THE SHELL LEAKS FILES
SLF-2007-034
The Sakhalin Papers XXIV: “A Sakhalin Pseudo Exposé” — Shell’s Internal Response to the May 2007 Contractor Allegations
A false sender name, a real Shell investigation of authorship, detailed Starstroi claims — and a pipeline forecast that deserves to be tested separately from the accusations
Archive reference: SLF-2007-034
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal record: Shell internal correspondence of 11 May 2007 concerning an email falsely attributed to Sakhalin Energy Deputy CEO David Greer; subsequent whistleblower material published 14 May 2007
Supporting record: Shell DPA-disclosed correspondence; Sakhalin Energy Annual Review 2004; contemporaneous Oil & Gas Journal and Reuters reporting; Royal Dutch Shell and shareholder regulatory filings; later Sakhalin Energy operational milestones; Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin)
Evidence standard: The false attribution to David Greer is established. Shell’s internal reaction is established from its own correspondence. The underlying contractor, procurement, bribery, commercial and quality-control claims remain allegations unless independently corroborated. Accuracy of a technical forecast does not authenticate unrelated accusations.
Introduction
At 08:36 on Friday 11 May 2007, Alfred Donovan sent Shell Exploration & Production General Counsel Keith Ruddock an email that presented an immediate authentication problem.
The message contained a lengthy account of alleged problems inside the Sakhalin II onshore pipeline project.
Its apparent author was David Greer.
That mattered.
Greer was not an anonymous engineer or disgruntled subcontractor. He was Sakhalin Energy’s Deputy Chief Executive and Project Director.
If the material had genuinely come from him, it would have amounted to an extraordinary internal indictment of the project he was helping to run.
Donovan therefore did something crucial before publication.
He asked Shell.
He told Ruddock that if Shell categorically stated the message was a hoax, he would act accordingly. (Shell News)
Within hours, Shell answered.
And on the most immediate question, Shell was right.
David Greer had not written the email.
But that did not answer the second question:
Was the information inside it false too?
That distinction lies at the heart of this archive file.
1. 08:36 — Shell Is Asked to Authenticate the Message
The original email from Alfred Donovan to Keith Ruddock survives within the Shell correspondence later disclosed under the Data Protection Act.
It records that an email had been received purporting to come from David Greer.
Donovan said he was already checking aspects of the material with Shell contacts and expressly invited Shell to comment before publication.
Most importantly, he offered a clear safeguard: if Shell categorically said the email was a hoax, publication would be reconsidered. (Shell News)
This was not an insignificant procedural detail.
The source had supplied a real executive’s identity.
That required authentication.
Shell was in the best position to perform it.
2. Inside Shell, the Material Became a “Sakhalin Pseudo Exposé”
At 13:02 on 11 May, the issue was being discussed internally.
A Shell email later disclosed through the Data Protection Act described the Donovan campaign, referred to the earlier North Sea safety dispute and characterised the new Sakhalin material as a:
“Sakhalin pseudo expose.”
The writer believed the supposed Greer authorship was clearly false and urged a rapid response. The same email said it was important for Shell and Sakhalin Energy to prepare a measured response to the allegations themselves. (Shell News)
That internal wording is significant.
Shell was treating two questions separately.
One was authorship.
The other was substance.
The first could be checked quickly by contacting Greer.
The second required engagement with Sakhalin Energy and the underlying allegations.
3. 14:01 — Ruddock Says the Email Is Probably a Forgery
At 14:01, Ruddock replied.
He said Shell considered it very unlikely that Greer had sent the message but had not yet managed to reach him because of the time difference with Sakhalin Island.
Ruddock asked Donovan to wait before proceeding further. (Shell News)
Seven minutes later, Ruddock strongly recommended removal of the website reference to the purported Greer email pending confirmation.
At 14:12, Donovan replied that this had already been done and that none of the email’s substantive content had been published. (Shell News)
That chronology deserves recording because it establishes actual conduct rather than later recollection.
Shell raised the authentication problem.
Publication was held.
4. 14:23 — Greer Denies Authorship
At 14:23, Ruddock returned with the definitive answer.
