Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com

Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Wikipedia articles cover multitudinous subjects including the

history and accomplishments

of prominent individuals and

major businesses, including

Royal Dutch Shell.

The information provided is

supposedly accurate.

Unfortunately, the integrity of

Wikipedia is corrupted by a

policy allowing the anony-

mous editing of articles.

This fundamental flaw allows

articles to be potentially sani-

tized of any facts embarrass-

ing to a featured person or

business.

Decisions are sometimes taken

within the Wikipedia community to remove entire articles

from the public gaze in the shadiest circumstances.

Participants in such decisions are allowed to hide their identity

and their background circumstances.

The flaws in editing credibility are especially important in re-

gards to big business as positive or negative information in a

Wikipedia article about a com-

pany can potentially have an

impact on its reputation and

value. The flaws have been ex-

ploited. Negative information

has been removed from

Wikipedia articles.

For example, Wikipedia arti-

cles about Shell Dutch Shell

have been covertly edited by

Shell employees from Shell of-

fices. This was only discovered

as a result of electronic scan-

ning technology.

Entire articles about Royal

Dutch Shell controversies, in-

cluding employee safety is-

sues and environmental con-

cerns have been deleted by anonymous editors.

This was despite the fact that the information met all Wikipe-

dia requirements, with independent evidence from reputable

third party sources cited to verify all stated facts.

iiJohn Donovan, the author of this book, was the initiating

author of Wikipedia articles that were subsequently cleansed

of information embarrassing to Shell. He was also the author

of the deleted Wikipedia articles relating to Shell.

He declared to Wikipedia at the outset of becoming a volun-

tary editor his background and expertise in relation to Shell.

As a result of an application to Shell under the UK Data Protec-

tion Act 1998, Donovan discovered from Shell internal commu-

nications a deep concern by Shell over his Wikipedia editor

contributions about Shell.

The tone of one particular internal Shell email was hostile and

aggressive to a degree that Reuters published an article about

it. Shell put a large team of people on a war footing and John

Donovan, his website, and Shell’s own employees, became the

target of a global spying operation by Shell Corporate Affairs

Security.

John Donovan was chairman of a sales promotion agency, Don

Marketing, that devised spectacularly successful forecourt pro-

motions for Shell on an international basis. Many involved

budgets of several million dollars. A mutually beneficial rela-

tionship lasted for over a decade.

This was followed by two decades of acrimony involving six

High Court actions, a County Court case and proceedings via

the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

At one stage Shell displayed posters at the Shell Centre in Lon-

don defaming John Donovan and his father.

In response, the Donovan’s

sued Shell for libel. One of

two libel actions they brought

against Shell. Both were set-

tled out of court, as were all

of the other court actions.

Shell also lost the case de-

cided by the WIPO.

For more than a decade, John

Donovan has operated non-

profit websites focussed on

Shell including

royaldutchshellplc.com and

royaldutchshellgroup.com,

both of which Shell unsuccess-

fully attempted to seize.

Several hundred main stream

media articles by the FT, the

Wall Street Journal, Reuters,

Bloomberg, Forbes, Dow

Jones Newswires etc., and

over 50 books, contain refer-

ences to either John Donovan, his father, and/or the Shell fo-

cussed websites they co-founded.

iiiShell has a dark history it would prefer to forget and would

like to keep hidden. See my ebooks published on Amazon:

ivIn January 2016, Shell received the dubious distinction of being

named as the most hated brand in the world.

VW challenges Shell as world’s ‘most hated’ brand after emis-

sions scandal

The world’s most hated company: can NGOs help turn Shell’s

reputation around?

vCHAPTER 1

Censoring Wikipedia

Wikipedia has been systematically cleansed of negative, but accurate, properly sourced, verifiable

information about Royal Dutch Shell. Entire articles about Shell were totally deleted. Fortunately I

kept copies, the content of which are republished in this book. The above graphic is based on an

article by The Independent: ”Mystery of the Wikifixer: who is the secret image-cleansing agent?)

6I am a fan of Wikipedia and use it frequently. Its co-founders each

deserve plaudits and respect for its creation and for making it free

to use.

Regretfully however, Wikipedia is flawed to a degree that damages

the integrity of many Wikipedia articles that have a commercial

connection. For example, Wikipedia articles about companies.

Such articles, covering the ethi-

cal conduct of a company, can

potentially affect its value.

The basic flaw to which I am

drawing attention is the policy

of permitting anonymous edit-

ing of Wikipedia articles. It al-

lows skullduggery to take place.

Wikipedia entries are suppos-

edly written by open and trans-

parent consensus among article

editors. In reality, Wikipedia is

built on a platform of secrecy

and concealment.

It leaves articles about busi-

nesses wide-open to censorship, manipulation and sabotage by par-

ties with undeclared commercially driven motives.

Unpaid volunteers acting as administrators and editors are suppos-

edly the bedrock on which Wikipedia is built. It is a mainly secre-

tive community in which the vast majority of volunteers edit arti-

cles using aliases. They are free to edit any articles, without anyone

having a clue about who they are or about their background. Con-

sequently, it is impossible to determine if they have a potential con-

flict of interest.

Editor’s using aliases are also able to comment on the editing work

of other contributors and vote on the deletion of Wikipedia articles.

Hence, there is a lot of power and influence and no realistic ac-

countability.

If, due to some alleged transgres-

sion, a Wikipedia editor is

banned from editing, they can

return under a new alias using a

new IP address, with no bad

odor attached. In other words,

an entirely fresh start.

“Wikipedian” culture has some

similarity to the Ku Klux Klan,

fortunately without the racist

element.

The privacy of those choosing to

keep secret all information about

their identity is respected and

maintained within the Wikipedia community. A community that

has developed its own cultish language, arising partly in response

to skullduggery by some editors.

There are Wikipedia articles about every major business. A com-

pany is not permitted to edit any articles about itself. For example,

BP is not supposed to edit Wikipedia articles about BP.

7Because of the popularity of Wikipedia, the content of a Wikipedia

article about a business is important. It can have a positive or nega-

tive impact on the reputation of the business and this, in turn, as

already highlighted, can impact on its value.

The behind-the-scenes editing of

Wikipedia articles has been described

as the world’s biggest spinning opera-

tion. See center article.

With regard to Shell, in particular,

Wikipedia has been systematically

cleansed of negative, but accurate,

properly sourced, verifiable informa-

tion about the company.

Some entire articles about Shell have

been totally deleted by a handful of

mainly anonymous censors reaching

a consensus.

My suspicions about what was going

on were aroused for a number of rea-

sons:

1. I discovered to my surprise an ob-

session by Royal Dutch Shell man-

agement over my past voluntary

work editing Wikipedia articles. In

particular, articles relating to Shell. Information Shell supplied to

me in response to a Subject Access Request, included Shell inter-

nal documents and Shell internal emails from March 2007, some

marked confidential. Participants in the correspondence were dis-

cussing my Wikipedia editing and its possible impact on share-

holders . The subject was mentioned 105 times within Shell inter-

nal correspondence. To verify, click on this link and run a search

for “Wikipedia”. You will see 105

matches and the internal discussion

about the risk of Shell being caught if

it tried to edit relevant Wikipedia arti-

cles. One participant in the correspon-

dence pointed out: “Companies, their

agents, or anyone else for that matter, are

not supposed to edit Wikipedia entries

they have a vested interest in. Doing so

undermines the editorial integrity of the

product.”

2.“WikiScanner” technology detected

that articles were actually edited from

Shell premises. When Shell has dirty

work in mind, it is normally passed

on to a third party, thereby distancing

Shell from illicit actions taken by the

third party. Shell HAS in the past

hired a third party agency specializ-

ing in reputation clean up on the Inter-

net. There are many such agencies of-

fering their services.

83. Information freely available on the Internet provides a blueprint

of how to infiltrate Wikipedia and manipulate articles. It exploits

the Wikipedia policy permitting con-

cealment of identity and background.

It advises on a stratagem of decep-

tion to disguise intent. For example,

editing a wide-range of articles to

avoid being identified as a one-topic

contributor. It discusses implications

relating to IP addresses. The objective

being for an organized group of infil-

trators to edit target articles without

detection: I will not go into detail for

obvious reasons.

5. When I became a volunteer editor on

Wikipedia, I declared from the outset

my name, website, and connection

with Shell. Very soon after making

the first edits, it became apparent that

a then senior editor using the pseudo-

nym “BosMo” was closely monitor-

ing my contributions. I gained the im-

pression that he or she was an ad-

mirer of Shell. “BosMo” quickly nomi-

nated for deletion a Shell related arti-

cle that I originated. It survived the

nomination. I then received a tip

from a Shell insider identifying An-

drew Cates, a former CEO and Country Chairman of Shell, as be-

ing “BosMo.” Mr. Cates confirmed to me that this was true.

Please see “Royal Dutch Shell Wikipedia Machinations” for more

information about my contact with Mr. Cates, a man I admire de-

spite his high regard for Shell.

See also see my article published 7 Sept

2015 on an American news-based web-

site: “I WARNED WIKIPEDIA YEARS

AGO THAT ALIAS EDITING WOULD

RESULT IN SCANDAL”

On my own website, I feature all pub-

lished articles about Shell, whether posi-

tive or negative in relation to the oil gi-

ant.

I took the same approach when acting

as a Wikipedia volunteer editor.

Ironically, a Wikipedia article I insti-

gated and authored, containing nothing

but positive information about Shell,

covering, for example, charitable works

and donations by the company and/or

its employees, was removed in its en-

tirety on the grounds of being biased in

favor of Shell. It was deleted despite the

fact that all of the information within

the article was supported by linked veri-

fiable independent sources.

9As a result of the strenuous efforts

by dedicated people apparently on a

mission, many acting under the

cover of an alias, information about

Royal Dutch Shell on Wikipedia has

been transformed. Negative accurate

information supported by newspa-

per articles, government agency pub-

lications, court documents, etc. has

vanished.

Instead, we have a collection of

mainly sanitized information about

Royal Dutch Shell. Much of it could

have been written by, or on behalf of, Shell PR people. Perhaps it

was.

It is not just business arti-

cles that are laundered.

The same thing has hap-

pened to Wikipedia arti-

cles about politicians. See

“Capital Hill Buzz: Polish-

ing senators’ images on

Wikipedia.”

Much of the content of this

chapter is taken from my

article: “Ku Klux Klan cul-

In response to the article, I was con-

tacted by an industrious entrepre-

neur, Gregory Kohs the owner of an

agency MyWikiBiz, who has freely

admitted to manipulating informa-

tion on Wikipedia on behalf of pay-

ing clients.

Instantly accessible articles provid-

ing verifiable detailed information

stretching back over the entire his-

tory of a company could be invalu-

able to shareholders and the news

media.

It would then be immedi-

ately evident if if a com-

pany had been issuing un-

fulfilled pledges, for exam-

ple to end gas flaring in

Nigeria, or give the high-

est priority to employee

safety, when factual de-

tailed current and histori-

cal information indicated

otherwise.

ture at Wikipedia: secrecy

and censorship.”

10In September 2015, a number of articles

were published about the alias-editing

flaw that I first drew to the attention of

Wikipedia five years ago.

The articles are self-explanatory:

Forbes: 5 Oct 2012: Wikipedia’s “Pay-for-

Play” Scandal Highlights Wikipedia’s Vul-

nerabilities

Daily Beast 4 Sept 2015: I Was Shaken

Down by Wikipedias Blackmail Bandits

Guardian Newspaper 6 Sept 2015:

Wikipedia founder backs site’s systems

after extortion scam

Science Times 7 Sept 2015: Wikipedia

Blocks 381 “Black Hat” Accounts

Wikipedia’s dark side: Censorship, re-

venge editing & bribes a significant

issue:13 Oct 2012

The Telegraph: 2 Sept 2015: Wikipedia hit

by blackmail scandal as victims are

charged for content

The Independent: 2 Sept 2015: Wikipedia

rocked by ‘rogue editors’ blackmail scam

targeting small businesses and celebrities

Guardian Newspaper 2 Sept 2015:

Wikipedia blocks editor accounts linked

to extortion scam

FT.com 4 Sept 2015: Wikipedia’s struggle

to save its soul

THINKPROGRESS 4 Sept 2015: Wikipe-

dia Editors Uncover Extortion Scam And

Extensive Cybercrime Syndicate

According to an article published by the

Guardian newspaper in March 2016, the

Putin regime has “set up warehouses in

which an army of bloggers sat day and

night, charged with flooding the internet

with comments favourable to Russian in-

terests.” They include “Wikipedia trolls”

working to edit blogs and web pages to

Russia’s advantage,” exploiting the

anonymous editing flaw.

An article published in 2005 – “Wikipedia

Founder Edits Own Bio” – revealed,

among other things, that Jimmy Wales,

the joint founder of Wikipedia, changed

his own Wikipedia bio 18 times “deleting

phrases describing former Wikipedia em-

ployee Larry Sanger as a co-founder of

the site.” Wales claimed that although

“Wikipedia generally frowns on people

editing entries about themselves, there is

no hard and fast rule against it.”

11CHAPTER 2

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

One of the Wikipedia articles removed in its entirety focussed on a range of controversies arising from

the activities of Royal Dutch Shell stretching back over the decades, including its 50 plus years record

of exploitation and pollution in Nigeria.

12Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

There have been concerns over Royal

Dutch Shell over environmental and

health and safety related issues as well

as in respect of its businesses practices

and priorities. In recent times Shells

management has acknowledged some

of these problems and has promised to

take steps to repair damage done both

to the affected parties and to its own

reputation, which has involved tighten-

ing internal controls between its differ-

ent subsidiaries, an ostensible commit-

ment to corporate social responsibility,

an extensive global advertising cam-

paign and other initiatives in the late

1990s (see Ken Saro-Wiwa) and early

2000s.

Sanctions busting in Rhodesia

In 1965 the British Crown Colony of

Rhodesia unilaterally declared inde-

pendence from Britain which led to the

imposition of sanctions by the United

Nations. These sanctions included strict

controls on oil and petroleum product

sales to the rebel colony. In 1978 the

“Bingham report” into sanctions busting

revealed that Shells local offices in

southern Africa, along with those of BP,

had been breaking the UN’s oil em-

bargo from the moment it was imposed. This conflicted with a letter

to the British government which had been written by Shell’s Chair-

man Sir Frank McFadzean in June 1976 which said that “… no

company in which we [Shell] have an interest is supplying to Rho-

desia”. The Bingham report revealed

that shipments to Rhodesia had arrived

at the old petroleum port of Lourenco

Marques (now Maputo), and from there

the oil had been shepherded by Shell

Mozambique, a British-incorporated

firm, into the hands of South African bro-

kers, who sent it north by rail through

Mozambique to Rhodesia. Senior ex-

ecutives of Shell were criticised in the

report for failing to monitor what local

employees were doing [“A Century in

Oil”, p 327].

Corruption in Italy

In the early 1970s, Shell decided to dis-

pose of the heavily loss making busi-

ness of Shell Italiana – its downstream

operation in Italy. Assets were sold to

the Italian state company Eni in 1973.

Subsequent to the sale, Shells account-

ants and outside auditors discovered

that in the five years prior to the sale to

Eni Italian politicians had received politi-

cal contributions totalling around £2.5

million from Shell Italianas local man-

agement. These had been recorded in

the companys books as advertising and

publicity expenses. Shells General Man-

ager in Italy, who had operated without

authority and who had misrecorded the payments, was dismissed

[“A Century in Oil”, page 324].

13Shell to Sea

Main article: Shell to Sea

In Ireland, Shell has been criticised, along with Statoil and Mara-

thon Oil, for its plans to pipe unrefined gas from the Corrib Gas

Field onshore through a pipeline that would pass close to people’s

houses (often within the pipe’s blast radius), en route to a refinery

9 km inland, in north-

west County Mayo [1].

The plans were origi-

nally made by Enter-

prise Oil and inherited

by Shell when they ac-

quired this company

in 2002. In the sum-

mer of 2005 five local

men were sent to

prison for three

months on the basis

of an injunction ob-

tained by the com-

pany – these men be-

came known as the

Rossport Five. There

is currently a cam-

paign by local resi-

dents, Shell To Sea, whose main aims have been to get Shell to

change their plans for the pipeline and refinery. In April 2007, in a

victory for the Shell to Sea campaign, the Irish High Court ruled

that Shell cannot use their original intended pipeline route. Shell re-

cently announced its plan for bringing the gas from the sea to the

site of the refinery at Bellinaboy, which again involves getting the

Irish government to issue even more Compulsory Acquisition Or-

ders. There is also a solidarity camp where people from outside the

locality who support the campaign have come to live and help out.

Shell has claimed that the development is welcomed by most of

the local population, that all planning regulations are being fol-

lowed and that it has been responsive to local concerns [2]. Opin-

ion polls tell a different story about local views of the project.

$153.6 million damages for U.S. patent infringement

On 3 October 2005 a

U.S. Federal Appeals

Court upheld a patent

infringement verdict

against Shell Oil Com-

pany in a case

brought byUnion Car-

bide. The federal

court also told a lower

court to consider in-

creasing the $153.6

million damages al-

ready awarded in the

case. According to a

news report, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit re-

jected an appeal by

Shell and its subsidi-

ary, Shell Chemical Co,. which sought to overturn a jury verdict that

it infringed a Union Carbide patent on chemical processes used to

make ethylene oxide. The appeals court reportedly said there was

“substantial evidence” to support the jury verdict.

