Posts Tagged ‘Richard Wiseman Shell’

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

Our applications compelling Shell to supply us with Shell internal documents in which we are mentioned, has generated some very revealing information, especially in regards to Shell bullying and manipulating the news media.

We have previously published articles revealing Shell’s intent to “kill” a half-page story about this website that The Sunday Times was on the brink of publishing.

The story was killed.

In 2007 Shell lawyers and media specialists in the USA and Europe were frantic about thwarting our contact with Fox News. As is evident from repetitive fragmented Shell internal correspondence, Shell was panicked about the prospect of Bill O’Reilly taking up our suggestion of Americans boycotting Shell, because of its continued links with the fanatical Iranian regime.

Last summer Shell decided to remonstrate with the Financial Times just because FT.com published a link to our site.

We have now stumbled across a letter from Chris Redman, the Editor of Time Magazine, to Richard Wiseman, the then Legal Director of Shell UK Limited.

Mr Redman was seeking an apology.

Here is the content of the letter…

R.M. Wiseman
Legal Director
Shell U.K. Ltd
Shell Mex House
Strand
London WC2R ODX

Dear Mr Wiseman,

I was puzzled by your recent letter complaining about a letter to TIME from a certain Mr John Donovan.

We have done an extensive search of all our letters columns in all our editions for the last few years and can find no trace of such a letter. I can only conclude that your attention was drawn to this alleged letter by someone who had not done their homework and that you yourself had not checked the facts before writing to me. If I’m wrong please let me know. If I’m right then I think you owe me an apology.

There is no evidence that Mr Redman received an apology, though he deserved one.

Time Magazine had not published any letter from me (I am sure I would recall if it had).

What Time Magazine did do is publish my advertising/announcements of the High Court Writs I issued against Shell.

Shell was stealing so many of our ideas, that my lawyers could hardly keep up the flow of issuing Writs. Shell settled them all, but on the basis, as per normal, of hiding news of the settlements from the media and Shell stakeholders.

By John Donovan

Printed below is an email my father sent to Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer at Royal Dutch Shell Plc., which was also sent to Peter Voser, Chief Executive Officer and Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary/General Counsel Corporate.

The stated subject: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets.

Knowing that my father is 93, it seems extraordinarily impolite of Mr Wiseman to not even have the courtesy to acknowledge receipt.  Shell has not taken issue with the accuracy of what was stated in the article, nor raised any copyright objections.

THE EMAIL TO ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC

From: Alfred Donovan <alfred@shellnews.net>
Date: 3 November 2010 17:38:24 GMT
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: michiel.brandjes@shell.com, peter.p.voser@shell.com, John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Subject: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets

Dear Mr Wiseman

You are probably already aware of the teaser article published this morning under the headline:
Coming soon: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets

I had intended to make the actual article “Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets” available on the website on a password basis, so that only Shell could view it, but we have run into some technical glitches.

I have therefore supplied it as an attachment. It is far from ideal as the graphics are displaced, but the text is readable.

It is a draft and has yet to be proof read and have all the external links checks. We do not, however, foresee any major changes unless Shell indicates that any of the content is inaccurate or untrue.

Can you kindly let me know by Friday evening if you intend to take up the invitation in the teaser article? In that event, just let me know when we can reasonably expect a substantive response. There is no rush. If you say that you will need a couple of weeks, and then decide that more time is required, that would not be a problem.

If, after due consideration, you decide that there are copyright issues involved, please identity the items in question and the precise grounds on which copyright is being claimed. Some of the photographs are over 70 years old.

If we receive no response by Friday evening, we will assume that, as has been the case with other recent draft articles, Shell has no issues it wishes to raise and no objections to our publication plans for the content.

Once the draft is finalised, we will supply it to the Wiesenthal Centre and request a comment for publication with the article.

In a recent email to you concerning a counter-intelligence investigation by US authorities of alleged Shell industrial espionage in the USA, we mentioned our plan to contact UK and American politicians (MP’s and Senators etc). This plan was delayed pending the completion of this topic, which will now form an important part of the warning message being conveyed.

Regards
Alfred Donovan

Photograph shows Swastika flag flying at the head office of Royal Dutch Petroleum, 30 Carel van Bylandtlaan , The Hague, during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands in World War II (From Image Database Hague Municipal)

Photograph shows Swastika flag flying at the head office of Royal Dutch Petroleum, 30 Carel van Bylandtlaan , The Hague, during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands in World War II (From Image Database Hague Municipal)

BY ALFRED DONOVAN

LATER TODAY WE WILL BE PUBLISHING “ROYAL DUTCH SHELL NAZI SECRETS” – ALL NINE PARTS. A SENIOR SHELL OFFICIAL (OUR OLD FRIEND RICHARD WISEMAN) HAS HAD ADVANCE SIGHT OF THE ENTIRE CONTENT, INCLUDING THE EXTENSIVE, INDEPENDENT, REPUTABLE REFERENCE SOURCES. WE INVITED SHELL TO POINT OUT ANY INACCURATE OR UNTRUE INFORMATION. READERS WILL BE ABLE TO DRAW THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHY SHELL DID NOT TAKE UP THE INVITATION NOR TAKE LEGAL ACTION TO BLOCK PUBLICATION. PERHAPS MR WISEMAN WAS BUSY MAKING AN ANTI-CORRUPTION SPEECH?