He had contacted Greer.
Greer confirmed that:
“this email did not come from him.” (Shell News)
That point is established.
The sender had used David Greer’s identity without authority.
Whatever the source knew about Sakhalin II, the source was not entitled to present the material as Greer’s email.
There is no need for interpretation.
On authorship, Shell’s authentication process worked.
5. The Source Then Admitted Using a Pseudonym
The later published record shows that the sender acknowledged the deception.
The source described the choice of Greer’s name as a pseudonym and argued that the information should stand or fall according to its factual accuracy rather than the identity used to transmit it. (Royal Dutch Shell Group .com)
That explanation does not cure the problem.
Using the identity of a real senior executive was an obvious credibility defect.
It created unnecessary confusion.
It risked misleading recipients.
And it forced the publisher to spend time establishing something that should never have been misrepresented in the first place.
For this archive, the conclusion is straightforward:
The claimed Greer authorship was false.
But false authorship and false content are not automatically the same thing.
The substantive assertions therefore have to be tested independently.
6. Publication Came With an Explicit Warning
The material was eventually published on 14 May 2007.
The introduction did not present the source as authenticated.
Quite the reverse.
It stated that the information contained serious allegations, that the source was unknown, that Greer had denied authorship and that Shell regarded the original email as a forgery.
It also said that none of the Shell contacts consulted had confirmed the truth of the accusations and warned readers to approach the material with caution. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
That is important when assessing the historical publication.
The article did not say:
This is David Greer’s account.
By publication, that proposition had been withdrawn.
Nor did it say:
These allegations have been proved.
It explicitly said the opposite.
7. What the Source Alleged
The source’s account was extensive.
It alleged financial stress within Starstroi, Sakhalin Energy’s principal onshore pipeline contractor.
It alleged that subcontractors had experienced payment difficulties.
It described conflict between Starstroi’s constituent commercial interests.
It alleged that Sakhalin Energy was preparing a contract amendment under which Starstroi would receive substantially expanded reimbursement.
It accused project personnel of manipulating descriptions used to obtain financial authority.
It alleged inappropriate supplier relationships and weak procurement controls.
It alleged poor record keeping.
It alleged quality-control deficiencies and breaches of Russian environmental and regulatory requirements.
And it claimed the project was being pushed toward an unrealistic timetable. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
Those propositions are not of equal evidential quality.
Some basic project facts can be checked.
Some later events can be compared with the source’s predictions.
The allegations of dishonesty, bribery, conflicted relationships and deliberate manipulation require much stronger evidence.
8. The First Basic Fact Checks Out: Starstroi Really Was the Pipeline Contractor
The source identified Starstroi as the principal contractor for the onshore pipeline.
That basic proposition is independently established.
Sakhalin Energy’s own 2004 annual material states that the engineering, procurement and construction contract for the onshore pipeline system was being executed by Starstroi. (Sakhalin Energy)
Contemporaneous Oil & Gas Journal reporting likewise described a Starstroi-led consortium constructing the two onshore oil and gas pipeline systems under a contract valued at about $1.2 billion. (Oil & Gas Journal)
The source therefore knew the identity and basic role of the relevant contractor.
That is evidence of project familiarity.
It is not evidence of corruption.
9. The Scale of the Contracting Relationship Was Enormous
The onshore system was not a peripheral construction package.
It involved roughly 800 kilometres of route across Sakhalin Island, with separate oil and gas pipeline systems connecting northern production facilities to southern export infrastructure.
Earlier industry reporting had expected the major pipeline work to be completed substantially sooner than ultimately occurred. (Oil & Gas Journal)
By May 2007, therefore, any commercial difficulty involving the principal onshore contractor had potentially significant consequences for the overall project schedule.
That makes the subject matter plausible as something a genuine project insider might know about.
Again, plausibility is not proof.
10. The Gazprom Change of Control Was Also Real — and Extremely Recent
The whistleblower’s account repeatedly referred to Gazprom’s entry into Sakhalin Energy and alleged that this altered the internal commercial dynamic.
The corporate event itself is firmly established.
