In the money: chief executive Peter Voser

Just two years after Shell faced one of the biggest rebellions ever seen over pay at a FTSE 100 company, the oil major today rewarded chief executive Peter Voser with a 19% increase in his pay packet.

Last year, the oil giant froze its executive pay-outs in response to investors in 2009 voting down its plans to award millions of pounds of shares to bosses despite missing performance targets.

Today, however, in its annual report, Shell said that last year Voser was rewarded with a 19% jump in remuneration, with his €1.5 million (£1.3 million) salary being supplemented with a €3.75 million bonus. That took his total pay to €5.25 million, up from €4.4 million the previous year.

Shell’s remuneration committee also raised Voser’s basic salary up to €1.55 million this year.

Malcolm Brinded, head of upstream at Shell, pocketed a pay deal worth €3.5 million last year, up by a third from €2.6 million the previous year.

The pay bonanza came after Shell missed expectations for its profit last year, despite soaring Brent crude prices helping it rake in almost £1.6 million an hour in the last three months of last year, and post an underlying profit of $18.6 billion (£11.61 billion) for 2010, up from $9.8 billion a year earlier.

Today it set out ambitious growth plans – including significantly hiking its production target for oil over the next three years – and set aside more than $100 billion for investment in the period.

Despite fears Japan‘s earthquake will hit demand for oil, driving the price of London Brent down from recent highs to $109.90 a barrel, Voser expects prices to keep rising.

“Energy demand is growing so fast over the next few decades, we will always be struggling to keep supply actually growing,” he said.

“I look beyond the Middle East, and for that matter Japan, to the developments across the world, with a very strong rise in population and average living standards which normally demands more energy.”

Shell said plans to produce 12% more oil by 2014 than it did last year – one of the highest growth rates in the industry. It reckons it will produce 3.7 million barrels of oil equivalent per day in 2014, and Voser said that he expects crude prices to remain on an upward trend.

One year into a three-year push to boost its performance, where Shell has sold a raft of refining assets, Voser added: “We have made good progress in 2010. Our profitability is improving and we are on track for our growth targets.”

Shares fell 30.5p to 2089.5p.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Introduction by John Donovan

I have published below a self-explanatory statement by Bill Campbell (right), the retired HSE Group Auditor of Shell International. I will email this statement and a more detailed version to Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary of Royal Dutch Shell Plc and forward the same information to the senior Shell executives and the non Executive Chairman, Jorma Ollila, named in the statement.

The more detailed version will be published on this website after Shell has had an opportunity to comment and/or take legal action. Shell issued threats of legal action against us yesterday and may wish to add this matter if briefing Counsel.

STATEMENT BY BILL CAMPBELL, RETIRED HSE GROUP AUDITOR OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL

Some time ago the police in Aberdeen passed a report to the Procurator Fiscal (public prosecutor).  A criminal investigation commenced based on these allegations. The Procurator Fiscal are part of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), reference to the Crown is simply because the UK has a monarchy.

The investigation has focused to date on the role of HSE officials. These officials are UK Government employees.  Since the investigation is ongoing it is inappropriate to comment on what has, or has not been established with regards to HSE.  The CPS investigation to date however has confirmed that Shell repeatedly made false and misleading statements about its part in these affairs.

The Fatal Accident Inquiry into deaths on Brent Bravo

What has been established is that the HSE, whether in collusion with Shell or not, failed to pass vital evidence to the CPS in 2003 prior to the Fatal Accident Inquiry.  HSE had obtained this evidence directly from Shell only days after the fatalities.  This evidence given to HSE was from Greg Hill, the Production Director in Aberdeen, and was from his internal Technical Integrity Review implemented immediately after the deaths. Hill implemented the Review to ascertain whether Brent Bravo was an unfortunate, but isolated incident, or was there a general malaise offshore.  The Review found chronic weakness in management controls resulting in the deaths on Brent Bravo, for which Shell were prosecuted.  The Review confirmed that Brent Bravo was not an isolated incident as similar conditions were found on many of the Shell North Sea installations.

What were the consequences flowing from this?