14Jiffy Lube International

In December 2004, an Oklahoma state judge approved a class ac-

tion settlement between Royal Dutch Shell subsidiary Jiffy Lube In-

ternational and millions of U.S. plaintiffs. The agreement reported

in the New York Times, settled nine similar lawsuits from California

to New Jersey over environ-

mental surcharges Jiffy Lube

imposed on its oil change cus-

tomers. Under the terms of the

settlement, Jiffy Lube provided

more than seven million cus-

tomers with a coupon good for

$5 off an oil change. An earlier

report in the same newspaper

said that Jiffy Lube added sur-

charges to drivers oil-change

bills over the past five years on

the pretext of being an environ-

mental surcharge, in an at-

tempt to fool customers into

thinking it was a tax. Scott R.

Shepherd, aPennsylvania attor-

ney who sued the Jiffy Lube

was quoted as saying:“It was

just a straight rip-off for $1.25

every time someone came in.”

$2 million fine by UN for violation of embargo against Iraq

On 26 April 2000 The New York Times reported that the United Na-

tions had fined the Royal Dutch Shell Group $2 million for shippingI-

raqi oil on April 5 2000 in violation of the then international embar-

goagainst Iraq. The tanker, the Akademik Pustovoit, was boarded

by American-led naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Royal Dutch/

Shell had maintained that the tanker carried only Iranian oil, loaded

at the port in Bandar Mahshur. However, a spokesman for The Pen-

tagon, Kenneth H. Bacon, was quoted as confirming that tests on

the cargo had determined that 20 percent of the oil was from Iraq.

The article reported that with high prices increasing demand, there

had been a sharp increase in illicitoil shipments and Iraqi officials

were believed to be earning

millions from smuggling oil.

The Vietnam War

Between 1972 and 1975, the

last three years of the Vietnam

War,Shell Vietnam (the local

“operating company” of the

Shell Group) controlled half of

Vietnams oil supply. A book by

Louis Wesseling, the Presi-

dent of Shell Vietnam during

that period, revealed that Shell

failed properly to control the oil

shipments which flowed

through indirect channels to

the Vietcong. According to his

book Fuelling the war: reveal-

ing an oil companys role in

Vietnam, [1] Shell knowingly

employed as a manager a no-

torious former senior police official with a fearsome and well-

deserved reputation who had already shown his inclination to settle

security matters by military action with little compunction about kill-

ing, innocents along with suspects. Wesseling later served as CEO

of Shell companies in South America and the Middle East and col-

laborated on drafting the “Shell Group Business Principles”.

15Nigeria

See also

▪ Sacred Headwaters cam-

paign against Shell gas devel-

opment in Canada

Notes

1. Wesseling, Louis (2000). Fuelling the War : Revealing an Oil

Company’s Role in Vietnam. London: I B Tauris & Co Ltd. ISBN

978-1860644573.

312. Sierra Club, “Defending Those Who Give The Earth A Voice”,

2000.

3. Christian Aid, Behind the

askhttp://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/0401csr/csr_casestudy1

nigeria.pdf

4. DNV Inventory. Contents of Brent Spar, relative to quantities in

the North Sea, as detailed by Det Norske Veritas. Retrieved on-

March 10, 2005.

3233CHAPTER 3

Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues

Royal Dutch Shell is engaged in a variety of business activities across the world involving the

extraction, production, handling, processing, storage and transportation of hazardous products,

including hydrocarbons and chemicals. Such activities pose many dangers to its employees and the

public, including contributing to climate change as one consequence of environmental pollution.

34Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues

Royal Dutch Shell is engaged in a variety of business activities

across the world which of necessity

involves the extraction, production,

handling, processing, storage and

transportation of hazardous prod-

ucts, including hydrocarbons and

chemicals. On 13 May 2008, Shell re-

leased a report setting out ambitious

plans to meet the global energy chal-

lenge that can be summed up as more

energy, less CO2. The report [2] de-

scribes Shells plans to invest in sec-

ond generation biofuels and carbon

capture and storage. It also discusses

utilisation of natural gas and wind

power combined with the necessity

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

and operational oil spills. The vast

scale of operation means that even

with the highest safety and mainte-

nance standards in current and future

activity, accidents and events arising

from human error or misjudgement

and or plant or equipment failure, are

likely to occur. The record of past en-

vironmental incidents and events de-

tailed in this article should be considered in that context.

UK Advertising Authority rules Shell advert misleading

On 7 November 2007 The Guardian published an article under the

headline “Shell rapped over CO2 ad-

vert.” The UK Advertising Standards

Authority (ASA) ruled that a Shell

advertisement featuring flower

heads emerging from refinery chim-

neys implying the oil giant used its

waste carbon dioxide to grow flow-

ers, breached ASA rules. According

to The Guardian article, The Advertis-

ing Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a

complaint that the press advert, which

featured the drawing misleadingly im-

plied all CO2 emissions helped produce

flowers and decided it breached industry

code clauses on truthfulness and environ-

mental claims. The article went on to

say that the advert is no longer ap-

pearing and that Shell had informed

the ASA it would not be used again.

Shell stated in its response to the in-

vestigation, that it supplied 170,000

tonnes of CO2 to local greenhouse

growers in 2005 and expected to sup-

ply a further 320,000 tonnes, explain-

ing that this stopped the equivalent

of the annual CO2 emissions from about 102,894 vehicles being re-

leased. The ASA ruling was also reported in The Independent.

35The Guardian covered the story again in a green themed article

published on 21 January 2008.

Dutch Advertising Authority rules Shell advert misleading

On 5 July 2007, Reuters reported [6] that the Dutch Advertising

Standards Authority had ruled

that a complaint made by

Friends of the Earth Nether-

lands about a Royal Dutch

Shell green themed advertis-

ing campaign was well

founded and that the advertis-

ing was misleading. Accord-

ing to the article: The environ-

mental group had complained

about an ad designed to show

how waste carbon dioxide grew

flowers and depicting a refinery

emitting flowers from its chim-

neys instead of smoke. Shell

maintained that it was crea-

tively using its waste carbon

dioxide to help grow flowers.

The Financial Times also cov-

ered the story reporting [7]

that Friends of the Earth had concluded that only a tiny proportion

of Shells carbon dioxide emissions were piped into greenhouses.

The FT stated that The environmental group took a similar argument to

the Belgian advertising authority, which rejected it.The FT went on to

conclude that Win or lose, the cases have brought attention to a clever

term that the environmentalists hope will challenge claims dreamt up by

big advertising agencies: greenwashing.

Release of chemical pollutants at Shell Texas Deer Park complex

On 16 May 2007, Bloomberg News reported [8] that Royal Dutch

Shell Plc had shut two ethyl-

ene plants at a Texas produc-

tion complex after it lost

steam power and released

tons of chemicals into the air

around Houston. The report

went on to say that Shells

Deer Park, Texas, complex

lost steam from an external

supplier on 2 May 2007 and

that consequential shut-

downs resulted in the airborne

release of dozens of contami-

nants, including 2,420 pounds of

ethylene, 1,782 pounds of propyl-

ene, 1,622 pounds of sulfur diox-

ide and 4,700 pounds of volatile

organic compounds in the Hous-

ton area.

Emission violations at Shell Martinez refinery in California

On 9 May 2007, the Houston Chronicle newspaper reported [9]

that Shell Oil Products, a subsidiary of Shell Oil Company, had

been fined $2.9 million for equipment failure that sent 925 tons of ex-

cess carbon monoxide into the air. According to the article, the

36pollution-causing emissions escaped the refinery in Martinez, California

over the course of a week. Karen M. Schkolnick, a spokeswoman for

the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, was quoted as say-

ing that The fine reflects the size of the incident and the fact that human

errors compounded the situation and

that “It was a series of either bad

judgements or mechanical failures and

it led to this acute situation”. Steve

Lesher, a spokesman for the Marti-

nez refinery, was quoted as conced-

ing that Shell had not contested the

Air District’s claims, but is proud of

its pollution control record. Lesher

went on to say “We have rigorous

maintenance standards, and you hope

something like this never happens and

you work to make sure it doesn’t hap-

pen.”

Environmental infringements by

Shell in Louisiana

On 14 March 2007, the Louisiana

Department of Environmental

Quality (DEQ) announced [10] that

Shell Chemical Company has set-

tled six years of environmental in-

fringements with a $6.5 million

agreement covering charges that it violated air and other emissions

standards between 1999 and 2003. The settlement includes a $1 mil-

lion fine which will go into the state’s hazardous waste clean-up

fund and $5.5 million which will be invested in beneficial environ-

mental projects to reduce flare reduction systems at four Shell

Chemical plants. Under the terms of the settlement [11] Shell does

not admit any wrongdoing and in mitigation pointed out that

many of the violations were self-

reported. DEQ Assistant Secretary

Harold Leggett was quoted as say-

ing: This is an important settlement,

not just because both parties have ad-

dressed past violations, but because we

have also agreed to address the needs

of the future.” The improvements,

to be located at the company’s

Norco plant, are scheduled to be

completed by 2014. The agreement

also calls for Shell Chemical Com-

pany to improve its leak detection

and repair program at its plants in

Norco, Taft and Geismar and a pe-

troleum refining plant in St. Rose.

Groundwater contamination by

Shell in USA

Shell Oil Company, along with

many other defendants, has been

sued in the USA by public water

suppliers and governmental agen-

cies, alleging responsibility for groundwater contamination caused

by releases of gasoline containing oxygenate additives. Most of the

37lawsuits seek recovery of alleged damages and clean-up costs.

Some claim punitive damages.

In October 2006, Shell Oil Company and a subsidiary company,

Equilon Enterprises, agreed to pay $6.5 million in a lawsuit settle-

ment withRiverside County California. The agreement included

$3.6 million in civil penalties and ordered Shell and Equilon to stop

any future violations of California state

health and safety laws. The lawsuit al-

leged 56 state law infringements regard-

ing maintenance of underground stor-

age tanks and handling of hazardous

materials and waste. Stephanie Weiss-

man, Riverside County senior deputy

district attorney with the office’s Envi-

ronmental Crimes Unit alleged leaks

from underground gasoline storage

tanks can contaminate groundwater and

have long-term negative impact on the

environment. According to a report

[12]published by the Press-Enterprise

newspaper [13], The court action stemmed

from a discovery in 2003 by the Riverside

County Department of Environmental

Health Hazardous Materials Division that

Equilon had failed to report or fix leaking underground storage tanks at

three Coachella Valley gas stations. The article went on to say that Vio-

lations were later found at two other sites in western Riverside

County. Shell and Equilon, which owns and operates the gas sta-

tions, denied any wrongdoing. Equilon president, David Sexton,

claimed in a statement that Shell had spent $55 million in the previ-

ous nine years to improve underground storage tanks and equip-

ment at its gas stations in California. As part of the settlement, over

$1 million is being spent by Equilon for the installation of sensors

and locking mechanisms at its stations.

According to information on pages 146 and 147 of Shells Annual

Report and Form 20-F for year ending December 31, 2006, there

were approximately 69 pending law-

suits as of the December 31, 2006 date,

asserting claims against SOC and other

defendants including other major en-

ergy and refining companies. The report

states that In 19 of the lawsuits, plaintiffs

allege aggregate compensatory damages of

approximately $1.25 billion and aggregate

punitive damages of approximately $3.35

billion. Shell considers the amounts

claimed by plaintiffs in the pleadings to

be highly speculative. For this reason no

financial provision has been made for

the relevant cases. Shell also says that

there are significant unresolved legal

questions. The report states that mone-

tary damages have not yet been claimed

in the other 50 lawsuits.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled [14] on 16 March 2007

that Shell Oil Company and two railroad corporations must pay

the costs of cleaning up a toxic waste site near Arvin the Central

Valley, in California. The Court confirmed an earlier ruling regard-

ing both the railroad corporations and Shells liability, deciding that

38The railroads and Shell are jointly and severally liable for the harm at the

Arvin site. A local newspaper, the Central Valley Business Times,

reported [15] twenty years of leakage and

spread of Shell-produced agricultural chemi-

cals: the soil fumigants D-D and Nemagon.

D-D and Nemagon members of a class of

chemicals called nematocides hazardous ma-

terials in violation of several hazardous

waste laws. According to the newspaper

report, theU.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency investigated separately and

found evidence of soil and groundwater

contamination at an Arvin facility.

On 29 June 2007 The Bakersfield Califor-

nian newspaper reported [16] that Shell

Oil which had shut down on a tempo-

rary basis a soil cleanup operation at the

Rosedale Highway refinery two years

ago and had not restarted it despite re-

peated requests from state authorities.

The article stated: The shutdown had

stalled efforts to clean up extensive ground-

water contamination beneath the refinery,

state officials said, allowing pollutants like

MTBE, gasoline, diesel and benzene to seep

further into the water table. The oil refin-

ery has been the site of many releases of

oil and other petroleum products into

the ground going back over two decades. In 1987 a pipeline leak

resulted in an estimated 2 million gallons of partially refined fuel

seeking into the ground. The leaks have continued with the most

recent occurring in June 2007. On 27 August 2007, The Bakersfield

Californian reported [17] that California

State Senator, Dean Florez, had “asked

the states attorney general to take legal ac-

tion against Shell for the companys inac-

tion”.

On 27 November 2007, The Bakersfield

Californian published a further article

[18] this time reporting Shell Oil had re-

started the clean up of pollution under-

neath the Rosedale Highway refinery

that environmental regulators stated

was shut down over two years previ-

ously without their consent. The article

said: “The outer edge of the contamination

comes close to the Kern River and a city

well, both sources of drinking water for Bak-

ersfield residents.” The article went on to

state that in 1987 an underground pipe-

line had leaked “an estimated 4 million to

5 million gallons of partially refined fuel

into the ground.” This was a substan-

tially larger volume than had previ-

ously been reported. A Shell spokes-

woman was quoted as saying “the

cleanup system will continue to remove pol-

lution from the ground at the refinery for an

additional 12 to 15 years.”

39Unauthorised venting and flaring of gas by Shell in USA

On 5 August 2003, the

United States Depart-

ment of Justice an-

nounced [19] that Shell

Oil Company had agreed

to pay $49 million USD

to settle claims under the

False Claims Act and vari-

ous administrative provi-

sions relating to its unau-

thorized venting and flar-

ing of gas… at its Auger

platform, located some

150 miles (240 km) off

the coast of Louisiana

and at other Shell facili-

ties in the Gulf of Mex-

ico.

The settlement also re-

solved claims that Shell

had failed to properly re-

port, or pay royalties on

the vented and flared

gas.

This was the third case settled by Shell Oil Company in the period

1999 to 2003 alleging that it had underpaid royalties owed to the

United States.

40In 2000, Shell agreed to pay $56 million to settle claims that it un-

dervalued gas produced from federal leases. Shell paid $110 mil-

lion in 2001 to settle [20] US Department of Justice claims that it un-

dervalued crude

oil extracted from

federal lands.

41Shell Pipeline rupture in Washington

The United States Department of Jus-

tice, acting for theEnvironmental Protec-

tion Agency (EPA), filed a civil settle-

ment on January 17, 2003, in the United

States District Court for the Western Dis-

trict of Washington in relation to an ac-

tion against United States v. Shell Pipe-

line Co. LP fka Equilon Pipeline Co.

LLC and Olympic Pipe Line Co. The

civil settlement resolved Clean Water

Act claims for environmental violations

which led to a fatal pipeline rupture in

Bellingham, Washington in 1999.

The original complaint filed in May

2002 alleged that the pipeline rupture

was caused by “gross negligence in the op-

eration and maintenance of the pipeline.”

The consequences of the rupture were

tragic. Over 230,000 gallons of gasoline

were discharged. The gasoline ignited

in a fireball which created a plume of

smoke some six miles (10 km) high. As

a result of the explosion, two ten-year-

old boys and a teenager were killed

and at least nine other people were in-

jured. According to the EPA, the gaso-

line spill and resulting fire “killed more

than 100,000 fish and other aquatic organisms in the impacted area”.

Other species of wildlife were also killed.

The settlement required Shell to pay a

federal civil penalty of $5 million and

institute a spill prevention program on

four other Shell operated pipelines.

Shell was also required to enter into an

agreement with theState of Washington

to include payment of $5 million to the

State as a contingency fund in case or

other State-approved expenditures. Fed-

eral and state civil penalties were in ad-

dition to criminal fines of $15 million

levied against Shell in a separate crimi-

nal case.

42Environmental law infringements in Brazil

In 1951, Shell Chemicals of Brazil built a storage tank and terminal

in its chemical plant in Paulinia, 120 kilometres north-west of São

Paulo, beginning operations that last to the present. A related pesti-

cide plant was also founded, but moved out during a regional de-

industrialisation in the

1970s. While both plants’ op-

erations were in general ac-

cordance with local and in-

ternational standards for dis-

posals of waste, these stan-

dards were later found to be

lacking. Furthermore,

among the pesticides pro-

duced were “drins” – en-

drin, dieldrin and aldrin,

pesticides later discontinued

due to their toxic, persistent

and bio accumulative na-

ture. In the early 1990s,

Greenpeace and the Union

of Workers in the Mining

and Petroleum sector (Sin-

petrol) first raised charges

that the area’s soil, air and

water were contaminated with heavy metals (most notably, lead)

and drins.