On 18 April 2007, only three weeks before the disputed email, the transaction implementing Gazprom’s acquisition of 50 per cent plus one share of Sakhalin Energy was completed.
Shell’s interest fell from 55 per cent to 27.5 per cent.
Shell’s regulatory filing records a sale price to Shell of approximately $4.1 billion, while the total transaction involving the existing shareholders was valued at $7.45 billion.
The source’s narrative therefore arose during a genuine and profound governance transition.
What is not established is the source’s stronger claim that Shell personnel were racing to lock in a particular contractor arrangement before Gazprom could challenge it.
That requires evidence of decision-making and intent not supplied by the simple fact of Gazprom’s arrival.
11. The Alleged Contract Amendment Is the Critical Missing Document
The source made a particularly specific claim.
It said Sakhalin Energy was finalising a contract amendment with Starstroi.
According to the source, the proposed arrangement would reimburse future costs on terms substantially more favourable to the contractor and would contain additional financial inducements designed to ensure continuation of the work. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
On 13 May, the source went further.
It stated that the amendment had not yet been signed and named Shell personnel said to be involved in finalising or administering the proposed arrangement. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
That degree of specificity makes the claim historically interesting.
But the archive presently lacks the document that would settle it.
No authenticated copy of the alleged Starstroi amendment has been located for this instalment.
No executed agreement has been produced showing the precise reimbursement formula alleged.
No Tender Board approval paper has been located establishing that false descriptions were used.
No audit finding examined here concludes that Shell deliberately misrepresented costs to obtain shareholder authority.
Consequently, the contract-amendment accusation remains unverified.
12. The Source’s Language About Bribery Went Far Beyond the Evidence
The whistleblower used serious language.
The proposed payment arrangement was compared with an inducement and the source raised the possibility that analogous conduct toward a Russian official might be viewed as bribery. (Shell News)
That comparison cannot be treated as a finding.
A commercial renegotiation with a contractor is not a bribe merely because it makes continued performance financially attractive.
Large distressed construction contracts are frequently amended.
Contractors submit claims.
Clients negotiate.
Costs change.
Risk is reallocated.
Additional payments can be commercially justified.
To establish corruption would require evidence of an improper purpose or improper benefit.
The documents examined here do not supply that evidence.
No court, regulator or arbitral tribunal located for this file has found that the alleged Starstroi amendment constituted bribery.
13. The Source Also Alleged Manipulation of the Tender Process
The account alleged that descriptions and supporting material were being reframed or fabricated to obtain Tender Board approval.
It further suggested that supply-chain costs were being manipulated and that some supplier relationships involved conflicts. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
These are allegations of dishonesty.
They require more than an anonymous narrative.
The documentary record examined here does not contain the relevant tender submissions, internal approvals, competing bids, ownership registers, payment records or an independent forensic audit.
There is therefore no proper basis to elevate those claims beyond allegation.
The source may have known the project.
That does not mean every conclusion drawn by the source was correct.
14. But the Environmental and Regulatory Backdrop Was Very Real
Where the source discussed environmental and regulatory difficulty, it was operating against a well-documented background.
During 2006, Russian regulators subjected Sakhalin II to intense scrutiny.
Reuters reported concerns involving deforestation, damage to rivers, sedimentation and the possibility of pipeline damage associated with unstable terrain. Russian Natural Resources Minister Yuri Trutnev said the project could continue while a substantial environmental investigation proceeded. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
Oil & Gas Journal separately reported Russian regulator Oleg Mitvol alleging that part of the pipeline had been built without proper authorisation, along with concerns over river crossings and mudslides. (Oil & Gas Journal)
Russian reporting later said prosecutors had identified more than 100 legal violations during inspection of the project, including damage to salmon-spawning rivers and unauthorised tree cutting. (РИА Новости)
Shell strongly disputed the broader characterisation of its environmental record and argued that political pressure was entangled with the regulatory campaign. Reuters at the time reported Shell saying it had nothing to hide concerning its environmental performance. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
So the source did not invent the existence of serious environmental controversy.
The controversy was already public.