My most recent meeting with CPS was on the 18th February 2011.  The CPS position is that if they had been in possession of the evidence given by Greg Hill to HSE in 2003, as they should have been, this would most likely have led to a more general Inquiry into how Shell had operated across the oilfield and over the prolonged period from 1999.  There was considerable public interest in the Brent Bravo fatalities, and this combined with the evidence of a negative safety culture, may have influenced the Lord Advocate (in US parlance an Attorney General) who heads up the CPS in Scotland, to order such Inquiry.  This Inquiry would have covered how technical and operations integrity of Shell facilities, not just Brent Bravo, had degraded over a prolonged period, and how this degradation had not been halted or reversed, despite many HSE enforcement actions being applied on Shell over this period.

2006 – After the Fatal Accident Inquiry into Brent Bravo

When the Sheriff (a Judge) reported the results of his Inquiry there was significant public concern from Trade Unions and politicians, The Sheriff had determined how the deaths had taken place by after a 38 day Inquiry had made no recommendations.  He did however make the significant suggestion that factors he had not covered, because of the restrictions of the relevant Act concerning such Inquiries, could merit a more General Inquiry, but to date no such Inquiry has taken place.

BBC Scotland encapsulated the public concerns on a programme aired on 14th June 2006.  Prior to the programme going on air BBC offered both Shell and HSE right of reply but they declined to comment despite the programme content being critical of both parties.  On the 16th June 2006 significant media interest was stirred up by the oil industry Magazine Upstream articles.  Shell issued a rebuttal in the form of press releases by their Crisis Management Team which were also copied internally to its employees across the World.

How did Shell respond to the critical media coverage?

Their Press Releases on 16 June 2006 stated that

Safety is Shell’s foremost priority at all times and we absolutely reject any suggestion that we would compromise safety offshore. In 1999, Shell initiated the Platform Safety Management Review (PSMR),  and responded vigorously to its findings. A follow up implementation audit conducted at the end of 2000 confirmed significant progress had been made on both asset integrity and management systems. This contributed to the continuous improvement in Shell’s safety performance that has been achieved since 1999 in the North Sea.

With the Press Releases the cover-up commenced

It was Greg Hill who led the Crisis Management Team and it was he who way back in 2003 had presented the evidence of the appalling conditions on many of his offshore installations to HSE.  The press release also ignored the findings of their own internal investigation completed in 2005, into the conduct of Directors in 1999.  This investigation concluded that the 1999 PSMR follow-up was ineffective.  The investigation was critical of Malcolm Brinded for dispensing with the services of the SIEP Lead Auditor of the PSMR in 1999 which effectively halted the PSMR in midstream.   Brinded was also criticised for not taking the immediate actions, as recommended by his Platform Safety Management Review (PSMR) in 1999, to reduce the risks on Brent Bravo, which was operating in a dangerous condition.

Why did Greg Hill lie?

Greg Hill was put in charge of the Crisis Management Team in June 2006 with instructions from above to sort this problem out or else!  As evidence of a hostile environment of extreme denial Hill was given no choice being intimidated to lie, and lie again, do anything that was needed to protect Shell from public ridicule and potential prosecution. Jacob Stausholm, the SIEP Chief Auditor who had led the 2005 internal investigation into the behaviour of Brinded and Finlayson at the time of the PSMR, was also threatened. He was to bury his report and raise no objections to the press releases.  Within a few years both Hill and Stausholm had left Shell.   Hill went to the Hess Corporation as President of their EP division and Stausholm joined Statoil Hydro as a non-executive Director.  Both these organisations raised no legal or other objections to the comments made about their employees.

Why did the HSE not respond to the Shell Press Releases?

One of the examples of collusion between Shell and HSE was that HSE were aware that the Press Releases by Shell were false. From the feedback from the CPS investigation they confirmed that the CEO of the HSE was aware that the statements made by Shell in the Press Releases in 2006 were totally false and misleading. His defence apparently was that the Shell statement put HSE in a difficult position as their Policy does not allow them to comment of the performance of individual organisations.  A pretty lame excuse.  So the CPS accept that the public statements made by Shell did not reflect the reality of the situation and that HSE allowed these comments to go unchallenged, all this still subject to investigation.

So what lies have been uncovered?

Lie 1

It is not contentious that Shell neglected to inform HSE about the 1999 PSMR and its findings.  In 2006, Shell defended this by stating that the PSMR was just a Review and not an audit.  The facts established and accepted by the CPS is that the PSMR was conducted by Auditors, was based on seven offshore audits, the PSMR report was issued by the Internal Audit Manager and was ipso facto an audit.  Not to inform HSE and the offshore workers about the results of a health and safety Audit is an offence under Safety Case Regulations. The PSMR produced many recommended actions, these were accepted by Shell Expro, but not effectively implemented.  This contributing to the deaths on Brent Bravo and to the chronic weaknesses in essential controls across the oilfield as witnessed in 2003.  As previously stated if the full facts had been known by the CPS at the time it is likely that a more general Inquiry would have been held.

