Posts Tagged ‘Michiel Brandjes’

By John Donovan

Late yesterday evening, I sent an email to Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and to the CEO of the company, Mr Peter Voser.

The email invited comment and correction in relation to a draft article focused on Bjorn Edlund (above right), who in February 2010 retired as Executive Vice President and Head of Group Communications at Royal Dutch Shell plc.

The draft article headline and content was critical in nature.

Under the circumstances, I also sent an email to Mr Edlund with the same invitation. He provided an initial response taking up the invitation and has now provided a substantive reply from his consultancy Bjorn Edlund Consulting.

It is fair to point out that many people connected with Shell would have some trepidation about replying at all, knowing that we are widely regarded as a long-term thorn in the side of Shell, having issued several high court actions against the company since 1994. The most recent proceedings, instituted by Shell, were in 2005. The acrimony has continued for nearly two decades.

Mr Edlund did not ignore my email, or engage in any prevarication, nor did he duck the issues. All tactics used previously by some of his former colleagues.

Instead, he provided a detailed polite response, with precise information, no threats, and no conditions attached.

His reply struck me as being honest, transparent and helpful. Consequently, I have no problem in accepting that some of the information in our draft was inaccurate. That article will not be published.

Mr Edlund provided a text book example of how to convert a potential critic into an admirer.

This PR guru is worth his weight in gold.

By John Donovan

On Friday I sent an email to Mr Michiel Brandjes (right), Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It had a subject – “Gannet Oil Spill: Document Authenticity” – but no content.  It was sent by mistake.

It prompted the subsequent self-explanatory email correspondence.

EMAIL RESPONSE FROM MR MICHIEL BRANDJES, COMPANY SECRETARY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Date: 12 September 2011 08:00:54 GMT+01:00
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: Gannet Oil Spill: Document Authenticity

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

—–Original Message—–
From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: vrijdag 9 september 2011 17:38
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LSC
Subject: Gannet Oil Spill: Document Authenticity

Dear Mr Brandjes

ENDS

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 12 September 2011 16:29:25 GMT+01:00
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: Re: Gannet Oil Spill: Document Authenticity

In view of the following paragraph of your email dated 22 December 2009, I am never sure whether we will receive a response from you:

It is in my DNA indeed to respond to all and everything as appropriate. However, while that is the starting position please note that I can not be held to always respond to everything as a Company Secretary. There are messages which do not call for a response or not by me, there are matters in which a further response can not serve any purpose, and there are persons with whom I do not or no longer communicate for justified reasons. I intend to continue to help genuine third parties whom you refer to me and do not fall in the earlier mentioned categories.

It is not quite as mind-bending as the explanation by Donald Rumsfeld of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

For the record, we do still receive email meant for Shell every day.

As per your standing request, I weed out what I consider to be junk mail, which appropriately is mainly from China.  Much of it is addressed to my father, probably because he is perceived, perhaps because of his WSJ image displayed on our website, as being the supreme leader at Royal Dutch Shell. We direct enquiries about “Shell” lottery scams to the Shell Fraud/Scam Alert on your website. All job applications/CV’s which arrive from around the world are directed to the appropriate page on your website.

John Donovan

CORRESPONDENCE ENDS

By John Donovan

On 16 June 2011, I published an article that made reference to my email correspondence with Michiel Brandjes of Shell concerning sex scandal allegations against a senior Shell Executive made by a Shell insider. The accusations included alleged “serial infidelity involving Shell staff.” Mr Brandjes is Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Donovan email correspondence with Shell ending 16 June 2011

I first approached the Shell Fat Cat in question to give him an opportunity to deny the allegations. Some weeks later, under the threat of an ultimatum I sent to him by email, he supplied Mr Brandjes with copies of my original emails containing the allegations.

He informed Mr Brandjes that he “categorically denies the allegations.”

The final paragraph of a related email I received from Mr Brandjes stated:

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

Last night I received information on this subject from a new source.

As a result, I discovered that the basic allegation had already been published on the Internet in the form of comments posted on a “Cheaters of the Day” website and on a YouTube page featuring a speech by the Shell Fat Cat in question. These postings were made several months ago and the initials used by the person posting the allegation tie up with the name given to me of an alleged victim, a Shell employee.

If the person who first brought these allegations to my attention on 18 May 2011 was aware of the existing posted allegations, which on one site included the Shell executives name, photograph, age and location, they would have pointed them out to me.

It seems odd, given the threats I have received from Shell, that legal action has not apparently been taken to have the very serious allegation removed from the relevant websites, including YouTube, one of the most high profile, most visited websites on the planet.