That does not independently prove the source’s specific allegations.
15. River Crossings Were Already a Matter of British Parliamentary Concern
The pipeline crossed an extraordinary number of watercourses.
By June and July 2006, MPs were already asking detailed questions in the House of Commons about Sakhalin II river crossings, construction seasons, salmon habitat and monitoring by prospective lenders.
Government answers recorded that the project was being monitored by bodies including the Export Credits Guarantee Department and environmental consultants acting for prospective lenders. (Hansard)
This is useful context for evaluating the May 2007 source.
When the source raised river-crossing permits, erosion protection, water-protection zones and quality assurance, those were not fantastical subjects detached from known project problems.
They were subjects already under regulatory, governmental and NGO scrutiny.
Whether the source’s individual examples were accurate still requires separate proof.
16. The Source Made an Exceptionally Specific Schedule Forecast
Then comes the most interesting part of the May material.
On 14 May 2007, the source stated that if the pipeline were completed properly while observing the necessary quality-control and quality-assurance constraints, the construction phase would finish in August 2008.
The source alleged that this date was unacceptable to management and that corners would therefore be cut to accelerate the programme. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
The corner-cutting allegation is unproved.
The date, however, is testable.
And subsequent events make it difficult to dismiss the source as someone with no understanding of the project schedule.
17. August 2008 Was Much Closer to Reality Than the Original Programme
The onshore pipeline was not ready for the intended year-round oil operation in 2007.
It was still being completed and commissioned well into 2008.
In November 2008, contemporary reporting said construction of the 800-kilometre oil pipeline had finally been completed and that filling of the system had begun. (Energy Intelligence)
On 12 December 2008, Sakhalin Energy commenced year-round oil export using the new TransSakhalin system. (WebWire)
Shell’s subsequent SEC filing records that year-round oil exports began in December 2008 and that Sakhalin Energy completed the main construction of its facilities at the end of that year.
The anonymous source’s August 2008 construction estimate was not exact.
But it was directionally remarkable.
In May 2007, the source said proper completion pushed the pipeline into 2008.
In reality, pipeline construction reached its decisive completion milestone in November 2008 and year-round oil operations began in December.
18. That Does Not Prove the Corner-Cutting Allegation
The distinction is the same one established elsewhere in The Shell Leaks Files.
A source can make an accurate schedule forecast and still be wrong about why the schedule was under pressure.
The subsequent delay supports the proposition that 2008 was a realistic completion horizon.
It does not prove that management consciously decided to sacrifice quality.
It does not prove that inspections were suppressed.
It does not prove that work was deliberately accepted without adequate supervision.
It does not prove that bonuses caused safety compromises.
And it certainly does not prove that any later pipeline problem resulted from the conduct alleged in May 2007.
Those propositions require their own evidence.
19. The Source’s False Identity and Technical Knowledge Can Coexist
This is perhaps the most difficult evidential feature of the file.
The sender behaved deceptively.
That is not disputed.
Using David Greer’s name was improper and seriously damaged the source’s credibility.
But the source also knew a significant amount of accurate contextual information.
Starstroi really was the principal onshore pipeline contractor.
Gazprom really had just acquired control.
The project really was under severe environmental and regulatory pressure.
River crossings really were being scrutinised.
The construction programme really did extend deep into 2008.
And the source’s schedule assessment was substantially closer to the eventual operational reality than an assumption of successful year-round production in 2007. (Sakhalin Energy)
That combination prevents a simplistic verdict.
The source was not reliable merely because some facts were right.
Nor can the material be dismissed merely because the sender lied about being Greer.
Each proposition has to be assessed separately.
20. What Shell’s Internal Email Tells Us
The 11 May internal Shell correspondence is valuable because it records Shell’s immediate reaction before the later public controversy.
The writer regarded the supposed Greer authorship as false.
That judgment proved correct.
The writer also viewed the proposed publication as a hostile “pseudo exposé.”
But the same email did not simply say:
Everything in it is false.
Instead, it urged the relevant Shell and Sakhalin Energy personnel to produce a measured response to the allegations. (Shell News)
That wording must not be overinterpreted.