Lie 2

It is not contentious that rather than a continuos improvement from 1999 till the deaths there had been continuos degradation of standards due to the imposed negative safety culture and the failure to implement the PSMR findings.  In the words of the Lord Advocate, it was clear from the conditions on Brent Bravo that the deaths had resulted from ineffective management of Shell’s offshore operations over a prolonged period of time.

Lie 3

In 2006, under intense media pressure van der Veer responded to critical media comments, and separately in correspondence with me (held by the CPS), that there was no evidence that the performance results of ESD valves had been falsified in 1999.  Another blatant lie now uncovered.

Lie 4

Asked to investigate the role of van der Veer and Brinded by me, the RDS Chairman Jorma Ollila in writing replied that he was satisfied with the statements made in the Shell 2006 Press Releases and the Shell position was supported by their internal investigation.  He now accepts that his statements were not factual. Although he has been bestowed with nine badges of honour by various agencies this did not stop dispensing with the truth to protect the Shell reputation.

STATEMENT ENDS

THE EVIDENCE ASSEMBLED BY BILL CAMPBELL: READ

SELECTION OF ARTICLES RELATING TO BRENT BRAVO FATALITIES: READ

RELATED EMAIL/LETTER SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE UK HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: READ

THE FULL FILE OF BRENT BRAVO ARTICLES

By John Donovan

We have in recent years published a number of articles drawing attention to Shell getting into bed with the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who was presented as being a reformed character, despite his notorious track record as the principal financier of international terrorism.

Gaddafi financed the Black September Movement, which carried out the massacre in Munich at the 1972 Summer Olympics and also financed “Carlos the Jackal”.

Currently Shell is engaged in an evacuation plan to extract employees who otherwise might end up as hostages held by the supposedly benevolent dictator.

Basically, Shell demonstrated once again that it is willing to deal with the devil incarnate, whether in the guise of Hitler, or the corrupt Nigerian dictator, General Sani Abachato, or “Mad Dog” Gaddafi, to get its hands on hydrocarbon reserves, irrespective of moral considerations, or the potential dire consequences to its employees and contractors plunged into a crisis situation.

As will be seen from the various articles, Royal Dutch Shell Executive Malcolm (TFA) Brinded (above left) played a key role in the intrigue and controversy surrounding Shell’s reprehensible dealings with Gaddafi which have brought shame to the UK.

Our warnings that Gaddafi had not really changed were ignored.

Extracts from some of the articles we have authored and published…

ARTICLE: Royal Dutch Shell Nazis Secrets Part 7: Why does it still matter?

FROM: Trading with the enemy

While Royal Dutch Shell support for the Nazi all those years ago has no link to current Shell management, there is a link to current activities, with Shell supporting *yet another evil dictator. Access to oil and gas is the reason why Shell has signed contracts in questionable circumstances with the supposedly reformed Libyan mass murderer, Gaddafi,(15) handing over billions of dollars to a regime which may well end up funding future terrorist atrocities, as it has in the past. In addition to the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Gaddafi was also responsible for arming the IRA, another terrorist organisation.

In 1984 police constable Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead outside the Libyan Embassy in London while policing an anti-Gaddafi protest. Machine-gun fired from within the Embassy was suspected of killing her, but Libyan diplomats asserted diplomatic immunity.

ARTICLE: Mounir Bouaziz, Shell VP for making deals with corrupt governments

Tunisian, Mounir Bouaziz (right), is the Shell VP responsible for making deals on Shell’s behalf with the Libyan dictator, Gaddafi, the corrupt Iraqi government and an equally corrupt African dictator.

Bouaziz worked with Shell EP boss Malcolm Brinded to secure the Libyan deal. Brinded, an Anglicized Scot, is apparently willing to forget Libya’s bombing over Scotland.

ARTICLE: Senator Lautenberg should also investigate Shell’s Libyan links

…as the senator seems to have realized, the stench is not just emanating from the Gulf,  but from evil deeds involving ethically challenged UK Prime Minsters Blair and Brown falling over themselves to assist Big Oil, and the Libyan dictator and supposedly reformed sponsor of state terrorism, Muammar (Loony Tunes) Gaddafi (above right). Even members of the British royal family – The Prince of Wales and his brother Prince Andrew, were recruited in the cause.

