuit against Dr. Huong. I don’t know how British or the Malaysian courts operate, but here in the States one is protected as a matter of constitutional law from being compelled to give what would amount to be ‘testimony against yourself’. This protection is found in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. In addition we have the ability to depose individuals, i.e., obtain sworn testimony, outside of the proceedings in a court room. So, under US law, which based upon English common law, it would have been possible to receive sworn testimony from your father in his own home, if necessary. This sworn testimony is completely admissible in a court of law in the US.

I find it very odd indeed that the Malaysian Courts and RD Shell’s attorneys in particular, would take the approach they did under the circumstances. Their conduct toward your father was nothing less than deliberately pernicious.

As a history student many years ago I had the opportunity study post WWI Weimar and Nazi German history in some detail. I also had the opportunity to read through the transcripts of the post WW2 trials held in Nuremberg, Germany. What most people do not realize was that Hitler was truly a political genius, if perverted and twisted in his view of the world. He was very careful about how he operated. In fact, the manner in which he did operate was completely ‘legal’ under German law at that time, which was a highly buggered version of the Weimar Constitution.

I must say that the way the Malaysian courts and Shell conducted themselves in this matter brought to might the way the German courts operated during the days of the Third Reich. The approach and methods are uncannily similar.

It would appear that, at the behest and co-opting of RD Shell’s eight subsidiaries, the apparently very corrupt Malaysian authorities (e.g. 1 2 3) operated as if Dr. Huong, and apparently your father, were ‘Enemies of the State’. Only the ‘State’ in this case was standing in for RD Shell. These proceedings against Dr. Huong are not only ridiculous, they indicate how far RD Shell will go to ‘punish’ its perceived ‘enemies of the corporate ‘State’.

These proceedings also indicate that RD Shell management is more than willing to go to great lengths to ‘bend’ the political authority of legal governmental institutions to do their bidding. We have seen this in the way Shell has operated in Ireland, and here in the US through the Gale Norton affair at the US Dept. of the Interior, and their apparent espionage operations targeting the US Dept. of Defense. The revelations of the Wiki-leaks disclosures indicate how far RD Shell has taken this method of operation in RD Shell apparently functions as a ‘shadow government’ there.

It would appear that the warning of 100 years ago to ‘Beware the Yellow Peril’ is as valid today as it was then.

Whistleblower Dr John Huong on Shell’s North Sea safety record

Jan 17th, 2011

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

By John Donovan

We have hundreds of emails received from Shell Whistleblower Dr John Huong (right) during the many years when he was prohibited by the Malaysian courts from supplying information to us for publication.

This was part of the draconian defamation proceedings and related multiple injunctions brought against him by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies in respect of articles published on this website. He was also under threat of imprisonment for alleged contempt of court, again in relation to information published on this website.

Since Shell has now settled the actions (we knew they would never let the case go to trial), we are free to publish for the first time, comments we received from Dr Huong in the form of emails during the long years of litigation. Knowing Dr Huong, we are sure he has no objection to us putting into the public domain information, which at that time, was prohibited from publication under penalty of his imprisonment.

Email received from Dr John Huong; 26 November 2007 20:26:10 GMT

Subject: What Mr. Bill Campbell at www.royaldutchshellplc have done to inform stakeholders on Health, Safety, Security and Environmental issues

Dear Mr. Donovans,

Good day.

It is very interesting to note from today’s (25 Nov. 2007) article “BBC News: Scots should handle oil safety: *safer than leaving it to Shell which puts production and profit before employee lives” to note the reality that exists in Shell Practices as recorded – unfortunately negative!

Here are the chronological events over the HSE issues.

Around 17 August 2005, Dr John Huong, is in correspondence with the Scottish Authorities and has offered to give evidence to the recently announced Brent Bravo Public Inquiry into the deaths of two Shell employees on the Brent Bravo oil platform. http://www.shell2004.com/week33/shellnewsdrhuongshellbrentbavoinquiry17august2005.htm

On 18th March 2007, a Wall Street Journal carried an article where guests on Live Chat had accused you of making monies out of the unfortunate Shell Management over safety issues and at the same time they had vigorously tried to demean Mr. Bill Campbell and all those allegations were put clearly in correct perspective by you.
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/03/18/the-wall-street-journal-shell%e2%80%99s-safety-problem-i-am-suspicious-of-you-mr-donovan/

On 4th May 2007. two guests at Live Chat had seriously accused you of a smear campaign against Shell and that needed to be stopped at http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/05/04/shellnewsnet-response-to-recent-postings-on-live-chat/