Coming soon: Royal Dutch Shell Nazi Secrets

Email from John Donovan to Republic of Ireland Chief Police Commissioner Fachtna Murphy

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 26 October 2010 21:35:00 GMT+01:00
To: commissioner@garda.ie
Cc: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Subject: Corrib Gas Project Alleged Death Threats

For the Attention of Republic of Ireland Chief Police Commissioner Fachtna Murphy

Dear Commissioner Murphy

For the sake of transparency, I have printed below a copy of my email on this subject to Richard Wiseman at Royal Dutch Shell.

If Shell had said that the internal emails were a hoax, then I would not have contacted you at all.

I can only guess that Shell decided that it was best not to reply, because even if they denied any knowledge of the alleged death threats, then it would stand out like  a sore thumb if they did not go on to deny the espionage operation (which they cannot do) and the authenticity of the leaked emails (which they are also unable to do). Since the latter two issues are matters of fact, Shell was faced with a real dilemma and decided to say nothing.

I do not know if death threats were made. I do know that the death threats were reported to me in writing by the parties supplying authentic Shell internal emails and I have ample evidence to prove it.

I also know that there is a dark side to Shell, especially in regards to the hiring of contractor “security” staff (which in our experience are little more than thugs), and so called “enquiry agents” (who are actually undercover operatives).

The bullying behaviour of Shell security guards in London received the full backing of Mr Wiseman at about this time last year, when we had a team distributing leaflets at Shell Centre in an entirely peaceful, legal and proper manner. Again, I have the email correspondence as proof.

Regards
John Donovan

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 25 October 2010 09:57:08 GMT+01:00
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Cc: peter.p.voser@shell.com, Lorna Siggins <lsiggins@indigo.ie>
Subject: Alleged Death Threats made to Shell Corrib Employees

Dear Mr Wiseman

I have printed below an email I intend to send to Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy.

I have also printed for your information the related Shell internal emails. If you inform me by tomorrow evening that the emails are not authentic, then we will not publish them and will revise or cancel the email to Fachtna Murphy as we deem appropriate.

If I receive no response by then, I will assume that they are authentic and will proceed with our plans.

If you need more time to check the matter with colleagues, that will not be a problem. In that event kindly let me know when we can reasonably expect a verdict on authenticity. Not that we have any doubt on the matter, but we always prefer for Shell to have the opportunity to confirm or deny, or make a comment.

I have copied this email to Lorna Siggins who has covered the Corrib Gas Project for several years at The Irish Times and recently published her book: “Once Upon a Time in the West: The Corrib Gas Controversy”. It seems that the title may have been rather more appropriate then she anticipated.

Regards
John Donovan

RELATED ARTICLE:

Reported death threats against Shell Corrib employees

Following my email correspondence with a U.S. intelligence source, and clearance obtained by that source from U.S. Dept. of Defense government attorneys, that source was authorized to confirm that an investigation directed at Shell USA was indeed initiated by the US Department of the Navy, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS).

Junior employees of Shell Pakistan are scared, as their fate is unclear, as was the case of Shell Ethiopia, Sudan and Djibouti in 2008 and they may also end up being left to protest against being SOLD like slaves.

Dear John Donovan,

I joined Pakistan Burma Shell almost 30 years ago as a fitter. I used to repair dispensers installed at petrol pumps of Pakistan Burma Shell. When Burma Shell was purchased by, Shell Pakistan, all the technicians like me were removed from service without proper benefits, (some cases of which are still pending in court).

Because of that experience, I launched a small firm of my own and started doing repair and minor repair work projects as a contractor at Shell petrol pumps in city of Sargodha Pakistan.

About two years ago an incident of fire took place at a Shell petrol pump. In this incident a motorcycle caught fire while it was getting fuel. Tragically, the daughter of a motorcycle owner who was sitting on the fuel tank, during filling, died in the fire.

Unluckily my staff were working at that petrol pump when this incident took place, but were at a distance from the motorcycle which caught fire and had no connection with the motorcycle, the dispenser, or area near the dispenser.

Shell management at Pakistan, arranged an enquiry and officially held my firm responsible for this incident and black-listed it. I was however assured by Senior Shell management that they would re-register my firm under a different name if I took  responsibility for the incident.