What it all boils down to is that the basis allegation of sexual misconduct with Shell office staff against the Shell Director in question, is already in the public domain and has been for at least eight months.

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH SHELL CONCLUDING ON 16 JUNE 2011

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

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

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

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

I stated:

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

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

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

There was still no response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I did not need to supply them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr Donovan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMAIL SENT TO MICHIEL BRANDJES, COMPANY SECRETARY & GENERAL COUNSEL CORPORATE, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 6 June 2011 12:45:23 GMT+01:00
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: Sex scandal allegations against a Shell executive

Dear Mr Brandjes

You may be aware of the article we published on 2nd June concerning allegations against one of your colleagues:

Serious allegations against a Senior Shell Executive

EXTRACT FROM THE ALLEGATIONS”

“He is widely known among Shell employees to have had affairs with people on his staff, and when the relationship goes sour, they are put on leave and ultimately terminated from the company. All seems to be done hush-hush to maintain appearance…”

We had intended to send you copies of the emails we sent to your colleague containing detailed information supplied by a Shell insider source.  He had the opportunity to deny the allegations, but did not respond.

On reflection, it seems safe to assume that your colleague would have already supplied you with the relevant emails.

Please let me know if this assumption is wrong and I will immediately supply you with the emails.

Best Regards

John Donovan

EMAIL ENDS

We eagerly await the imminent delivery to us of relevant internal documents from the Shell companies in the Netherlands in response to an application we made under the provisions of the Dutch Data Protection Act. The information should contain correspondence that Mr Brandjes had in March 2011 with historians responsible for “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” in reference to our articles about Shell’s financial support for Hitler and the Nazi Party.

By John Donovan

We have received serious allegations from a purported insider directed against a senior Shell executive.

The insider equated the alleged odious activities of the relevant executive with the sex scandals surrounding Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and John Edwards. Reference was also made to a related article in Time Magazine.

The purported insider claims that the alleged serial infidelity involving Shell staff is widely known among employees within the relevant Shell company.

Last week we sent an email to the relevant Shell executive supplying extracts from detailed information provided to us in emails we have received. We said that if the executive categorically denied the allegations, we would accept his word and take no further action. There has been no response.

Under the circumstances, we will supply to Mr Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc a copy of our emails to the Shell executive in question, who has had advance sight of this article. (text only)

By John Donovan

We have published below our recent correspondence with senior officials of Royal Dutch Shell on allegations of corruption involving Shell and the Health and Safety Executive. The allegations arose from the aftermath of the deadly Brent Bravo explosion, which itself resulted from Shell’s notorious “Touch F*** All safety culture on North Sea Rigs.

EMAIL FROM JOHN DONOVAN TO MR MICHIEL BRANDJES, COMPANY SECRETARY & GENERAL COUNSEL CORPORATE, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: donderdag 10 maart 2011 11:31
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LSC
Cc: Cambell1944@aol.com; Voser, Peter SI-GLOBAL; Ollila, Jorma RDS-RDS/CH; Brinded, Malcolm A RDS-ECMB
Subject: Letter from Bill Campbell to UK and Scottish MP’s – March 2011

Dear Mr Brandjes

Printed below is a letter we will be distributing from this weekend to UK and Scottish MP’s on behalf of Mr. Bill Campbell.

It will also be published on royaldutchshellplc.com.

Shell is invited to correct any factual inaccuracies and supply any comments the company would like included for circulation and publication on an unedited basis.

If I receive no response by tomorrow evening, I will assume Shell accepts as factually accurate the account of events as stated by Mr. Campbell.

If you need more time to consider the matter before replying, just let me know before tomorrow evening when we can expect a response.

If Shell does dispute any stated facts, please be specific, as this would be more informative and credible than providing a standard blanket denial, which seems to be Shell’s favourite option to try to create doubt about the veracity of stated facts, without actually providing any specific plausible basis for doing so.

Best Regards
John Donovan

Letter from Bill Campbell to UK and Scottish MP’s – March 2011

A Subject which Transcends Constituency Boundaries: The Safety of Royal Dutch Shell Offshore Employees

Criminal Investigation uncovers lies and deceit

My name is Bill Campbell.  I am a former Senior Operations and Maintenance Engineer who also acted as a Group Auditor for Shell International. I previously wrote to UK MP’s, and to the Lords, in July 2007.  This letter is an update on what has happened since and also what happened to the concerns raise by a number of MP’s at the time.  The key findings from the current investigation listed below are based on an update given to me by the Procurator Fiscal(s) on 18th February past.