In February 2001, Shell admitted responsibility (see list of articles)

according to a Greenpeace report, for the contamination by the or-

ganochlorine pesticides. The report indicates that drins were found

in the groundwater and soil under the farms located between the

plant and the Atibaia River, a tributary of the Piracicaba River, pro-

viding water to cities in the region. Shell still denies responsibility

for the lead contamination, claiming that the contamination is or-

ganic lead, while theirs was

rendered inorganic before

disposal. According to the

report, while Shell accepted

responsibility for the pollu-

tion, it claimed that it has

not been established

whether the pollution threat-

ens the health of the local

population. Shell conducted

blood tests among local resi-

dents and concluded that

the levels of toxins present

in their blood were not

harmful. In June 2002, São

Paulo state‘s environmental

watchdog Cetesb, fined [23]

Shell for toxic pesticide pollu-

tion. According to a March

2003 article [24] in Ode, an

international magazine, a Shell official stated: If there is proof that

our products have caused harm then we will immediately take responsibil-

ity for it. That is our global policy. According to the same article,

many people were allegedly sick with ailments including cancer-

43ous growths, intestinal disorders, lung diseases and children with

neurological defects.

According to Jose Antonio Puppim

de Oliveira, a professor at the Brazil-

ian School of Public and Business Ad-

ministration, Shell’s stance toward

the case has been: “The company

wants to treat the case purely from

the scientific point of view by using

the best methods and techniques of

risk assessment and risk manage-

ment. They see no point in spending

huge amounts of resources to clean

up the area completely because the

risk is overcome if no one drinks the

subterranean water. Moreover, Shell

claims other companies may also be

responsible and the problem quite

possibly may continue into the fu-

ture. The cleanup will not improve

the quality of life of Vila Carioca

orSão Paulo‘s inhabitants since under-

ground contamination and other envi-

ronmental problems such as air and

water pollution are common in the

city. Shell argues that it prefers to use

its resources to contribute to the soci-

ety in a more sensible way with other social and environmental

initiatives.”[25]

In January 2005, Shell was reportedly ordered by a judge [26] to

stop dumping chemical wastes and to decontaminate drinking wa-

ter sources[citation needed]. The company was additionally fined

four times by the state environmental

agency between 1993 and 2003. The

report by Friends of the Earth claims

health problems for employees and

those living nearby, who were alleg-

edly found to have high concentra-

tions of heavy metals and pesticides

in their blood. Neither Shell nor the

state environmental agency (CE-

TESB) recognised the test as valid,

claiming that the methodology was

flawed.[27]

Refinery contamination in Texas

In 1901, Port Arthur, Texas was fortu-

nate in being the nearest port to the

first oil gusher in the state of Texas.

Motiva Enterprises LLC, a US com-

pany jointly owned by Shell and the

government of Saudi Arabia, own

and operate an oil refinery in Port Ar-

thur which was originally founded

by the oil company Texaco in 1903.

The refinery has been the subject of

an environmental campaign led by

Hilton Kelley, who together with 1,200 fellow residents of Port Ar-

thur, has launched a class action lawsuit against Shell alleging

44breach of environmental human rights. In a report in The Guardian

newspaper published in the UK on 24 June 2004, Kelley claimed

the Shell refinery was emitting 200-300 times the allowed emissions of

chemicals – many of them carcinogenic. He was also quoted as alleg-

ing that “children suffered from asthma and cancerous tumours while

women, including members of his family, had had their uterus and ova-

ries removed”. According to a BBC TV News programme in the UK,

Newsnight, broadcast on 28 October 2004, a study in the year 2000

found that resi-

dents have high

levels of have lev-

els of respiratory

disease and

immune-system

problems way

above those of a

similar control

group sited

60 miles (97 km)

away.

Newsnight also

reported that

when a federal

air quality van toured the area in January 2003, it found hot spots of

cancer-causing and toxic chemicals. However, the origin of the pollu-

tion is unclear because four other oil facilities operate in the town.

Oil Refinery in Durban

The Sapref, oil refinery in Durban, the largest in South Africa

(172,000 barrels per day) , is jointly owned by Shell and BP, and has

been accused by protesters of having a “dismal pollution record

which has claimed the lives of many residents” [1]. Sapref themselves

admitted in writing to residents, that the plant did not have a “per-

fect environmental and social performance record”. The main accu-

sation is that Shell/BP apply double standards, allowing the South

African plant to be far lest circumspect on environmental controls

than in its refineries elsewhere in the world. [2]. Critics of Shell

pointed to the companys Statement of General Business Principles

[3] which

stated: We aim

to be good neigh-

bors by continu-

ously improving

the ways in

which we contrib-

ute directly or

indirectly to the

general well-

being of the com-

munities in

which we work..

Protest groups

such as Green-

peace and Friends of the Earth said that Shell fell far short of this

ambition at its joint venture refinery in Durban.

45US Clean Air Act violations

On March 21, 2001, the United States Environmental Protection

Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice announced a settlement

committing nine refineries owned by Motiva, Equilon Enterprises,

and the Deer Park Refining Limited Partnership to a program to

ensure compli-

ance with impor-

tant provisions

of the United

States Clean Air

Act. The compa-

nies agreed to in-

vest $400 million

over eight years

to reduce emis-

sions of nitrogen

oxides, sulphur

dioxide and par-

ticulate matter.

Motiva Enter-

prises LLC, is a

joint venture be-

tween Shell and

Saudi Refining

Inc. Equilon Enterprises is a subsidiary of Shell Oil Co. Shell Oil

Products is a partner in Park Refining Limited partnership.

Emission violations at Shell Wood River Refinery in Illinois

On 9 September 1998, the U.S. Justice Department announced a set-

tlement with Shell Oil Company relating to hundreds of environ-

mental violations at Shell Oil Company’s Wood River oil refinery located

on over 2,000 acres (8.1 km²) on the banks of the Mississippi River

in Roxana, Illinois, near St. Louis. Shell and its affiliates agreed to a

judicial decree requiring Shell to achieve and certify compliance with

all environmental

laws at the Wood

River refinery and

to carry out envi-

ronmental pro-

jects valued at

over $10 million

including added

protections of

Mississippi River

water quality,

and pay $1.5 mil-

lion in civil penal-

ties — of which

the sum of

$500,000 would

be paid to the

U.S. co-plaintiff,

the State of Illinois. According to the Justice Department release,

Environmental problems at Wood River included: illegal levels of sulfur

dioxide and hydrogen sulfide air emissions, violations of emission stan-

dards for benzene (a hazardous air pollutant), violations of solid waste la-

belling, reporting, and manifesting requirements, untimely reporting of

emissions of extremely hazardous substances such as ammonia and chlo-

46rine, and violations of Illinois water

regulations. Under the decree,

Shell was required to purchase

$500,000 worth of land adjacent

to the Mississippi River and then

transfer ownership to the State of

Illinois on the basis that the land

must be appropriate for “wetlands

preservation, water quality protec-

tion, and wildlife conservation pur-

poses”. Steve Herman, EPA’s As-

sistant Administrator for Enforce-

ment and Compliance Assurance

was quoted as saying: “In settling

this case, the federal government has

followed the basic principle that pol-

luters will be required to pay for and

correct the damage they cause, as

well as prevent future damage.” W.

Charles Grace, U.S. Attorney for

the Southern District of Illinois

commented:“These severe penalties

will not only force Shell Oil into en-

vironmental compliance, but will

also reinforce the message that we

will not tolerate environmental deg-

radation of our country’s greatest

natural resources.

”Brent Spar

Shell was also challenged by

Greenpeace for plans for subsea

disposal of the Brent Spar, an old

oil transport and hub station lo-

cated in theNorth Sea, into the

North Atlantic. Shell eventually

agreed to disassemble it onshore

in Norway, although it has al-

ways maintained that its original

plan to sink the platform was

safer and better for the environ-

ment.

On disposal, it transpired that the

Greenpeace estimates for toxic

content were inaccurate.

Shell settles Martinez Refinery

dumping suit for $3 Million

On 8 February 1995, an article in

the The New York Times head-

lined Shell Settles Dumping Suit

for $3 Million revealed that Shell

Oil Company had agreed to settle

a lawsuit alleging that it had been

dumping illegal amounts of sele-

nium into San Francisco Bay and

theSacramento-San Joaquin River

Delta.

47As part of the settlement, Shell agreed to reduce the selenium released

in wastewater at its Martinez refinery. The article said that selenium

is a nutrient in small amounts but is toxic in larger doses. While ad-

mitting Shell had exceeded permitted limits, company officials

claimed that the selenium discharges in the strait were not enough

to harm the environment.

Shell fined $19.75 million for oil spill from Martinez Refinery

On 1 December 1989, The New York Times reported that Shell Oil

Company had agreed to pay $19.75 million for spilling more than

400,000 gallons of crude oil into San Francisco Bay. Shell said that it

had spent an additional $14 million in cleaning up the spill, when oil

flowed from a pipe at its Martinez refinery in April 1988. Oil leaked out

from a 12.5-million-gallon storage tank at the manufacturing com-

plex 40 miles northeast of San Francisco. The Government said that

several Federal regulations were broken. According to the article at

least 250 birds and 50 other animals were found dead and a valu-

able wildlife habitat was ruined and tidal marshlands would take

10 years to recover.

48Explosion at Shell Louisiana refinery

On 5 May 1988, a major explo-

sion occurred at a Shell oil refin-

ery in Norco, Louisiana. The

New York Times reported six

deaths, one person missing and

42 people injured. The blast

shattered windows up to

30 miles (48 km) away and

“damage was sustained on both

sides of the mile-wide Mississippi

river“. According to the same

report, Norco residents were

“fed up over recurring emergencies

that had forced them to evacuate

their homes eight times in 12

years”.

An article published by Alter-

Net in February 2005 concern-

ing the explosion and its conse-

quences said that it spewed 159

million pounds of toxic chemicals

into the air, requiring the evacua-

tion of 4,500 people and that Shell

subsequently paid out $172 million

in damages to some 17,000 claim-

ants.

An article published by The

Times-Picayune newspaper on 19 February 2007 reported that a

lawyer involved in bringing a

federal class action lawsuit

against Shell in relation to the

explosion was at risk of disbar-

ment for paying a Shell em-

ployee $5,000 in 1991 for inside

information about what the

lawyer alleged to be misconduct

by Shell in preparing its witnesses

for depositions. The lawyer fur-

ther justified the payment by

claiming genuine belief that pay-

ing the Shell insider for informa-

tion would compensate for Shell’s

refusal to cooperate.

49Pollution at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado

In a working paper published by the University of Colorado, Boul-

der, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal –

the RMA – located some six miles (10

km) northeast of downtown Denver,

Colorado was described as 27 square

miles of toxic horror with the reputa-

tion of being “the most polluted

piece of ground in America.” Origi-

nally used by the United States Army

from 1942 as a chemical weapons

plant, the RMA was until 1982 util-

ised by Shell Chemical Company to

produce pesticides and herbicides.

The list of chemicals and contami-

nants polluting the RMA is described

in the paper as mind-boggling.

From 1983 onwards, a number of law-

suits arose from contamination at the

RMA. The State of Colorado sued

Shell and the U.S. Army for natural

resource damages under the Compre-

hensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act,

known as CERCLA. At the same

time that the State of Colorado was

pursuing its damages claim against

the Army and Shell for $50 million per toxic discharge, the Army

filed a lawsuit against Shell in respect of the contaminant liability.

Shell issued proceedings against the Army, claiming $1.8 billion.

TheU.S. Department of Justice filed a related lawsuit against Shell,

claiming almost $1.9 billion.

In 1988, Shell and the Army settled

by filing a consent decree. Each

agreed to pay 50 percent of the first

$500 million in clean-up costs. A for-

mula was also agreed to cover sub-

stantial additional cleanup costs.

Shell lodged a claim with its insurers

for reimbursement.

On 13 November 1988, The New

York Times reported that Shell Oil

Company and a Denver law firm

Holme Roberts & Owen had been

charged in a lawsuit brought by Trav-

elers Insurance Company seeking

$66 million in damages, with conspir-

ing to conceal years of pollution at

the RMA. The RMA was said to be

contaminated by the residues of nerve

gas and other chemical weapons the

Army made from the early 1940s until

the late 1960s and by waste from the pro-

duction of pesticides and herbicides by

Shell on land leased at the arsenal from

1952 to 1982. The article said that

chemicals have seeped into fresh water and underground water

supplies in the area. The article explained that the settlement re-

50quired Shell to contribute at least $500 million towards the clean-

up. Shell had found it necessary to seek reimbursement through

the courts from 250 insurance

carriers, including Travelers,

one of the primary insurance

companies covering the rele-

vant risk. In its counterclaim,

Travelers had alleged that Shell

knowingly and intentionally re-

leased pollutants into the environ-

ment since commencement of its

operations. Their lawsuit also

charged that Holme Roberts con-

spired with Shell to mislead Travel-

ers about the extent of the pollu-

tion. The Travelers lawsuit

sought the return of $16 million

already paid to Shell, plus $50

million in punitive damages.

On 21 December 1988, The

New York Times published an

article [29] announcing that a

jury had found in favour of

Travelers and the other insurers

against Shell on the basis that

Shell was not covered by any of

its 800 insurance policies be-

cause it knew it was polluting the ground water at the RMA and that the

jury was persuaded that Shell was an intentional polluter.

The article revealed that the total clean up cost, to be split by Shell

and the Army, was estimated to be as much as $2 billion. The Su-

preme Court reviewed the State

of Colorado RMA case early in

1994 and ruled in its favour.

51CHAPTER 4

Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns

The above headline and related extract from an article published by The Wall Street Journal in March

2007 highlighted a very serious problem at Shell identified in numerous press articles. Namely the

safety of people working for an oil giant which puts production and profits before safety.

52Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns

The energy multi-national Royal Dutch Shell, has faced campaign-

ing activity on its safety record and Health and Safety working

practices, particularly in relation to its North Sea platforms, follow-

ing the tragic death of only two

offshore workers after a gas

leak on its Brent Bravo plat-

form on 11 September 2003.

Representations made by off-

shore unions and by Bill Camp-

bell, the retired HSE Group

Auditor of Shell International,

have attracted the attention of

the news media resulting in nu-

merous articles being pub-

lished on the subject. Shell has

consistently maintained follow-

ing the Brent Bravo accident,

that it gives first priority to the

safety of offshore workers and

all Shell employees.

This article focuses on Shell’s

health and safety record.

Developments in March 2007

In March 2007, several newspapers published articles in relation to

Royal Dutch Shell safety issues.

On 5 March 2007, The Guardian newspaper published an article un-

der the headline Shell safety record in North Sea takes a hammer-

ing. It reported that Shell had been warned repeatedly by the UK

Health and Safety Executive – the “HSE” – regarding the poor state

of the company’s North Sea platforms. The article stated that on 13

November 2006, Shell had

been served with a rebuke and a

legal notice that it was failing to

operate safely. An Aberdeen

sheriff’s court had previously

ruled in a Fatal Accident In-

quiry that Shell could have pre-

vented two deaths on the Brent

Bravo platform if it had prop-

erly carried out a repair. Shell

had earlier admitted responsi-

bility for the Brent Bravo acci-

dent.

53According to The Guardian, on the day of the sheriff’s report, the

Offshore Industry Liaison Committee had complained that the

Brent Bravo platform still had leaks, dangerous stairs, and lifts left bro-

ken for six months. The article went on to say that in the summer of

2006, Shell had said that it was in the middle of a $1bn (£515m) pro-

gramme to upgrade the platforms, claiming: “Safety is and will re-

main our first priority.” The Guardian report drew attention to the

HSE website which said that Shell was issued with 10 improvement

notices during

2006 and also

pointed out

that Notices

are served

where the

HSE considers

a company is

operating un-

lawfully with

unacceptable

risks. The arti-

cle also re-

vealed that

Last year, Shell

was embarrassed when Bill Campbell, one of its senior safety consultants,

claimed the company was operating a weak safety regime and said some

employees had been falsifying documents. Shell denied the charges, but

Mr Campbell has been threatening the company with a defamation case.

On 15 March 2007, The Wall Street Journal published an article on

its online “Energy Blog” under the headline: Shells Safety Problem.

The article compared the safety record of Shell with its rival BP,

which has been heavily criticised for its poor safety standards since

the deadly Texas City Refinery (BP) explosion in 2005. The Wall

Street Journal highlighted the fact that Royal Dutch Shell was a far

more dangerous company to work for in the past two years and also

pointed out that according to an annual report filed by Shell with

the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on 14

March 2007, 37 Shell employees and contractors died in 2006, com-

pared with just 7 BP employees. In the same filing, Shell CEO

Jeroen van

der Veer was

quoted as

stating: Our

safety perform-

ance in 2006

was mixed

and We have

responded by

reinforcing

our safety fo-

cus through a

dedicated

global safety

function that

will improve compliance with standards and procedures worldwide.