On 24 July 2007, the matter of HSE became so serious because Shell is in a denial that the Former Shell International Group Auditor, Bill Campbell takes action against Shell before the Members of the British Parliament. http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/07/24/former-shell-international-group-auditor-bill-campbell-takes-action-against-shell/

On 22 Nov 2007, the Guardian reported “More than half of North Sea oil rigs fail safety checks” http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/22/the-guardian-more-than-half-of-north-sea-oil-rigs-fail-safety-checks/

Unfortunately, days later on 25 November 2007, BBC reported a very serious fire on a North Sea oil platform with 159 people on board were evacuated from the Thistle Alpha platform after smoke and flames were seen… Was this platform one of those that had failed safety checks? This is bad enough if it was on the list of failing the checks and is deemed even very much more serious if it was not on the list! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7111750.stm

This only shows that the famous Shell site, the www.royaldutchshellplc.com was correct all along with respect to informing Shell’s stakeholders on the pervasive erosion of Shell top management for failing to walk the talk concerning Shell General Business Principles and to institute discipline at workplace. Shell has a way of killing the messenger like Mr. Bill Campbell. However, the current employees have only nice words for a professional who cares for their lives in service proving a Mr. Bill Freeman very wrong in his assessment of Mr. Bill Campbell.
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2007/11/26/from-a-shell-north-sea-platform-insider-words-of-encouragement-and-support-for-bill-campbell%e2%80%99s-hse-campaign/

Thank you
Cordially,
John

Extract from: Investor advice from a Shell insider of almost 30 years

SOME ADVICE FOR INVESTORS AND POTENTIAL SHELL EMPLOYEES FROM DR JOHN HUONG, A SENIOR 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.

Dr Huong defence against Royal Dutch Shell defamation action

Jan 11th, 2011

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

It will soon be apparent to our readers from the extracts below, why Shell settled the Dr Huong litigation out of court. A very considerable pile of extremely smelly internal dirty laundry that Shell definitely did not want aired in open court, even in Malaysia.

By John Donovan

Dr John Huong, a former Shell geologist of almost 30 years standing was the FIRST SHELL employee to blow the whistle on the Shell reserves fraud (and other important issues relating to the misdeeds of Royal Dutch Shell management). He was not prepared to tolerate the lives of Shell employees being recklessly put at risk.

As a result Shell was determined to silence him at all costs. Hence the unprecedented spectacle of EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively bringing a defamation action against one former employee – an unemployed Malaysian who had no prospect whatsoever of finding alternative employment in his profession while the litigation cloud hung over the heads of himself and his family for several years.

Dr Huong made the mistake of believing in Shell’s STATEMENT OF GENERAL BUSINESS PRINCIPLES and in particular the pledges of “honesty, integrity, respect for people” in all of Shell’s dealings. He was also impressed by Shell’s philosophy in the claimed new ways of working, including the promotion of trust, openness, teamwork, professionalism and pride in what Shell does. He did not realise until more recent years that all of the pledges and claims were purely hype and spin meant for use in global PR campaigns such as “Profits and Principles” i.e. for the consumption of gullible consumers and stakeholders.

Dr Huong filed a Defence containing a staggering array of allegations, facts and evidence directed against Royal Dutch Shell Group. It represented a devastating indictment of Shell by a conscience driven former Shell insider. If filed today, much more evidence could be included about Shell misdeeds, including its involvement in murder, torture, corruption, spying inside the Nigerian government and even spying on Shell’s own employees in association with a specialist unit partly funded and staffed by the FBI.

It will soon be apparent to our readers from the extracts below, why Shell settled the Dr Huong litigation out of court. A very considerable pile of extremely smelly internal dirty laundry that Shell definitely did not want aired in open court, even in Malaysia.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR

(CIVIL DIVISION) SUIT NO.S2-23-41 OF 2004

BETWEEN

SARAWAK SHELL BHD. (71978-W)

SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING SENDIRIAN BERHAD (6078-M)

SHELL REFINING COMPANY (FEDERATION OF MALAYA) BHD. (3926-U)

SHELL TIMUR SDN. BHD. ( 113304-H)

SHELL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION MALAYSIA B.V. (993963-V)

SHELL OIL AND GAS (MALAYSIA) LLC (993830-X)

SHELL SABAH SELATAN SDN. BHD. (228504-T)

SABAH SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD. (993229-W)

In the event that the Alleged Defamatory Statements, in their natural and ordinary meaning, mean or are capable of conveying the meanings pleaded in paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim and are found to refer to the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group, the Defendant avers that the Alleged Defamatory Statements are true in substance and fact.