Background

Some time ago the police in Aberdeen passed a report to the Procurator Fiscal.  Subsequently a criminal investigation commenced led by Anne Currie, Area Procurator Fiscal for Grampian Region assisted by Andrew Grant, Area Procurator Fiscal for Central Region.  The investigation has focussed to date on the role of HSE officials at the Offshore Safety Division of the HSE based in Aberdeen. The allegations against these officials were that they were unduly influenced by Shell, potential bribery and corruption, to cover up the full circumstances of a multiple fatality on the offshore installation Brent Bravo in September 2003, and the subsequent Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) held in Aberdeen.

What has the investigation established, the 7 key findings

1. HSE failed to pass vital evidence to the Procurator Fiscal in Aberdeen prior to the Fatal Accident Inquiry.  HSE had obtained this evidence directly from Shell only days after the fatalities and by November 2003. Shell informed HSE that the Brent Bravo fatalities were not just an unfortunate, but isolated incident, but there was a general malaise offshore with chronic weakness in essential management controls evident across the oilfield. The Fiscal was made aware of this evidence by me at the commencement of the FAI.  This was the time when I first became aware that HSE had not provided this evidence to the Fiscal. He then attempted to introduce this evidence belatedly, but the Sheriff desisted, due to the restrictions placed on him by the 1976 FAI Scotland Act.

2. If the Procurator Fiscal(s) had been in possession of the evidence given by Shell to HSE in 2003, as they should have been, this would most likely have led the Lord Advocate to sanction a more General Inquiry into how Shell had operated across the oilfield in the prolonged period from 1999 till the deaths.  And to how HSE had failed to reverse the degradation of facilities over this period despite issuing many Enforcement Notices and raising their ongoing concerns with Shell Directors.

3. Although Shell pled guilty to a number of serious breaches of legislation related to the deaths on Brent Bravo, their employees, and Society as a whole, were never made aware that similar breaches were apparent on 16 other offshore installations. The appalling conditions present on these installations raised risks to unacceptable levels but the workforce remained blissfully unaware of the risks they were taking, simply by being on these installations. Despite the conditions on these installations and in contravention of the HSC Enforcement Policy no formal enforcement actions were taken by HSE at the time and no attempt was made by Shell or HSE to assess the risks of continued operation.  It is estimated that some 40 prohibition and/or improvement notices would have been required to cover some 80 serious breaches apparent at the time.  Since 2003, Shell are on public record of expending to date some £800 million to return these facilities to the risk levels as stated in the offshore installation specific Safety Cases.

4. At the time the FAI results were made public the BBC in Scotland aired a TV programme on 14th June 2006 highly critical of Shell and HSE in relation to the deaths on Brent Bravo and this was picked up by Newspapers across the UK including the Times and the Guardian.  In total contradiction with the facts Shell denied wrongdoing stating that in the period 1999 to the deaths in 2003 ‘significant progress had been made on both asset integrity and management systems. This contributed to the continuous improvement in Shell’s safety performance over that period ‘.

5. HSE were aware that the Press Releases by Shell were false.  I wrote to the HSE CEO complaining about this at the time, how could HSE stay mute when they were aware that the Shell statement was a pack of lies? He did not reply.   The feedback from the ongoing investigation has confirmed that Geoffrey Podger, the CEO of the HSE, was aware that the statements made by Shell in their Press Releases of 2006 were false and misleading.  His defence is that the Shell statement put HSE in a difficult position as their Policy does not allow them to comment on the health and safety performance of individual organisations.

6. With respect to the allegations of bribery of HSE officials by Shell over the period 1999 till 2003 the Procurator Fiscal(s) can find no physical evidence of this.  They trawled through what records were currently still available looking at the degree and spread of hospitality given to HSE officials by Shell in this period.  However the records for this period are no longer available being routinely destroyed after a 5-year lapsed period and were thus simply not available to examine.

7. The Procurator Fiscal(s) have reviewed the results of an internal investigation carried out to ascertain if HSE could, or should have been able to foresee and prevent the Brent Bravo fatalities with the information available to them between 1999 and 2003.  The HSE internal investigation found essential weaknesses in their enforcement process resulting in 18 recommendations for improvement which have subsequently been implemented.