On 20 March 2007, The Wall Street Journal published an Energy

Blog article on its website under the headline Shells Record Worse

Than BPs. The article cited a comment in a Wall Street Journal En-

ergy Roundup report which said …though BP has been chastised for

its safety record in the past two years, it has not lost as many employees

and contractors to death as rival Royal Dutch Shell, which employs

54roughly the same number of people. The article also referred to a Finan-

cial Times story published on 20 March 2007 under the headline

Safety record is put in the spotlight which had expanded the Shell/

BP comparison to include several oil majors over more years. It

quoted from the FT story: Since 2003, the first year of the Times study,

Shell has had more global employee and contractor deaths than the other

four. Shell has appointed

a global vice-president

for health, safety and en-

vironment to tackle

safety problems and has

pointed out that it oper-

ates in the dangerous Ni-

ger Delta, where militant

attacks accounted for 9

of its fatalities in 2006.

An update has subse-

quently been added to

the Wall Street Journal

article explaining why

the headline has changed

to FT Data: Is Shells Re-

cord Worse Than BPs? It

explains While it may be

true Shell has had more deaths than BP in at least the past couple of years

(which weve confirmed in their annual reports), its worth noting that

these tallies are not necessarily the best measure of a companys safety re-

cord, as they do not account for the number of accidents per worker.

Resolution of Shell safety problems may impact on CEO succes-

sion

Concern over Shell safety issues has led to media speculation that

the subject may impact on the appointment of a successor to Royal

Dutch Shell Plc Chief Executive, Jeroen van der Veer, who is retir-

ing in 2009. An article published by The Guardian on 29 March

2007, under the headline

Van der Veer – a safe

pair of hands? stated in

reference to Van der

Veer, The one big area

where he has fallen down is

safety. It went on to re-

mind readers that the

newspaper had revealed

a few weeks earlier that

Shell had continued to re-

ceive warnings from the

Health and Safety Execu-

tive that it is acting ille-

gally with regard to safety

in the North Sea. The arti-

cle concluded that Mr

van der Veer needs to bring

a halt to this, and so does exploration and production boss Malcolm

Brinded if he wants to stand any chance of taking over the top job. An-

other article published by the Guardian on the same day, 29 March

2007, under the headline Shell chief to stay an extra year beyond

company retirement age, also contained commentary linking the

succession with safety issues. It stated: There will be a struggle to re-

55place Mr van der Veer among the three managing directors: Malcolm

Brinded, head of exploration, Linda Cook at gas and power, and finance

director Peter Voser. Mr Brinded, 54, has been seen as a frontrunner but

might be vulnerable over North Sea

safety after revelations an internal audit

found violations of safety procedures and

the alleged falsification of compliance

documents. Shell denied the latter

charge”.

The Brent Bravo accident and after-

math

The only fatal accident for which

there is detailed information avail-

able is for the Brent Bravo North Sea

platform tragedy. Brent Bravo, lo-

cated about 180 miles east of the Shet-

land Isles, is one of four oil produc-

tion and storage platforms in the UK

northern sector of the North Sea that

make up the Brent field. On 11 Sep-

tember 2003, two platform workers,

Sean McCue, 22, of Kennoway in

Fife, and Keith Moncrieff, 45, of In-

vergowrie, Tayside, lost their lives

after a sudden escape of gas in a plat-

form leg where they were working.

Sixty non-essential staff were evacuated from the platform by heli-

copter after the gas was detected. According to a BBC News report

published the following day, Shell Expro Managing Director Tom

Botts said that the emergency response system immediately shut

down the platform. Jake Molloy, the leader of the offshore union

Offshore Industry Liaison Committee -“OILC”, was quoted as say-

ing that unions had already com-

plained to the HSE about a backlog

of maintenance and staffing issues

in the Brent Field, particularly on

the Brent Bravo platform. The article

revealed that the HSE were investi-

gating the accident. On 9 February

2005, a BBC Newsreport revealed

that Shell had been charged follow-

ing the deaths of the two offshore

workers. On 31 March 2005, The

Scotsman newspaper reported that

Shell had admitted at Stonehaven

Sheriff Court breaching three health

and safety charges in connection

with the deaths.

On 27 April 2005, BBC News re-

ported that Shell had been fined

£900,000, thought to be the biggest fine

on a company following a North Sea ac-

cident after admitting breaching

health and safety regulations. Sheriff

Patrick Davies said that a “substan-

tial catalogue of errors” caused the

deaths of the two men, but he had taken into account that Shell

had tendered guilty pleas at an early stage.

56The two offshore workers who died had been asked to inspect a

temporary repair patch on a safety-critical pipeline in the leg. The

patch had been a temporary repair for 10 months.

On 18 July 2005, a BBC News re-

port revealed that Scotland’s senior

law officer, The Lord Advocate, had

overturned a decision made by

Crown counsel not to hold a fatal

accident inquiry into the deaths of

the two men on Brent Bravo on the

basis that it would be in the “wider

public interest” for an inquiry.

On 23 June 2006, The Times pub-

lished an article under the head-

line: “Unions call for inquiry into

safety at Shell“. The article made ref-

erence to allegations made by Bill

Campbell, a former senior Shell offi-

cial.

The Fatal Accident Inquiry Report

into the deaths of SEAN SCOTT

McCUE and KEITH SCOT MON-

CRIEFF was released in July 2006.

On 19 July 2006, an article about

the findings of the Inquiry was pub-

lished by The Times under the headline: Unions call for manslaugh-

ter law after Shell deaths inquiry. It reported that The six-month in-

vestigation into the deaths on Brent Bravo in September 2003 concluded

that the accident could have been avoided if Shell had done a proper repair

of a pipe. It went on to say The victims, Keith Moncrieff and Sean

McCue, died from a huge gas escape from an illegal repair to a corroded

pipe when they descended into the con-

crete leg of the platform to make an in-

spection. Shell was said to have ac-

cepted the inquiry findings. The

Times article pointed out that Bill

Campbell, a former Shell engineer,

had come forward with details of a

platform safety maintenance re-

view carried in 1999 on the Brent

Bravo platform. It said that Camp-

bells audit team found widespread

violations of safety procedures and al-

leged falsification of records. The arti-

cle revealed thatMr Campbell, who

retired from Shell in 2002, believes

that the Brent Bravo deaths could have

been prevented had the company re-

sponded adequately to his finding that

platform maintenance was being de-

layed to sustain oil and gas output. He

tried to put his evidence to the inquiry,

but the presiding sheriff declined to ad-

mit it on the ground that it was be-

yond the inquirys scope. Shell was

quoted as accepting the 1999 audits findings, saying that it re-

sponded with improvements. However Shell insisted that there

57was no verifiable evidence of falsification by platform manage-

ment as Campbell had alleged.

Allegations made by Bill Campbell,

former HSE Group Auditor of Shell

International

In June and July 2006, over a dozen arti-

cles were published by the news media

revealing serious allegations by Bill

Campbell, a former Shell International

Group Auditor, whose name, as a re-

sult, is now inextricably linked with the

Brent Bravo story.

Campbells allegations were the subject

of a programme broadcast by BBC Scot-

land’s investigative current affairs BBC

1 TV programme Frontline Scotland in

a feature entitled: The Human Price of

Oil. An article relating to the pro-

gramme was published by BBC News

under the headline Shell ignored acci-

dent warning, one of a number of BBC

news reports on the subject. The Guard-

ian newspaper published three articles,

the first with the headline Shell accused

over oil rig safety; the second entitled

Call for inquiry into oil rig safety regu-

lator and the third Shell confesses to

poor North Sea safety record and pledges reform. A series of arti-

cles was also published by Upstream Online a respected weekly pe-

troleum industry publication which also operates a related petro-

leum news website.

One of the most astonishing allegations

was that “top directors of Shell Expro in

Aberdeen, the UK arm of the Anglo-Dutch

group, allegedly sanctioned a policy widely

known as Touch Fuck All (TFA) whereby

offshore installation managers were told to

stop any work with the potential to cause

unplanned shutdowns”. The following

paragraph is also taken from the same

article by UpstreamOnline entitled

“Shell in the safety firing line”.

“The allegations levelled by Campbell

against Malcolm Brinded, Shells group

chief executive for global E&P, who was in

charge of the UK business at the time, and

his oil director Chris Finlayson, who is

now country president of Shell Russia,

claim the two men ran an operation where

production took priority over safety con-

cerns”.

Shell was quoted as rejecting Camp-

bell’s charges. Shell said “The allegation

regarding operating with high-risk levels is

untrue and we absolutely refute this.

Safety is and will remain our first priority offshore”.

58On 31 August 2007, The Guardian newspaper published an article

profiling Jeroen van der Veer, the Chief Executive of Royal Dutch

Shell Plc. The article by Guardian journalist Terry Macalister stated

in reference to Van der Veer: “He also makes clear he was hurt by the

coverage of another fiasco – when a Shell consultant, Bill Campbell, blew

the whistle on safety breaches in the North Sea.”

Concerns expressed by

Bill Campbell

On 1 September 2007,

The Daily Mail newspa-

per published an article

about a safety campaign

conducted jointly by Bill

Campbell and the web-

site

royaldutchshellplc.com.

The article said: ROYAL

Dutch Shell is getting rat-

tled by a gripe site that al-

leges there are safety prob-

lems with its North Sea oil

platforms.” The article

revealed An internal Shell email admits the firm has been thrown on the

back foot because of claims put forward on the Royaldutchshellplc.com

website. It went on to say Campbell has emailed hundreds of MPs alleg-

ing Shell has not yet properly tackled health and safety failings. The arti-

cle featured a number of quotes from Shell internal emails reveal-

ing a state of uncertainty at Shell about how to deal with the allega-

tions. One stated: As it stands were on the back foot and our aim should

be to develop a strategy (or options) that puts us in a more positive and

secure position.

In his letter to MP’s, Campbell stated: “I am a former Group Auditor

of Shell International. I am writing to you on a matter of conscience in an

effort to avert the inevitability of another major accident in the North

Sea“.

In response to the alle-

gations, a Royal Dutch

Shell spokesman was

quoted in the Daily

Mail article as saying:

Safety is Shells foremost

priority at all times. Shell

strongly disputes any sug-

gestion that we would

compromise safety off-

shore. No fatalities are ac-

ceptable.

The Daily Telegraph

published an article on

Saturday, 9 September

2007 with the headline: Pressure on Shell over safety of platforms.

It said: Royal Dutch Shell is facing a growing campaign about alleged

poor safety on several North Sea oil platforms, with Britains biggest trade

union and a former executive of the company calling on MPs and the

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to investigate. It went on to say“Mr

Campbell, who has teamed up with a website that has been highly critical

of Shell, appears to be of increasing concern to the company.”

59Offshore unions voice safety concerns over pending sale of Shell

North Sea assets

On 6 September 2007, BBC News re-

ported that Two offshore unions have

called on the Health and Safety Execu-

tive to investigate Shell’s operations in

the North Sea. The unions were seek-

ing reassurances over worker safety.

They claimed Morale is also at an all-

time low and the departure of several

key personnel has created gaps in safety

critical positions… The concerns stem

from the pending sale of some Shell

North Sea assets. The unions said

that following Shells announcement

that the installations were for being

put up sale communications between

the company and the offshore workforce

had deteriorated to the point it was im-

pacting on operational safety.

An article also published on 6 Sep-

tember 2007 by The Aberdeen Press

& Journal, stated Graham Tran, re-

gional officer with the Unite unions

Amicus section, and the OILCs Jake

Molloy, say there are gaps in safety-

critical positions on Shell installations which are up for sale. The article

went on to say A joint statement from the unions says morale on the

Shell installations is at an all-time low and that several key workers have

left the company in disgust at the treatment they have received.

On 4 October 2007 Christopher Hopson of UpstreamOnline,

the leading oil industry publication,

reported on high level talks between

the UK’sHealth & Safety Executive

(HSE) and Shell in relation to com-

plaints by off shore worker unions

over important safety issues. The ar-

ticle said that sources who attended

the HSE meeting with management

and staff on Cormorant Alpha re-

vealed that the safety watchdog dis-

covered a number of serious prob-

lems in the way the installation was

being operated. According to the Up-

streamOnline article, Jake Molloy,

the general secretary of OILC,

claimed his members on Cormorant

Alpha“believed the validity of their

complaints had been upheld and were

awaiting the final HSE report to con-

firm this was the case.”

60Oil majors send safety chiefs to summit as criticisms mount

On 30 July 2007, The Wall Street Journal published an article under

the headline: “Safety Czar for Shell“.

Extract:

Shell appointed a global safety ex-

ecutive, after suffering 37 fatali-

ties in 2006, more than double the

number had by its major competi-

tors. Kieron McFadyen, a 20-year

company veteran, was appointed

to instill safety standards and as-

sess risk, especially for remote loca-

tions, where the majority of fatali-

ties occurred.

On 14 September 2007, The In-

dependent newspaper reported

in an article headlined “Oil ma-

jors send safety chiefs to sum-

mit as criticisms mount” that

ing concern among oil company executives “that a series of disasters

and safety failures is jeopardising their reputation and damaging business

prospects.” Shell was said to be sending its head of safety, Kieron

McFadyen, to the safety summit.

“Senior directors from the world’s

largest oil companies have agreed

to attend a summit meeting next

month in order to discuss working

together to tackle health and safety

issues.” The article went on to say that “Heads of safety from oil ma-

jors includingBP, Shell and Total will meet together for the first time in

order to agree a joint approach to improving the industry’s safety record.”

According to the article the “summit meeting” results from increas-

Health and Safety Executive

partially uphold claims about

Shell safety

On 8 November 2007, BBC

News reported that The Health

and Safety Executive (HSE) has

partially upheld claims that Shell

was not doing enough to ensure

safety offshore and that Shell has

taken action to address the mat-

ters. The article said that the

offshore unions Unite Amicus

and OILC had asked the HSE

to investigate claims from their

members which focused on

manning levels and the atti-

tude of platform management.

The article went on to say: The

investigation concluded that as-

pects of the complaint were justi-

fied. Graham Tran, an official of

the Unite Amicus Union was quoted as saying he believed Shell

should leave the North Sea as it has no credibility. Shell said the

company was fully co-operating with the HSE and that it contin-

ues to keep its staff and the HSE informed.

61Under the headline More safety breaches found on Shell’s North

Sea rigs, The Guardian newspaper reported on the same day, 8 No-

vember 2007, that Shell has once again been rapped over the knuckles by

the Health and Safety Executive for safety problems on its North Sea plat-

forms despite pledges from chief executive Jeroen van der Veer that he was

determined to change the cul-

ture after problems in the past.

The HSE confirmed that it

had upheld complaints

about staff levels and opera-

tional procedures on five

platforms, including Cormo-

rant Alpha and Dunlin Al-

pha, and asked Shell to take

immediate action. The article

went on to say: Shell, which

earned £1.5m an hour last year,

has been through a torrid time

over North Sea safety since one

of its own most experienced in-

spectors, Bill Campbell, blew

the whistle on his employer

claiming that safety procedures

were being repeatedly ignored

on some platforms. Shell said

it would not comment in-depth on the HSE statement saying that

an investigation was continuing. Shell pledged to fully co-operate

with the HSE and keep Shell staff informed. The article ended with

forthright comments attributed to Gran Tran of the Unite Union ex-

pressing fears for the ongoing safety of the workforce on the plat-

forms.

On 22 November 2007, the Guardian newspaper published a fur-

ther article, this time under the headline: More than half of North

Sea oil rigs fail safety checks. It stated that The safety regime at Brit-

ain’s North Sea oil operators

was condemned yesterday in a

report by the Health and Safety

Executive. According to the

HSE report, which was

based on a study covering

nearly 100 North Sea rigs

and platforms, inspections

had revealed almost 60%

had problems that oil compa-

nies should have addressed.

The article said Shell is one of

those that has been handed a

large number of HSE improve-

ment notices in recent years

and been criticised by its own

workforce, although the group

itself denies that safety is not

top of its agenda. The HSE re-

port was also covered in a

Daily Telegraph article published on 23 November 2007, head-

lined: HSE sounds alarm over rigs

62February 2008 allegations of safety concerns over Shell North

Sea rigs

On Friday 1 February 2008, Channel 4

News led its flagship evening news pro-

gramme with a 7 minute package enti-

tled: Shell North Sea safety concerns. An

article on its website, where a video clip

of the TV news report can be viewed,

said: Shell is Britain’s highest ever earning

company, announcing profits of £13.9b, but

the oil giant is being accused by its workforce

of “a severe lack of commitment to safety”.

The package contained allegations from a

Royal Dutch Shell insider alleging critical

safety systems on one platform were not

working properly and that the safety cul-

ture at Shell has shifted from ‘doing the

right thing’ to ‘mend and make do’. The pre-

senter Jon Snow said that although Shell

had declined an invitation for an inter-

view, the company had insisted the

claims were unfounded and safety is its

top priority.