It does not mean Shell accepted any allegation.
It shows that the company recognised a distinction between defeating the false attribution and dealing with the substance.
21. No Substantive Shell Rebuttal Has Been Located for the Published 14 May Allegations
The published 14 May article records that senior Shell figures had been supplied with the material in advance and had not supplied a substantive comment for publication. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
That silence cannot properly be treated as an admission.
Shell may have considered the source too unreliable to merit detailed engagement.
It may have preferred not to litigate anonymous allegations publicly.
Later internal Shell correspondence shows that this became an explicit communications strategy in relation to other Sakhalin claims.
Or substantive review may have taken place internally without surviving in the documents available to this archive.
The correct historical conclusion is therefore limited:
No substantive Shell rebuttal to the individual 14 May allegations has been located in the materials examined here.
Not:
Shell admitted they were true.
22. Nor Does the Absence of an Injunction Prove Anything
The original article asked whether Shell’s decision not to seek an injunction had significance. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
With hindsight, that question should be answered cautiously.
A company may decide not to seek an injunction for many reasons.
It may believe the legal threshold will not be met.
It may wish to avoid publicity.
It may consider the material sufficiently caveated.
It may regard the source as inherently discredited.
It may prefer a later damages remedy.
Or it may simply conclude that litigation would amplify the story.
No inference of truth should be drawn merely from the absence of court proceedings.
23. The High Court Case Did Not Determine These Allegations
Sakhalin II subsequently became the subject of important English litigation concerning government transparency.
In Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin), Mr Justice Mitting considered disclosure of interdepartmental government information relating to proposed UK export-credit support for the project.
The judgment recorded the scale of Sakhalin II, Shell’s earlier majority role, Gazprom’s later 50 per cent interest, proposed support of approximately $650 million and major environmental concerns. (vLex)
The court dismissed ECGD’s appeal concerning disclosure.
But the judgment made no finding on the May 2007 Starstroi allegations.
It did not adjudicate the supposed contract amendment.
It did not determine whether procurement material was fabricated.
It did not determine whether any person received an improper benefit.
It did not determine whether quality-control records were suppressed.
The court record therefore supplies institutional context, not proof of the whistleblower claims.
24. The DPA Disclosure Later Gave the Internal Reaction Strong Provenance
There is another reason this episode matters to the archive.
The internal Shell email describing the planned article as a “Sakhalin pseudo exposé” subsequently appeared among material supplied through the Data Protection Act process.
The July 2007 Donovan publication reproduced the 11 May Shell email as part of the newly disclosed internal correspondence. (Royal Dutch Shell Group .com)
That establishes a stronger provenance for Shell’s internal reaction than would exist if the document had simply appeared anonymously.
As always, authentication of the email establishes what Shell personnel wrote.
It does not establish whether their assessment of the allegations was correct.
25. The Source Should Neither Be Sanitised Nor Dismissed
A rigorous archive has to preserve inconvenient facts on both sides.
For the publisher, the inconvenient fact is that the source falsely used David Greer’s name.
That deserves no euphemism.
For Shell, the inconvenient fact is that some of the source’s underlying project knowledge appears to have been genuine and the 2008 schedule warning was materially closer to what eventually happened than an on-time 2007 completion assumption.
Neither fact cancels the other.
The source damaged credibility through deception.
The subsequent project record nevertheless makes parts of the material worthy of continued examination.
That is precisely why evidence has to be separated proposition by proposition.
Documentary Findings
Established
On 11 May 2007, Alfred Donovan sent Keith Ruddock material purporting to come from David Greer and asked Shell to authenticate it before publication. (Shell News)
Ruddock investigated.
At 14:23, he confirmed that Greer had said the email did not come from him. (Shell News)
The source subsequently admitted using Greer’s identity as a pseudonym. (Royal Dutch Shell Group .com)
Before the authentication issue was resolved, substantive content from the disputed email was withheld. (Shell News)
An internal Shell email described the developing article as a “Sakhalin pseudo expose” and called for a measured response from Shell and Sakhalin Energy. (Shell News)
The resulting 14 May article explicitly warned that the source was unknown, the allegations were unverified and Greer had denied authorship. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
Starstroi was genuinely the EPC contractor for the onshore pipeline system. (Sakhalin Energy)
Gazprom genuinely acquired 50 per cent plus one share of Sakhalin Energy in April 2007, reducing Shell’s interest to 27.5 per cent.