However there is even more damning evidence pointing at another foreign owned oil company involved in the conspiracy to release the Pan Am bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, in exchange for access to Libyan oil.  I refer to the recent revelation that the then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, sent a letter to Gaddafi, which was actually drafted by Shell.

Blair in secret talks with Gaddafi: Lockerbie families’ fury as ex-Premier is treated like a ‘brother’ by dictator just days after denying links with Libya (see Daily Mail article in links below)

Documents released under a Freedom of Information Act request show the scale of the effort to win commercial advantage in Libya. The details raise questions about whether it is possible the Scottish decision to release the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi last week could have been done without the acquiescence of the British government as it insists it was.

At least 11, but possibly as many as 26, meetings took place – many in Tripoli – between Shell executives and high-ranking ministers or mandarins in a period between 2004 and 2007. The Foreign Office has yet to provide details of what exactly was discussed at the meetings, but the request asked for any discussions with Shell on either Libya or Egypt, the latter being of much less political or potential commercial importance to the oil company.

Miliband met Malcolm Brinded, the Shell exploration director, in October 2007 while James Smith, the Shell UK chairman, met Jack Straw when he was foreign secretary in July 2003.

RELATED ARTICLES

The Guardian: Shell signs $200m Libya deal: 25 March 2004

The Guardian: Shell gas deal worth up to $1b: 26 March 2004

The Independent: Shell first off blocks in race to cash in on UK’s new friendship: 26 March 2004

New York Times: Libya Signs Energy Exploration Deal With Shell: 26 March 2004

Telegraph: Shell fills its boots in the desert sun: 27 March 2004

afrol News: Shell secures Libya deal during Blair’s visit: 26 March 2004

Telegraph: Shell signs first major deal in Libya for 30 years: 3 May 2005

The Guardian: Shell steps on the gas as Libya comes in from the cold: 4 May 2005

Entrepreneur: LIBYA – The Shell Deal: 16 July 2007

Shell’s Executive Director for E&P Malcolm Brinded then said: “We are delighted to be back in Libya and honoured to work together with NOC to develop a modern LNG industry, and explore for and develop gas in the prolific Sirte Basin. Libya’s integrated gas industry has enormous potential, based on its large gas resources and favourable geographic location. I look forward to our co-operation and believe that this is the beginning of a new lasting and fruitful partnership with Libya”.

(NOC = “The National Oil Corporation of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”)

Royaldutchshellplc.com: Shell’s Malcolm Brinded – lustful friend of Libya: 22 August 2009

The Guardian: Secret documents uncover UK’s interest in Libyan oil: 30 August 2009

Documents obtained by the Observer show ministers and senior civil servants met Shell to discuss the company’s oil interests in Libya on at least 11 occasions and perhaps as many as 26 times in less than four years.

Foreign secretary David Miliband and the former Labour leader Lord Kinnock were involved in the meetings with Shell about its business in Libya or Egypt.

A deal was signed by Shell on 25 March 2004 covering the establishment of a “long-term strategic partnership” between the oil company and the local state-owned energy group. It was penned during a ground-breaking visit by the then prime minister, Tony Blair, and was followed up by meetings during July between Shell and foreign minister Baroness Symons and then the foreign secretary at the time, Jack Straw.

In October, Malcolm Brinded, the head of exploration at Shell who signed the deal to explore for oil and redevelop a gas export terminal in Libya, met another foreign minister, Douglas Alexander, with a particular focus on trade. In February 2005, Kinnock was involved in a reception at which Shell was present and North African oil interests were raised.

Daily Mail: Blair in secret talks with Gaddafi: Lockerbie families’ fury as ex-Premier is treated like a ‘brother’ by dictator just days after denying links with Libya: 17 July 2010

The Observer: Revealed: how Shell won the fight for Libyan gas and oil: 30 August 2009

International Business Times: Shell says appraising Libya gas discovery: 23 December 2010

Subject: Brent Bravo: watch Mark Carne

Dear John,

This email contains information about Mark Carne (right), who is currently employed by Shell as Regional Vice President for Middle East and North Africa. He reports directly to Malcolm Brinded. This email account has been set up to safeguard my anonymity, as Mr. Carne is known to not handle criticism very well.