On 4 February 2008, The Sunday Tele-

graph published an article by Russell Hot-

ten entitled Shell rejects North Sea rig

safety fears. According to the article:

Safety conditions on Shell’s five oil platforms

in the North Sea have been called into question

amid a row over alleged industrial gangsterism and claims that a man-

ager in charge of the rigs believes the backlog

of maintenance has reached “appalling lev-

els”. The newspaper said that it had seen

a leaked email in which a manager said

“Backlog on safety critical systems is at ap-

palling levels by any standard and is an issue

with the HSE.” The manager warned that

the HSE could close the operations. Jake

Molloy, the general secretary of the OILC

Union claimed it was an admission by

Shell that standards on the platforms

were poor. He called on the company to

put some of its record profits into improv-

ing things. Shell said in response: “Safety

is our top priority. Two years ago Shell

started a $1.2bn asset integrity programme.

It is approximately 70 per cent complete.

Shell is further quoted as saying “A num-

ber of allegations have been made by unions

and staff regarding safety since an announce-

ment on June 14 2007 of plans to offer these

assets to potential purchasers. These allega-

tions have been investigated by the HSE and

a number of issues have been worked on. How-

ever, the HSE has seen no need to either seize

any production or to serve any improvement

notices.”

63On 17 February 2008, the Glasgow Sunday Mail (Scotland) pub-

lished an article by Kurt Bayer headlined Shell Shock. The same

email from The Sunday Telegraph article was quoted, including

the part saying “Backlog on safety critical systems is at appalling lev-

els… The article said that the man-

ager who sent it, but denies using

the term appalling, seems frantic

about a backlog of safety work and

terrified of action by Government

watchdogs. It was described as a

foul-mouthed email demanding

the workers do overtime to tackle

a safety crisis. Graham Tran of

Unite Union, was quoted as say-

ing: “Every time I get a call from

Shell I dread somebody is going to

tell me there has been a major acci-

dent. The situation has become a tick-

ing time bomb, an accident waiting

to happen. A Shell spokesman

maintained: “Safety is our top prior-

ity.”

Shell admits blame for near dis-

aster at Merseyside Refinery

On 23 February 2008 The Liver-

pool Post published an article under the headline: Shell admits

blame for near disaster at Stanlow. It reported that OIL giant Shell

has admitted blame for a potentially lethal gas leak at a Merseyside refin-

ery and said that Shell had pleaded guilty on 22 February 2008 at

Chester Crown Court to charges that for several years in the run

up to the incident in May 2003, it had failed to comply with regula-

tions covering control of major accident hazards. The article stated:

The energy company has admitted blame for allowing a safety pipe to cor-

rode so badly that it split wide open.

Although no-one was injured Judge

Roger Dutton was advised that if it

had exploded, there would have been

multiple casualties. Simon Parring-

ton, prosecuting for the Health

and Safety Executive was quoted

as saying: The escape of gas was

caused by Shells failure to properly

inspect and maintain the pipe. The

issue we are concerned with is the

toxicity of the gas. It is lethal and

could have caused many fatalities.

Mr Parrington stated in court that

if, by chance, the jet of toxic gas

leaked from the bottom instead of the

top of the pipe, it could have sparked

a chain of events leading to death

and the destruction of key sections of

the plant. He said that the six-inch

pipe in question had been ne-

glected for years. Mr Parrington

made the point: This is a company

which has posted £13.7bn in profits and it has huge resources at its dis-

posal. Graham Wells, acting for the defendant Shell UK, disputed

the exact cause of the corrosion inside the pipe but conceded: The

64defendant accepts this was a serious matter. The process is one which uses

hazardous chemicals and the escape happened because the pipe was cor-

roded. Pipes should not corrode and this is the basis of the guilty plea.

Yuri Sebregts, the General Manager of the Stanlow plant, was

quoted as saying: We responded quickly after the event and since then

we have co-operated fully with the HSE in their investigation. Changes

have been made to the plant

and procedures to ensure the

problem will not re-occur.

The Judge adjourned the

hearing for sentencing at

a later date. A report of

the same news story by

The Yorkshire Post on 22

February 2008 – Oil giant

Shell admits blame for

leak of deadly substances

at site – stated that: A HSE

poor North Sea safety record after fresh revelations showed it has been by

far the worst performer in the play, receiving six out of a total of 18 legal

notices issued by the UKs Health &Safety Executive (HSE) over a two-

and-a-half year period. The article revealed that Shell had received

more notices than any other operator working in the UK North

Sea. The disclosures emerged after a Channel 4 TV News report

about serious safety fail-

ings on Brent Bravo fol-

lowing an inspection of

the platform carried out

by the HSE in 2005. Shell

was quoted as saying: On

our platforms we employ

systems under which our

people inspect and maintain

safety critical equipment.

Our goal is 100% compli-

ance on planned corrective

safety critical maintenance

on all our platforms.

inspection of the entire Stan-

low site after the incident

found no further cause for

concern.

Shell safety critical is-

sues raised in March

2008

On 14 March 2008, UpstreamOnline published an article under the

headline: Pressure rises on Shell. The article by Christopher Hop-

son said that Shell is still feeling the heat from its Brent Bravo safety

record and reported Shell is under mounting pressure to explain its

65In a separate article headlined Lifeboats trouble at Brent field also

published on 14 March 2008, UpstreamOnline revealed SHELLs

safety record on its Brent Bravo platform in the UK Northern North Sea

is once again under scrutiny after the discovery of technical problems

with two lifeboats on the installation that resulted in both of them being

removed from service. Jake Molloy, general secretary of the Offshore

Industry Liaison Committee was quoted in the article by Christo-

pher Hopson as claiming If they had loaded up this particular lifeboat,

the chances are

it could have

been launched

into the sea in

an uncon-

trolled fashion

which would

have caused

death or in-

jury as it was

held in place

by corrosion

and not by the

designed sys-

tem. The article said that problems had been found with a second

lifeboat on the Brent Bravo platform. It also reported that a lifeboat

had launched itself into the sea from Shells Tern platform because

the brakes and clutches were dysfunctional and had damaged the

launch mechanism off the platform. Shell confirmed problems had

been discovered with two lifeboats on Brent Bravo during routine

maintenance. Shell was quoted as stating that it viewed the matter

seriously and had mobilised an investigation team on the platform.

66Houston firms facing pipeline fines, penal-

ties: Friday 29 June 2001

EXTRACTS

And Houston-based Equilon Pipeline Co.

was slapped last week with $10 million in

state and federal environmental fines for

the 1999 rupture of a gasoline pipeline in

Bellingham, Wash., resulting in three fatali-

ties.

Equilon also faces a $3 million fine issued

last year by the DOT — the largest penalty

ever proposed against a pipeline operator

in the history of the federal pipeline safety

program. The El Paso penalty is the largest

ever proposed against a natural gas pipe-

line operator.

Equilon, a joint venture of Texaco and

Royal Dutch/Shell, was majority owner of

Olympic Pipeline Co, operator of the Bel-

lingham pipeline at the time of the acci-

dent. Since then, BP has taken control of

Olympic Pipeline.

Both El Paso and Equilon were charged

with violating numerous safety require-

ments in the operation of their respective

pipelines.

Equilon told the state it was not operating

the pipeline at the time of the rupture but

had simply loaned Olympic several em-

ployees, including Equilon’s president,

three vice presidents and the head of envi-

ronmental compliance.

67Reuters: Shell Washington refinery cited for safety violations: 25

June 2008

HOUSTON, June 25 (Reuters) –

Washington state’s Department

of Labor & Industries said on

Wednesday it found 23 serious

safety and health violations at

Shell Oil Co’s 145,000 barrel per

day (bpd) refinery in Ana-

cortes, Washington.

Shell said it was weighing a

possible appeal of the agency’s

citation, which could lead to

fines totaling $109,600.

Among the serious violations

found at the Shell Anacortes re-

finery were failures to identify

and control hazards that could

lead to releases of highly haz-

ardous chemicals and deficien-

cies in the development of me-

chanical integrity programs,

the Labor & Industries Depart-

ment said.

68Seattle Times: Safety violations to cost Shell: 26 June 2008

Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries on Wednesday

fined Shell Oil $109,600 for multiple safety violations in its Ana-

cortes refinery.

The refinery, the second larg-

est of the four major facili-

ties that supply the Puget

Sound region with gasoline

and other petroleum prod-

ucts, was cited for 23 viola-

tions ranging from inade-

quately instructing opera-

tors on how to deal with

emergencies to faulty inspec-

tions.

Shell, a unit of Anglo-Dutch

oil conglomerate Royal

Dutch Shell, is reviewing

the citation, said Shell

spokesman Brian Sibley.

Shutting down the opera-

tion is “highly unlikely,” he

said.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC is heading up a test venture in Hawaii to

turn oil-rich algae into fuel. If the process is found commercially

viable, the Anglo-Dutch conglomerate could build algae-

processing plants elsewhere.

69Bloomberg: Nigerian Oil Pipe Fire Extinguished, 6 Workers Died,

Shell Says: 17 November 2008

BBC News: Gas firms fined over worker death: 26 November 2008

(Both Shell and AMEC admitted breaching health and safety rules

and were each fined £150,000

plus £41,500 in costs at Norwich

Crown Court.)

FT article: Shell deaths higher

than other western groups: 30

November 2008 (Royal Dutch

Shell last year suffered more

workforce deaths than any other

large western oil company, with

a rate of fatalities twice as high

as BPs.)

upstreamonline: Shell death toll

‘higher than peers’ : 01 Decem-

ber 2008 (Last week Shell and

service player Amec were each

fined £150,000 ($230,000) after an

Amec worker died during opera-

tions at Clipper.)

The Times-Picayune: Last week-

end’s helicopter crash shakes up

offshore workers: 10 January 2009

Reuters: Shell gets tough on costs as oil prices bite: 30 January 2009

(Royal Dutch Shell has intensified its cost-cutting efforts in re-

sponse to the collapse in oil prices and also plans to step up efforts

to improve what it said was a “mixed” safety record. Brinded said

Shell had a dreadful start to this year after 10 contractors and one

third party were killed in three

incidents. )

Reuters: Oil industry cost, job

cuts may hit safety, skills: 3 Feb-

ruary 2009

The Herald: They know what

they have to do: launch the life

rafts and get out‘: 19 February

2009

(In July 2002, a Sikorsky S76 heli-

copter was ferrying personnel

between a platform and a drill-

ing rig, both owned by Shell,

when it ditched about 25 miles

north-east of Great Yarmouth,

killing all 11 on board. It is un-

derstood the aircraft remained

afloat after ditching. In March

1991, six men were killed when

a Sikorsky S61N struck a crane

on a Shell oil platform and

plunged into the sea 116 miles east of Lerwick in Shetland.)

The Press and Journal: Alarm over hundreds of offshore incidents:

4 March 2009

70The Sunday Times: Oil rigs plagued by safety lapses: 12 April 2009

London Fire Brigade: Shell fined record sum for fire safety

breaches: 2 June 2009

The Guardian: Shell fined £300,000

over fire safety breaches: 3 June 2009

Shell slammed on safety: 21 May

2011: upstreamonline

Extract

The HSE has told Shell to submit a

revised safety case for the Brent Char-

lie platform after gas was detected on

its topsides following leaks on 12

January this year and 27 September

2010, Upstream can reveal.

Norway Raps Shell for Risking Oil

Leak: 23 May 2011: The Wall Street

Journal

Extract

LONDON Royal Dutch Shell PLC

has been rapped by Norways Petro-

leum Safety Authority for a mainte-

nance error on an oil well that had

major accident potential and risked an

oil leak.

The failure of all barriers to hydrocarbon flow from a well is very

serious. An out-of-control well caused the explosion that destroyed

the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig last year, resulting in a three-

month oil spill from a BP PLC well in

the Gulf of Mexico.

Shell slammed for serious safety

slips: 23 May 2011: upstreamonline

Extract

Anglo-Dutch supermajor Shell has

been hit with a safety order from the

Norwegian authorities following an

investigation into a well incident on

the Draugen platform in December

last year. The incident occurred dur-

ing a wireline operation to replace a

gas lift valve in well 6407/9-A-01.

The operation resulted in the subsur-

face safety valve becoming stuck in

the Xmas tree, blocking the upper

mast valve, and leaving only one bar-

rier against a potential leak.

71Shell ignored safety warnings before Bacton explosion: 16 June

2011: BBC News

Extract

The company has admitted seven safety

and pollution offences following the ex-

plosion and fire at the Bacton terminal in

Norfolk.

Gas terminal blast: Shell fined £1m plus

£240,000 costs: 20 June 2011

Extracts

Shell UK has been fined £1m plus

£240,000 costs after an explosion at a gas

terminal in Norfolk in 2008.

The company admitted seven safety and

pollution offences following the explo-

sion and fire at the Bacton terminal.

Ipswich Crown Court heard the company

ignored warnings from staff before the ex-

plosion.

Shell ordered to pay $2 million for UK

gas fire: 20 June 2011 Reuters

Extract

(Reuters) A British court ordered Royal

Dutch Shells UK unit to pay 1.242 million

pounds ($2 million) in fines and legal costs for a fire at its Bacton

gas terminal in 2008 which cut more than

a tenth of UK gas supply.

A leak of highly flammable hydrocarbon

liquid caused the explosion and fire at a

waste water plant in which nobody was

killed or seriously injured only by good

fortune, according to Britains Health and

Safety Executive (HSE).

British court fines Shell UK 1.2 million

pounds ($2M) over blast in 2008 at

coastal terminal: 20 June 2011: The Wash-

ington Post

Extract

Judge Martin Binning said Monday that

workers had warned Shell many times

about dangerous conditions at the plant

in Bacton, on the Norfolk coast 125 miles

(200 km) northeast of London.

Shell UK sentenced over Norfolk gas

blast: 20 June 2011: UK Health & Safety

Executive

Extract

The explosion blew the concrete roof off a

buffering tank within the plant, hurling

concrete and metal debris over a large

72area and sucking a nearby drain out of the ground. After investigat-

ing the incident HSE and Environment Agency (EA) jointly prose-

cuted the firm over safety, environ-

mental control and pollution-

prevention failures at the plant leading

to the explosion.

Oil and gas spills in North Sea every

week, papers reveal: 5 July 2011: The

Guardian

Extract

Shell has emerged as one of the top of-

fenders despite promising to clean up

its act five years ago after a large acci-

dent in which two oil workers died.

clined to give details of the safety issues it was concerned about for

legal reasons.

HSE feared a catastrophe at Brent C

platform: 9 August 2011: upsteamon-

Shell platform to shut down amid con-

tinuing concerns about safety: 6 July

2011 The Shetland Times

Extracts

The Shell-operated Brent Charlie plat-

form 125 miles north-east of Lerwick is

to shut down from next Friday on the

orders of oil industry regulators amid

continuing concerns about safety.

But now the Health and Safety Execu-

tive (HSE) has served Shell with a

legally-enforceable prohibition notice which means the operator

will have to cease production entirely. An HSE spokesman de-

line

The UK Health & Safety Executive

(HSE) feared catastrophic conse-

quences on Shells Brent Charlie plat-

form because the scale of a long-

running series of gas leaks meant igni-

tion was almost inevitable, documents

reveal.

Revealed: Shells poor safety record in

the UK: 21 August 2011: Sunday Her-

ald Scotland

Dixon called for Shells North Sea op-

erations to be restricted until a full and

independent audit of all its facilities

had been carried out. Shells poor re-

gard for safety and their terrible com-

munications over the last 10 days

should be ringing major alarm bells

Shell had oil rig safety warning: The

Sunday Times: Scotland. 21 August

2011

AN internal investigation by Shell eight years ago raised serious

concerns about safety in the Gannet oilfield, where the company

73has been battling to contain the worst spill in British waters for a

decade. Documents obtained by The Sunday Times reveal that doz-

ens of unauthorised repairs were carried out on Shell’s Gannet Al-

pha platform.

Warning North Sea oil platforms

could be near collapse: STV News 5

September 2011

Former Shell chairman James Smith

to lead deregulation of UK oil and

gas industry: Daily Telegraph 7

Sept 2011

The minister has written to “stake-

holders” in the oil industry urging

them to contribute their thoughts,

while promising that current stan-

dards would not be lost. However,

his comments may cause alarm

among those who have pressed for

tighter regulation in the wake of re-

cent North Sea problems such as

Shell’s pipeline leak and concerns

from the Health and Safety Execu-

tive about platform corrosion.

SCOTTISH OIL RIGS IN DIRE

domain data there were 85 gas releases and 443 dangerous occur-

rences last year. If you are getting 85 gas leaks thats one and a half,

or two, leaks a week. The probability of an undesirable event is

very high.

HSE Letter to Shell 18 July 2011

External links

■HSE website

■HSE news service website

■HSL website

STRAITS: Sunday Express article 11

Sept 2011

Mr Campbell insisted it is only a matter of time before there is an-

other major tragedy in the North Sea. He said: According to public

74CHAPTER 5

Royal Dutch Shell initiatives

It is not all a bad news story. Royal Dutch Shell has been responsible for many important initiatives in

relationship to the environment, encouraging business start-ups, supporting charitable causes and

other good works. Shell has also had a long successful relationship with Ferrari.