What happened to the concerns raised by MP’s in 2007

In August 2007 around 12 MP’s including the then Secretary of State for Scotland got involved and wrote to Bill McKenzie at that time a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at Work and Pensions.  In a process that apparently by-passed Geoffrey Podger and his Head of the Offshore Safety Division, the HSE officials, against whom the allegations were made, were allowed to draft a reply directly to McKenzie.  The Procurator Fiscal(s) carrying out the current investigation have viewed the correspondence between HSE and Work and Pensions in 2007 and it is not contentious that the information provide to McKenzie by HSE officials was false and misleading.  The MP’s who had raised the mater were thus hoodwinked by a false account of events.

Bill McKenzie, who was provided with the same evidence in 2009 as currently held by the public investigators, wrote to me at that time, stating his satisfaction with the advice given to him by HSE officials in 2007.  He did this despite being aware that a criminal investigation into the conduct of those officials had commenced in March that year.  In the same letter he made clear that Geoffrey Podger did not authorise the advice given to him in 2007 and that there was no need for him to do so.  I find that statement by the Under Secretary truly remarkable.  The allegations raised by me and taken seriously by the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service in Scotland were that HSE officials had in 2003 purposefully covered up the criminal neglect of Shell, either for personal gain, or to mask from public scrutiny their failures to protect workers offshore from unacceptable risk.  Could there be a more damming allegation.  Yet the reply to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the other MP’s in 2007 was not, it appears, worthy of the involvement of the HSE CEO.

Finally both Shell an HSE have been given write off reply to what is written here and have raised no legal, or other objections to it issue.  For some time I have been pressing Anne Currie to make her investigation public.  It is clearly in the public interest. Neither the Scottish or UK Government, finds argument with the proposal, that in all matters related to the health and safety of persons at work, there must be openness and transparency.  I would hope that on receipt of this letter the appropriate oversight committees at Westminster and Holyrood  would consider the implications of this letter and give the concerns raised in the letter the public exposure they merit.

Yours sincerely

Bill Campbell
March 9th 2011

REPLY FROM KEITH RUDDOCK, GENERAL COUNSEL, UPSTREAM INTERNATIONAL

On 15 Mar 2011, at 09:01, keith.ruddock@shell.com wrote:

Dear Mr Campbell and Mr Donovan,

I refer to Mr Donovan’s email of 10th March, 2011, to my colleague Mr Brandjes.  Shell has now been advised by the Procurator Fiscal that, having conducted a full investigation into the allegations of bribery and corruption on the part of the HSE and Shell made by Mr Campbell, and having considered all the facts, Crown Counsel has decided that no prosecution or further investigation is justified.

Accordingly, we view this matter as now closed.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Ruddock

Keith Ruddock
General Counsel Upstream International
Shell International B.V.
The Hague, The Netherlands – Trade Register no. 27002688
Address: Carel van Bylandtlaan 5, P.O. Box 162, 2501 AN,
The Hague, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 377 4579 Email: Keith.Ruddock@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com

REPLY BY JOHN DONOVAN

Dear Mr Ruddock

Thank you for your reply, the content of which I have noted.

If you had advised me that more time was needed to respond, I would not have commenced sending the Bill Campbell letter to some MSP’s on Monday 14 March.

The only change to the main content on the letters already sent was the sub-heading:

“What has the investigation established, the 7 key findings thus far (the investigation is still in progress)”

I added the text shown in red based on my then understanding of the situation.This will not be included in subsequent letters.

Mr Campbell has kindly supplied me from time to time with copies of his email correspondence with the Scottish authorities.

In view of his recent comments, it is difficult to see how the claims of a “meticulous” and “full investigation” by the Procurator Fiscal can possibly be justified.

Shell is to be congratulated in extracting what appears to be a definitive decision from the Procurator Fiscal brought into these matters by Grampian Police in December 2008. They have not been as forthright with Mr Campbell and apparently still have not advised him of the decisions mentioned in your email. He appears to have been  strung along for over two years believing that a “meticulous” investigation was being undertaken. We now know that relevant officials and employees were not even interviewed.

Mr Campbell has set out his areas of concern and is entitled to make his analysis and expert opinion known to legislators, bearing in mind the support he was given previously from some concerned MP’s after his first letter to them. The circulation process will take some days as each letter has to be sent separately. The letter will also be published. The decisions bizarrely notified to him by Shell, the company being investigated at his instigation, do not change his views. The improper way this investigation appears to have been handled and concluded will only add to unease in many quarters about the way the Scottish authorities have dealt with the Brent Bravo debacle.

Shell is free to inform us if anything stated by Mr Campbell in his letter is untrue. Shell is free to sue for defamation if anything stated as fact is untrue.