Environmental and regulatory problems surrounding the onshore pipeline were already the subject of Russian regulatory action, international reporting and Parliamentary scrutiny. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
The source predicted in May 2007 that properly completing the pipeline would push construction into 2008.
The pipeline system was in fact still being completed in late 2008, with construction of the principal oil pipeline reported complete in November and year-round oil exports beginning in December. (Energy Intelligence)
Supported in broad outline but not proved in detail
The source demonstrated familiarity with the contractor structure, project transition, environmental controversy and schedule pressure.
The forecast that pipeline construction would extend substantially into 2008 is supported by the subsequent operational record.
The source’s concerns regarding permits, river crossings and environmental compliance arose in an area where independent regulators had already documented serious issues.
None of those matters independently proves the source’s particular allegations concerning individual acts or motives.
Not established
It is not established that Starstroi’s financial arrangements were improperly altered.
It is not established that Sakhalin Energy agreed to pay every Starstroi cost regardless of contractual entitlement.
It is not established that Tender Board submissions were fabricated.
It is not established that procurement costs were deliberately manipulated.
It is not established that supplier relationships identified by the source represented prohibited conflicts of interest.
It is not established that David Greer had an improper relationship with Transavto or another supplier.
It is not established that Shell personnel deliberately accepted unsafe or non-conforming pipeline work to accelerate completion.
It is not established that employee bonuses caused quality or environmental rules to be ignored.
It is not established that the alleged Starstroi contract amendment constituted bribery or another unlawful inducement.
And no court judgment located for this file establishes those accusations.
Commentary
This may be one of the most useful Sakhalin files for understanding why whistleblower evidence is difficult.
The easy reaction is binary.
The sender lied about being David Greer.
Therefore throw everything away.
Or:
Some of the technical information later looked accurate.
Therefore believe everything.
Neither approach is defensible.
The false identity matters enormously.
A source who impersonates a real executive creates a problem not only for the subject of the allegations but for the publisher.
It introduces deception at the beginning of the evidential chain.
That should permanently affect how the source is assessed.
But it does not make the laws of engineering change.
A pipeline completion forecast can still be tested against a calendar.
A contractor’s identity can still be checked against corporate records.
An ownership transition can still be checked against SEC filings.
Regulatory concerns can still be checked against contemporary government action.
And specific allegations of dishonesty can still be rejected as unproved when the necessary evidence is absent.
That is what this file does.
Shell was correct about Greer.
The email was not his.
The publisher was correct to stop and check.
The source later admitted the pseudonym.
But once the false attribution was stripped away, there remained a technically detailed set of allegations concerning a real contractor on a real troubled project at a real moment of profound governance change.
One prediction within that material is particularly difficult to ignore.
In May 2007, the source said proper pipeline construction extended into 2008.
The pipeline was finally reported complete in November 2008.
Year-round oil followed in December.
That does not vindicate an accusation of bribery.
It does not prove manipulated tenders.
It does not prove suppressed inspection reports.
It does suggest that whoever wrote the material knew something meaningful about the state of the pipeline programme.
The proper conclusion is therefore neither exoneration nor condemnation.
It is classification.
False identity: established.
Detailed project knowledge: substantially demonstrated.
2008 schedule forecast: supported by subsequent events.
Serious commercial and corruption allegations: unproved.
That is a much less dramatic conclusion than declaring the entire message either a hoax or a revelation.
It is also considerably harder to challenge.