75Royal Dutch Shell is responsible for many important initiatives in

relationship to the environment, encouraging business start-ups,

supporting charitable causes and other good works. With regard to

the environment, Shell has however

been accused of “greenwash“, be-

traying new energy future prom-

ises, and in March 2009, announced

its intention to abandon wind, solar

ria, Libya, Pakistan, the Netherlands and Singapore. Shell Live-

WIRE International operates a social networking website for par-

ticipants.

and hydro power in favour of biofu-

els.

Shell Springboard

Shell Springboard was launched in

October 2005, offering small and

medium sized businesses cash

awards of up to £40,000 for innova-

tive ideas designed to combat cli-

mate change by reducing green-

house emissions. In October 2006,

a Financial Times article on climate

The Shell Foundation

The Shell Foundation launched in

1997, is a worldwide, social invest-

ment initiative to concentrate on

working with external partners to

promote sustainable development .

It is an independent registered char-

ity which has three Shell executives

on its board balanced by an equal

number of independent non-

executive directors, in line with

UK Charity Commission rules.

Shell LiveWIRE

Shell LiveWIRE is a global youth

enterprise programme designed to

encourage and support individuals in the 16 to 30 year old age

group to launch and develop their own businesses. The scheme is

operational in 23 countries including the UK, Brazil, Nige-

change opportunities discussed a

report published by Shell Spring-

board concerning issues involved

in the quest to stabilise atmos-

pheric greenhouse gases. Winners

in the Shell Springboard competi-

tion also benefit from “expert ad-

vice, coaching and publicity.”

Renewable energy project in Ha-

waii

Hawaii is “quietly morphing into

one of the world’s leading incuba-

tors of alternative energy“ due in

part to Royal Dutch Shell’s pilot scheme in Hawaii, which has the

objective of turning oil-rich algae into fuel on a commercial basis. If

76proved viable, Shell may build algae processing plants in other lo-

cations.

In March 2009, a small local firm backed by Shell, HR Biopetro-

leum, supplied the first batch of a locally made oil to the U.S. gov-

ernment for testing as aviation fuel. According to a related

article: “The technology to convert

algae into usable fuel on a large scale

is still at least a decade away, and it is

unclear if it will ever be practical on a

large scale.” However, apparently

undaunted by the challenge, Shell

says that if HR Biopetroleum man-

ages to perfect the algae-to-oil

process, it will fund an industrial

plant on 20,000 hectares of coastal

land unsuitable for farming. The

facility would be built by “Cel-

lana”, the Shell-HR

Biopetroleum joint venture com-

pany.

Gas to liquids project in Qatar

Shell’s largest single investment,

at a reported cost of $18 billion, is

a gas-to-liquids project in Qatar known as Pearl GTL. The gas to liq-

uids process converts natural gas into a clean-burn synthetic diesel

fuel. An article about the project published in February 2009 said

that the technology is untested and involves huge risks. Pearl GTL

is due to become operational towards the end of 2010.

Helping U.S. Gulf Coast communities recover from natural catas-

trophe

Some 70% of Shell’s oil and gas production reportedly takes place

off the U.S. Gulf Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Shell has been instru-

mental in activities to revive the region in the wake of Hurricane

Katrina and Hurricane Rita. In

2006 Shell sponsored the New Or-

leans Jazz & Heritage Festival,

which Shell claims resulted in

$250 million of economic activity.

According to Business Week maga-

zine, Shell donated $750,000 to as-

sist police officers and volunteers

to obtain housing accommoda-

tion. Shell gave its employees up

to “$1,000 apiece to support neigh-

borhood rebuilding and recovery

efforts.” Shell Oil Company in con-

junction with Motiva Enterprises

LLC, contributed $4 million for

long-term recovery followingHur-

ricane Gustavand Hurricane Ike

which both subsequently also hit

the Gulf Coast. The American Red

Cross received a $1 million dona-

tion and the Salvation Army and Gulf Coast Relief Fund were

among the other beneficiaries. Shell and Motivia also provided fuel

to emergency response organisations. Shell employees staffed pub-

lic shelters, local food banks and assisted local emergency manage-

77ment organisations. Motiva Enterprises LLC is a refining and mar-

keting joint venture owned by affiliates of Shell and Saudi Aramco.

Shell support for the Salvation Army and United Way of Amer-

ica

Shell Oil Company has supported the United Way of America for

60 years and in the last 20 years, contributed more than $111 mil-

lion to the organisa-

tion. According to an

article published in

October 2008, “Shell

and Motivas United

Way campaign is an

employee/retiree pro-

gram providing indi-

viduals the opportu-

nity make monetary

and/or sweat equity

donations to the

United Way of

Greater

Houston.”Employees

are given time off dur-

ing normal working hours to participate on a voluntary basis in

outreach efforts. In October 2008, over 100 Shell and Motiva volun-

teers carried out a range of refurbishment work at the Houston Sal-

vation Army Boys’ and Girls’ Club. On 18 November 2008, Shell

Oil Company launched a promotion involving three of its major

U.S. oil brands, Pennzoil, Quaker State and Shell Rotella, to raise

funds for the Salvation Army through a cash rebate promotion

called “Change is Good, Giving is Better”. The promotion com-

menced with a donation of $100,000 as an initial step towards the

goal of raising $300,000.

Shell support for Hope Worldwide, an international humanitar-

ian organisation

In January 2009, 500 holiday workers from Shell Oil Company and

Motiva Enterprises

volunteered their

time to sort and

packed groceries at

the Houston Food

Bank as part of the-

Martin Luther King

Jr. holiday activities.

Shell tree planting

initiatives in Canada

and USA

Tree Canada, a chari-

table organisation en-

couraging Canadians

to plant trees to help

offset the harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions, presented

Shell Canada with an award in 2008 after Shell planted 1 million

trees in association with Tree Canada.

Shell has also donated funds to the Tree Canada British Columbia

Coast ReLeaf campaign to assist in replanting in locations dam-

aged by windstorms. Shell Canada has contributed more than

78$800,000 to Tree Canada including funding tree replanting in Al-

berta. Shell Oil Co., in association with the LA Conservation Corps

has been responsible for one of the largest tree-planting initiatives

in Southern California.

Shell Eco-marathon

The Shell Eco-Marathon is an

annual competition sponsored

by Shell, in which participants

design, build and test vehicles

to find out who can go the far-

thest distance using the least

fuel. The Eco-Marathon is held

around the world with events

in the UK, Finland, France, Hol-

land, Japan, and the USA. Over

300 North American students

from four high schools and 23u-

niversities participated in the

2008 Shell Eco-marathon Ameri-

cas. 25 vehicles powered by

various energy sources, includ-

ing internal combustion

engine, fuel-cell technology, so-

lar power, diesel engine and liq-

uid gas, competed. According to an articleon the auto123.com

website: “The event began as a wager between scientists. It was

first held in 1939 at a Shell research laboratory in the United States.

The best mileage achieved during that competition? 21 km/l!”

According to an article published by Fox Business News “The 2009

Shell Eco-marathon Americas roster contains 52 teams from nine

high schools and 32 universities from North and South America –

including Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the United States. The Proto-

type entries include 35 vehicles powered by combustion engines,

five by fuel cell/hydrogen technology, three by LPG, three by solar

power, two by diesel fuel, and

one by ethanol gas.” Market-

Watch reported: “The student

team from Laval University,

with an astonishing 2,757.1

miles per gallon, equivalent to

1,172.2 kilometres per liter,

won the grand prize in the

“Prototype” category.”

Shell scenario planning

In the 1970’s, the Shell Group

pioneered the commercial use

of “scenario planning” tech-

niques which involved the crea-

tion of an in-house think-tank

to predict potential future

events, challenge existing as-

sumptions and formulate strat-

egy. According to an article published in March 2009 :“The group,

as a result, was able to plan for shocks such as rapid escalation of

oil prices in the mid-1970s and the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Its

success helped to popularise the techniques at intelligence agencies

such as the CIA.”

79Shell donates US$5 million to Health Promotion Centre in

Brunei

Royal Dutch Shell donated US$5 million to a new Health Promo-

tion Centre in Brunei which was completed in October 2008 and

opened in November by His Majesty, the Sultan of Brunei. The first

of its kind in the Sultanate, it offers a wide range of “innovative

and interactive public

health education tools

and facilities”. The

Brunei Health Minister

was quoted in an article

as saying: “The Minis-

try of Health acknowl-

edges the crucial sup-

port from Royal Dutch

Shell and Brunei Shell

Petroleum for the

Health Promotion Cen-

tre”. The monarch was

shown around

the state-of-the-art fa-

cilities which include

sections covering physi-

cal activities, occupa-

tional health, tobacco control, weight management, nutrition

and hygiene.

Links to related articles are provided on the final pages of this chap-

ter.

80favour of biofuels”. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2009-04-20.

per Shellnews.net. Retrieved on 2009-04-20.

per Shellnews.net. Retrieved on 2009-04-16.

to paradise in search of cheap biofuel” author Danny Fortson

lined “A gamble in Qatar” author Guy Chazan

1 Pearce, Fred (2009-03-26). “Fred Pearce’s Greenwash: Exposing false

11 The Earth Times 18 September 2008 under the headline “Shell and

10 environmental claims”. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2009-04-20.

2 Webb, Tim (2009-03-17). “Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in

favour of biofuels”. The Guardian. Retrieved on 2009-04-20.

3 Moules, Jonathan (2008-08-09). “Business Briefing”. Financial Times

per Shellnews.net. Retrieved on 2009-04-20.

4 “Small Business Digest”. The Sunday Times. 2005-10-16. Retrieved on

2009-04-20.

5 No author (2006-10-26). “Climate change also brings

opportunities”. Financial Times per Shellnews.net. Retrieved on 2009-

04-20.

6 No author (2008-05-06). “Start-ups seek prize pay-off”. Financial Times

per Shellnews.net. Retrieved on 2009-04-20.

7 Carlton, Jim (2008-06-30). “Alternative State”. The Wall Street Journal

per Shellnews.net. Retrieved on 2009-04-16.

8 The Sunday Times 22 March 2009, under the headline “Shell goes

to paradise in search of cheap biofuel” author Danny Fortson

9 Wall Street Journal per Shellnews.net article 8 February 2009 head-

lined “A gamble in Qatar” author Guy Chazan

Business Week article 7 July 2008 headlined “Public-Private Alli-

ances to the Rescue” author Rachael King

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Motiva Contribute $4 million to Recovery Efforts in the Gulf

Coast” no author name indicated

No author name (2008-09-25). “American Red Cross Receives $1 mil-

lion from Shell…”. Reuters. Retrieved on 2009-04-20.

Convenience Store News October 2008 under the headline “Shell,

Redner’s Market Give Back” no author name indicated

Reuters article dated 18 November 2008 headlined “The Salvation

Army Joins 3 Major Motor Oil Brands to Help Others During Holi-

day Season” no author name indicated

Houston Chronicle article 18 January 2009 headlined: “Volunteers

in Houston honoring MLK by helping out”. Author Allan Turner

From Tree Canada website page “History”. No author name.

Reuters article 2 October 2008 headlined: “Tree Canada Awards

Shell, TELUS and Lifford Wine Agency for Their Contributions to

the Environment”.No author name.

Shell Canada website page headed: “Shell and Tree Canada plant

more than 700,000 trees”. No author name.

Convenience Store News article headlined: “Shell Helps City Be-

come Green”. No author name.

auto123.com article dated 16 April 2008 headlined: “Students

break the mileage record set in 2007”. No author name.

auto123.com article 21 October 2008. No author name.

8122 No author name (2009-03-27). “This Spring”. Fox News per

Shellnews.net. Retrieved on 2009-04-18.

23 No author name (2009-04-19).

[http://www.shellnews.net/wikipedia/19April2009MarketWatch.pdf

“2,757.1 MPG Achieved at 2009 Shell Eco-marathon

24 Americas”]. MarketWatch per Shellnews.net. Retrieved on 2009-04-19.

25 Financial Times per Shellnews.net article dated 9 March 2009

headlined “Senior Lib Dems ‘auction for power’”. Author Alex

Barker.

26 Ishak, Amie PDH (2008-11-14). “Royal Check on Health

Centre”. Borneo Bulletin. Retrieved on 2009-04-17.

27 No author name (2008-11-14). “HM Visits State-Of-The-Art Health

Promotion Centre”. Borneo Bulletin. Retrieved on 2009-04-17.

82CHAPTER 6

Years out-of-date Wikipedia article: royaldutchshellplc.com

This chapter contains the content of the Wikipedia article royaldutchshellplc.com as it appeared on 30

April 2009. The Wikipedia article displayed at the time of publication of this ebook is a disgrace in

terms of censorship and being years out-of-date. As of 23 March 2017, my father was still shown as

being an operator of the website. In fact, he passed away in 2013, as reported in The Guardian.

83royaldutchshellplc.com is a gripe site operated by 92 year old Al-

fred Donovan and his 62 year old son John Donovan, which is criti-

cal of Royal Dutch Shell. On 11 June

2007, Ed Crooks of the Financial Times

described it as “an anti-Shell website

run by a father and son partnership

that has been a long-running thorn in

the companys side.” On 25 January

2008, Carl Mortished, World Business

Editor of The Times newspaper wrote

an article headlined: ”Shell chief fears

oil shortage in seven years” in which he

described the site as an independent

website that monitors the company.

During the course of a long feud be-

tween the Donovan’s and Shell, oil in-

dustry observers have speculated that

the Donovan’s thwarted a Shell Texaco

merger and cost Shell billions of

pounds sterling in respect of its

Sakhalin-2 project in Russia.

Background to legal battles with Shell

The Donovans owned a chain of petrol

stations in East London and Essex and

created many sales promotion cam-

paigns. In 1981, the Donovans devised

a promotional game scheme for Royal

Dutch Shell called Make Money. Be-

cause the promotion was successful, many other Shell promo-

tional campaigns followed, including a £4.5 million Mastermind

TV Series themed game; a scratch card game, “Shell Make

Merry“, offering £2.5 million in Har-

rods food prizes; a playing card

themed promotion, “Bruce’s Lucky

Deal”, endorsed by UK TV celebrity

Bruce Forsyth and in 1991, a £4.5 mil-

lion Every Card Can Win scratch card

game with a Star Trek theme.

In an article published by Marketing

Magazine in September 1986, under the

headline “Games people play“, Shell

was identified as “perhaps the biggest

user of games”. The article went on to

say in reference to Shell, “All its recent

games have involved Don Marketing”.

John Donovan was shown in a photo-

graph holding aloft posters for the

Shell Singapore Make Money game.

The business relationship which oper-

ated on an international basis, floun-

dered after Shell appointed a new Na-

tional Promotions manager in 1992 to

whom the Donovans promotional

ideas were disclosed on a confidential

basis. In 1994, the Donovans issued a

Writ against Shell in respect of a

follow-up Make Money promotion

claiming breach of confidence and

breach of contract. The Donovans ac-

cepted a £60,000 settlement but continued to pursue legal claims

84over a Shell Nintendo scratch off game and a film themed collector

game called Now Showing. The further Writ was issued in Octo-

ber 1994. Shell settled both claims in October 1996. During the

course of the litigation, the Donovans founded the Shell Corporate

Conscience Pressure Group and what may have been the worlds

first “gripe” websites. Shell referred to the Donovan’s internet activ-

ity in a [1] press statement issued on 17 March 1995.

An article published on

11 June 1998 by The

Daily Telegraph under

the headline of “Dono-

van’s beef with Shell

on-line” reported that

“Donovan is publicising

his gripes on two elabo-

rate and colourful inter-

net websites,

don-marketing.com

and

shell-

ened to sue any business which joined the SMART scheme and

also threatened related legal action against Shells UK petrol sta-

tions. According to a report in The Sunday Telegraph Shell Legal

Director, Richard Wiseman, denied allegations made by Donovan

against Shell and said that he was misguided and had been

wrongly encouraged by Shells previous payments. Donovan al-

leged that Shell had used an undercover agent, Christopher Phil-

lips, in the run up to the

trial. According to The

Sunday Telegraph re-

port Shells lawyers ad-

mitted that they hired

Mr Phillips, but only to

carry out routine credit

inquiries.[1]

An article published in

the July-August 1999

edition of “Incentive To-

day” under the head-

line “Don and Shell

shareholders.org”.

On 23 April 1998, Mar-

keting Week magazine

published an article un-

der the headline: “High Court papers unveil ‘secret’ Shell writ

losses.” Coverage spread over a number of pages detailed three

previous claims settled by Shell. In June 1999, a High Court trial

commenced in respect of the new claim by John Donovan against

Shell, this time relating to a loyalty programme utilising smart card

technology for a multi-retailer scheme by Shell. The legal costs

were estimated to be over a million pounds. Donovan also threat-

end Smart row” re-

ported that both parties

had issued a joint state-

ment announcing that

John Donovan had aban-

doned his claim against Shell. The article went on to discuss indus-

try speculation that the Donovan litigation had been a barrier to a

merger between Shell and Texaco. Shell had already signed a

‘Memorandum of Understanding‘ with Texaco but the merger

never took place and in October 2000, Texaco instead agreed to a

“$100 BILLION MERGER” with Chevron Corporation, one of

Shell’s rivals.