I have left Shell and I am living a happy life and do not intend to join it back. But at times a question pricks my mind, i.e.

Had the same incident occurred in a developed country, say in America or in UK, could Shell have so easily avoided the publicity of its misdeeds by using trickery to escape a proper inquiry or judicial action. In other words, are the claims about Shell’s integrity, transparency etc just applicable to developed countries in which Shell operates?

Shell Pakistan has seen many reversals in all fields in last two years as a result of misdeeds by its management, and is facing the worst time of the history in Pakistan. The unethical dealings, and wrong policies of its management, have changed its attractive petrol pumps and agencies in to grave yards. Repairs at petrol pumps are delayed for years with no funds available for normal maintenance.

There is big financial problem for Shell Pakistan , its petrol pumps and agencies do not get fuel and lubricants for weeks, even after making payments in advance.

Managers at Pakistan are considered to be the worst enemy of company contracting staff and other stake holders.

Engineering branch, consumer sections and quality control units at regions have been done away with and the staff from sales department are running the show with no ethics and business codes.

There are rumors in the market that Shell is running away from the country and that Shell Pakistan is being sold to some other oil company.

Junior employees of Shell Pakistan are scared, as their fate is unclear, as was the case of Shell Ethiopia, Sudan and Djibouti in 2008 and they may also end up being left to protest against being SOLD like slaves.

Shell Pakistan policy bears no resemblance to official Shell CSR. Shell Pakistan management is instead busy covering-up its flaws, including entrapment of contractual staff / agency holders, deception of innocent co-workers of Shell. Their prime interest is in saving their own own skins through undercover moves, while setting aside ethical considerations chalked out by Richard Wiseman, instead of enforcing and upholding the Shell’s General Business Principles.

At your website I read following statement by Mark Moody-Stuart that, (“…the Statement provides, for our employees to follow and for the outside world to judge us by, an ethical framework which is mandatory, not optional… just having those principles is not enough.  In the past… an oil company could say ‘trust me’ and expect that to be enough.  Today, people say, ‘tell me – listen to me – show me’.   Trust has to be earned by transparency.  That’s one of the most important lesson’s we’ve learned in Shell…”)

Unfortunately this is not the reality of what is happening in Shell Pakistan. We have listened, we have seen and we have had enough of the double-talk. As Moody-Stuart also said: “It is deeds, not words, which count”. The actions of Shell Pakistan management do not match with the  words of Moody-Stuart or Richard Wiseman.

Please mark my words. With many of other cases like mine likely to be publicly revealed, and with present business policy being incompatible with claimed business ethics, Shell has many more reversals to see in the whole world and Pakistan might be the start of it.

Abdul Ghafar.

(RIGHT TO REPLY: IF ANYONE AT SHELL PAKISTAN WISHES TO REPLY, THE RESPONSE WILL BE PUBLISHED HERE ON AN UNEDITED BASIS – THIS OFFER TO SHELL, EXTENDS TO ALL ARTICLES AND BLOGS PUBLISHED ON THIS WEBSITE)

ABOUT SHELL PAKISTAN: The Shell began its operation in this region in 1899 by importing Kerosene from Azerbaijan. In 1970 Burma Shell divested 51% to the public and became a listed company. After acquisition in 1993 it was finally renamed as Shell Pakistan. With annual sale approaching $ 1 billion, Shell is one of the leading private sector companies in Pakistan and holds about 22% share of hydro-carbon business. It employs over 12000 persons in Pakistan and operates through a retail net work of 1100 petrol pumps. Being a responsible corporate organization The Shell has so far contributed over Rs.30 million in community development in Pakistan.

By John Donovan

I have published below Shell internal emails and minutes of a meeting, all relating to the Shell led Corrib Gas Project in Ireland.

All of the items been supplied by a group of Shell Corrib employees who wish to be known as “Celtic Tiger 5″.

This is what they claim:

We are Celtic Tiger 5 who are current shell employees working in/or for Shell Ireland. We represent HSE, Commercial, IT, Construction and are interested in spreading correct information to the outside world and our fellow citizens in the West. Please feel free to publish this information on your website…

As previously indicated, Shell will be concerned about the prospect of another active subversive employee group within the company following the leak to us in February of the Shell Global Address Book in what was described as the worlds biggest breach of employee details. The leak turned into a global PR black-eye for Shell.

Relevant email correspondence today with Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Email from John Donovan to Richard Wiseman

From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: 09 August 2010 09:15
To: Wiseman, Richard M RDS-LSX
Subject: Corrib Gas Project: More leaked Shell internal emails

Dear Mr Wiseman

The trickle of leaked Shell insider documents and internal communications from the Corrib Gas Project in Ireland seems to have turned into a flood.

Please see three further leaked Shell internal emails printed below involving high level employees, including the Project Director in 2007, Mr Tom Hooft van Huysduynen.