23.1 Particulars the Defendant repeats the particulars pleaded in paragraph P6 above;

23.2 on 9.1.2004, the Shell Group disclosed to the public that in the period from 1997 to 2003,the Shell Group had deliberately and falsely made misleading statements by over declaring the quantities and/or values of their petroleum reserves. The Shell Group subsequently made 5 announcements on the devaluation of their petroleum reserves. The first announcement alone devalued the said petroleum reserves by at least 20%. As a result of the false and misleading declarations, the Shell Group was fined by the Securities & Exchange Commission in the United States of America and the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as “the Reserves Scandal”);

23.3 as a result of the Reserves Scandal, shares of the Shell Group being publicly traded dropped in value substantially, thus causing their shareholders to suffer very considerable losses;

23.4 shareholders of Royal Dutch Petroleum, a company within the Shell Group, in the United Kingdom are threatening legal action in regards to tax penalties arising from the unification of Shell Transport and Trading Company plc and Royal Dutch Shell, both companies within the Shell Group. This said unification was due to the restructuring of the Shell Group following the Reserves Scandal;

23.5 the Shell Group is faced with a continuing criminal investigation by the justice Department, United States of America into the actions of former and current members of the senior executives o f the Shell Group;

23.6 the Shell Group is faced with a public inquiry after the deaths of two workers in an accident on the Brent Bravo offshore platform in the United Kingdom, for which the Shell Group has already admitted liability and paid a record high fine;

23.7 the Shell Group has agreed to a proposal to pay a USD90 million settlement in respect of a class action lawsuit in relation to the Reserves Scandal, which was brought against the Shell Group by its own employees who were prejudiced by the materially false and misleading statements of the of the Shell Group on the reported proven oil and natural gas reserves;

23.8 on 31.8.2005, the Shell Group had announced a USD9.2 million dollar settlement of a shareholder derivative class action lawsuit in the United States of America, in relation to the Reserves Scandal. The lead plaintiffs therein are the Unite National Retirement Fund and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund. The action is against named individual defendants including current directors of the unified new company, Royal Dutch Shell plc – including its CEO Jeroen van der Veer, Executive Director Malcolm Brinded and Maarten van den Berg. The plaintiffs allege that the said persons acted in breach of their fiduciary duties owed to companies in the Shell Group, abused their control over the said companies, aided and abetted breaches by others, and/or committed gross mismanagement and/or constructive fraud;

23.9 the Shell Group is facing another class action in the United States of America in relation to securities fraud, which has been granted leave to proceed by a Federal Judge, who has made a finding that the She11 Group and certain named directors including Jerocn van der Veer have a case to answer for alleged securities fraud in relation to the Reserves Scandal. The lead plaintiffs are the Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System and the Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System;

23.10 the Shell Group is also facing another class action lawsuit in the United States of America for alien tort, where 14 individual plaintiffs therein are suing the Shell Group for violations of customary international law in relation the She11 Group’s petroleum producing operations in Ogoniland, Nigeria. The plaintiffs allege that the Shell Group engaged in militarised commerce in a conspiracy with the former Military Government of Nigeria and that the Shell Group knowingly instigated, planned, facilitated, and participated in unprovoked attacks by the Nigerian military against the unarmed residents of Ogoniland, resulting in extrajudicial murder, crimes against humanity, torture, rape, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced exile and the deliberate destruction of private property. The Shell Group had admitted after the leaking of an internal report that the corporate behaviour of the Shell Group in Nigeria fed a vicious cycle of violence and corruption;

23.11 the Shell Group is also facing a class action in the United States of America by 26 plaintiffs, mostly Dutch pension funds, in relation to the Reserves Scandal, where the plaintiffs therein are suing in respect of losses suffered as a result of the purchase of shares in the Shell Group at artificially inflated prices and the subsequent drop in value of their investments when it was discovered that the Shell Group had deliberately and falsely over declared the quantities and/or values of their petroleum reserves;

23.12 legal proceedings have been commenced against the Shell Group and its senior executives in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, the United States of America for remedies under the Security Exchange Act of 1934 in relation to the Reserves Scandal, where the plaintiffs complain that the She11 Group had violated federal securities law by issuing material misrepresentations on the quantities and/or values of their petroleum reserves and that the Shell Group had violated accounting rules and guidelines relating to the declaration of oil and gas reserves, resulting in a material over declaration of oil and gas reserves and causing its shareholders to suffer loss when the Reserves Scandal occurred and the value of publicly traded shares of the Shell Group fell;

