UPDATED 1st SEPT 2026
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a living documentary index and remains under construction. It brings together direct correspondence between the Donovans and Shell, Shell internal communications, correspondence involving lawyers acting for Shell, and relevant evidential emails. Thousands of pages of archival material, including the extensive ShellNews.net collection and the Sakhalin-2 files, remain under review. Further dated documents will be added as they are identified and verified. Inclusion records what a document says or alleges; it does not necessarily establish the truth of every allegation contained within it.
Standing invitation to Shell: corrections and contrary evidence
Shell Plc, its current or former officers, employees, advisers and lawyers are invited to identify any factual error in this documentary chronology or elsewhere in the Donovan/Shell archive.
Where an error is established, it will be corrected or removed as appropriate. Where the issue is genuinely disputed, Shell’s position will be recorded alongside the relevant evidence wherever practicable.
We particularly welcome original contemporaneous documents that contradict, qualify or provide additional context to material published here.
This invitation is made in good faith. The purpose of the archive is to preserve the most accurate historical record the surviving evidence permits — not to preserve an allegation simply because it is damaging to Shell.
The same evidential standard applies to Shell, the Donovans and artificial intelligence:
If the documents prove us wrong, we correct the record.
The Donovan–Shell Documentary Chronology
Correspondence, Shell Internal Communications, Lawyers’ Letters and Evidential Emails, 1981–Present
A living documentary index drawn from the Donovan/Shell archive
By John Donovan
This chronology substantially expands the original concept of an index devoted only to correspondence between the Donovans and Shell.
The surviving documentary record is much broader.
It includes:
DONOVAN → SHELL
Letters, faxes and emails from John Donovan, Alfred Donovan or Don Marketing to Shell companies, directors, executives and employees.
SHELL → DONOVAN
Correspondence sent by Shell personnel to John or Alfred Donovan.
SHELL INTERNAL
Shell emails, memoranda, issue briefs, media-management discussions, security communications and other internal documents concerning the Donovans, Don Marketing, RoyalDutchShellPlc.com, ShellNews.net, Donovan sources, litigation or campaigning.
SHELL LAWYERS
Communications involving solicitors and counsel acting for Shell, including DJ Freeman and its successor Kendall Freeman.
RELATED EVIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
Emails or correspondence involving relevant third parties where the communication materially illuminates the Donovan/Shell documentary history.
This is a living index. It should not yet be described as complete.
Where both an original contemporaneous document and a later webpage describing it survive, evidential priority is given to the original document.
1997
14 May 1997 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Richard Wiseman, General Counsel & Company Secretary, Shell UK Limited → John Donovan
Copied to: C. A. J. Herkströter; Colin Joseph, DJ Freeman
Wiseman responded to Donovan’s letter of 7 May addressed to Royal Dutch/Shell senior executive Cor Herkströter, which had been passed to Wiseman together with correspondence sent to Dr John Jennings.
Referring to an earlier discussion at the AGM, Wiseman suggested waiting until Donovan had received papers being assembled by Shell’s solicitors, DJ Freeman, before attempting to progress the matter further.
Of particular documentary importance, Wiseman confirmed that he was personally keeping the directors of both Shell UK and Shell Transport informed about progress in the case.
Wiseman nevertheless emphasised that the directors of Shell Transport were not directors of Shell UK Limited and stated that DJ Freeman’s observations concerning confidentiality continued to apply.
The letter demonstrates that the Donovan dispute was being reported beyond the immediate Shell UK personnel handling the litigation and that senior figures within the wider Royal Dutch/Shell structure were being kept informed.
It also establishes that the distinction between the Shell UK and Shell Transport boards, and the confidentiality implications of that distinction, was expressly being considered at the time.
The letter was copied to Cor Herkströter and Colin Joseph of Shell’s external solicitors DJ Freeman.
1998
The previously published chronology contains the extensive sequence between John Donovan, Alfred Donovan, Richard Wiseman, Shell Chairman Mark Moody-Stuart, Colin Joseph/DJ Freeman and Royds Treadwell during the investigation and SMART litigation.
Those individual entries remain part of this master chronology.
Particularly important documents include:
23 June 1998 — DONOVAN → SHELL
John Donovan → Richard Wiseman, asking whether investigator Christopher Phillips had undertaken surveillance or telephone tapping.
24 June 1998 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Wiseman confirmed that Phillips had been instructed in connection with enquiries for Shell.
3 July 1998 — SHELL LAWYERS → DONOVAN
DJ Freeman stated that Shell and those carrying out enquiries on its behalf, including Phillips, would cooperate with the police.
9 July 1998 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Richard Wiseman acknowledged:
“The activities of Mr Phillips have, of course, been admitted.”
He also assured Donovan that he, his family and potential witnesses had no cause for physical fear as a result of pursuing the litigation.
1999 — HIGH COURT TRIAL AND SETTLEMENT
25 June 1999 — SHELL LAWYERS → ALFRED DONOVAN
DJ Freeman → Alfred Donovan
Subject: John Donovan v Shell UK Limited
Shell instructed DJ Freeman to make an open settlement offer accompanied by a draft Deed of Compromise.
The letter said Shell wished to promote peace between the parties and draw a line under the disputes.
This was an important development during the trial.
25–28 June 1999 — SHELL LAWYERS ↔ ALFRED DONOVAN
A series of communications followed between DJ Freeman and Alfred Donovan concerning the proposed settlement.