85According to an article published in February 2007 by Prospect

magazine referring to the same “Smart” settlement, “Shell agreed

to settle out of court, paying the Donovans a sum “in the thou-

sands” as part of a “peace treaty” stipulating that neither party

speak about the matter in future”. The article quotes Donovan as

alleging that Shell subsequently broke the “peace treaty”.[2]

Alfred Donovan and John Donovan are both retired from commer-

cial activities. Their former company, Don Market-

ing, ceased trading several years ago. Their web-

sites are all non-commercial; do not seek or ac-

cept donations, offer all services without charge,

and carry no advertising.

Appeals to Shell shareholders, Shell employees,

and the public

Royaldutchshellplc.com was described in an arti-

cle published in February 2007 by Prospect maga-

zine in the following terms: “The Donovan web-

site has become an open wound for Shell”. It has

been used to publish appeals on behalf of a num-

ber of parties who wanted to reach Shell share-

holders and/or Shell employees, or the public e.g.

■ An appeal for support by Friends of the Earth in the Nether-

lands was posted on the royaldutchshell.com website from 20

December 2006 for a campaign entitled shelladvert.org.[3]

Royaldutchshellplc.com is also used to publish information by the

National Union of Ogoni Students (NUOS) “an independent, non-

profit entity that functions as the students unit of the Movement

for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP).” A letter from

NUOS to President Olusegun Obasanjo of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria was published on 17 December 2006. It demanded that the

license granted Shell Oil to operate in Ogoni should be revoked.

The following is an extract from the letter “the worlds’ most impov-

erished people inhabiting one of the world’s wealthiest span of

land. This irony ridiculously fed by succeeding governments of Ni-

geria and Shell Oil Company is unacceptable.” [4] Shell has unsuc-

cessfully attempted to promote a reconciliation process with the

Ogoni which would allow Shell to recommence

oil production in Ogoniland.[5]

Connection with Shell Sakhalin-II project

Moves by the Russian government in relation to

environmental issues concerning the Royal Dutch

Shell led Sakhalin-II project in eastern Russia cre-

ated an international furor, with representations

made to President Vladimir Putin by Prime Min-

ister Tony Blair and many other heads of govern-

ment. On 18 October 2006, the Donovan’s pub-

lished an article confirming they had for some

time been supplying information to the Russian

government relating to Sakhalin II. Information

in the form of Shell internal emails and Shell insider comments,

posted on Royaldutchshellplc.com, were passed by the Donovan’s

to Oleg Mitvol, the Deputy Head of Rosprirodnadzor, the Russian

Environmental Agency.

In November 2006, Oleg Mitvol confirmed in an interview pub-

lished in This Week in Argus FSU Energy that the evidence on

which a prosecution against Sakhalin Energy claiming $10 billion

in damages was being mounted, was supplied by John Donovan of

86royaldutchshellplc.com. Mr Mitvol was quoted as saying: “Who

will take Sakhalin Energy to court? I will take them. I have docu-

ments proving that the Sakhalin Energy management was aware

that the company violated technical standards, but carried on try-

ing to meet project deadlines and refused to stop work. I am confi-

dent of winning my case in Stockholm. What documents are these?

Where are they from? I have email correspondence between execu-

tives in Sakhalin Energy management from 2002. I received these

letters from John Donovan, owner of the anti-Shell website

www.royaldutchshellplc.com.”[2]

The Russian energy company Gazprom controlled by the Russian

government subsequently

obtained a majority hold-

ing in the Sakhalin-II pro-

ject. A further report of

the supply of evidence by

John Donovan to Mitvol

was published on 13 No-

vember 2006 by John-

son’s Russia List sourced

Davis Center for Russian Studies at Harvard, the author of

“Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia.”

Sakhalin-II evidence submitted by the WWF to a House of Com-

mons Select Committee in June 2008

In 2008 the Worldwide Fund for Nature submitted evidence to the

Environmental Audit Select Committee of the House of Commons

of the United Kingdom. The published minutes of evidence in-

cluded reference to an article entitled: The Sakhalin-2 whistle-

blower warnings which proved to be 100% correct. The article

authored by John Donovan was published on the website

royaldutchshellplc.com

on 6 January 2006.

The evidence put before

the House of Commons

Select Committee by the

WWF in a Memorandum

from Interfax. According to an article published by

Upstreamonline.com on 20 March 2008, under the headline “Shell

reserves on a steady course”, Shell lost 402 boe – barrels of oil

equivalent – as a consequence of “the sale of half its stake in the

$20 billion Sakhalin 2 project”.

An article published by The Boston Globe on 23 August 2008 said

“Shell Oil was forced to yield control of its operations off Sakhalin

Island in exchange for a payment of $7.4 billion from state-

dominated Gazprom.” It went on to say “Most outside analysts es-

timate that Shell’s share was worth $15 billion to $17 billion.” The

article was written by Marshall I. Goldman, senior scholar at the

dated 20 June 2008 said:

Allegations have been

made by a whistleblower of inappropriate relationships between

SEIC management and its contractors, in particular Starstroi and

its subcontractor SU4. A link to the article in question (item 22) was

printed at the foot of the Memorandum.

A link to Annexe II was contained in the Minutes of Evidence relat-

ing to oral evidence taken by the Environmental Audit Committee

on 8 July 2008. Annexe II contained the same allegations with a

link to same article. The information and link was also published

as part of: “Uncorrected Evidence published by Hansard Ar-

chives Research House of Commons and House of Lords Publica-

tion Committees.”

87Recommended by Fortune magazine for information about

Royal Dutch Shell plc

On 2 August 2006,

CNNMoney.com pub-

lished a feature from For-

The article stated that “The memo was leaked to the website

www.royaldutchshellplc.com, which has long been a thorn in Shell

s side. Shell confirmed the e-mail was genuine but was reluctant to

discuss it further”. The article quoted extensively from the memo.

The entire content of the

leaked memo was pub-

lished by the FT on the

same date. The FT also

conducted a separate on-

line poll asking the ques-

tion: “Is this the worst

tune magazine recom-

mending books and web-

sites focused on the

world’s top five compa-

nies, as ranked in the

“Fortune Global 500”. A

company website with a

corresponding website

critical of the companys

activities was featured for each multinational. For Royal Dutch

Shell, listed as number 3 in the rankings, Shell’s portal website

shell.com was cited along with royaldutchshellplc.com

Financial Times

says website has

long been a thorn

in Shells side

On 6 June 2007,

the Financial Times published a front page article under the head-

line: “Pipeliners All! Shells memo to Sakhalin

The article was about a leaked motivational memo in the form of

an email from David Greer, the Deputy Chief Executive of Sakhalin

Energy, the company in which Shell is a shareholder and former

owner. The email was circulated to Sakhalin-2 staff.

motivational memo

ever?”

One passage in the moti-

vational memo was so

striking that Time Magazine published it in their Quotes of the

Day feature on 6 June 2007: “So Lead me, Follow me or Get out of

my way; Success is how we bounce when we are on the bottom”.

A keen eyed FT

reader noticed

that inspira-

tional passages

were appropri-

ated from a fa-

mous speech given by the legendary U.S. General George S Pat-

ton, on 5 June 1944 on the eve of D-Day the Sixth of June. On 7

June 2007, a quarter page follow-up article was published in the Fi-

nancial Times newspaper and on the FT.com website, under the

headline: “Sakhalin motivational memo borrows heavily from

Patton.

88On 9 June 2007, The Moscow Times published a front page article

under the heading: Sakhalin Pep Talk From ‘Old Blood and Guts’.

The article said: Greer’s memo, which was leaked to an anti-Shell

web site, Royaldutchshellplc.com, appears to show the pressure

that he and his fellow managers have been under, as it talks of “the

risk of becoming a team that doesn’t want to fight and lacks confi-

dence in its own ability.” The Moscow Times article contained

forthright comments by the Russian environmental watchdog,

Oleg Mitvol, about the email.

On Monday 11 June 2007, the Financial Times published a further

article on the subject this time

headlined: Motivational

memos must make their mes-

sage clear. One of the opening

paragraphs stated: The memo

(www.ft.com/shell) is crass,

poorly punctuated and most

of it wasn’t even written by its

author, David Greer, deputy

chief executive of Royal

Dutch Shell’s Sakhalin Energy

Investment Company. He had lifted the words of General George

S. Patton with no attribution, and clumsily adapted them to spur

on his team of recalcitrant pipeline engineers.

On Friday 22 June 2007, The Moscow Times published a front

page story with the headline: “Sakhalin Energy’s Greer Steps

Down”. The article revealed that “A motivational e-mail written by

Greer to staff working on the project, originally leaked to an anti-

Shell web site, Royaldutchshellplc.com, was the subject of a front-

page story in the Financial Times earlier this month.” It went on to

say “David Greer, the Sakhalin Energy deputy CEO running the gi-

ant Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project, has left the company unexpect-

edly just weeks after a leaked e-mail he wrote revealed the pres-

sure that managers working there were facing”. The article said

that Greer had been a 27-year Shell veteran and was leaving to pur-

sue other business interests.

A gripe site can have a profound impact on global organisations

An “Accountability in Action” [2] published in July 2007 by the

One World Trust, an independent research organisation associated

with the UK legislature and the United Nations, said: “As The

Royal Dutch Shell plc web-

site shows, a gripe site can

have a profound impact on

global organisations”. The

newsletter went on to say:

“The site has not only cost

Shell billions of dollars in

Russia… “even Shell insiders

unhappy with the company

use it”. The article also said:

“Royaldutchshellplc.com is

just one of many examples of how the Internet makes it possible

for concerned individuals to initiate discussion about global organi-

sations, post and share information about organisational actions

and their impact, and provide a common forum for affected stake-

holders. At the very least, gripe sites such as this have a valuable

watchdog function and remind global companies of the power of

public opinion thus forcing them to confront weaknesses in their

own accountability”. Email correspondence in August 2007 be-

tween Royal Dutch Shell Plc and the owners of the website provide

evidence of the unusual involvement by the website in the day-to-

day functioning of the company.

89Shell rattled and put on the back foot by joint Campbell/

Donovan safety campaign

On 1 September 2007, the Daily Mail newspaper published an arti-

cle about a Shell employee safety

campaign conducted jointly by

royaldutchshellplc.com and the

former Group Auditor of Shell In-

ternational, Mr Bill Campbell. The

article headlined “Shell on back-

Reuters describes royaldutchshellplc.com as “unofficial company

Web site”

On 4 September 2007, Reuters published an article by Tom Bergin

headlined: “Shell loses exec on

foot as ‘gripe site’ alleges safety

concerns” said: ROYAL Dutch

Shell is getting rattled by a gripe

site that alleges there are safety

problems with its North Sea oil

platforms.” The article revealed

An internal Shell email admits the

firm has been thrown on the back

foot because of claims put forward

on the Royaldutchshellplc.com

website.

It went on to say Campbell has

emailed hundreds of MPs alleging

Shell hasnt yet properly tackled

health and safety failings. The arti-

cle featured a number of quotes

from Shell internal emails reveal-

ing a state of uncertainty at Shell

about how to deal with the allega-

tions. One stated: As it stands were on the back foot and our aim

should be to develop a strategy (or options) that puts us in a more

positive and secure position.

troubled Kazakh project-source.”

The article said that a Royal Dutch

Shell Plc executive “working on

Kashagan, a project under pres-

sure from the Kazakh govern-

ment for being over budget and

behind schedule, has quit, com-

pany sources told an unofficial

company Web site.” The article

went on to say that “John Dono-

van, who runs a Web site critical

of Shell and acts as a conduit for

whistleblowers at the company,

said Shell insiders had told him

that John Stubbs, a senior project

manager on Kashagan, had left

the Anglo-Dutch oil major.”

Sunday Telegraph article about

“Online revolutionaries”

On 9 September 2007, the Sunday

Telegraph published an article by

Juliette Garside under the head-

line: “Online revolutionaries.” The

opening sentence said: “Revolutions used to happen in the streets

– these days they take place online. And the targets are more often

big businesses than bad governments.” The article included a sec-

90tion about Royaldutchshellplc.com and its owners, “Alfred Dono-

van, now in his 90s, and his son John.” The article went on to say:

“Their site became a hub for activists and disgruntled former em-

ployees. It has been used to mobilise support for environmental

campaigns by the likes of WWF, the environmental lobbying

group, against drilling in the Arctic and Russia, for groups wor-

ried about Shells social impact in Ireland and Nigeria, and by the

companys former group auditor Bill Campbell to raise issues about

employee safety.”

Essential reading for anyone

who covers Shell

On 12 September 2007, an arti-

cle was published on the Pros-

pect Magazine website by a

regular contributor, Derek

Brower, who is also the senior

correspondent of Petroleum

Economist. Under the headline

Shells Colchester headache,

Brower reminded readers that

In Prospects February issue, I

reported on John and Alfred

Donovan, two men with a com-

bined age of 150 years in a house in Colchester who have been try-

ing relentlessly to prick holes in one of the worlds biggest compa-

nies, Shell. They seem to be succeeding. Their website has become

essential reading for anyone who covers Shell and the energy sec-

tor more broadly. It gets up to 4.6m hits a month. Brewer went on

to report that the Donovans have found another ruse to annoy

Shell: the Data Protection Act (DPA) and that So far, the company

has surrendered two large folders, including an article about them

by a director, a press release about them that the men claim is de-

famatory, and much else.

The article also said that Shell has not released under the DPA a

copy of an email about them from Shells senior lawyer to the Chief

Executive Officer of Royal Dutch Shell, Jeroen van der Veer and

was paying the law firm Simmons & Simmons to handle their

DPA requests. It also reported that The company triedand failedto

have their website closed down and revealed The Donovans say

they have received CVs, busi-

ness proposals, and even a ter-

rorist threat sent to them: all

were intended for Shell. (They

kindly forwarded them on.)

The last sentence in the article

said: As journalists and disgrun-

tled employees have realised, if

you want to know whats up at

one of the worlds biggest com-

paniesor just want a good

moan about the latest oil spill

start with

www.royaldutchshellplc.com.

The Times reports Royal

Dutch Shell at war with the Donovan family

On 22 September 2007, The Times newspaper reported “Since the

1990s, Royal Dutch Shell has been at war with a family who regis-

tered a website, royaldutchshellplc.com. The Donovan family, led

by 90-year-old Burma veteran Alfred, perhaps quixotically want

Shell to change its management.” The article said that Shell had

“failed to shut down the site” which had attracted Shell job applica-

91tions and even a terrorist threat “all of which are dutifully passed

on to the company.” The article went on to say “there are signs that

Shell is developing a sense of humour. A recent letter from general

counsel there suggests that a truly alternative solution for all those

people inadvertently contacting you is for you to choose a website

and e-mail address without the word Shell in it.

BBC Essex interviews John Dono-

van

On 11 October 2007, BBC Essex pre-

senter Etholle George interviewed

John Donovan concerning the web-

site royaldutchshellplc.com. The in-

terview was introduced as being

“the story of a high tech David and Goliath battle

of the modern age.” Etholle George asked ques-

tions about the websites Live Chat feature saying

“Ive got it up on my screen at the moment

there are currently 32 people who are engaged in

conversation on your website absolutely fascinat-

ing.” She later asked who the people were. The

overall thrust of the questioning was that John

Donovan must be obsessed to devote so much time

to the website.

Nikkei BP says The fate of Sakhalin 2 was

changed by two British men

On 12 November 2007, leading Japanese business

magazine Nikkei BP published an internet article

about the Donovans and their website,

royaldutchshellplc.com under the headline: “Gripe sites are becom-

ing more powerful”. It said The fate of Sakhalin 2 was changed by

two British men, described as a 90-year-old man and his son a ref-

erence to Alfred Donovan and his son John. The author of the arti-

cle, Ryo Kuroki, a Japanese novelist, said that he had recently vis-

ited them at their home in Colchester Essex, a town located in the

South East of the UK. The article revealed that Alfred had fought

against the Japanese army in the Burmese front as a communica-

tions officer.

The article went on to say that in

October 2005 Donovans contacted

Russian President Vladimir Putin

through the Presidents website

(The site has a function to send E-

mail to the president). The purpose

was to provide the president with

insider information on the cost overrun of Sakhalin

2 project. It also mentioned the approach made to

Oleg Mitvol, deputy head of Russias environ-

mental watchdog Rosprirodnadzor and the later

confirmation from Mitvol in his interview with Ar-

gus Media that the Russian side used the informa-

tion provided by Donovans in negotiations with

project sponsors of Sakhalin-II.

Ethiopian Jimma Times mentions website in arti-

cle about Shell lawsuit

On 17 December 2007, an Ethiopian newspaper,

the Jimma Times, published an internet article un-

der the headline ETHIOPIAN Employees accuse

Shell of raiding retirement fund reporting that A

litigation was brought against Shell by a trade union representing

90% of its Ethiopian employees. It went on to reveal that

92www.royaldutchshellplc.com had published an article about the

story and in reference to the website said: The organization says its

objective is to persuade Shell management to stand by the Shell

Statement of General Business Principles pledging among other

things, honesty, integrity and transparency in all of its dealings.