23.13 the Shell Group is also facing various other lcgal proceedings in the United States of America in relation to the Reserves Scandal;

23.14 AE Donovan, JA Donovan and/or Don Marketing Limited had commenced court proceedings against the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by in respect of breaches of confidence and/or breaches of contract in respect of 4 marketing proposals forwarded by Don Marketing Limited to the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom, which the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom had made use of without the consent or knowledge of Don Marketing Limited. The Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom eventually settled the said 4 court proceedings brought by AE Donovan, JA Donovan and Don Marketing Limited by making payments of substantial sums in respect of the claims and costs;

23.15 in or around 1 994, AE Donovan, JA Donovan and Don Marketing Limited has commenced court proceedings against the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by in respect of the breach of the terns of a mediation agreement by the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom. The Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom settled this court proceedings by making payments of substantia1 sums in respect of the claim and costs;

23.16 in or around 1994, AE Donovan had also sued the Shell: Group companies operating in the United Kingdom for libel, which suit was also settled by the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by making payments of substantial sums in respect of the claim and costs;

23.17 JA Donovan had also sued the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom for libel, which suit was also settled by the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by making payments of substantial sums in respect of the claim and costs;

23.18 the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom had admitted to hiring a private security firm which engaged in undercover activities against AE Donovan, JA Donovan and Don Marketing during the course of the litigation between the parties;

23.19 the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom had admitted to hiring a private security firms which engaged in undercover activities against environmental groups active in the United Kingdom and in other countries;

23.20 the Shell Group had been fined a substantial sum by the United Nations when it was found that an oil tanker chartered by the Shell Group had violated the international trade embargo against Iraq by transporting petroleum which had originated from Iraq;

23.21 a prosecution that was brought by the Department of Justice of the United States of America against the Shell Group in respect of the Shell Group having repeatedly and deliberately under declared the value of natuml gas extracted in the Gulf of Mexico to avoid the payment of royalties, was settled by the She11 Group by making a substantial payment;

23.22 the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica of California, the United States of America has accused the Shell Group o f deliberately taking action to reduce its production of petroleum fuel products during periods of high demand so as to cause a shortage of fuel in California;

23.23 while the Shell:Group have at various times publicised that they operate and manage their businesses subject to their Statement of General Business Principles, the Shell Group has also subsequently denied that the said Statement of General Business Principles were intended to be enforceable against the Shell Group;

23.24 the Shell Group had settled class actions in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada in respect of damage suffered by vehicles which had used petrol sold by the Shell Group which contained an additive that caused the said damage;

23.25 the Shell Group faced a claim in Florida, the United States of America in respect of damage suffered by vehicles which had used petrel sold by the Shell Group which contained sulphur that caused the said damage;

23.26 in or about December 2002 in Nicaragua, the Shell Group was ordered by a court to pay substantial compensation to banana plantation workers who had suffered permanent and serious injury and/or disease and/or death as a result of being exposed to a pesticide which was sold by the Shell Group in Nicaragua subsequent to the banning of the said pesticide in the United States of America in 1979, with full knowledge that the said pesticide would cause permanent and serious injury and/or disease and/or death to persons exposed to it;

23.27 at various times, the Shell Group had caused and/or allowed petroleum producing and/or storage and/or transporting and/or processing and/or refining facilities,which are owned by the Shell Group and/or partly owned by the Shell Group, to cause wide spread pollution, resulting in damage to the environment and/or illness and disease to the local populations and/or destruction of property, in the following places:

23.27.1 Norco, Louisiana in the United States of America;

23.27.2 Port Arthur and Texas Deer Park, Texas in the United States of America

23.27.3 Rukpokwu and various petroleum production facilities in Nigeria;

23.27.4 Vila Carioca, San Paulo in Brazil;

23.27.5 Curacao;

23.27.6 Durban in South Africa;

23.28 at various times, the Shell Group, by their activities in petroleum-producing and/or storage and/or transporting and/or processing and/or refining facilities, which arc owned by the Shell Group and/or partly owned by the Shell Group, continued to put the local population at risk of damage to the environment and/or illness and disease and/or destruction of property, in the following places:

23.28.I Pandacan, Manila in the Philippines;

23.28.2 Sakhalin IsIand in Russia.

In the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Alleged Defamatory Statements constitute fair comment on matters of public interest, namely that the Shell Group has been involved in numerous scandals and/or controversies and/or prosecutions worldwide, including the Reserves Scandal.