The surviving correspondence establishes that the first Shell proposal was not immediately accepted and that negotiations continued while the High Court trial remained under way.
The individual communications in this settlement sequence will be added to the chronology as the surviving original documents are identified and verified.
2001
17 September 2001 — SHELL → JOHN DONOVAN
Richard Wiseman → John Donovan
Wiseman wrote concerning the 1999 settlement, the comments made by the trial judge and communications involving a third party associated with Donovan.
Wiseman stated that he would respect Donovan’s wishes regarding distribution of the judge’s remarks.
17 September 2001 — DONOVAN → SHELL
John Donovan → Richard Wiseman
Donovan responded immediately.
The exchange is important because it demonstrates that direct communications between Donovan and Wiseman continued after the supposed final settlement of the litigation.
2002 — THE MANUSCRIPT CORRESPONDENCE
26 November 2002 — DONOVAN → SHELL
Alfred Donovan → Richard Wiseman
Alfred Donovan supplied Wiseman with a lengthy draft manuscript setting out the Donovan account of the relationship with Shell.
Wiseman subsequently circulated it within the highest levels of Shell.
The surviving documentary record identifies recipients or interested parties including senior Shell executives and Shell’s external solicitors.
Late November 2002 — SHELL INTERNAL / SHELL → DONOVAN
Wiseman circulated the Donovan manuscript to individuals including senior Shell management.
The documented circulation included:
Sir Philip Watts
Malcolm Brinded
Steve Miller
Clive Mather
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart
AJL
DJ Freeman
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart also requested that a copy be supplied to his barrister son Tom Moody-Stuart.
6 December 2002 — SHELL LAWYERS → ALFRED DONOVAN
Colin Joseph, DJ Freeman → Alfred Donovan
The original letter expressly states:
“Richard Wiseman of Shell UK Limited has passed to me your e-mail to him of 26 November 2002, together with the draft manuscript attached to that e-mail.”
DJ Freeman stated that it had been instructed to respond on behalf of Shell and current Shell employees.
The firm alleged that publication would breach the 1999 settlement agreement and threatened legal consequences.
This is an especially useful document because it establishes both the route by which the manuscript reached Shell’s lawyers and the fact that DJ Freeman was formally instructed to respond for Shell.
2004
The April–June 2004 series already identified in the first chronology remains in the master index, including communications involving:
Alfred Donovan
Richard Wiseman
Malcolm Brinded
Colin Joseph/Kendall Freeman
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart
The correspondence concerned Shell’s Business Principles, the earlier litigation, undercover activity, Hakluyt and the developing reserves scandal.
2005
11 November 2005 — DONOVAN → SHELL
Alfred Donovan → Richard Wiseman
Copied to Jeroen van der Veer and Malcolm Brinded.
The correspondence followed a robbery and asked Shell to confirm that no investigative or enquiry agents had been retained in connection with the Donovans’ contemporary activities.
11 November 2005 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Richard Wiseman → Alfred Donovan
Copied to Jeroen van der Veer and Malcolm Brinded.
Wiseman expressed sympathy concerning the robbery and categorically stated that it had nothing to do with Shell.
He then addressed what he described as untrue Donovan allegations.
In the same exchange Wiseman characterised Shell as essentially uninterested in and unmoved by the Donovan internet activities.
That assertion became especially significant in light of Shell’s subsequent internal communications concerning the Donovan websites.
2006 — SHELL’S INTERNAL ATTENTION INTENSIFIES
The Shell material released under Data Protection/SAR procedures provides a much fuller picture than was apparent from direct Donovan/Shell correspondence alone.
3 May 2006, 08:34 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Shell AGM/activity outside Shell Centre today
A Shell internal email alerted recipients that Alfred Donovan was beginning leaflet distribution outside Shell Centre.
Security arrangements, possible media interest and important visitors were considered.
The email also referred to an existing Shell issue brief on Donovan and proposed updating it before the AGM.
3 May 2006, 11:37 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Media Response: Alfred Donovan distributing leaflets outside Shell Centre
Shell circulated internally a copy of the Donovan leaflet, a media response describing the history of the Shell/Donovan dispute and a media statement dealing with the domain-name dispute.
The communication demonstrates coordinated Corporate Affairs preparation for Donovan activity.
5 May 2006, 14:48 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: ‘Donovan’ leaflets outside Shell Centre
An internal explanation of the Donovan history was circulated.
The message advised against sending information to all employees because doing so might draw more attention to the leafleting.
11 May 2006, 10:09 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Mr Donovan brief
An internal Shell employee reported having completed a first pass at an updated Donovan issue brief.
The email posed questions including:
Why were eight Shell companies suing Donovan?
Had Shell caused Donovan’s legal aid to be terminated?
Why had Shell’s WIPO complaint concerning RoyalDutchShellPlc.com failed?
This is historically useful because it shows Shell personnel themselves seeking clarification of issues raised by the Donovan campaign.
15 May 2006 — SHELL INTERNAL
Document: Confidential Focal Point — Issue: Mr Alfred Donovan
Shell prepared a confidential issue brief dealing specifically with Alfred Donovan.
The document covered:
the commercial disputes;
litigation;
leafleting;
the Donovan allegations about undercover activities;
Hakluyt;
the domain-name proceedings;
and potential AGM activity.