Although prior convictions could obviously not be taken into account in the Scottish investigation, it is a fact that Shell was found guilty after an official investigation of a sex, drugs, and corruption scandal involving employees of the US Minerals Management Service, the department providing a comparable oversight function in the United States. In other words Shell has form in bribing oversight officials.

In this case, potential evidence had apparently already been routinely destroyed.

It should not be forgotten that Shell was successfully prosecuted in relation to the deaths of Sean McCue and Keith Moncrieff on the Brent Bravo oil platform on 11 September 2003 and paid a record breaking £900,000 fine in addition to settling for undisclosed sums, litigation brought by the relatives of those who lost their lives. This all occurred as a result of Shell’s “Touch F*** All” safety culture on North Sea Platforms, which included falsification of safety records.

We are of course aware of the sensitivity attached by Shell to these matters and our related contact with Mr Campbell. If my memory serves me correctly, you personally wrote to Mr Campbell’s solicitors trying to poison our relationship with him. This was followed by Shell setting up an aggressive counter-measures team to combat our joint campaign for justice and integrity, after being put on the back foot.

Shell views this matter as closed. We do not.

I will add a link on the letter to this correspondence.

Further circulation will be delayed until Friday, so that any recipient of this email can advise me of any inaccuracy.

Yours sincerely
John Donovan

CORRESPONDENCE ENDS

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.

Bill Campbell, retired HSE Group Auditor of Shell International.

SELF-EXPLANATORY EMAIL TO SHELL:

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 4 March 2011 16:23:35 GMT
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Cc: peter.p.voser@shell.com, malcolm.brinded@shell.com, Jorma.Ollila@shell.com, Cambellxxx.xxxxx.com
Subject: Fwd: Criminal Investigation uncovers lies and deceit and potential corruption

Dear Mr Brandjes

I have forwarded to you an email received from Mr. Bill Campbell. I have deleted part of the first sentence, which commences: “This is a shortened version…”

I have already published the short version of his statement.

Please see:
Shell Brent Bravo Deaths: Criminal Investigation uncovers lies, deceit and potential corruption

Shell is invited to supply for unedited publication within the brief version and for inclusion with the full version, when published, any comment/rebuttal you wish to make.

If Shell fails to do so, visitors to our website, including the mainstream news media, will be entitled to draw their own conclusions i.e. that Shell accepts the facts, as stated by Mr Campbell.

Best Regards
John Donovan

THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE

A day earlier, on 3rd March, Royal Dutch Shell made a blanket denial in response to our account of Shell’s support and encouragement for Hitler and the Nazis based partly on evidence in “A History of Shell Dutch Shell” gathered by Shell’s paid historians. This time there is no denial of any kind.

THE FULL STATEMENT/ARTICLE BY BILL CAMPBELL

Information from Meeting Held with CPS on 18th February, 2011

Criminal Investigation uncovers lies, deceit and potential corruption

Introduction

This is a modern day story of new Shell.  New Shell is an organisation that you can’t be sure about anymore.  An organisation which in the dangerous and unforgiving North Sea, allowed over a prolonged period from1999 till 2003, a negative safety culture to develop offshore which flourished and was sustained within a hostile environment of extreme denial.  In this environment, the hideous Touch F-All policy led to the degradation of installation equipment through neglect of maintenance across the oil field.  When employees were killed as a result of all this, Shell Director(s), whose failures may have led to charges of corporate homicide against them, colluded with the Industry safety regulator to cover these failures up.  This cover-up has been aided and abetted up the organisational line to the CEO and non-executive Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell.  All this has been exposed by an ongoing investigation by Scottish authorities.

The investigation process

Some time ago the police in Aberdeen passed a report to the Procurator Fiscal (public prosecutor).  The report provided evidence alleging that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), who regulate health and safety of persons at work in the UK, including offshore, may have been compromised, bribery and corruption, by Shell.  The allegations relate to a fatal accident offshore on Brent Bravo on 11^th September 2003 and the subsequent Fatal Accident Inquiry into the fatalities.  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 UK has a monarchy.

The investigation has focussed 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 18^th February.  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.  From 1999 to 2003, enforcement notices were issued to counteract 33 serious breaches of legislation.  It appears that the Safety Case regime, put in place post Piper Alpha, had failed to ensure the health and safety of the many hundreds of Shell employees offshore over this prolonged 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 14^th 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 16^th 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.

The rebuttal 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), in which Mr Campbell was asked to participate, 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 to Head their EP division and Stausholm to 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?