Particulars

24. 1 the Defendant repeats the particulars pleaded in paragraph 16 above;

24.2 the Defendant repeats the particulars pleaded in paragraph 23 above.

25. Paragraph 21 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant avers that by reason of the facts and matters pleaded in paragraphs 9 to 24 above, the Alleged Defamatory Statements have not caused any further damage and/or injury to the reputations of the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group.

26. Paragraph 22 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant avers that:

26.1 AE Donovan and JA Donovan had sole control over the contents of the said Website and had thc right to decide on the contributions that were to be posted on the said Website and also to edit any contribution received before posting the same on the said Website;

26.2 the Defendant did not publish the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 on the said Website or any other Internet website;

26.3 the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 was published by AE Donovan and/or JA Donovan on the said Website;

26.4 the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 was the result of AE Donovan an#or JA Donovan having edited and added their own comments to the correspondences between the Defendant and AE Donovan and/or JA Donovan, before posting the same onto the said Website;

26.5 the Defendant had absolutely no control over the contents of the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 on the said Website.

27. Paragraph 23 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant avers that by reason of the facts and matters pleaded in paragraphs 9 to 24 above, the Alleged Defamatory Statements have not caused any further damage and/or injury to the reputations of the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group and have not Further caused the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group to be brought into any further public scandal, contempt nor odium.

28. Paragraph 24 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant repeats paragraph 26 and 27 above.

29. Paragraphs 25 to 29 of the Statement of Claim are denied. The Defendant avers that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the remedies claimed therein.

30. Save as hereinbefore expressly admitted, the Defendant denies each and every allegation of fact contained in the Statement of Claim as if the same were specifically set forth seriatim herein and specifically traversed.

Dated this 25th day of January 2006.

The above is a scanned copy, so there may be mistakes. The original can be viewed via this link.

COMPLETE DEFENCE DOCUMENT INCLUDING ABOVE INFORMATION

Malaysia Unveils $22 Billion of Energy, Property, Health Deals

Jan 11th, 2011

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

By Manirajan Ramasamy and Barry Porter

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) — Malaysia unveiled 67 billion ringgit ($22 billion) of private-sector investments spanning energy, property and health, including oil and gas projects by Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Exxon Mobil will jointly invest more than 10 billion ringgit in a production-sharing project with Petronas Carigali Sdn., the exploration arm of state oil and gas company Petroliam Nasional Bhd., Prime Minister Najib Razak told reporters outside Kuala Lumpur today. Shell’s Malaysian unit will spend another 5.1 billion ringgit on three projects, he said.

“The feel-good factor for investing in Malaysia is returning,” International Trade and Industry Minister Mustapa Mohamed said. “We have set a target for investments in 2011 amounting to 83 billion ringgit and we’re confident of achieving it.”

Last September, the government outlined $444 billion of potential private company-led projects this decade as part of a so-called economic transformation program. These ranged from nuclear energy to mass rail, and included the oil and gas industry. Najib gave details of 19 of these today.

Exxon Mobil and Petronas Carigali plan to drill existing fields in the Tapis and Telok projects to find new reserves, Najib said.

“Investment in these projects will help develop and deliver energy supplies to meet Malaysia’s growing energy needs,” the prime minister said.

Tax Incentives

The government announced tax incentives in November to encourage companies to explore less-profitable fields in a bid to extend the size and life of the country’s petroleum reserves. Malaysia, Southeast Asia’s second-largest oil and gas producer, has domestic crude oil reserves to last 24 years and natural gas for 38 years, the finance ministry said Oct. 15.

Shell plans a deepwater development off Malaysia’s eastern Sabah state, as well as a diesel-processing unit in Port Dickson, Najib said. The company will also upgrade and expand its Bintulu plant in Borneo, he said.

“Malaysia is one of our heartlands,” Shell Malaysia Chairman Mohd. Anuar Taib said at the event in Putrajaya today. “In the upstream, new reserves and production are getting harder to come by.”

Selangor-based Dialog Group Bhd. will lead a consortium investing 5 billion ringgit in a deepwater petroleum terminal at Pengerang, in Malaysia’s southern Johor state, Najib said, confirming an earlier announcement. The facility will have storage capacity of 5 million cubic meters and is being developed in partnership with the Johor state government and Royal Vopak NV, he said.

‘Tremendous Opportunities’

“There are tremendous spinoff opportunities from the Pengerang project and it will eventually attract adjacent investments worth tens of billions of ringgit from other companies,” Ngau Boon Keat, Dialog’s chairman, told reporters.