It recorded that Shell’s WIPO complaint seeking transfer of RoyalDutchShellPlc.com had failed and that Shell did not consider a separate court challenge justified.
19 October 2006, 07:26 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: SEIC
Shell personnel monitored RoyalDutchShellPlc.com in connection with leaked Sakhalin-2 emails.
The internal communication noted the website’s statement that the material had come from inside Shell and had been passed to third parties.
18 December 2006, 09:44 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: FYI: Media Monitoring: Alfred Donovan Website
Shell noted increased traffic to RoyalDutchShellPlc.com and that the site had already obtained a copy of an internal Shell note circulated only days earlier.
The message observed that some users appeared to be Shell personnel or contractors with access to the Shell system and seemed willing to share information.
18 December 2006, 09:58 — SHELL INTERNAL
A follow-up internal response cautioned against being oversensitive to the Donovan website but noted that Donovan would use available material to damage Shell.
These December communications are important because they precede the more extensive internal Shell response developed during 2007.
2007 — DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE AND INTERNAL COUNTER-MEASURES
This is one of the most extensively documented periods in the archive.
1 February 2007 — DONOVAN → SHELL
John Donovan → Richard Wiseman
Donovan supplied allegations received from a Shell insider concerning Shell business-continuity arrangements and invited Shell to respond.
1 February 2007, 10:51 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Richard Wiseman → John Donovan
Wiseman said different personnel were likely responsible for different locations and that he would forward the matter to appropriate colleagues.
2 February 2007, 08:42 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Wiseman said he had discussed the material with those concerned.
He declined to discuss Shell’s business-continuity plans because circumstances triggering them might include criminal or terrorist activity.
2 February 2007, 08:54 — DONOVAN → SHELL
Donovan said he interpreted Wiseman’s response as indicating that the information was genuine and explained that sensitive details would not be published.
2 February 2007, 08:59 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Wiseman said he could neither confirm nor deny whether the information was true.
2 February 2007, 09:29 — DONOVAN → SHELL
Donovan challenged the logic of Shell’s refusal to say whether the material was a hoax.
2 February 2007, 09:33 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Wiseman stated that in security matters it was sensible neither to confirm nor deny such material and warned against drawing conclusions from Shell’s silence.
FEBRUARY–MARCH 2007 — BILL CAMPBELL / BRENT BRAVO
20 February 2007 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Keith Ruddock → John Donovan
Ruddock said Shell fundamentally disagreed with the factual basis and interpretation of Donovan material concerning Bill Campbell and North Sea safety but did not believe detailed rebuttal would serve a useful purpose.
21 February 2007, 16:44 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Donovan Response draft — confidential
An internal Shell communication records a teleconference and preparations for the possibility that a UK newspaper might publish a story based upon Donovan material concerning North Sea safety.
A draft response statement was being prepared.
27 February 2007 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Keith Ruddock → John Donovan
Ruddock disputed Donovan’s characterisation of communications concerning Malcolm Brinded and Bill Campbell.
27–28 February 2007 — DONOVAN ↔ SHELL
A further series of emails between Donovan and Ruddock debated the existence and interpretation of the alleged “Letter of Censure.”
28 February 2007 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Ruddock stated that continuing the dialogue was no longer constructive and said further communication regarding Campbell should take place between Shell and Campbell’s legal advisers.
1 March 2007, 12:37 — DONOVAN → SHELL
John Donovan → Keith Ruddock
Copied to Jeroen van der Veer, Malcolm Brinded, Jorma Ollila, Michiel Brandjes and Richard Wiseman.
Donovan said publication of the Campbell article, documents and email correspondence would proceed.
SHELL INTERNAL WIKIPEDIA STRATEGY
1 March 2007, 15:00 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Wikipedia entries for Shell
Shell personnel discussed the importance of Wikipedia because its pages appeared prominently in Google results.
The email described John Donovan as being involved in Shell-related Wikipedia material and warned Shell personnel against directly editing entries because of the reputational risks associated with corporate intervention.
It proposed developing a broader strategy towards Wikipedia and other third-party information sources.
2 March 2007, 16:13 — SHELL INTERNAL
An internal response said Shell needed to think carefully before reacting because experience suggested that responding to Donovan generated publicity and made matters worse.
2 March 2007, 18:56 — SHELL INTERNAL
A succinct internal response stated:
“Why give him oxygen?”
3 March 2007, 18:01 — SHELL INTERNAL
Another internal email discussed making casual Wikipedia visitors aware of Donovan’s long and acrimonious relationship with Shell.
The same message noted that Donovan was publishing substantial additional material.
SHELL INTERNAL MEDIA MANAGEMENT
2 March 2007, 17:48 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: CONF/DONOVAN
Shell warned internally that individuals were being mentioned on the Donovan website.
The communication stated that the subject was being discussed in daily calls involving senior Shell Exploration & Production personnel.
2 March 2007, 19:24 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: News Management Committee — note of meeting
A meeting note recorded Donovan as an active media-management issue.
New Shell responses had been prepared.
9 MARCH 2007 — THE BROADER DONOVAN STRATEGY
9 March 2007, 15:28 — SHELL INTERNAL — LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
This is one of the central documents in the entire chronology.
The email proposed a wider strategy specifically for handling the Donovans following activity concerning North Sea integrity and related issues.
