Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

The postings on Live Chat

By John Donovan

Reply to the Live Chat poster on 15 August who has used various User designations.

His main thrust (assuming it is a he) is that by making a claim that our website has cost Shell $50 billion, we have lost all credibility.

The problem for the individual making the assertion is that we have never made any such claim. It is not a misrepresentation or a distortion, but an outright untruth.

We invite anyone to point out where we have made such a claim.

Perhaps he got mixed up with the bribe offered to Oleg Mitvol? That involved a “fifty”.

What we said is that this website has cost Shell billions and we stand by that claim. This description was used by a petroluem/Russia expert and was published by Prospect Magazine in their February 2007 edition. Other publications have used the same phrase without any challenge by Shell.

When we used higher figures in the recent article “90 YR OLD WEBSITE WARRIOR COSTS ROYAL DUTCH SHELL BILLIONS” it was in the precise context given i.e.

“Shell later announced a consequential downgrading of its reserves by 400,000 barrels. At a cost of say $70 dollars per barrel, that amounted to a revenue loss of $28 billion USD. If the price of oil reaches $100 dollars per barrel by Christmas, as some oil analysts predict, the loss will be $40 billion”.

After posting using different guest names to create the impression that he had support from another visitor, the Live Chat poster registered a User Name of “Royal Dutch Shell” and posted many comments using that name, in one implying that he had access to our internal website files. This was an outright deception designed to cause concern to other users. He now has the cheek to ask me to apologise for saying that he put abusive postings on Live Chat. It that was not abuse, I do not know what is. I did not say or imply, as he falsely claims, that he is foul-mouthed internet hacker. That is another deceit.

This was one of his postings: –

I have been big enough to not mock you for the fact that you are banning people from using names that are close to the brand name you stole…for risk of “confusing” people, you should be big enough to admit that you attacked immediately when you saw the username and made up a lie about abusive postings, to justify deleting polite, non-offensive postings. I even checked the spellings.

This is an example of his idea of what is polite conversation. Apparently he does not consider accusing someone of telling lies and stealing property to be abusive.

We have made no allegations about the people mentioned in his postings other than Malcolm Brinded and we have the documentary evidence to back up our allegations in his case. Does anyone think that Brinded would not have sued us by now unless he knew that we can prove everything we have said about him.

We do not know if Shell is behind the underhand moves made today. We do know because a Shell General Counsel has confirmed it, that Shell recently made surreptitious moves to close this site and succeeded briefly.

With regards to the question about our security/monitoring, we have no intention of revealing any such information, especially to someone who deliberately and maliciously gave the impression that they had hacked into this website. and its sister websites,,,,, and are all owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia article.

0 Comments on “The postings on Live Chat”

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: