THE SHELL LEAKS FILES
SLF-2007-019
The Sakhalin Papers IX: The Story Shell Tried to “Kill” — An Unpublished Sunday Times Investigation and the Surviving Paper Trail
Archive Reference: SLF-2007-019
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Evidence Standard: Authenticated Shell documents, contemporaneous reporting, formal legal correspondence and statutory material. No court determination is relied upon in this instalment.
Introduction
On Friday 2 February 2007, an internal Shell email circulated under the subject line “Donovan – Sunday Times.”
The message reported that The Sunday Times had picked up a story from the Donovan website concerning leaked Sakhalin and drilling emails. Shell’s Group media office was preparing agreed questions and answers previously used with The Guardian.
Before deploying that response, however, Shell was attempting something more direct.
The email stated that the media team was:
“first trying to kill the story by pointing out that it is old news”
The author added that there was only a “slim chance” this would work.
The wording is unusually candid. It establishes that Shell knew a national newspaper was preparing a Sakhalin-related article based partly on material published by John and Alfred Donovan, and that Shell’s initial media strategy was to persuade the newspaper that the story did not merit publication.
What the document does not establish is equally important.
It does not prove that Shell caused the article to be abandoned. It does not reveal what representations Shell made to the newspaper. Nor does it explain the editorial decision ultimately taken inside The Sunday Times.
What survives is a partial but significant documentary trail.
1. The Shell Email
The 2 February email records four specific facts:
- The Sunday Times had picked up a Sakhalin and drilling story from the Donovan website.
- Shell had prepared questions and answers already used in responding to The Guardian.
- Shell’s media operation was attempting to prevent publication by characterising the material as old news.
- Shell did not intend to comment on John Donovan or his website.
The word “kill” was Shell’s own.
In media-relations terminology, attempting to “kill” a story can mean persuading a journalist or editor that it is inaccurate, stale, insufficiently important or otherwise unworthy of publication. The expression alone does not demonstrate illegality, intimidation or improper interference.
It does, however, describe the desired outcome with complete clarity: Shell wanted the article stopped.
2. Shell Expected Publication the Following Morning
A further internal Shell email dated 3 February 2007 said that The Sunday Times now appeared likely to publish a story the next day about “Donovan and Sakhalin.”
The same message noted that Sakhalin Energy and Shell were arranging a breakfast briefing for important Russian media representatives on the Monday.
This follow-up is important because it shows that Shell’s internal assessment changed rapidly.
On Friday afternoon, the media office believed there was only a slim prospect of killing the article.
By Saturday morning, Shell personnel were being warned that publication on Sunday appeared likely.
The documentary record therefore supports the conclusion that the proposed article had moved beyond a speculative inquiry. Shell was preparing for its imminent appearance.
No published version of that particular investigation has been identified.
3. The Story Behind the Proposed Story
The planned article emerged during a period when the Donovan website’s involvement in the Sakhalin controversy was already being reported elsewhere.
On 8 January 2007, Business New Europe published “Shell gets stuck in a Sakhalin blog-mire.” Its report discussed John and Alfred Donovan, the Shell-focused website and information supplied to Oleg Mitvol, then deputy head of Russia’s environmental watchdog, Rosprirodnadzor.
The article reported that Mitvol had described possessing email correspondence between Sakhalin Energy executives dating from 2002 and had identified Donovan as the source of the material.
This does not validate every claim subsequently made about the effect of the documents.
It does establish that, before The Sunday Times became involved, the relationship between the Donovan archive, leaked Shell material and the Russian environmental investigation was already a matter of contemporaneous journalistic interest.
The proposed Sunday newspaper article was therefore not appearing in a vacuum.
It formed part of a wider international story about:
- leaked corporate communications;
- environmental allegations;
- the role of Oleg Mitvol;
- the Gazprom takeover;
- and the unusual position of a privately operated website within an international energy dispute.
4. John Donovan’s Account of the Missing Draft
When the Shell email became public in July 2007, John Donovan published his account of what had happened.
He stated that Sunday Times journalist Steven Swinford had read the proposed article to him by telephone on the morning of 3 February 2007, shortly before it was expected to be prepared for the following day’s newspaper.
According to Donovan’s account, the draft was framed around the theme of “ultimate revenge,” discussed the financial consequences to Shell of losing control of Sakhalin-2 and contained comments attributed to Oleg Mitvol.
These details must be classified correctly.
They are John Donovan’s contemporaneous account of an unpublished draft, not the surviving text of the draft itself.
The present archive does not contain:
- a manuscript supplied by The Sunday Times;
- a page proof;
- an editorial memorandum explaining why publication was cancelled;
- or independent confirmation of every passage Donovan recalled.
The account is relevant evidence because it was published relatively close to the events and identifies the journalist, date and alleged contents. It cannot be treated as equivalent to possessing the original article.
5. What Shell’s Document Proves
The authenticated Shell correspondence permits several firm conclusions.
First, The Sunday Times was actively examining a story concerning Donovan, Sakhalin and leaked emails.
Second, Shell’s Group media office had become involved and was preparing a coordinated response.
Third, Shell intended initially to argue that the material was old news in an attempt to “kill” the article.
Fourth, Shell personnel believed on 3 February that publication remained likely the following morning.
The document does not prove:
- that Shell made a legal threat;
- that Shell supplied misleading information;
- that an editor yielded to corporate pressure;
- that the article was cancelled at Shell’s request;
- or that the unpublished draft’s financial conclusions were correct.
The distinction matters.
The evidence establishes strategy and expectation, but not causation.
6. The 2010 Subject-Access Request
Three years later, John Donovan attempted to obtain information relating to the unpublished article through a subject-access request under the Data Protection Act 1998.
On 17 May 2010, the Legal Department of Times Newspapers Limited replied.
The letter stated that the request had been discussed with:
- Steven Swinford;
- Danny Fortson;
- their editors;
- and the Managing Editor of The Sunday Times.
It then said:
“We have given the matter much thought but are unwilling to provide the information you request”
Times Newspapers relied upon section 32 of the Data Protection Act 1998.
The response is significant, but its significance should not be exaggerated.
It does not confirm the contents of the proposed article. It does not disclose why the article failed to appear. It does not expressly state that a complete draft remained in the newspaper’s possession.
Equally, the newspaper did not respond simply by saying that it held no relevant material.
Instead, after consultation involving the journalists, editors and Managing Editor, its Legal Department relied upon a statutory exemption from disclosure.
7. What Section 32 Meant
Section 32 of the 1998 Act concerned personal data processed for journalism, literature and art.
In broad terms, the exemption applied where material was being processed with a view to publication, the data controller reasonably believed publication would be in the public interest, and compliance with the relevant data-protection obligation was considered incompatible with the journalistic purpose.
The Legal Department’s reliance on section 32 represented the newspaper’s legal position.
It was not a judicial ruling that every statutory requirement had been satisfied, because no court adjudication on the request is cited here.
Nor does the exemption itself explain the editorial history of the proposed Sakhalin article.
It simply prevented the subject-access request from opening the newspaper’s files.
8. The Missing Explanation
The central historical question remains unresolved:
Why did the article not appear?
Several possibilities can exist whenever a newspaper abandons a proposed investigation:
- facts may remain insufficiently verified;
- legal advice may identify unacceptable risk;
- an editor may decide the story is not sufficiently new;
- space may be required for more urgent news;
- sources may alter or withdraw their evidence;
- or representations from the subject of the article may affect the editorial assessment.
The surviving Shell email establishes that the company intended to advance the “old news” argument.
It does not establish that The Sunday Times accepted that argument or that it was decisive.
A responsible archive must resist filling documentary gaps with assumptions, however tempting the surrounding circumstances may appear.
9. Documentary Fact and Commentary
Documentary fact
Shell’s own internal correspondence says its media office was trying to kill the proposed story by presenting it as old news.
Shell believed publication remained likely on the morning before the expected Sunday edition.
Times Newspapers subsequently refused to disclose requested information after consulting the journalists, their editors and the Managing Editor.
Unverified or incomplete material
The full proposed article has not been produced.
Its exact wording and evidential basis cannot presently be independently examined.
The reason for non-publication remains undocumented in the material available for this instalment.
Commentary
The episode illustrates how a leaked document can preserve a corporate response that would otherwise have remained invisible.
Without the Shell email, the historical record would contain only an unpublished newspaper investigation and the recollection of one participant.
With the email, it becomes possible to establish that Shell knew about the story, coordinated its response and explicitly hoped to prevent publication.
That remains historically important even though the ultimate editorial decision cannot be reconstructed.
10. An Irony Preserved by the Archive
Shell’s proposed argument was that the leaked-email story was already old news.
Yet the internal message recording that strategy later became newsworthy evidence in its own right.
The attempt to manage the story generated another document.
That document was subsequently disclosed.
Its language—particularly the instruction to try to “kill” the article—survived long after the unpublished newspaper draft disappeared from view.
This is one of the recurring themes of The Shell Leaks Files:
Corporate communications written to contain reputational risk can themselves become part of the historical record.
Related Archive Files
- SLF-2007-011 — The Sakhalin Papers I: How Internal Documents Became Geopolitical History
- SLF-2007-012 — The Sakhalin Papers II: The Cost Escalation That Changed Everything
- SLF-2007-013 — The Sakhalin Papers III: Environmental Inspections, Regulatory Pressure and the Battle for Control
- SLF-2007-014 — The Sakhalin Papers IV: Behind Closed Doors — Internal Communications During the Crisis
- SLF-2007-015 — The Sakhalin Papers V: The Gazprom Agreement — How Control of Sakhalin-2 Changed Hands
- SLF-2007-016 — The Sakhalin Papers VI: After the Deal — “Pipeliners All!” and the Internal Record of Shell’s Response
- SLF-2007-017 — The Sakhalin Papers VII: The Whistleblower Warnings
- SLF-2007-018 — The Sakhalin Papers VIII: The Memo, the Whistleblower and the Parliamentary Record
Sources
- Authenticated Shell internal email, “Donovan – Sunday Times,” 2 February 2007, reproduced in the supplied archival file.
- Shell internal follow-up email, 3 February 2007, reporting that publication appeared likely the following day.
- Times Newspapers Limited Legal Department letter to John Donovan, 17 May 2010.
- Data Protection Act 1998, section 32, official enacted text.
- Business New Europe, “Shell gets stuck in a Sakhalin blog-mire,” 8 January 2007.
- John Donovan’s published account of the proposed Sunday Times article, 16 July 2007.
Next Archive File
SLF-2007-020 — The Sakhalin Papers X: The Letter to Putin — A Warning Sent Before the Crisis Reached Its Climax
The next instalment will examine Alfred Donovan’s letter of 25 November 2005 to President Vladimir Putin, warning of Sakhalin-2 cost escalation, citing confidential Shell sources and concluding:
“With this letter I have now done all I can reasonably do to warn the Russian Government.”
The document predates the 2006 struggle over control of Sakhalin-2 and raises a precise historical question: what information was being sent directly to Moscow before Shell’s position on the project fundamentally changed?