The writer stated that Shell was “on the back foot” and wanted a strategy placing it in a more positive and secure position.
Areas proposed for consideration included:
media handling;
possible proactive engagement with selected journalists;
AGM questions and answers;
whether Shell should become more forthright about the Donovan website;
scenarios and responses;
strengths and weaknesses;
and a strategy to detach a redacted individual from the Donovans.
A round-table working group was proposed.
This document provides direct evidence of a coordinated internal Shell exercise directed at responding to the Donovan campaign.
11 MARCH 2007 — SHELL INTERNAL
11 March 2007, 19:19
Subject: RE: Legally Privileged and Confidential — Donovan follow up
An internal Shell correspondent anticipated that Donovan would closely scrutinise the forthcoming authorised Shell history.
The email said Shell had previously hoped Alfred Donovan’s increasing age might reduce his interest, but recognised that John Donovan appeared equally determined.
The author proposed revisiting Shell’s approach while warning that too strong a response might itself lend credibility to the Donovan website.
19 MARCH 2007 — SHELL SEEKS INFORMATION
19 March 2007, 16:39 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Donovan
A Shell internal communication said the writer had contacted sources in the US government and London seeking further information concerning Alfred and John Donovan.
The writer said potential fallout would be monitored.
This is a significant escalation from ordinary media monitoring.
19–20 MARCH 2007 — FOX NEWS / BILL O’REILLY
19 March 2007, 18:43 — SHELL INTERNAL
Shell personnel discussed an email associated with Fox News and Donovan’s longstanding dispute with Shell.
The communication noted Donovan’s substantial web presence.
19 March 2007, 20:06 — SHELL INTERNAL
An internal message requested information on John Donovan and asked for advice about any potential threat issues if the matter became public.
20 March 2007, 08:10 — SHELL INTERNAL
Shell circulated background information identifying John and Alfred Donovan, the website, Sakhalin-2, North Sea safety, the Business Principles and Wikipedia.
The email asked that any Shell comment about Donovan allegations be approved centrally.
20 March 2007, 08:25 — SHELL INTERNAL
A particularly striking Shell communication described RoyalDutchShellPlc.com as an excellent source of Group news and comment and recommended it above Shell’s own internal communications.
The writer stated that the Donovans were of no security interest unless Shell wanted an information-security exercise to discover where their good Shell sources were located.
21 MARCH 2007 — GLOBAL EMAIL MONITORING
21 March 2007, 10:02 — SHELL INTERNAL — CONFIDENTIAL
Subject: Donavan [sic]
This is another major document.
The communication stated that Shell suspected current and former employees of communicating with Donovan.
It recorded that an IT project had been initiated to monitor:
internal emails from Shell servers globally to Donovan
and
web traffic to determine internal traffic to the Donovan website.
The email also noted that former employees had taken internal Shell material to Donovan and that internal emails had appeared on his website.
This document fundamentally changes the historical picture.
By March 2007 Shell’s response had moved beyond merely reading RoyalDutchShellPlc.com. The documentary record describes an internal programme intended to identify communications between Shell personnel and Donovan.
22 MARCH 2007 — SHELL’S HOLDING POSITION
22 March 2007, 08:27 — SHELL INTERNAL
Shell circulated a holding statement for use if contacted externally.
The stated policy was not to add fuel to the fire.
22 March 2007, 12:42 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: News Management Grid
Shell noted Donovan efforts involving a US television channel, Shell’s Iran activities and allegations that Shell had influenced the disappearance of a proposed Sunday Times Sakhalin story.
22 March 2007, 15:44 / 16:08 — SHELL INTERNAL
Shell personnel monitored a Barbados pollution claim appearing on the Donovan website and asked colleagues to watch for further developments.
23 March 2007, 09:30 — SHELL INTERNAL
An internal global-issues communication listed current Donovan initiatives including Fox News, Shell Malaysia, Sakhalin and North Sea issues.
10 APRIL 2007 — THE AGM BRIEF
10 April 2007, 14:24 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Donovan Brief
Shell updated its issue brief in preparation for the AGM.
Possible Donovan questions were explicitly anticipated, including:
why Shell did not sue over allegedly defamatory website material;
how Shell responded to claims that confidential information was being supplied by Shell insiders;
and why Shell did not routinely respond when Donovan offered the company an opportunity to comment before publication.
10 April 2007, 14:59 — SHELL INTERNAL
A response instructed that the AGM brief should be much shorter and confirmed the need for a clearer Shell position on aspects of the dispute.
11 MAY 2007 — DAVID GREER / SAKHALIN
11 May 2007, 14:01 — SHELL → ALFRED DONOVAN
Keith Ruddock → Alfred Donovan
Copied to Jorma Ollila, Jeroen van der Veer, Malcolm Brinded and Richard Wiseman.
Ruddock said an email purportedly from senior Sakhalin executive David Greer appeared very unlikely to be genuine and asked Donovan to await confirmation before proceeding.
11 May 2007, 14:08 — SHELL → ALFRED DONOVAN
Ruddock followed up after learning that a reference had already appeared on the website.
He strongly recommended its removal pending confirmation.
The senior copy list is notable evidence of the management level at which Donovan/Sakhalin issues were being circulated.
6 JUNE 2007 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Online Issue Management — Group Strategy
Shell personnel again discussed Wikipedia and Donovan.