Please let me know by 4 pm today if there is any reason why we should not publish the emails and minutes as proof that the leaks situation is self-evidently out of Shell’s control. This is despite the global spying operation against Shell employees by Shell Global Affairs Security (CAS) designed to prevent such information from reaching us.

I have given a deadline because you have not responded to my recent emails containing no deadlines. I tried the no deadline approach after your complaint about the imposition of deadlines – “I can by no means guarantee always to receive your emails within 24 hours of your sending them…”
Please let me know if you need more time to deal with the matter.

If you indicate that any email is a fake, it will not be published.

Any comment you wish to make will be published on an unedited basis.

Regards
John Donovan

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 9 August 2010 11:07:55 GMT+01:00
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: Corrib Gas Project: More leaked Shell internal emails

Dear Mr Donovan

We do not propose to respond to the allegations and our refusal to do so should not be taken as an admission that any of the assertions is true.

Regards

Richard Wiseman

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

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

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

LEAKED INFORMATION IN DATE ORDER

—–Original Message—–
From:     Hooft van Huysduynen, Tom SEPIL-EPE-T-IP
Sent:   05 July 2007 16:16
To:    Cetti, Julian A SEPIL-EPE-C-R; Murphy, Conor SEPIL-EPE-C-D; Costello, Gerry J SEPIL-EPE-T-IP; Uglow, Susannah M SEPIL-LSEP-E-I; Pieren, Marcel SUKEP-EPE-T-D; Barrett, Thomas W SUKOP-DIC/713
Cc:    Pyle, Andy C SEPIL-EPE-T-I; Nolan, Terry J SEPIL-EPE-T-IM; McLaverty, Agnes K SEPIL-EPE-T-IP; Hamilton, Ann M SEPIL-EPF-E-C
Subject:    Annual Lease return

Ladies & Gents,

We have had a very very long session on the 2006 ALR. We have agreed that it is key that we listen and take on board formal remarks on reserves made by PAD. The PAD wants to see 785 Bcf reserves and he tells us in no uncertain terms what format this should take. Marcel will do a QA/QC check on what wording will be acceptable to Shell, but it is critical to SEPIL we do find acceptable wording to PAD. Also I stated I do not intend to risk relationships with BGE and PAD on the basis of stand alone Flow Assurance results. I see FA as an important planning, engineering and operational tool, but not as an absolute tool; it is only a prediction. Only after production start up will we be able to calibrate the model to actual performance. In other words, it is stupid if we stick to the 739 Bcf (or worse) to the Government at this stage and we are shooting ourselves in the foot. So we are all very clear why it is so important to revert to the 785 BcF (by the way note 783 BcF is the 10% cut off requiring a new PoD). Equally, we are not running back to the Government if P6 results indicate downside rather than upside (or the other way around for that matter). P6 results will be formally reported back via the formal process of the 2007 ALR, which we should try to issue as soon as possible after the re-modelling has taken place, somewhere early Q2 next year. If the 2007 ALR indicates reserves changes in excess of 10% (up or down), there is an existing proces via the ALR on how to initiate a PoD change on reserves, somewhere in 2008.

The atttached ALR, with the exception of the subsurface Chapter 4, has now been throughly revised and rewritten, inlcuding partner and legal checks. The attached ALR now follows exactly the recommendations issued by the PAD. Gerry Costello will now informally test this with PAD after receiving wording from Mrcel on reserves. Gerry will also ask PAD whether we can issue teh document except Chapter 4.

As we mention reserves in this report, Marcel will deal with Group Disclosure Standards.

Ann, can you please find out whether we need to disclose to the Group the publication of Capex, Opex and Abandonment Cost as well before issuing ?

Principles.

•    2005 ALR to be accepted before 2006 ALR to be submitted
•    Satisfying the Government of Ireland is a higher priority than satisfying Shell
•    A revised PoD should include just those sections which inlcude new information or modified proposals
•    The ALR format follows official guidelines, nothing else
•    The ALR wil not contain any information outside the related calendar year
•    The ALR will not volontuur information not requested, but follow the PAD recommended format
•    The forward planning in the ALR is looking forward from 31/12 of that year
•    Additional information can be provided in the cover letter, not in the ALR
•    We use 2005€, MoD € and RT 2006 €, in various parts of the report, intentionally
•    The document, we understand, does not fall under the freedom of information act, and can only be made public via the courts.