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

2.    It is not contentious that rather than a continuous improvement from 1999 till the deaths there had been continuous 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

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

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 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 this does not stop him to lie at will to protect the Shell reputation.

In conclusion

It is hoped that this article will be seen and widely circulated by Shell employees.  New Shell is an organisation in decline with all the usual symptoms of an organisation where power corrupts.  Lies, deceit, potential corruption, hypocrisy, self-delusion with a loss of reality, criminal negligence and gross intimidation of its employees who must lie to cover up wrongdoing of Directors, or suffer the consequences.

Post the reserves scandal new Shell placed great emphasise in media releases that honesty and integrity were to be at the core of everything they did in the future.  The non-executive governance was to be beefed up along with improvements to the internal audit process, but we observe from the evidence a powerless and compliant Chairman, and an Internal Audit system that is a sham.

The principal learning point from this is that new Shell is an organisation that Society can not be sure of anymore and whose statements can not be trusted. It is an organisation prepared to condemn others to gain commercial advantage, as it did with BP over Deepwater Horizon well, whilst covering up its own criminal neglect.

RELATED AUGUST 2008 LETTER FROM THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE

Will Royal Dutch Shell carry out threat to block Internet publication of its connection with Hitler and the Nazis?

By John Donovan

I have printed below my recent email correspondence with Mr. Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

As can be seen, it relates to Royal Dutch Shell’s support for Hitler and the Nazis.

I have already published a related article: “Royal Dutch Shell and the Nazis: Shell threatens legal proceedings

This is obviously a highly sensitive subject for Shell.

The reply to my email concerning our intention to publish related information from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”, authored by Shell’s paid historians, is the first time we have managed to elicit any comment from Shell on the subject.

Since Shell’s statement and associated threats are likely to be of most interest, I have printed it first, then again in appropriate order, within the entire correspondence.

The links immediately below are the pdf files which generated the threats from Royal Dutch Shell. Because they contain multiple pages, they take some time to load, so please be patient.

A History of Royal Dutch Shell: Pages from Volume 1

A History of Royal Dutch Shell: Pages from Volume 2

Despite the bluster, it is doubtful that Shell will take any action, because to do so would guarantee coverage of the subject by the mainstream media, a development Shell executives must dread.

The example (top right) from Volume 2 of “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” is the official announcement in May 1940 of the transfer of Royal Dutch’s legal seat to Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles located in the southern Caribbean Sea, off the Venezuelan coast. Royal Dutch Petroleum directors refused to locate the company seat in England. Perhaps they were not sure whose side they were on and were hedging bets about the outcome of the war? There was also antagonism between UK and Dutch directors in the Group, which seems to be a reoccurring theme.

EMAIL FROM MICHIEL BRANDJES, 3 MARCH 2011

From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Date: 3 March 2011 09:02:21 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your message. Except for this message the company does not wish to respond to you other than to convey that it strongly disagrees with your views and allegations, objects to your actions and reserves its legal rights, including with respect to copyrights.

On an exceptional basis we tested your views about history with the relevant historians. They convincingly refute with evidence what you claim in contradiction with A History of Royal Dutch Shell.

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

ENTIRE EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE IN DATE/TIME ORDER

JOHN DONOVAN EMAIL TO MR MICHIEL BRANDJES, WEDNESDAY 2 MARCH 2011

From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: woensdag 2 maart 2011 13:43
To: Brandjes, Michiel CM RDS-LSC
Subject: A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

Dear Mr. Brandjes

I have tried, without success, to send you two pdf files for your information. Both exceeded a size limit imposed by your server.

Each contains a selection of pages from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”.

The first pdf relates to Volume One, 1890-1939, and contains the front and back cover, plus three preamble pages, including  copyright and publishers details. In addition, it includes numbered pages 464 to 493 inclusive.

The second pdf relates to Volume 2, 1939-1973, and contains the front and back cover, two preamble pages covering publishers details and copyright information, plus the following numbered pages: 12, 22, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84 and 86.

Both include the following 2 page introduction, plus an article from the New York Times published on 26 October 1934 reporting on a 4 day summit meeting between Hitler and Sir Henri Deterding.

INTRODUCTION

Royal Dutch Shell and the Nazis

By John Donovan

In the “Fortune Global 500 Ranking by Revenue 2010”, Royal Dutch Shell Plc is ranked as the second largest company in the world, after Wal-Mart Stores.

Many people know something about the oil giants’ controversial track record in Nigeria. It includes decades long plunder and pollution, with involvement in espionage, corruption, torture, murder, and other human rights abuses.