Over the years you have reported about Brent Bravo http://royaldutchshellplc.com/tag/brent-bravo/, and consistently linked the matter with Malcolm Brinded. Maybe the time is right to take a closer look at Mr. Carne, who was the manager for Brent at the time. Mr. Carne’s style is to manage-by-viewgraph and to ignore or suppress unwanted information from the work floor. He instigated bonuses that led to the “Touch F*** All” culture on Brent; he remained clueless about their negative impact while others had already become concerned. Several years ago, Mr. Carne didn’t get a job in Shell UK that he was hoping for, and he left to take a role in BG. It didn’t take BG long to release him.

I would not have bothered to write down any of the above, if I hadn’t found out recently that Mr. Carne has joined Shell again. In his new role there is more potential for damage. The first signals are already noticeable. It would be really concerning if he ever was to be considered as a candidate to succeed Mr. Brinded.

Regards,
Someone who prefers to remain anonymous.

EMAIL ENDS

RIGHT OF REPLY OFFERED BY JOHN DONOVAN: MR MARK CARNE IS INVITED TO SUPPLY A RESPONSE IF HE TAKES ISSUE WITH THE VERACITY OF ANY INFORMATION STATED ABOVE. HIS REPLY WOULD BE PUBLISHED ON AN UNEDITED BASIS.

Related Articles

1. What is going on in Brinded’s inner circle?

2. Shell Names Mark Carne As Country Chmn For Dubai, N Emirates

Monday, Sep 27, 2010

DUBAI (Zawya Dow Jones)–Royal Dutch ShellRoyal Dutch ShellLoading… plc (RDSB) said Monday it appointed Mark Carne as executive vice president and country chairman for Shell Group in Dubai and the U.A.E.’s Northern Emirates.

Carne will take “over the responsibilities of Raoul Restucci for Shell Upstream International with responsibility for the businesses in the Middle East and North Africa,” the oil company said in an emailed statement.

Carne, who is also a member of Royal Dutch ShellRoyal Dutch ShellLoading…’s Upstream International Leadership Team, was employed with Shell
until 2005, his last role being managing director for Brunei Shell Petroleum. He was also with BG Group as executive vice president and managing director for Europe and Central Asia.

-By Brinda Darasha, Dow Jones Newswires; +9714 446-1688; brinda.darasha@dowjones.com

Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Co.

SOURCE ARTICLE

3. Mark Carne, Chairman of Dubai and Northern Emirates Region, Royal Dutch Shell plc

18 Jan 2011

Mark Carne has been Chairman of Dubai and Northern Emirates Region at Royal Dutch Shell plc since September 2010. Mr. Carne served as an Executive Vice President of BG Group plc since May 1, 2005 and also its Managing Director of Europe & Central Asia since March 2006. Mr. Carne served as Managing Director – North West Europe of BG Group Plc since May 1, 2005. He joined BG from Shell, where he served as Managing Director of Brunei Shell Petroleum and Country Chairman … for Shell companies in Brunei until 2005. He was employed with Shell until 2005. He also worked in upstream assets and held a number of commercial and general management roles in the UK and the Netherlands. His first Middle East assignment was as engineering manager with Petroleum Development Oman from 1992 to 1996. Prior to that, Mr. Carne served as the Asset Director, responsible for Shell’s U.K. North Sea oil production. His international experience includes various general management roles in the U.K., Holland and Oman covering operations, engineering, commercial and business development. Mr. Carne holds a B.Sc in Engineering Science from the University of Exeter, UK and a Chartered Diploma in accounting and finance from the Cambridge College of Arts and Technology.

SOURCE ARTICLE

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: THE SOURCE

By James Herron: 8 February 2011

Oil prices may have stormed back into the headlines by crossing the ominous $100 a barrel threshold in recent weeks. But while this has happening the world’s largest oil and gas companies have been banging the drum for an altogether less newsworthy fuel–natural gas.

ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and now BG Group have been arguing that significant changes are afoot in the unglamorous world of natural gas that could have a big impact on patterns of energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and the balance of power in volatile energy markets.

The big driver of this shift is supply. Energy companies have done a remarkable job in recent years of finding vast quantities of natural gas, possibly adding more than a hundred years of supply of the fuel.

A boom in production of natural gas trapped in shale rock has already transformed the fortunes of the U.S. Just a few years ago, North America was grimly looking at the prospect of growing dependence on foreign gas. Now it’s sitting on so much of the stuff that people are seriously discussing export projects.