The email noted the danger that direct corporate editing could be characterised as censorship and anticipated another Donovan attack when Shell’s official history was published.
24–26 JUNE 2007 — ATTEMPT TO CLOSE THE WEBSITE AND SAKHALIN ALLEGATIONS
24 June 2007, 15:05 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Donovan site
Shell personnel discussed a statement on the Donovan website alleging that Shell lawyers had been contacting hosting companies in an attempt to close the site.
25 June 2007, 13:49 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: DONOVAN — WEBSITE
An internal Shell correspondent supported Donovan’s right to anti-Shell speech but distinguished intellectual-property infringement and defamation.
The writer nevertheless considered litigation probably not worthwhile even if Shell had a good chance of success.
25 June 2007 — DONOVAN ↔ SHELL
A substantial direct email exchange took place between John Donovan and Shell EP General Counsel Keith Ruddock concerning:
the website hosting intervention;
the Shell Pecten;
and allegations involving Sakhalin Energy management.
This direct exchange remains part of the chronology.
25 June 2007, 15:02 / 15:25 — SHELL INTERNAL
Shell circulated Donovan’s Sakhalin allegations internally.
A proposed blanket response was discussed which would decline to respond publicly to anonymous allegations.
One internal correspondent suggested that if Shell used the same response consistently, Donovan might eventually stop asking.
26 June 2007, 07:58 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Legally Privileged and Confidential: Sakhalin
Shell internally noted another allegation arriving through Donovan and planned a terse response.
26 June 2007 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Keith Ruddock confirmed directly to Donovan that Shell had challenged the website’s use of the Shell Pecten.
The direct Shell admission is important when read alongside the internal discussions of 24 and 25 June.
JULY 2007
9 July 2007, 18:39 — DONOVAN → SHELL
John Donovan → Jim Niven
Copied to Jeroen van der Veer, Jorma Ollila, Malcolm Brinded and Michiel Brandjes.
The email concerned an earlier message to Keith Ruddock.
9 July 2007, 20:24 — SHELL INTERNAL
Shell personnel debated whether to respond.
One correspondent preferred simply to ignore the latest communication, describing that as broadly consistent with Shell’s earlier approach.
WHY THE EXPANDED CHRONOLOGY MATTERS
The documents now permit something that a conventional correspondence index cannot do.
For a single period — March 2007 — a researcher can reconstruct several layers simultaneously:
What Donovan was sending to Shell.
What Shell was sending back to Donovan.
What senior Shell personnel were saying privately about him.
What Shell Corporate Affairs was preparing for newspapers, television and the AGM.
What Shell personnel were considering in relation to Wikipedia.
What information Shell sought about the Donovans from outside sources.
What Shell’s IT systems were reportedly being asked to monitor.
That is a fundamentally richer documentary record.
DOCUMENTARY STATUS
This chronology remains under construction.
The ShellNews.net archive contains thousands of HTML pages, PDFs, images and reproductions of correspondence accumulated over decades.
The principal Shell DPA/SAR index alone contains hundreds of dated references and more than 2,500 lines of documentary material.
Accordingly, the fact that an item does not yet appear in this chronology should not be interpreted as meaning that it does not exist.
The working rule is:
Original contemporaneous communication first.
Shell-produced DPA/SAR copy second.
Contemporaneous webpage reproducing the communication third.
Later retrospective description only where the original cannot yet be located.
Uncertain dates, authorship and redactions will be stated as such rather than reconstructed by assumption.
The objective is not simply to produce another account of the Donovan/Shell dispute.
It is to construct a searchable documentary timeline from which researchers can establish:
who knew what,
who said what,
to whom,
and when.
There are several particularly important confirmations behind this expansion. The DPA index begins with Shell’s May 2006 internal handling of the leafleting and contains the 15 May confidential “Focal Point” issue brief, including Shell’s own account of the failed WIPO complaint. shellnews.net It then documents the concentrated March 2007 response: Wikipedia discussions, the 9 March broader strategy, the 11 March discussion of Alfred’s age and John’s determination, and the 19 March attempt to obtain further information from sources in the US government and London. shellnews.net
Most significantly, the 21 March 2007 confidential Shell email says an IT project had been initiated to monitor internal Shell-server emails globally to Donovan and internal traffic to the website. That is not an inference from later commentary; that proposition appears in the released Shell material itself. shellnews.net
The expanded search has also uncovered material omitted from our first chronology: the direct 17 September 2001 Wiseman/John Donovan exchange; the 26 November/6 December 2002 manuscript sequence, with DJ Freeman expressly saying Wiseman had sent it Alfred’s manuscript and instructing the firm to respond for Shell; and the 25–28 June 1999 settlement correspondence. shellnews.net
And the 2007 ShellNews.net pages add complete direct exchanges rather than mere references: six individual messages in the 1–2 February Business Continuity sequence, and multiple Ruddock/Donovan communications concerning Bill Campbell from 20 February through 1 March. shellnews.net
One methodological point is important. I cannot responsibly claim that an ordinary web search has literally examined all roughly 7,500 ShellNews.net webpages; search engines do not expose every archived page consistently. What we can do, and what I have now begun doing, is considerably better: use the site’s major index pages, the DPA/SAR document collections, High Court index, Wiseman index, Sakhalin index and targeted site-wide searches together. ShellNews.net’s present front page itself exposes many of those archival gateways. shellnews.net
That should be our master method going forward. I would also keep the internal Shell material in the same chronology, rather than putting it in a separate companion article as I initially suggested. Seeing an outward-facing email immediately adjacent to Shell’s internal discussion on the same date is potentially much more revealing
The next sweep adds a particularly useful layer: Shell’s internal handling after the June 2007 website shutdown episode, the 2008 Wiseman correspondence, the 2009 CAS/NCFTA material, and the 2010 employee-directory episode. The original DPA material confirms, for example, an internal 28 August 2007 strategy of keeping Shell’s “heads down” and “weathering” Donovan activity rather than responding publicly. Shell News
CONTINUATION OF THE DONOVAN–SHELL DOCUMENTARY CHRONOLOGY
AUGUST 2007 — SHELL DEVELOPS A “WEATHERING” STRATEGY
23 August 2007, 18:05 — DONOVAN → SHELL
John Donovan → David Sanger, Shell International Legal Department
Copied to Alfred Donovan, Michiel Brandjes, Jeroen van der Veer, Jorma Ollila and Richard Wiseman.