Planning

•    Late submissions can be and will have to be regularised by letter requesting approval. Gerry please issue this letter on late 2006 ALR submission (draft by James)
•    Marcel Pieren will review wording on reserves for the 2005 ALR submission by next week.
•    The wording should cover 785 Bcf reserves. Expectation reserves are 739, with 46 Bcf reserves to be added at a later date by engineering solutions, primarily the change out of a pipeline, would that make commercial sense at the time a decison is required.
•    Resolve 2005 ALR by August 2007, formal acceptance by PAD
•    Submit 2006 ALR by August 2007, after formal acceptance by PAD
•    Submit a new section in the POD for the pipeline re-route, at the time of submission to PAD for Section 40, and ABP for SIA, planned 31 October 2007
•    The cover letter to the 2006 ALR return will state that in September 2007 SEPIL plans to complete Flow Assurance work and plans to drill into P6 reservoir. The PAD wil be informed by letter of any early hard results. The PAD will be informed of all consolidated results, including new reservoir models based on P6 data, in the 2007 ALR, planned for issue April 2008 (planned end of reservoir re-modelling).

Tom Hooft van Huysduynen
Project Director
+353 1 669 4159
+353 (0) 876 603 940
Shell E&P Ireland Limited
Registered Office
Corrib House
52 Lower Leeson Street
Dublin 2
Ireland
Registered in Ireland Number 316588
Directors: AM Hamilton, TJ Nolan, AC Pyle (British)

****************************************
—–Original Message—–
From:     Uglow, Susannah M SEPIL-LSEP-E-I
Sent:    06 July 2007 11:37
To:    Hooft van Huysduynen, Tom SEPIL-EPE-T-IP
Cc:    Cetti, Julian A SEPIL-EPE-C-R; Murphy, Conor SEPIL-EPE-C-D; Costello, Gerry J SEPIL-EPE-T-IP; Pieren, Marcel SUKEP-EPE-T-D; Barrett, Thomas W SUKOP-DIC/713; Pyle, Andy C SEPIL-EPE-T-I; Nolan, Terry J SEPIL-EPE-T-IM; McLaverty, Agnes K SEPIL-EPE-T-IP; Hamilton, Ann M SEPIL-EPF-E-C
Subject:    RE: Annual Lease return

Tom,

To pick up on one of the points made in the Principles section of your email, it is not the case that the Annual Lease Return falls outside the Freedom of Information Act.

The ALR does constitute a record held by a public body (ie. the Department) which falls within the FOI Act.  However, the Act says that where information has been obtained by the public body in confidence or where it is commercially sensitive, the public body has the discretion to refuse to give access to the information.  Prior to making a decision to release the Department would have to consult with SEPIL (as provider of the information), although the Department would consider SEPIL’s views it would not be bound by them.  The  Department could release the information where, on balance, it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so.
In summary, the Department could release the ALR to a member of the public if it thought that would be in the public interest.
It is important that SEPIL denotes the ALR as a confidential and commercially sensitive document so that if a FOI request is made, the Department knows to consult SEPIL on its possible release.
Regards
Susannah

****************************************
From: Hamilton, Ann M SEPIL-EPF-E-C
Sent: 10 July 2007 16:48
To: Hooft van Huysduynen, Tom SEPIL-EPE-T-IP
Cc: Uglow, Susannah M SEPIL-LSEP-E-I; Mc Brien, James M SEPIL-EPE-T-PC; Pyle, Andy C SEPIL-EPE-T-I
Subject: Annual Lease return

Tom,

We made some slight adjustments to the numbers ( with Jims involvement).

We have an obligation under our Petroleum Lease to disclose our Total Expenditure amounts ( I have checked the guidelines with James and this is quite clearly stated).

In answer to your specific question to me, given that SEPIL will denote the submitted ALR as confidential and commercially sensitive so that if a FOI request is made the Department will consult SEPIL in its possible release. Therefore, in my view we do not need to consult Group on this issue.

Regards
Ann

****************************************

—–Original Message—–
From:     Murdoch, Jim SUKEP-EPE-T-WP
Sent:    05 September 2008 15:04
To:    s711dsv SUKEP-EPE-T-WM; s711ndsv SUKEP-EPE-T-WM; S711WSS SUKEP-EPE-T-WM; 711 OIM (E-mail)
Cc:    Kazi, Mudassar SUKEP-EPE-T-WP; Christie, Steven SUKEP-EPE-T-WS; Keith Miller (E-mail); Morrice, Chris SUKEP-EPE-T-WS
Subject:   Corrib P5 deviation

Boris, Brian, Graham, Graeme

suspect you’re not fully aware but during some productioncasing design validation checks an issue arose surrounding the 20″ connector tensile/compressive capacity.  Due to thermally induced loads there is a modeled scenario (Wellcat) that results in connector failure and a leak developing across the connector.  Structurally there is no risk to the well but it potentially opens up the “B” annulus.  This would not normally be a problem but there are potentially some exposed (hydrostatically pressure) sands in the B annulus that are not isolated by the 9 5/8″ cement job.  Fluid type is uncertain but in the event that there is loss of hydrostatic head, (due to mud degradation), there are hydrocarbon present (low probability) and the sand can flow there is a risk that hydrocarbons flow to the failed/leaking connector resulting in flow from the B annulus.  For this to happen the cement that was seen to surface of this string would also have to have failed.