In other parts of the world, notably Australia and southeast Africa, new projects are starting and new discoveries being made that will be feeding growing Asian markets by the middle of this decade.

There is disagreement over the impact this will have. The International Energy Agency, which represents the interests of major energy consumers, says there will be a global gas glut lasting until 2020, leading to low prices for much of the decade.

But (not surprisingly) Shell, ExxonMobil and BG Group, all big producers of natural gas, disagree. Rather than swamping the market, they say the extra supply will stimulate greater use of gas either because it is cheaper, more secure or less carbon intensive than other energy sources.

Shell is the biggest promoter of the green credentials of natural gas.

“The quickest and cheapest way to cut CO2 emissions from the global power sector is to grow the presence of natural gas,” said Shell’s exploration chief Malcolm Brinded in a speech late last year. This is because natural gas produces less than half the emissions of coal for the electricity generated.

Brinded added: “Natural gas capacity is also considerably faster and cheaper to install than other new build sources of electricity.”

Shell has argued that the European Union could save half a trillion Euros while still meeting its ambitious target to cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, if only it switched from promoting renewables and nuclear and instead focused on swapping coal for gas.

The sudden abundance of natural gas has also caused a substantial shift in its reputation as a reliable fuel source. Just a few years ago, many governments perceived natural gas as the weapon Russia would use to take over the world. The boom in gas production in a stable, friendly country like the U.S., and the hope it could be repeated elsewhere, has lessened those fears.

In its 2030 energy forecast last month, ExxonMobil predicted a shift toward natural gas by businesses and governments precisely because it is so reliable and affordable.

BG Group, in its long-term strategy update Tuesday, was particularly bullish, predicting gas demand will grow 3% a year between now and 2020.

“The increase in demand by 2020 will be equivalent to more or less the entire current North American gas market,” said BG Chief Executive Frank Chapman. Once you take into account the need to offset the natural decline in production from existing resources, more than two North America’s worth of new gas supply will be needed to meet this demand, he said.

A big part of this growth in natural gas demand could come at the expense of oil, Chapman said. As emerging economies develop, they will stop using expensive, dirty oil to fuel their homes and businesses and substitute it for cheaper natural gas. BG Group estimates that between 2010 and 2020, natural gas consumption could expand by up to 260 billion cubic meters a year at the expense of oil.

A switch of this magnitude could shave 4.4 million barrels a day off projected oil demand growth over the next ten years. To put this into perspective, BP recently estimated that total global liquids demand–oil, biofuels, natural gas liquids–will grow by 16.5 million barrels over the next 20 years. So a shift of this magnitude would surely affect the price of oil.

Unsurprisingly, Chapman saw all this as an opportunity rather than a problem. He reckons $2 trillion of new investment will be needed over the next nine years to meet these forecasts. Who wouldn’t want a piece of that action?

SOURCE ARTICLE

Photo Credit: Bloomberg – BP’s Miskar gas platform off the coast of Tunisia

At the age of 90 and with numerous aliments, the thought of ending up in a small room with only iron bars for a view and without air conditioning in a tropical climate, is not much of an incentive to make the trip. In other words, while pretending that my presence in court in Malaysian legal jurisdiction is essential, there is also more than a hint of intimidation attached to deter me from giving evidence in support of my sworn affidavit, which quite frankly, completely destroys Shell’s defamation case against Dr Huong. (Head cut image of Alfred Donovan courtesy of The Wall Street Journal)

Self-explanatory email correspondence between royaldutchshellplc.com owner Alfred Donovan and Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

—–Original Message—–
From: Alfred Donovan [mailto:alfred@shellnews.net]
Sent: vrijdag 3 augustus 2007 12:26
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LC
Cc: van der Veer, Jeroen J RDS-CEJV; Ollila, Jorma RDS-RDS/CH; Brinded, Malcolm A RDS-ECMB; Wiseman, Richard RM SI-LMAPF; ‘John Donovan’

Subject: THE DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DR JOHN HUONG BROUGHT BY EIGHT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL COMPANIES

Dear Mr Brandjes

My name is Alfred Donovan. I am writing to you directly because my son, John, speaks highly of you and because you seem to be the right person to contact on this matter given that you are Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

I am 90 years old. For over a year, I have had the prospect of a cross-examination by Shell barristers hanging over my head. This is in respect of the defamation case brought in June 2004 by eight Royal Dutch Shell companies against the former Shell production geologist, Dr John Huong.