Some people are aware of Shell’s unscrupulous dealings with despotic regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Shell deliberately disguised shipping movements of Iraqi and Iranian oil during UN sanctions.

Very few people have any inkling of Shell’s pivotal support for Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Basically, Shell saved the Nazi Party when it was in danger of financial collapse and continued, for over a decade, to pump funds into the Nazi project. As a consequence, Shell was arguably indirectly responsible for over 30 million deaths in World War 2.

I have already published a series of articles on this explosive subject, the most recent major article under the headline: “Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets”

The Dutch oil baron Sir Henri Deterding drove Shell’s support for the Nazis. He was the dictatorial founder of Royal Dutch Shell publicly described as the “Napoleon of Petroleum” and “The Most Powerful Man in the World”. Sir Henri was infatuated with Hitler and the Nazis.

An official account of the history of the oil giant – “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” – authored by eminent historians associated with Utrecht University, provided invaluable information during my research. The historians were given unrestricted access to Royal Dutch Shell archives. The Research Institute for History and Culture supervised the project. The entire 4-volume history published in 1997 costs £140 (over $200).

I have created pdf files from relevant pages of Volumes 1 & 2 for publication on the Internet. Public interest in knowing the truth about such historically important matters in my view outweighs copyright issues. Instead of the information being buried in an expensive set of history books available mainly in a few reference libraries for research by academics, the information is now freely available on the World Wide Web.

The public and investors should be aware of Shell’s Nazi past. Some people, perhaps relatives of those poor souls who suffered horrific deaths in the Nazi gas chambers, may wish to boycott Shell on these grounds alone. Shell’s Nazi business partner, the infamous I.G. Farben, supplied the Zyklon-B gas used during the Holocaust to exterminate millions of people, including children.

Information in Shell’s own authorised history of the company confirms that Shell pumped funds into the Nazi in a variety of ways, was at times anti-Semitic, sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis and conspired directly with Hitler.

Readers can see for themselves from the pages below that Shell continued its partnership with the Nazis in the years after the retirement of Sir Henri Deterding as leader of the company. Sir Henri remained a director after his retirement from the top job and made huge food donations to Nazi Germany that were widely reported. This meant that Shell was aware of his activities and allowed him to remain as a director; no surprise bearing in mind that Shell also continued its partnership with the Nazis (even after the subsequent death of Sir Henri).

As a long-term campaigner against Shell management misdeeds, my objectivity and impartiality is open to question. This is why I created pdf’s containing relevant pages from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”, so those interested can read Shell’s own account of relevant events.

Since the historians were paid by Shell, it follows that their objectivity and impartiality is also open to question. They also appear to have enjoyed some global jet setting funded by Shell.

The relevant historians  – Joost Jonker and Jan Luiten van Zanden – downplayed the central issue of Shell funding the Nazis on the basis that Hitler would not even agree to meet with Sir Henri. My own research, including newspaper reports from the 1930’s unearthed in The New York Times archive, revealed that this could not have been further from the truth.

Agents engaged in sinister activities jointly for Hitler and Sir Henri after the two men had a private four-day summit meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat in Berchtesgaden. Both dictators had designs on the Russian oil fields.

What transpired all those years ago obviously has no reflection on current Shell employees, the vast majority of whom are decent hard working people.

The dreadful events do however stain forever the name of Royal Dutch Shell and the brand name by which the company is best known throughout the world: Shell.

John Donovan

March 2011

INTRODUCTION ENDS

You will see my stated contention that public interest overrides copyright issues.

As you will probably be aware, I published an article last week giving notice to Shell lawyers of my intention to publish this information on the Internet.

I have not received any response and this suggests that Shell has no objection to such publication.

Please let me know if this assumption is wrong.

Shell is, as always, welcome to correct any inaccurate information which is stated as fact in the introduction.

If you want any comment or response by Shell to be added, it will be included on an unedited basis.

If there is no response within the next 48 hours, I will take that as confirmation that Royal Dutch Shell plc has waived copyright in favour of the public interest and our right to criticise Shell using the Internet, as stated by your company in its submission to the World Intellectual Property Organisation in 2005. This was in regard to the proceedings by Shell in respect of the top level domain name RoyalDutchShellPlc.com and two other Shell related domain names.

Internet publication in controversial circumstances may promote renewed interest in “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” and generate sales.

If you need more time to consider the matter, that is not a problem. Just kindly let me know within the 48 hour period that you will be responding after due consideration.