As you can see a number of failures have to occur before this could actually happen hence it is considered a very low risk.  This said we have captured within the attached deviation form and by limiting the flowing period during the clean up phase the thermal loads that the connector will be subjected will not exceed the connector rating envelope.  Further modeling done to date has shown that the connector should not have been subjected to thermal loads that would have failed the connector during the well test with Enterprise in 1999.

This said we should monitor the wellhead both prior to and during the well test with the ROV (see mitigation measures #3 2nd page of the attached document) for bubble generation indicating that we have failed the connection and that fluids are migrating through the B annulus.  Acknowledge will be difficult to monitor and assess as we do anticipate some release around the wellhead which is not untypical due to thermal expansion.

Have a look at the attached and we can discuss, taken the liberty of checking for additional ROV crew although realise that bedding is an issue.

Cheers

Jim/Mudassar

Jim Murdoch
Senior Well Engineer
Shell U.K. Limited
1 Altens Farm Road, Nigg, Aberdeen, AB12 3FY, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 1224 88 2983
Email: jim.murdoch@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com/eandp
****************************************

From: Taylor, Ian C SUKEP-EPE-T-D
Sent: 18 September 2008 15:35
To: GX EPE ALL PTs and WAs
Cc: McRobbie, Ian I SUKEP-EPE-P-SD
Subject: Revised UK Well Failure Model – rev 3 now out !!

Dear All

The UK well failure model (as used in eWIMS) has been updated.  It can still be found under the following link

http://knowledge.europe.shell.com/GetDoc?documentnumber=EP200512206208&VerType=PDF&instance=glasepns&language=English&guest=true

As always, all Well Failure Models can be accessed from the TS09 webpage :

http://sww.shell.com/ep/epe/wells/standards/ts09.html

Main Changes :-

·         New failure code for control line failure.
·         Introduction of new well type – subsurface abandoned.
·         General tidying up of wording !

Please destroy your old printouts.

Ian Taylor
Production Technologist
Well Integrity Team Leader – EPE

Shell U.K. Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Registered number: 140141
Registered Office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA

Correspondence Address :
Shell U.K. Limited
1 Altens Farm Road, Nigg, Aberdeen, AB12 3FY, United Kingdom

Email: ian.a.taylor@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com/eandp

****************************************

—–Original Message—–
From:   Kedian, Matt MJ NORSKE-EPE-T-D
Sent:    26 March 2009 10:20
To:       Argo, Douglas W SUKEP-EPE-T-D
Cc:       Taylor, Ian C SUKEP-EPE-T-D; Thomas, Vaughan NORSKE-EPE-T-D
Subject:           Corrib Well Ownership

Douglas,

At the VR BPR in February we mentioned that it does not appear that there is a clear owner of the existing Corrib wells.

Nothing is happening with the wells at the moment but in the event an issue arose it is not clear to me who would be responsble now that Stephen Castle has left.

Would you be able to give some steer on who should be responsible, or if the current status is acceptable.

Thanks
Matt

****************************************

Corrib Asset team Meeting 26 March 09

Attendees
OR&A team: Mark Carrigy, Stuart Basford, Mike Fraser
EPE-P-SO: Simon Fisher, Bill Leyshon, Iain Barraclough
Corrib asset : Aad Allard
X border: Matt Kedian, Vaughan Thomas

Apologies: Charles Churchfield, Steve Jeans
Not required to be present this meeting: Tom Hooft van Huysduynen

1) HSSE area remains a resource gap. Agency staff has now been identified to fill gap and will shortly be on seat. No risk identified of HSSE deliverables being delivered late.

2) OR&A plan now compiled as one plan: all resources except for HSE resource above believed to be satisfactory to deliver this plan.

3) Spares: insurance spares not yet ordered, but catalogued. WIll be ordered on Just in Time basis. Delivery within 9 to 12  months.

4) Irish government requirements for introduction of hydrocarbons are : i) Independent Safety Audit has to give the OK . ii) The ‘letter of acceptance’ to be in place. Both of these are independent of Shell requirements eg Pre Start Up Audit .