In the property sector, Guocoland (Malaysia) Bhd., the property arm of Hong Leong Group, will invest 1.9 billion ringgit in a mixed development in Kuala Lumpur, Najib said. The project will include offices, retail, a hotel and apartments, he said in a statement.

UM Holdings Bhd., a unit of Universiti Malaya, will invest 1.2 billion ringgit in a healthcare development in Selangor, outside Kuala Lumpur, the statement shows. MyTelehaus Sdn., CSF Group and Teliti International will invest a combined 671 million ringgit in data centers, according to the statement.

–Editors: John Viljoen, Jane Lee.

To contact the reporters on this story: Manirajan Ramasamy in Kuala Lumpur at rmanirajan@bloomberg.net; Barry Porter in Kuala Lumpur at bporter10@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Amit Prakash at aprakash1@bloomberg.net.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Royal Dutch Shell defamation controversy

Jan 9th, 2011

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

Comment by a former employee of Shell Oil USA on Dr Huong controversy

John,

Re: Your articles on Dr. John Huong.

How in Perdition’s good name do the Malaysian courts think that they have legal jurisdiction over what is published on your website? What the Devil is that BS all about?

Furthermore, in the UK RD Shell must prove their case in court and obtain a similar form of court order against Dr. Huong and you in order to prevent Dr. Huong from speaking out publicly, and you from publishing his comments. Without such a court order Dr. Huong and you both have your legally well protected rights of freedom of speech given that Dr. Huong no longer works for RD Shell.

I can only presume that RD Shell’s failure to seek, let alone obtain such a court order, means that senior management and their lapdog attorneys decided that such an exercise would have been both foolish and completely futile given that they don’t (yet) have the power to corrupt the British courts.

I don’t know that criminal charges were brought against RD Shell or Shell management w/ regard to their reserves scandal but they should have been. That fraud was long running and approved at the highest levels of RD Shell management, including Shell USA management. Phony and inflated reserve bookings were a problem at Shell USA 20 years ago. I am only surprised it took until 2004 for the ‘chickens to come home to roost’.

My sympathies to Dr. Huong and his family. They have been done a great injustice by what amounts to an RD Shell internal management ‘crime syndicate’.

Extraordinary letter from Shell whistleblower Dr John Huong

Jan 5th, 2011

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

Because my stand on this matter in consonant with Shell Group Business Principles, its governance and with Malaysian national interests in mind, I made my concerns known internally at Shell. Shell made me feel that I had sinned for having a moral compass and a conscience.

My name is Dr John Huong. Until May 2003 I was a Shell geologist for almost 30 years – a management level employee of Shell Malaysia. I specialised in many areas of earth sciences including Micropalaeontology, Petrology, Sedimentology, Field Geology, Bio-Sequence Stratigraphy, Operation Geology, Exploration Geology, Reservoir Geology and Production Geology. I am also conversant with Petrophysics, Petroleum Engineering (i.e. Well Engineering, Reservoir Engineering) and Petroleum Economics. In the company, I belonged to the Malaysian Senior Staff Council (MSSC) and was once its Vice President.

My work involved being a contributor/producer for Shell Field Development Plans and scouting for Shell block biddings. I was for example in the early 1990′s involved in a Shell study of oil and gas basins at the Ural-Volga, Caspian and Siberia in the former Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) at the invitation of the Russian Oil & Gas Ministry and the Eisenhower Foundation of USA. I have studied Business Administration, specialising in Human Resource Management. I am also a graduate from the Chartered Institute of Marketing, UK. After work, I do community work for the needy.

I started out my career with Shell being immensely proud of the company I worked for and represented. I was very impressed by the famous advertising slogans: “You can be sure of Shell”; “We Care, We Share” and more recently, “Triple Bottom Line” and “Profits AND Principles”. My pride in being a Shell geologist was reinforced by Shell management’s stated commitment to core principles of integrity, transparency, honesty and professionalism, as expressed in Shell’s Statement of General Business Principles (SGBP). I felt that I was part of an outstanding multinational company of the very highest reputation which is in consonant with my own personal belief and value system.

My respect for Shell regretfully evaporated away over more recent years because of events that I have witnessed. I eventually came to the sad realisation that the companies’ actions were totally at variance with its carefully contrived public image. It is in fact a ruthless unprincipled multinational, as demonstrated by countless examples, most vividly by its record of oppressive exploitative policies in Nigeria. Shell, in collaboration with the military government, allegedly put men of good repute to torture, hanging; where women, children were raped and their homes razed to the ground. Shell must answer all these questions clearly to resolve that part of a horrible history.