This is a link to the relevant Summons in Chambers:
http://shellnews.net/2006affidavit/shell-summons-in-chambers-june-2006.htm

Below is an extract from related “Show Cause” contempt proceedings launched against Dr Huong in March 2006 by the Malaysian solicitors representing the eight Shell Group plaintiff companies. It confirms the extremely serious nature of the case, with the freedom and reputation of Dr Huong being at stake.

19. We therefore now provide you with this formal notice for you to show cause within 10 days of its service on you, why you should not be committed to prison or fined for the above contempt.

Dated this 9* day of March, 2006.

MESSRS T H LIEW & PARTNERS
SOLICITORS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

This Notice to Show Cause is issued by Messrs T H Liew & Partners, solicitors for the Plaintiffs abovenamed and whose address for service is at 4-02, 4* Floor, Straits Trading Building, 2, Lebuh Pasar Besar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur. Tel : 03-26129000 Fax : 03-26129001

In this connection, please be aware that there is a clear implication from TH Liew that if I do travel to Malaysia for cross-examination, as demanded by Shell, I will run the risk of a contempt action being brought against me. At the age of 90 and with numerous aliments, the thought of ending up in a small room with only iron bars for a view and without air conditioning in a tropical climate, is not much of an incentive to make the trip. In other words, while pretending that my presence in court in Malaysian legal jurisdiction is essential, there is also more than a hint of intimidation attached to deter me from giving evidence in support of my sworn affidavit, which quite frankly, completely destroys Shell’s defamation case against Dr Huong. The last thing the plaintiff companies really want is for me to actually give evidence confirming my sworn testimony.

I was given to understand several months ago that Shell’s application for my cross-examination would be heard this month: August. However, the law firms involved and Dr Huong himself seem frightened about giving me any information.  Dr Huong is presumably concerned about attracting any further injunctions from Shell in respect of information allegedly passed to us and hence is simply too intimidated to say anything, as are his lawyers.

Although I have written several times to TH Liew in the past, I have never received the courtesy of an acknowledgment, let alone a reply. Consequently there is no point in me writing to them now. If they had taken note of my first letter in June 2004, your shareholders could have been spared what must by now be a huge legal bill for the deluge of proceedings launched against Dr Huong.

I am therefore asking you if you could kindly find out and advise me of whether Shell is still pursuing the application before the High Court for me to be cross-examined? If so, when is the date of the hearing? Is it still taking place this month?

As Shell is aware, I receive a war disability pension from the British Army arising from fighting in the Burma Campaign against the Japanese some 60 years ago. I had half of one lung removed in a related operation. Among other ailments associated with my age, I have diabetes, angina and poor hearing. I also suffer from stress  generated by the bouts of litigation with Shell over the years, including the ill-considered current proceedings.

Since I am sure you would agree that it is morally wrong for me to be left completely in the dark in such circumstances, I hope that you will kindly find out what is happening and advise me accordingly.  Bearing in mind that the application relating to me was instigated and filed collectively on behalf of EIGHT companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, as the parent company of all eight plaintiff companies, can hardly claim that it has no involvement.

Please note that John has been involved in all of the events relating to Dr Huong, right from the outset, and because of my fading hearing, had all of the material telephone conversations with him. I have only spoken briefly with Dr Huong. John is willing to give evidence and be cross-examined. His affidavit was prepared at the same time as mine.  However under the circumstances, he would obviously require undertakings from Shell before stepping foot in Malaysia. There is of course the alternative possibility of cross-examination taking place in a video conference setting, perhaps in the Malaysian Embassy in London? As you can see, we are trying to be constructive. I trust that this communication will be passed to the parties involved and disclosed to the trial judge.

Regards
Alfred Donovan

RESPONSE FROM MICHIEL BRANDJES

From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com [mailto:michiel.brandjes@shell.com]
Sent: 03 August 2007 16:59
To: alfred@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: THE DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DR JOHN HUONG BROUGHT BY EIGHT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL COMPANIES

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your kind introductory words. I will enquire within Shell about the matter you have raised and revert to you.