Best Regards
John Donovan

EMAIL RESPONSE FROM MICHIEL BRANDJES, 3 MARCH 2011

From: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Date: 3 March 2011 09:02:21 GMT
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

Dear Mr Donovan,

Thank you for your message. Except for this message the company does not wish to respond to you other than to convey that it strongly disagrees with your views and allegations, objects to your actions and reserves its legal rights, including with respect to copyrights.

On an exceptional basis we tested your views about history with the relevant historians. They convincingly refute with evidence what you claim in contradiction with A History of Royal Dutch Shell.

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

REPLY FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 3 March 2011 13:18:33 GMT
To: michiel.brandjes@shell.com
Subject: Re: A HISTORY OF ROYAL DUTCH SHELL

Dear Mr Brandjes

Thank you for your response.

For the record, we are not in contradiction with the stated facts based on information/evidence in Shell archives, but rather with the surprising opinions and conclusions aired by your paid historians in relation to that evidence.

Their defence of the numerous allegations of Shell/Deterding funding of Hitler and the Nazi Party was founded on the claim that all attempts by Deterding to meet with Hitler were rebuffed, with the conclusion being that Deterding could not have been held in high esteem by Hitler. I can only surmise that the historians were unaware that in fact Deterding had a summit meeting with Hitler at Berchtesgaden. Only an honoured personal guest would be rewarded with a private four day meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat. In contrast, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s face-to-face meeting in September 1938 with Hitler at Berchtesgaden in an attempt to avoid war, lasted for just three hours. The absence of any reference to the Deterding/Hitler meeting in my view undermines the credibility of the relevant paid historians and their ill informed opinions on this historically important matter.

Further evidence of the high regard the Nazis had for Deterding was apparent at his Nazi funeral, which included a glowing personal tribute from Hitler in a wreath sent by Göring: ‘In the name and on the instructions of the Fuhrer, I greet thee, Heinrich Deterding, the great friend of the Germans.‘

I am sure that you will understand that having been bombarded with various threats by Shell and its lawyers for getting on to 20 years, such threats have lost their impact.  Please also bear in mind the fact that we are in possession of a Shell internal communication indicating that Shell decided long ago that it would never take legal action against us. There was a fear expressed in one such communication about “internal laundry”. If you categorically state that Shell will take legal action if we proceed with our planned publication, then we would be more impressed and act accordingly.

As to the blanket condemnation of “our views about history”, I note that not a single example of any inaccurately stated fact has been provided.

Best Regards
John Donovan

CORRESPONDENCE ENDS

Text: “Together with Jersey Standard, Shell distributed the synthetic gas oil produced by IG Farben and was a partner in the extension of the project. The town of Leuna in eastern Germany was the hub of I. G. Farbenindustrie and gave its name to the company’s synthetic petrol.”

Royal Dutch Shell was for many years a business and cartel partner both in Germany and on a global basis, with I.G. Farben, the German Chemical giant, which was under control of the SS. The synthetic gasoline contributed significantly to Germany’s ability to wage war despite having been cut off from all major oil fields. I.G. Farben supplied the Zyklon-B gas used during the Holocaust to exterminate millions of people, including children. During the Nuremberg trials, I.G. Farben Directors were found guilty of war crimes, including crimes against humanity, the “mistreatment, terrorization, torture, and murder of enslaved persons” and of being members of a criminal organisation, the SS. (Some information/extracts sourced from the Wikipedia article: IG Farben Trial)

By John Donovan

Royal Dutch Shell has today threatened legal proceedings in relation to revelations published on this website about the funding of Hitler and the Nazi Party by Shell and Sir Henri Deterding.

The Shell email says that Shell “reserves its legal rights, including with respect to copyright.”

This means that Shell is threatening defamation and copyright proceedings. This would be interesting litigation to say the least, likely to generate significant global publicity.

Shell has checked with its paid historians responsible for “A History of Royal Dutch Shell” and says that “they convincingly refute with evidence what you claim in contradiction with A History of Royal Dutch Shell.”

A blanket denial yet not one example provided of any specific inaccuracy.

It therefore seems even more appropriate that we publish all of the relevant pages from “A History of Royal Dutch Shell”. The public will then be in a position to draw their own conclusions, taking into account all of the other evidence we have assembled.

Subject to any High Court injunction, we will publish the information on the Internet *later today along with the unedited related email correspondence, which includes Shell’s first statement on this highly controversial matter.

*Since we have sent a reply to Mr Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate, we will hold off publication until Friday evening to give him a reasonable opportunity to make any further response or take any action.