Insider leaks news to

RoyalDutchShellplc.com of

thousands of IT job cuts at

Shell

On 21 December 2007, Reuters

published a news story with

the headline: “Shell to cut thou-

sands of IT jobs”. The article re-

ported that Shell is going to out-

source a substantial part of its

information technology opera-

tions with the intention of cut-

ting costs “in a measure that

may result in thousands of job

losses”. The article said “One

employee told the Shell protest

website

RoyalDutchShellPlc.com that

3,200 jobs could be lost, but the

spokeswoman declined to con-

firm the numbers.” It went on

to say that an internal Shell email had been supplied to the website

which listed the IT outsourcing companies in final talks with Shell

on taking on different aspects of the business.

ITPro reported that news of Shell’s outsourcing plans came to light

via an internal company email forwarded to an unofficial site dedi-

cated to providing news and insider information about Shell”. The

article said: Shell hasn’t yet put out an official announcement

about its final IT outsourcing plans, but Michiel Brandjes, the com-

pany’s secretary has responded

to an email he received from

the site where the rumours sur-

faced. “The email is authentic,”

he said in an email”. Mr Brand-

jes was also quoted as saying:

“It is not a matter of a leak

though. He said information

about Shells plans had been in

the public domain for some

time.

According to a related article

by Benoit Faucon of Dow

Jones Newswires published

on 24 December by

CNNMoney.com, the IT job

cuts could improve the credibil-

ity of Peter Voser, the Chief Fi-

nancial Officer of Royal Dutch

Shell Plc, to take over as Chief

Executive of the company

when the current CEO, Jeroen

van der Veer, retires in June 2009. A Shell spokesperson was

quoted as in the article as saying; “We are in the middle of commer-

cial conversations and expect contracts to be signed early in 2008 –

at which point we will share more details.” The article went on to

say “The talks were first reported on the Web site

93royaldutchshellplc.com, which is critical of the

company. That report said thousands of jobs –

among staff or contractors – could be cut as re-

sult.”

The Times describes site as an independent

website that monitors the company

On 25 January 2008, Carl Mortished, World Busi-

ness Editor of The Times newspaper wrote an

article headlined: Shell chief fears oil shortage in

seven years in which he described the site as an

independent website that monitors the com-

pany.

The article revealed that Jeroen van der Veer,

Shells chief executive had stated in an e-mail

sent to Shell employees and reported on the

royaldutchshellplc.com website, that output of

conventional oil and gas was close to peaking.

In the leaked email, van der Veer stated: Shell

estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-

access oil and gas will no longer keep up with

demand. This was an important acknowledge-

ment of a pending Peak Oil crisis. It was subse-

quently picked up by many other publications

because of its global significance.

The Wall Street Journal says website regularly

used by Shell whistleblowers

On 18 March 2008, The Wall Street Journal pub-

lished an article headlined Shell Addresses Out-

put Issue”. The report by Guy Chazan indicated

Shell had attempted to dampen concerns over

its petroleum reserves but had declined to give

an indication of production in the short term, in-

dicating that output will increase after 2010. The

article went on to say that Shell CEO Jeroen van

der Veer had acknowledged the company’s

share-price performance had lagged behind al-

most all its main rivals over past three years, an

outcome Mr van der Veer said was a “disap-

pointment.” The expression of his disappoint-

ment was contained in a memo sent by Mr. van

der Veer to staff. The article said: A copy was

given to royaldutchshellplc.com, a Web site regu-

larly used by Shell whistleblowers. The memo

revealed that Shell came in fourth out of five oil

majors in terms of total shareholder return over

the last three years, which measures share price

growth and dividend payments. It said Shell

lagged Exxon Mobil Corp, Chevron Corpora-

tion, and Total SA of France, though it was

ahead of British major BP PLC. Although Mr.

van der Veer had called the outcome a “disap-

pointment,” he noted Shell’s business results

over the last three years were “strong.”

royaldutchshellplc.com articles featured on

Thomson Reuters website

From April 2008,Thomson Reuters, “the world’s

largest international multimedia news agency”,

has provided links on articles published on their

website to related articles published on

94royaldutchshellplc.com. Many of the linked [3] articles relate to

Royal Dutch Shell and other oil companies such as ExxonMobil,

BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.

Letter leaked to royaldutchshellplc.com reveals 40% deficit in

Shell Dutch pension fund

news hits Shell share value

The Financial Times pub-

lished an article on 12 De-

cember 2008 under the head-

line: Shell pension scheme

value falls 40%. The article

deficit would have no effect on current pension payments, but

could affect whether workers pensions kept pace with future infla-

tion.

was based on a letter pub-

lished by

royaldutchshellplc.com, a

website used to air com-

plaints against Shell. The

Shell letter to employees an-

nounced investments in

Royal Dutch Shells Nether-

lands pension fund had

fallen by 40% since the start

of 2008 and as a consequence

had fallen short of the Dutch

regulatory minimum. The FT article indicated that the fund would

need within 3 years billions of pounds to comply with Dutch regu-

lations.

The article went on to say that although measure being taken will

only affect Dutch pension scheme members, the financing will

have an effect on Shell, which is listed in London. Shell confirmed

to the FT that the fund had fallen into deficit and indicated, the

Reuters published an article on the same day covering the same

news story under the head-

line: Shell pension under-

funded, contributions rise.

It reported that Royal Dutch

Shell Plc’s’ Dutch pension

fund has fallen into deficit as

share market turmoil

knocked 40 percent off the

fund’s value, forcing the oil

major and employees to in-

crease contributions. The arti-

cle stated: “Shell’s pension

fund has commissioned a re-

port to establish if its long-

term strategy needs chang-

ing and will submit a recov-

ery plan to the Dutch Central

Bank, which is also the coun-

try’s pension regulator, next

year.” The article also said:

‘”A full copy of the letter is published on activist website

royaldutchshellplc.com.’” The Reuters syndicated article was pub-

lished by several news organisations including the International

Herald Tribune.

The following day, 13 December 2008, The Times published an arti-

cle covering the economic downturn which said “Royal Dutch

Shell A fell 49p to £17.50 after reports that its Dutch pension fund

95has fallen into deficit, with stock market turmoil knocking 40 per

cent off its value.”

An article about a Bernard Madoff alleged fraud published by The

Times on 18 December 2008, under the headline “Allegations in

America pose threat to UK funds” stated: “The pension fund oper-

ated by the Netherlands branch of Royal Dutch Shell said that it

had a $45 million ex-

posure to the alleged

fraud. The fund,

which manages the

retirement savings of

thousands of Shell

workers, is in deficit.”

Series of Reuters arti-

cles based on Shell

insider information

and internal emails leaked to

royaldutchshellplc.com

On 30 January 2009 Reuters

published an article under the headline: Shell gets tough on costs

as oil prices bite.

It reported that because of a collapse in oil prices Shell had intensi-

fied its cost-cutting and also planned to improve its mixed safety

record. Shells head of Exploration and Production Malcolm

Brinded told employees in an email seen by Reuters that staff had

to make tough choices. A Shell spokesman had confirmed to

Reuters that the emails, from Brinded and Royal Dutch Shell Chief

Executive Jeroen van der Veer were genuine.

The article said: Copies of the emails are available at

www.royaldutchshellplc.com. Brinded demanded real action on

cost cutting: Shed contractor staff, challenge requirements, elimi-

nate consultancy work, reduce travel massively, cut overheads eve-

rywhere, he said.” Addressing safety issues, Brinded said Shell had

a “dreadful start” to this year after 10 contractors and one third

party were killed in three incidents. The email from Jeroen van der

Veer said the com-

pany was intensifying

its efforts on safety.

The article was pub-

lished by London

Stock Exchange Plc

and a number of news

organisations, includ-

ing the International

Herald Tribune.

On 9 February 2009, Reuters

published an article under

the headline: INTERVIEW-

Shell eyes Mid East growth,

to cut some jobs A Reuters interview with Raoul Restucci, Shell’s

head of exploration and production for the Middle East, on the sub-

ject of job cuts, resulted from leaked Shell insider information

when employees posted comments on Shell protest website

royaldutchshellplc.com saying up to half the jobs at the Dubai op-

eration could go. The article also referred to the late January email

from Malcolm Brinded urging sharp spending cuts. The article was

also published by a number of news organisations, including

GuardianOnline.

96On 12 February 2009, Reuters published an article under the head-

line: Shell to stall hires, and get “ruthless” on contractors The arti-

cle revealed the content of an email sent on behalf of Chris Haynes,

Vice President Technical, Shell Exploration and Production. The

content was in line with the cost-cutting drive detailed in the ear-

lier leaked Shell internal emails, this time including the instruction

to “Ruthlessly review third parties costs … Review necessity of con-

tract staff as contracts expire, renew by exception only.” Shell de-

clined to comment on the email. Reuters said: A copy of the email

is available on Shell protest site

royaldutchshellplc.com to

which Shell employees often

post comments. The article was

published by many news

sources, including the Interna-

tional Herald Trib-

Web site. Feeling aggrieved by treatment from the oil giant Shell,

they created their site under the company’s name,

www.royaldutchshellplc.com. It strives, on a daily basis, to expose

Shell’s underside through research, investigation and leaks from

inside Shell, which earned $35 billion in 2008. It went on to say in

reference to the website: Our David has already given Goliath

with its 100,000 employees and business in 140 countries the PR

equivalent of two black eyes.”

une.

American newspaper

describes

royaldutchshellplc.com as world’s most effective adversarial web

site

On 7 February 2009, an American newspaper, the Santa Barbara

News-Press, published an article by Robert Eringer under the

headline: Gripe sites are all the rage now The article, as indicated

by the headline, dealt with the subject of gripe websites. It said: Al-

fred and John Donovan, a father and son in Colchester, England,

several years ago established the world’s most effective adversarial

Legal action by Shell relating to

website

Due to an oversight, the man-

agement of the Royal Dutch

Shell Group had not registered

the dotcom name for

the new company

which resulted from

the unification in

2005, of The “Shell”

Transport and Trad-

ing Company Plc

and the Royal Dutch

Petroleum Company

Limited. The domain

name had already been registered by Alfred Donovan, who ex-

ploited a loophole which allows an online critic to legally use a dot-

com domain name identical to a target company’s name or trade-

mark. To fall within this category, the gripe site must be non-

commercial, with no subscriptions and no paid advertising. To

avoid being considered a cybersquatter the domain name and asso-

ciated website must be active, with no attempt made to sell the do-

main name, especially to the company holding rights to the corre-

97sponding trademark or company name. Shell unsuccessfully at-

tempted to obtain via WIPO proceedings,

ownership of this address and two other

Donovan owned domain names:

royaldutchshellgroup.com and

shellnews.net.[6][7][8][9]

Eight Royal Dutch Shell Group compa-

nies collectively obtained in June 2004 an

Interim Injunction and Restraining Or-

der against a Shell whistleblower, a Ma-

laysian geologist and former Shell em-

ployee, Dr John Huong, in respect of al-

leged defamatory postings attributed to

Dr Huong on the Donovan website. The

Shell action is directed solely against Dr

Huong. Further proceedings against Dr

Huong were issued by the same plain-

tiff companies in 2006 in respect of publi-

cations on the Donovan website in 2005

and 2006. The further proceedings in-

clude a “Notice to Show Cause” relating

to a “contempt of court” action poten-

tially punishable by imprisonment. Nu-

merous proceedings have been issued

by Shell in connection with the on-going

litigation.

On 6 August 2007, Mr Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary and

General Counsel Corporate of Royal

Dutch Shell Plc notified then 90 year old

Alfred Donovan that the Shell plaintiff

companies had “on compassionate

grounds” waived the right to cross exam-

ine him in relation to an affidavit he had

supplied in the Dr Huong case.

98# # # 1 1 Sunday Telegraph report (6 June 1999).

2 2 Rise of the gripe site Prospect magazine, February 2007

3 3 Appeal for support

4 Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria

5 5 Shell dialogue dead says mosop

6 6 Times Online report mentioning the case

7 7 News.com article

8 8 Press statement issued by Shell (17 March 1995).

9 9 CNN Executive bookmark

The current Wikipedia article royaldutchshellplc.com

References

Sunday Telegraph report (6 June 1999).

Rise of the gripe site Prospect magazine, February 2007

Appeal for support

Letter from National Union of Ogoni students to President

Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria

Shell dialogue dead says mosop

Times Online report mentioning the case

News.com article

Press statement issued by Shell (17 March 1995).

CNN Executive bookmark

External links

▪# http://www.royaldutchshellplc.com

▪# http://shellnews.net

▪# http://shell2004.com/

WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE FROM 2009 ENDS

It has been edited almost to oblivion and is also hopelessly out of

date. For example, my father is still shown as the joint owner when

in fact he passed away in July 2013. Accurate information sup-

ported by evidence from reputable independent third party

sources including The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,

The Times, The Telegraph, Dow Jones Newswires and Reuters has

been deleted by mainly anonymous editors.

The laundering process has been very helpful to Royal Dutch Shell.

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.

30 November 2023: Posted by John Donovan

The content below is sourced from current verifiable customer reviews of Shell Energy published on Trustpilot.
Extremely slow broadband for 10 months, not fixed. I have had slow broadband well below the guaranteed speed for 10 months and Shell Energy have not been able to fix it. They have tried sending about 4 or 5 engineers but have not fixed the problem. Gurps, who I have been dealing with most recently, has been friendly and polite, alth… Read more

Extremely Slow Shell Broadband

Like this:

Introducing... Shelldon!

JOE LYCETT DISCUSSES SHELL WITH JOHN DONOVAN

Meta

John Donovan’s ebooks

JOHN DONOVAN TV DOCUMENTARY INTERVIEW

SHELL EXECUTIVES AT THE CENTER OF A SCHEME TO STEAL $1.3 BILLION FROM NIGERIA’S PEOPLE

SHELL ADMITS DEALING WITH NIGERIAN MONEY LAUNDERER – BBC NEWS

SHELL, ENI AND NIGERIAN OFFICIALS IN OPL 245 CORRUPTION SCANDAL

INVESTIGATION OF OPL 245 NIGERIAN OIL CORRUPTION SCANDAL

DUTCH EARTHQUAKES CAUSED BY SHELL/EXXON

SHELL KILLS FOR OIL IN NIGERIA

SHELL LIED ABOUT CLEANING UP OIL IN NIGER DELTA

SHELL SPIES INFILTRATED NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT

LEGO DROPS SHELL OVER GREENPEACE OIL SPILL VIDEO

SHELL ARCTIC DRILLING ACCIDENTS

SHELL KNEW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE DECADES AGO

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL FOUNDER SIR HENRI DETERDING, NAZI FINANCIER

JOHN DONOVAN PROMOTIONAL GAMES FOR SHELL AND OTHER CLIENTS

Archives

SHELL OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT OF THIS WEBSITE

Recent Comments

Critic’s corner

The worst ever

30 November 2023: Posted by John Donovan

The content below is sourced from current verifiable customer reviews of Shell Energy published on Trustpilot.

The worst ever

Broadband Service is Appalling

OVER 500 EXTERNAL PUBLICATIONS CITING OUR SHELL WEBSITES

DISCLAIMER

Categories

SHELL PROPPED UP APARTHEID

SHELL TOXIC BRANDS

Share this:

Like this:

Introducing... Shelldon!

JOE LYCETT DISCUSSES SHELL WITH JOHN DONOVAN

Meta

John Donovan’s ebooks

JOHN DONOVAN TV DOCUMENTARY INTERVIEW

SHELL EXECUTIVES AT THE CENTER OF A SCHEME TO STEAL $1.3 BILLION FROM NIGERIA’S PEOPLE

SHELL ADMITS DEALING WITH NIGERIAN MONEY LAUNDERER – BBC NEWS

SHELL, ENI AND NIGERIAN OFFICIALS IN OPL 245 CORRUPTION SCANDAL

INVESTIGATION OF OPL 245 NIGERIAN OIL CORRUPTION SCANDAL

DUTCH EARTHQUAKES CAUSED BY SHELL/EXXON

SHELL KILLS FOR OIL IN NIGERIA

SHELL LIED ABOUT CLEANING UP OIL IN NIGER DELTA

SHELL SPIES INFILTRATED NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT

LEGO DROPS SHELL OVER GREENPEACE OIL SPILL VIDEO

SHELL ARCTIC DRILLING ACCIDENTS

SHELL KNEW ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE DECADES AGO

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL FOUNDER SIR HENRI DETERDING, NAZI FINANCIER

JOHN DONOVAN PROMOTIONAL GAMES FOR SHELL AND OTHER CLIENTS

Archives

SHELL OFFICIAL ENDORSEMENT OF THIS WEBSITE

Recent Comments

Critic’s corner

The worst ever

30 November 2023: Posted by John Donovan

The content below is sourced from current verifiable customer reviews of Shell Energy published on Trustpilot.

The worst ever

Broadband Service is Appalling

OVER 500 EXTERNAL PUBLICATIONS CITING OUR SHELL WEBSITES

DISCLAIMER

Categories

SHELL PROPPED UP APARTHEID

SHELL TOXIC BRANDS

Royal Dutch Shell plc .com Cookies Policy