Subject: Subject Access Request
Donovan challenged Shell over the redaction of the names of senders and recipients from internal Shell correspondence supplied under the Data Protection Act.
The email quoted Shell’s earlier explanation that third-party information could be withheld under provisions of the Act.
This exchange is important because the Subject Access Requests were beginning to expose the scale of Shell’s internal discussion of the Donovans.
28 August 2007, 17:38 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Group IMF discussion
A Shell internal email discussed how the company should handle a developing Donovan-related issue.
The proposed approach was essentially to “weather” the situation.
The author advised colleagues to keep their heads down, avoid being drawn into responding to Donovan allegations and avoid making public statements unless there was significant uptake by US media, NGOs or lawyers.
The email recognised that Donovan would probably move on to other subjects but would not forget the issue and would continue seeking connections between apparently separate Shell controversies.
Of particular interest, the email noted that the United States represented a new potential audience for the Donovan website and referred to Shell’s own US blog-monitoring operation giving the website considerable attention.
29 August 2007, 10:10 — SHELL INTERNAL
Shell prepared internal lines concerning Alfred and John Donovan.
The communication described them as longstanding Shell critics and stated that Shell fundamentally disagreed with the factual basis and interpretation of much of the material underlying their allegations.
Shell nevertheless intended to continue its general policy of avoiding detailed responses.
The document also records arrangements to monitor particular US newspapers after Donovan indicated that material had been supplied to them.
This provides evidence of targeted media monitoring directly linked to Donovan activity.
31 August 2007 — SHELL INTERNAL
Internal Shell correspondence records that employees had been instructed not to visit the Donovan website.
This is significant when considered alongside the March 2007 programme intended to monitor internal Shell traffic to RoyalDutchShellPlc.com.
Together, the documents indicate that Shell was concerned not merely with the external content of the website but with the behaviour of Shell personnel accessing it.
SEPTEMBER 2007 — SUBJECT ACCESS DISPUTE AND OUTSIDE LAWYERS
6 September 2007 — SHELL LAWYERS → DONOVANS
Shell responded through outside solicitors to continuing Donovan demands concerning information withheld from Data Protection Act disclosures.
The correspondence followed Donovan requests for additional documents and the identities of individuals appearing in redacted Shell internal communications.
The involvement of external solicitors is significant because it demonstrates that the Subject Access dispute had moved beyond routine administrative handling inside Shell.
Where the original solicitor letter survives, the exact law-firm attribution should be taken from that document rather than inferred from later Donovan commentary.
13 September 2007, 07:12 — ALFRED DONOVAN → KEITH RUDDOCK
Alfred Donovan → Keith Ruddock
Alfred Donovan returned to the Bill Campbell/North Sea safety controversy.
He referred to the growing public debate over Shell offshore safety, including calls by offshore unions for regulatory investigation.
The email also referred expressly to Shell internal documents obtained through a Subject Access Request.
Alfred described those documents as revealing a strong internal reaction to the emerging Campbell/Donovan relationship.
Importantly, he recorded that Shell’s solicitors had responded on 6 September to demands for additional material.
2008 — DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE CONTINUES
JUNE 2008
16–18 June 2008 — DONOVAN ↔ SHELL
A significant sequence took place between John Donovan and Richard Wiseman, by then one of Shell’s most senior legal/ethics figures.
The correspondence concerned the circumstances in which the 1999 High Court litigation had been settled and what information had, or had not, been placed before the trial judge.
Wiseman explained Shell’s reasoning for contributing towards Donovan’s legal expenses.
Donovan responded that the explanation was important because, in his view, it demonstrated that the judge had not known the complete settlement position when making subsequent comments.
This correspondence should remain individually indexed because of its relevance to interpretation of the 1999 trial outcome.
NOVEMBER 2008 — RAY FOX / EARLEY / HISTORICAL ALLEGATIONS
ShellNews.net preserves an unusually complete sequence of direct correspondence during November 2008.
11 November 2008 — DONOVAN → SHELL
John Donovan → Michiel Brandjes
Copied to Peter Voser, Linda Cook, Jorma Ollila, Malcolm Brinded, Jeroen van der Veer, Richard Wiseman, Rob Routs and Beat Hess.