5) The Back Feed of gas by BGE has been proposed to the Irish authorities as ‘functional testing’ rather than commissioning. The Irish authorities have yet to confirm their agreement to this proposal. Main issue relates to when the IPPCL (Pollution Control Limits) comes into  effect , this cannot come into  effect while backfeeding gas as we will have no way of disposing of surface water run-off. That is a discussion Corrib still needs to have with the Authorities.
Question: If this request is refused and the period has to be treated as commisioning can any additional requirements (eg additional permits /consents etc) be  accommodated? (Action MC)

6) The current asset ownership of the wells is not clear. Wells or Operations? (Action MC)

7) The surface start up team is agreed and is being trained and mobilised. The start up team for the wells, subsea and pipelines is not agreed. It is agreed between Corrib and PT discipline that a PT resource is required. X border team believe that additional gaps exist which need to be filled by staff experienced with the OL start up.
Simon to send slide pack from Vaughan / Matt  to Aad Allard and Mark C. (Action SF)
Aad Allard to take early view on start up team for the wells, subsea and pipelines in time for GIP submission (mid April) and  next meeting (29 April) and initiate resourcing if necessary including for PT position. (Action AA)

Gap analysis will take place in mid 09 to ascertain whether there are any gaps in compliance with requirements of AIPS including DEM2, Blade 24 of OE. Main areas of uncertainty (eg through unclear definition) are currently Alarm Management and OE. (Info)

****************************************

—–Original Message—–
From:   Argo, Douglas W SUKEP-EPE-T-D
Sent:  26 March 2009 19:10
To:       Kedian, Matt MJ NORSKE-EPE-T-D
Cc:       Taylor, Ian C SUKEP-EPE-T-D; Thomas, Vaughan NORSKE-EPE-T-D; Siemers, Gertjan GJT NAM-EPE-T-D
Subject:           RE: Corrib Well Ownership
Importance:     High

Matt, thank your for this prompt. My thoughts below, which I suggest you follow up in a meeting with those copied:

I think the relevant TA’s need to decide on responsible actions first, and then recommend ownership, rather than becoming bogged-down the other way around.

ACTIONS:
1. Check for precedents, standards, previous guidance on long term suspension (eg see extract below).
2. Summarise barrier status (as left – the ones I looked at are newly-perfed with SSSV shut, no plug).
3. Is there any protection in the field – eg boat deterring trawlers from exclusion area?
3. Agree suitable monitoring method and frequency  (eg ROV, annually), given long term suspension (to date and future), which we would be responsibly happy with. In this case, risk may be mainly reputational rather than safety or environmental (subsea gas wells).

In my mind, some form of monitoring action is required.

Ownership:
1. Of the above, initially PT, rather than debate Wells vs PT vs Ops vs Project.
2. Legally/organisationally, I would think accountability lies with Project team, with advice from TA’s. Project team presence in Ireland would also support this. Can you confirm that Terry Nolan reports to John Gallagher rather than Cross-Border, and that no handover to X/Border has taken place? Has Nicola stated any position on ownership?

Regards,
Douglas
The Revised CoP for Well Integrity  For wells that are suspended (i.e. isolated from the reservoir by a plug, either permanent or retrievable), and a wellhead and tree or a suspension flange is still in place, all the valves shall be operated and maintained on an annual basis (or bi-annual for sub sea and NUI wells where this is the established test frequency), as per closed-in wells above. Suspension plugs shall be tested as leaktight unless specified otherwise in the Suspension programme.

****************************************

—–Original Message—–
From:   Thomas, Vaughan NORSKE-EPE-T-D
Sent:    03 April 2009 10:01
To:       Argo, Douglas W SUKEP-EPE-T-D
Subject:           RE: Corrib Well Ownership

X-Border has never taken ownership, and we are not the future asset – so will never own it here in VR. This is Nicola’s view, and no-one in Ireland reports to her as far as I know.

It was “believed” that WE in Dublin owned the wells as part of the project, but they have now left. There has been no monitoring of the wells to date.

Matt is looking at Corrib for the time being – so can do the practical stuff over the next few months. Ian is the TA-2 for Ireland I believe. None of the wells are in any system, such as e-WIMS. The well files are poor and scattered.

Maybe we need to formalise this. Gert-Jan send a note to Dublin stating that they are the owners, but that EPE PT will provide the technical support (Matt, you or otherwise). The other model is to have a PT in the project team – which is not currently the case.

We are Celtic Tiger 5 who are current shell employees working in/or for Shell Ireland. We represent HSE, Commercial, IT, Construction and are interested in spreading correct information to the outside world and our fellow citizens in the West. Please feel free to publish this information on your website with our introduction…

By John Donovan

We have received several Shell internal emails and the minutes of the Corrib Asset team Meeting held on 26 March 09.

The source claims to be a group of Shell Corrib employees who wish to be known as “Celtic Tiger 5″.

Printed immediately below is an extract from the covering email received:

We are Celtic Tiger 5 who are current shell employees working in/or for Shell Ireland. We represent HSE, Commercial, IT, Construction and are interested in spreading correct information to the outside world and our fellow citizens in the West. Please feel free to publish this information on your website with our introduction…

We have already published an article based on emails supplied by one of the individuals involved with the “Celtic Tiger 5″ group.

Leaked Shell internal emails reveal concern over Corrib subsea wells

Thus far there is nothing damaging to Shell. Employees involved in the email correspondence and the meeting appear to be carrying out their work with due diligence by internally raising issues of potential concern e.g. legal ownership of subsea wells.