Source Record
The principal authentication record is Shell’s own 11 May 2007 correspondence between Alfred Donovan and Keith Ruddock. The surviving documents record the initial request for verification, Ruddock’s interim view that the purported Greer email was probably forged, the temporary withholding of publication and Ruddock’s eventual confirmation that Greer denied authorship. (Shell News)
The internal corporate response is preserved in a separate 11 May 2007 Shell email, subsequently reproduced from the DPA material, describing the proposed publication as a “Sakhalin pseudo expose” and urging a measured response from Shell and Sakhalin Energy. (Shell News)
The principal contemporaneous publication is “Are these astonishing allegations about the Sakhalin-2 project true or false?”, dated 14 May 2007. It records the false Greer attribution, the source’s admission of using a pseudonym, the publication warnings and the detailed Starstroi, commercial, procurement, environmental and quality-control allegations. (Royal Dutch Shell Group .com)
Starstroi’s actual project role is independently established by Sakhalin Energy’s own 2004 reporting and contemporary industry coverage. (Sakhalin Energy)
The April 2007 ownership transition is independently established by Shell and shareholder regulatory filings recording Gazprom’s acquisition of 50 per cent plus one share and Shell’s reduction to 27.5 per cent.
The environmental and regulatory backdrop is independently documented by Reuters, Oil & Gas Journal, Russian regulatory reporting and UK Parliamentary material concerning the onshore pipeline and river crossings. (Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com)
The later schedule outcome is established by 2008 reports of pipeline completion and commissioning and Shell’s subsequent SEC filing recording year-round oil production beginning in December 2008. (Energy Intelligence)
The relevant English court record is Export Credits Guarantee Department v Friends of the Earth [2008] EWHC 638 (Admin). It supplies authoritative context concerning the scale, ownership and environmental controversy surrounding Sakhalin II and the proposed UK export-credit involvement, but makes no determination on the May 2007 contractor allegations. (vLex)
Archive disclaimer: This instalment reproduces serious historical allegations concerning identifiable individuals and companies solely because they form part of a documented contemporaneous record and authenticated Shell correspondence. The false attribution of the original email to David Greer is established. The accuracy of some underlying project information and the subsequent timing of pipeline completion do not authenticate unrelated allegations of bribery, dishonesty, conflicts of interest, procurement manipulation or deliberate quality-control failures. No judicial finding establishing those accusations has been identified.
Site wide disclaimer also applies.
Next Archive File
SLF-2007-035 — The Sakhalin Papers XXV: The QA/QC Warning — Rivers, Permits and the Pipeline Built Under Pressure
Buried inside the May 2007 source material was a second category of allegation.
It was less colourful than the contractor accusations.
It may ultimately be more important.
The source claimed that schedule pressure was colliding with quality assurance, environmental protection and Russian regulatory requirements.
The allegations were remarkably specific.
River crossings.
Erosion protection.
Water-protection zones.
Tree-felling permits.
Pipeline cover and backfill.
Seismic fault lines.
Inspection.
Non-conformance reports.
Work allegedly carried out outside normal supervision.
Those claims cannot be accepted merely because an insider wrote them.
But unlike some of the commercial allegations, they can be compared against a substantial independent record.
Russian regulators had inspected river crossings.
Oleg Mitvol had publicly discussed improperly constructed crossings and unstable terrain.
The Russian authorities reported more than 100 environmental-law violations.
British MPs asked detailed questions about whether pipeline river crossings complied with the agreed construction seasons.
Prospective international lenders commissioned environmental monitoring.
And later Parliamentary evidence recorded continuing concern over the project’s pipeline construction record. (Oil & Gas Journal)
That gives the next file a precise task.
Not:
Was every allegation made by the anonymous source true?
But:
When the May 2007 quality-control warning is put beside the independent regulatory record, which concerns were independently documented — and which remain allegations?
SLF-2007-035 will put the whistleblower’s QA/QC claims beside the Russian inspection record, Parliamentary evidence and the subsequent pipeline history, one allegation at a time.
*This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment, the Shell DPA Files, "Shell and the Spies", the Shell Leaks files, as well as books written and published by John Donovan - Kindle eBooks. Timeline of the Donovan Shell Feud. Toxic History of Royal Dutch Shell Group. Shell and the Donovans: The Full Media Record — 550+ Articles, 110 Books, 40 Years. *All created and supported by internet wizz, Nick Gill.