Subject: Shell, Saudi Arabia, Arms-for-Oil, Corruption, & Radioactive Contamination
Donovan supplied Shell with a draft article dealing with allegations concerning the former Shell terminal at Earley and a number of historical matters.
12 November 2008 — DONOVAN → SHELL
Donovan advised Brandjes that, absent a Shell response, publication would proceed.
The email explained Donovan’s established practice of providing Shell with advance sight of serious allegations and allowing the company to identify factual errors or forged material.
13 November 2008 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Richard Wiseman → John Donovan
Wiseman entered the correspondence and responded to aspects of the allegations.
14 November 2008, 11:23 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Richard Wiseman → John Donovan
Wiseman referred Donovan to regulatory material concerning radioactive measurements associated with the Earley site.
He suggested that the available measurements did not justify some of the conclusions being advanced.
24 November 2008, 00:59 — DONOVAN → SHELL
John Donovan → Richard Wiseman
Donovan supplied a formal letter responding to Wiseman’s emails of 13 and 14 November.
He argued that Wiseman had answered only selected allegations while leaving other serious issues untouched.
24 November 2008, 14:02 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Richard Wiseman → John Donovan
Wiseman stated that the points raised by Donovan and Ray Fox had been dealt with previously and that no new allegation merited a further response.
Crucially, Wiseman expressly repeated Shell’s standing position that Donovan must not treat Shell silence as acceptance of allegations.
He categorically denied that Shell had created nuclear contamination in the UK and denied the existence of the alleged bunker at the former Earley terminal.
24 November 2008, 17:40 — DONOVAN → SHELL
John Donovan → Richard Wiseman
Copied to Michiel Brandjes, Beat Hess and Ray Fox.
Donovan challenged Wiseman’s selective response and again raised historical allegations concerning Hakluyt, alleged arms-for-oil arrangements and other matters.
25 November 2008, 07:14 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Richard Wiseman → John Donovan
Wiseman reiterated that Shell’s silence could not properly be interpreted as an admission.
25 November 2008, 10:21 — DONOVAN → SHELL
Donovan responded and indicated that he intended to move on to another sensitive subject supported by documentary material.
25 November 2008, 11:21 — SHELL → DONOVAN
Wiseman again stated that he would not provide a line-by-line response and cautioned Donovan against drawing inferences from Shell’s decision not to answer particular points.
25 November 2008, 11:36 — DONOVAN → SHELL
Donovan brought that phase of the correspondence to a close.
4 December 2008, 16:33 — DONOVAN → SHELL CEO
John Donovan → Jeroen van der Veer
Copied to Peter Voser, Rob Routs, Linda Cook, Malcolm Brinded and Jorma Ollila.
Donovan formally brought the preceding Wiseman correspondence to the attention of Shell’s CEO and other executive directors.
This is useful evidence of the level within Shell at which Donovan ensured that controversial correspondence was circulated.
2009 — CORPORATE SECURITY AND CYBER-INVESTIGATION ISSUES
17 June 2009 — SHELL INTERNAL — CONFIDENTIAL
A confidential Shell internal email concerning RoyalDutchShellPlc.com referred to:
CAS
and
NCFTA.
Later Donovan commentary identifies CAS as Shell Corporate Affairs Security and interprets NCFTA as the National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance.
The internal email itself discussed investigations relating to Donovan and the website.
Most importantly, it stated that:
“There will be no attempt to do anything visible to Donovan.”
The same communication referred to “high level interest” concerning an individual targeted in blogs.
Because the name was redacted, the identity of that individual should not be asserted in this chronology.
The document is important because it provides direct evidence that corporate-security-related personnel or resources were involved in Shell’s internal handling of the Donovan website by June 2009.
15 July 2009, 17:16 — SHELL INTERNAL
Subject: Donovans
A Shell internal correspondent posed a series of unusually direct questions about the company’s Donovan problem.
The questions included:
whether Shell was concerned by Donovan’s claim to have numerous senior executive sources;
whether Shell was attempting to identify those sources;
whether Shell had ever tried to engage with the Donovans to moderate their criticism;
whether Donovan’s intervention concerning Sakhalin had cost Shell billions;
whether Shell disputed the claimed facts;
and whether Shell was doing anything to have the website shut down.
The email also asked whether Shell had a standing policy for dealing with the Donovans.
This is an exceptionally useful internal document because the questions themselves identify matters being actively discussed inside Shell.
The document does not, by itself, establish that Shell was at that time attempting to shut down the website. It establishes that the question was being asked internally.
That distinction should be preserved.
19 July 2009 — EXTERNAL MEDIA / INTERNAL CONSEQUENCES
The Sunday Times published a prominent feature concerning the Donovans and RoyalDutchShellPlc.com.
The article’s publication subsequently became part of Shell’s internal briefing material.
DECEMBER 2009 — DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE OVER SECURITY ACTIVITY
21 December 2009 — DONOVAN → SHELL
John Donovan → Michiel Brandjes and Peter Voser
Donovan brought concerns about Shell security-related activity and the website directly to senior Shell management.
The communication referred to the emerging documentary evidence concerning Shell’s internal monitoring and security activity.
23 December 2009 — DONOVAN ↔ SHELL
Further correspondence took place with Company Secretary Michiel Brandjes.
These communications form part of the continuing pattern under which Donovan placed serious allegations directly before senior Shell officials and invited an opportunity to respond.