If only Shell senior management had abided by and enforced the values and strictures enshrined in the SGBP I would still be a loyal dedicated Shell geologist today. Furthermore Shell’s reputation would not have been destroyed by the disgraceful conduct of its most senior management, some of whom at the time of writing this letter are still at the pinnacle of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. How can lies, dishonesty and cover-up be reconciled with the above core principles of the SGBP? Has there ever been a better example of blatant hypocrisy?

It is proper before going any further to declare my personal grievances against Shell senior management. I was dismissed after almost 30 years of loyal dedicated service. The allegations against me were “absent from work without leave, permission or reasonable excuse” and “failure to attend weekly meetings without permission, leave or reasonable excuses”. The charges against me were made out of malice and were unfounded, unproven and invented without any formal investigation. The whole process was undermined by improper actions in breach of natural justice.

As Shell senior executives are aware, normal disciplinary procedures were not followed by a management accredited with an ISO certification for excellence in Human Resource (HR) Management. I received no reprimands, nor written or oral warnings. Even worse, threats were made by HR personnel against my assistant, whom I had appointed as permitted by the Domestic Inquiry (DI) Process which preceded my unwarranted dismissal. The truth is that Shell senior management was bent on getting rid of me because I had expressed reservations about Shell misdeeds and wrongdoings. I have a conscience and felt compelled to speak out for the benefits of a civilized society. I have no doubt that a fairly conducted independent investigation would clear my name once and for all.

Obviously the issue of my dismissal is not of world shaking significance but it is of great importance to me because it reflects on my personal integrity which I value very highly. I have been shamed and humiliated. If I had been genuinely guilty of the allegations that would be bad enough; it makes my situation almost unbearable knowing that my dismissal was based on unfounded allegations combined with falsified evidence and the deliberate intimidation of my assistant for the domestic inquiry.

I did write recently to Malcolm Brinded who is a Group MD of the Royal Dutch Shell Group and Chief Executive Officer of Shell Exploration and Production seeking his intervention. Suffice it to say that although I had worked for Shell for almost 30 years in a senior position, Mr Brinded did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge my communication. That alone speaks volumes about him.

I therefore feel a deep sense of betrayal and injustice caused by the treatment I have received from Shell management. I am a victim of what others have accurately described as a corporate culture of cover-up at Shell. If I had not brought sensitive matters to the attention of Shell senior management, I would almost certainly still be a Shell geologist.

For example, in 1997, I was assigned to the multi-billion dollar Kinabalu offshore platform project as the only Production Geologist. A faulty design rendered the Production Platform unsafe and potentially subject to sinking. I was threatened by the Kinabalu Project Manager because I raised these important work issues during a Project Team Meeting which was minuted. Shell did not want such sensitive information placed on the record. Information about this vitally important life threatening issue was not passed on to PETRONAS at the time. PETRONAS is Malaysia’s national petroleum corporation. Wholly-owned by the Malaysian Government, the corporation is vested with the stewardship for the entire oil and gas resources in Malaysia and is entrusted with the responsibility for safety and other matters relating to Kinabalu Field development and other such projects. Shell deliberately withheld the information from PETRONAS. In time to come I will present other misdeeds of Shell for withholding information from PETRONAS or the Malaysian Government and its people who live in a lovely country where my family and I are also proud to reside.

Because my stand on this matter in consonant with Shell Group Business Principles, its governance and with Malaysian national interests in mind, I made my concerns known internally at Shell. Shell made me feel that I had sinned for having a moral compass and a conscience. I was transferred out of the Kinabalu Project without any proper reasons being given and made redundant in exile to work on a paper platform that was left in mothballed state for many years, known as the Ketam Field – “Ketam” in local language mean “Crab”!

I raised my grievances at being transferred out of the project against my will to the Ketam Field and the matter reached Managing Director/Chairman level. An Internal Investigation was subsequently conducted and blame apportioned to many individuals, including the General Manager. However I was not restored to my geology job. Shell management was apparently intent at all costs on covering up the flaws I had exposed in the Kinabalu Project and wanted to keep me out of the picture and further involvement. On reflection I believe that the most important concerns to Shell management was stopping important information from being disclosed to its Malaysian partner, PETRONAS (information PETRONAS was entitled to receive) and hiding the truth about hydrocarbon reserves from Shell shareholders.