Best Regards,
Michiel Brandjes
Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Registered office: Shell Centre London SE1 7NA UK
Place of registration and number: England 4366849
Correspondence address: PO Box 162, 2501 AN  The Hague,
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 377 2625 Fax: 3687
Email: Michiel.Brandjes@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

EMAIL ENDS

Mr Brandjes subsequently confirmed that Shell would abandon its demand for Alfred Donovan to travel to Malaysia for cross-examination. Shell later settled with Dr Huong on an out-of-court basis because its defamation case was a complete shambles brought by incompetent Shell lawyers in Malaysia at the behest of Shell Malaysia Country Chairman, Jon Chadwick.

Good Morning John: Please find link to an article in the mornings Aberdeen press and Journal.  It would appear that Brinded’s “Touch F***All” initiative is alive and well in the Shell organisation! The natural enemies of safety are still:- Ignorance, arrogance and complacency, all three are still being lovingly cared for within the Shell Business Principles .

Production Stops at Shell’s Brent Bravo

By Rebecca Buchan

Published: 17/01/2011

OIL giant Shell has halted production at four of its platforms and sent 100 workers back onshore after part of a platform fell into the North Sea.

An investigation is being carried out on the Brent Bravo platform after a heavy protective frame, known as a fender, collapsed.

No one was injured and the company said there was no significant damage caused.

The other three Brent platforms – Alpha, Charlie and Delta – do not have these protective frames, however Shell has had to stop all production on the Brent field as all the rigs work together in a “hub”.

Around 40 employees still remain on the platform and the oil company was last night unsure when they would be able to begin production again.

HALTED

A spokeswoman for Shell said: “All non-essential personnel onboard the Shell-operated Brent Bravo platform in the northern North Sea returned to shore yesterday and production has been halted on the four Brent platforms. We have taken these actions as a precautionary measure while we inspect three heavy protective frames at the waterline on the Brent Bravo.”

Jake Malloy, general secretary of the Oil Industry Liaison Committee, said: “If this piece of structure has damaged any piping on the sea bed then a precautionary measure to shut down operations is a responsible decision on behalf of Shell.”

In October, the platform was awarded a Sword of Honour, an award which recognises health and safety systems which are among the best in the world. A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) spokeswoman said: “HSE is aware of the situation and is working with Shell UK.”

The Brent field came into production in 1976 and once provided 10% of Britain’s gas.It still produces 14 million cubic metres of gas and 28,000 barrels of oil a day.

SOURCE ARTICLE

ARTICLE NEGLECTS TO MENTION THE BRENT BRAVO EXPLOSION IN WHICH SHELL WORKERS LOST THEIR LIVES AND SHELL RECEIVED A RECORD BREAKING FINE FOR AVOIDABLE DEATHS

SHELL BRENT BRAVO SCANDAL:

THE EVIDENCE ASSEMBLED BY BILL CAMPBELL, FORMER HSE GROUP AUDITOR, SHELL INTERNATIONAL: READ

SELECTION OF ARTICLES RELATING TO BRENT BRAVO FATALITIES: READ

RELATED EMAIL/LETTER SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE UK HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: READ

THE FULL FILE OF BRENT BRAVO ARTICLES

By Dr. John Huong (right)

Below is a letter I last wrote on 3rd 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 17th May 2004 from their legal Manager Mr. Thavakumar Kandiahpillai.

It is significant that legitimate questions (“Confidentiality versus Shareholder’s interests”-25th 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: 3rd 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

LETTER ENDS

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.

By John Donovan

Although their names have been redacted, it appears from this report that John Hofmeister and Malcolm Brinded were both directly involved in negotiations/discussions with Gale Norton?

If the issue of Shell corruption is raised, based on our knowledge, there is always a good chance that Mr Big Brain, No Scruples  Brinded will be involved e.g. the “Touch F*** All” safety culture on North Sea Oil Rigs, his backing for a rigged Shell contract tender and now his interesting meeting in London with Gale Norton.

The Office of Inspector General approached me on this particular matter and at their request I supplied Shell internal documents for use in the investigation.  It was at about this time that Shell Oil recruited the services of a specialist unit partly staffed and funded by the FBI to try to cut off the flow of insider information and Shell internal emails etc from reaching me.

Ironic that while we were supplying one U.S. investigative agency with Shell insider information and documents at their request, another was brought in by Shell security to try to plug the leaks. They were unsuccessful.

INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON GALE NORTON, SHELL SCANDAL – PART 1

INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON GALE NORTON, SHELL SCANDAL – PART 2

INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON GALE NORTON, SHELL SCANDAL – PART 3