2010 — SHELL FORMALISES ITS DONOVAN POSITION
21 January 2010 — SHELL INTERNAL — CONFIDENTIAL FOCAL POINT
Issue: Donovan Campaign Against Shell
Shell produced an updated internal briefing devoted to Alfred and John Donovan and RoyalDutchShellPlc.com.
The document described the Donovans as longstanding critics of Shell and identified the website as a principal vehicle for criticism.
It specifically referred to:
North Sea safety;
the former Shell terminal at Earley;
Shell Malaysia;
Shell’s Transition 2009 reorganisation;
the Sunday Times article of 19 July 2009;
recent Subject Access Request disclosures;
and leafleting outside Shell Centre.
The document set out Shell’s general policy of not responding to individual Donovan allegations.
It also contained prepared answers for possible external questions.
These included:
whether Shell had improperly withheld information under the Data Protection Act;
why Shell did not sue the Donovans for libel;
and why Shell did not edit the Wikipedia article “Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell.”
On defamation, the Shell briefing observed that corporate libel actions could draw substantially more attention to disputed allegations, although litigation was not completely ruled out.
On Wikipedia, Shell’s stated internal position was that companies had been strongly criticised for editing entries about themselves and that doing so could itself attract unwanted attention.
The January 2010 document demonstrates that nearly four years after the first identified 2006 Focal Point material, Donovan remained a subject of dedicated internal Shell briefing.
FEBRUARY 2010 — THE SHELL GLOBAL ADDRESS BOOK LEAK
Early February 2010 — RELATED EVIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
A database containing contact information for more than 170,000 Shell employees and contractors was circulated outside Shell by persons claiming to be concerned Shell employees.
RoyalDutchShellPlc.com was among the recipients.
February 2010 — DONOVAN ↔ SHELL
John Donovan ↔ Richard Wiseman
The database triggered direct communications between Donovan and Shell Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer Richard Wiseman.
Wiseman advised Donovan that some of the information was sensitive from a security perspective and that publication could compromise personal safety in certain cases.
Donovan agreed not to publish the database and subsequently stated that he had destroyed his copy.
The exchange is particularly significant because Donovan complied with a Shell request based upon employee-safety concerns despite the longstanding adversarial relationship.
February 2010 — SHELL INTERNAL
Shell issued internal communications to employees concerning the data breach.
Employees were told that Shell was investigating and that the matter was being raised with relevant data-protection authorities.
The episode generated international press coverage.
AN EMERGING DOCUMENTARY PATTERN: 2006–2010
By combining outward-facing correspondence with the internal material, a much clearer historical pattern emerges.
During this period Shell simultaneously:
monitored Donovan publications;
maintained formal internal “Focal Point” briefs;
prepared media responses and AGM lines;
considered Wikipedia strategy;
discussed the possibility of identifying Shell insiders supplying Donovan;
initiated an IT monitoring project concerning internal emails and website traffic;
sought external information concerning the Donovans;
involved corporate-security-related resources;
considered the reputational consequences of litigation;
and
maintained direct correspondence with Donovan through senior lawyers and Company Secretaries.
The significance of the chronology is that these activities no longer have to be reconstructed from recollection.
They can increasingly be placed on specific dates using contemporaneous documents.
IMPORTANT EVIDENTIAL QUALIFICATION
The chronology must distinguish carefully between three different propositions:
A document proving that Shell undertook an action.
A Shell employee proposing or asking whether an action should be undertaken.
A later Donovan interpretation of what an internal communication meant.
For example, the 21 March 2007 email expressly records the initiation of an IT monitoring project.
By contrast, the 15 July 2009 email asks whether anything was being done to shut the website down.
The latter therefore proves that the possibility was being discussed or questioned internally; it does not by itself prove that a shutdown operation was then under way.
This distinction should be applied consistently throughout the entire archive.
It materially strengthens the credibility of the resulting chronology.
Several of those additions are unusually well documented. The 15 July 2009 original Shell internal email itself asks whether Shell was trying to identify high-level sources feeding information to Donovan and whether anything was being done to get the website shut down. I have deliberately worded the chronology so that it does not convert those questions into proof that such operations actually occurred. Shell News
Likewise, the January 2010 Confidential Focal Point — Donovan Campaign Against Shell survives as a Shell document. It contains prepared responses on the DPA disclosures, defamation litigation and Wikipedia, and describes Shell’s established policy toward the Donovans. Shell News
The November 2008 correspondence is especially valuable because ShellNews.net preserves the messages with dates, recipients and much of the text rather than merely summarising the dispute. Shell News And contemporary reporting of the February 2010 directory leak independently confirms that Donovan received the material, that Wiseman raised security concerns, and that Donovan chose not to publish the database. Shell News
There is also an important methodological benefit emerging. The ShellNews.net Images File acts as another archival gateway, explicitly identifying the seven Sakhalin document sets — six covering 218 pages plus a seventh set concerning the proposed “kill” of the Sunday Times story. Shell News That should be treated as a dedicated sub-project within the master chronology rather than searched casually among unrelated pages.
The next logical sweep is therefore the 218-page Sakhalin correspondence collection itself, extracting every separately dated Donovan, Shell, Sakhalin Energy, lawyer and relevant third-party communication into the same master timeline. That should considerably enlarge the 2006–07 portion and, importantly, connect the outward correspondence with the Shell/SEIC discussions occurring behind it.