We have however been promised that further information, more sensational in nature, will follow. For example, we understand that internal warnings about safety issues have been suppressed.

Even more significant are allegations of collusion between Shell and the Irish Government.

I have supplied all of the emails and minutes of the team meeting to Richard Wiseman, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. He has not replied to my most recent email dated 30 July 2010.

I have also passed the same information to contacts in Ireland who are much more familiar with the various matters discussed by Shell employees in the leaked documents.

Over 5 years ago I published an article predicting a public relations disaster for Shell in Ireland in relation to the Corrib gas project being imposed against the wishes of local people gravely concerned by environmental and safety issues.

I also made the same prediction in a live interview on Dublin Radio in August 2005 when I also predicted Shell would use undercover agents to gather intelligence and engage in other sinister activities against the protest group. The latter prediction has also come to pass.

Shell will be concerned about the prospect of another active subversive employee group within the company following the leak to us in February of the Shell Global Address Book in what was described as the worlds biggest breach of employee details. The leak turned into a global PR black-eye for Shell.

On 11 May 2010, just weeks after the Gulf of Mexico disaster, Shell had a very narrow escape on the NAM-L13-FE North Sea platform that could have killed many people. There were 71 persons present at the time of the incident. Fortunately, none were injured. There was however significant damage to the platform.

Article by John Donovan including current related email correspondence with Royal Dutch Shell Plc

On 20 April 2010 an explosion and fire took place on the BP-licensed Transocean drilling rig Deepwater Horizon, located in the Gulf of Mexico. As we all know, the fall out from the explosion has been earthshaking in its ramifications in many directions.

On 27 June 2010, the Guardian published a related article “Shell: deep-water oil drilling will go on” featuring an interview with Peter Voser, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It contained this boast attributed to Mr Voser:

We would not have drilled the well in the same way. We have got other safety procedures across the globe. But I think for some companies there will be some learning from this as well…

In other words, Shell has nothing to learn from the BP disaster.

On 2 July we published an article”Voser claims Shell has nothing to learn from the BP disaster: Is this really true?“and this was followed the next day with an article “Expert educates Shell CEO Voser on oil rig blowouts”authored by the retired HSE Group Auditor of Shell International, Mr Bill Campbell.

Voser claimed that blow-outs like the Macondo well could not happen in Shell. But they have. On 11 May 2010, just weeks after the Gulf of Mexico disaster, Shell had a very narrow escape on the NAM-L13-FE North Sea platform that could have killed many people.  The platform located about 50 kilometers west of Den Helder produces natural gas. Next to the platform was a mobile platform, the “Sea Fox 4”, carrying out the maintenance work.

During maintenance work to an existing well a number of pipes, which at that time were being lowered into a well, were blown out. The pipes subsequently fell on the deck of the platform. The safety valves in the well saved the day and ensured that there was no leakage of gas from the existing well.

There were 71 persons present at the time of the incident. Fortunately, none were injured. There was however significant damage to the platform.   The maintenance work and production of gas was shut down.

Part of a tubing string being blown out of a hole is something that should never happen. A most serious breach of safety had taken place and it was deliberately underplayed.

The facts of the incident which did not make news headlines completely undermine the claims made by Peter Voser.

RELATED SELF-EXPLANATORY CORRESPONDENCE WITH ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC CHIEF ETHICS & COMPLIANCE OFFICER, RICHARD WISEMAN

From: John Donovan [mailto:john@shellnews.net]
Sent: 23 July 2010 16:46
To: Wiseman, Richard M RDS-LSX
Subject: A close call for Shell on North Sea platform

Dear Mr Wiseman

Printed below is a self-explanatory draft article.

Please feel free to point out any inaccuracy for removal.

Please feel free to supply comment for unedited publication with the article.

I look forward to receiving a response next week.

Have a good weekend.

Regards
John Donovan

REPLY FROM RICHARD WISEMAN

From: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Date: 26 July 2010 18:08:24 GMT+01:00
To: john@shellnews.net
Subject: RE: A close call for Shell on North Sea platform

Dear Mr Donovan

I will not be responding to the contents of your email, except to remind you, as ever, that nothing should be inferred from this lack of response.

Regards
Richard Wiseman

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

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

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

RESPONSE FROM JOHN DONOVAN

From: John Donovan <john@shellnews.net>
Date: 27 July 2010 12:35:54 GMT+01:00
To: richard.wiseman@shell.com
Subject: Re: A close call for Shell on North Sea platform

Dear Mr Wiseman

Thank you for your response.

That you have seen the article and had the opportunity to comment is sufficient.

Regards

John Donovan

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENDS

THE DRAFT ARTICLE WAS AS PUBLISHED ABOVE

Photo shown above is of the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM) offshore gas-production platform L15, situated in the North Sea.