What happened naturally caused me a great deal of personal stress but I was concerned that a catastrophe might take place and I did not want to have any deaths on my conscience, nor put my country Malaysia at risk due any potential oil/gas spills since the coastline of Brunei was very near to the Kinabalu field. No job is worth that risk.

From 1997 until 2003, I was not only stressed out but also unfairly treated by my supervisors by moving me around the company. I believe this happened as a direct result of my raising the safety, reserves and other technical concerns and issues about the Kinabalu project. It seems totally wrong to me now as I had not blown the whistle on Shell with PETRONAS but only made my concerns known internally at Shell.

In mid 2002, I was working under Mr. Hee Len Hi, the General Manager for Shell Malaysia Technology Management/Technical Services. My assignment at that time was to track a Facility Verification Report pertaining to helicopter services. I was informed by Operation Installation Managers of certain unprofessional work which had taken place in relation to the serviceability and safety of the helicopter fleet. However I discovered to my horror that passengers were still told to board one such helicopter and thus ended up, without their knowledge, as being TEST CREWS together with the pilots. I brought this alarming situation to the attention of Mr Hee Len Hi. It was not something he wished to know because the logistic unit was also under his responsibilities. His made his displeasure at my internal whistleblower action obvious. Once again my conscience and wish to work within Shell’s stated ethical code had got me into serious trouble.

I have since wondered whether serious accidents which have occurred in Shell’s North Sea operations involving helicopters and oil platforms happened because someone remained silent about the same type of cover-up and wrongdoing which I had felt compelled to expose within Shell.

It was Mr Hee Len Hi who subsequently orchestrated the above mentioned trumped up Domestic Inquiry together with Mr. Rosli Lompoh involving flawed evidence and intimidation of my assistant whom I recruited for the domestic inquiry. Furthermore, I wish to know who gave Len Hee and Rosli the instructions to treat me badly and I believe that will be clearer after my pending Industrial High Court case against Shell for wrongful dismissal. I also have important information directly relating to the Shell oil and gas reserves scandal. It will be added to this document shortly.

Dr John Huong

May 2004

NOTE ADDED BY JOHN DONOVAN: A DEFAMATION ACTION (INVOLVING THIS WEBSITE ) WAS BROUGHT BY EIGHT DIFFERENT COMPANIES WITHIN THE ROYAL DUTCH SHELL GROUP AGAINST DR HUONG. HE IN TURN BROUGHT A WRONGFUL DISMISSAL CASE AGAINST SHELL MALAYSIA. BOTH ACTIONS HAVE BEEN SETTLED. THE TERMS WERE AGREED WHILE DR HUONG WAS UNDER THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT.

Posts Tagged ‘Malaysia’

Thavakumar Kandiahpillai, General Counsel, Shell Group of Companies, Malaysia.

Article by John Donovan

EMAIL FROM DR JOHN HUONG TO HIS LAWYER TREVOR GEORGE DE SILVA

20050729 Adjudicator tells pension funds employers to play by the rules July 29 2005

Determinations of the Pension Funds Adjudicator: Consolidated Summary

1998 Determinations

Former Shell employees asking for interest on retirement pay.

Read Below

May I asked you where you got all those information for your articles, the publication of which prompt Shell to take legal actions against me, in breach of my human rights and freedom?

Email received from Shell whistleblower Dr John Huong on 21 April 2008. We have provided hyperlinks to the articles he itemized.

COMMENTS FROM A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF SHELL OIL USA ON RECENT ARTICLES PUBLISHED ON THIS WEBSITE

Email received from Dr John Huong; 26 November 2007 20:26:10 GMT

It will soon be apparent to our readers from the extracts below, why Shell settled the Dr Huong litigation out of court. A very considerable pile of extremely smelly internal dirty laundry that Shell definitely did not want aired in open court, even in Malaysia.

Comment by a former employee of Shell Oil USA on Dr Huong controversy

Because my stand on this matter in consonant with Shell Group Business Principles, its governance and with Malaysian national interests in mind, I made my concerns known internally at Shell. Shell made me feel that I had sinned for having a moral compass and a conscience.

Meta

Website Founder

Shell Live News Feed

Motiva Live News Feed

Sakhalin Energy News

Natural Gas Live News

Oil Sands Live News

Oil Spill Live News Feed

Fracking Live News Feed

Website Information

Archives

Oil Price

Shell Blog

...WHY SHELL DOESN'T LOVE THE DONOVANS

Links

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL EVIL TRACK RECORD

Categories

Recent Comments

BP Live News Feed

ExxonMobil Live News

Chevron Live News Feed